Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Technological advancements in total hip arthroplasty (THA), including robotic-assisted (RA-THA) and navigation-assisted (NA-THA) techniques, aim to improve outcomes. However, impact on recovery timing remains unclear. This study examined whether these technologies reduce the time to reach the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement compared with conventional THA. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This retrospective study analyzed osteoarthritic THA patients (01/2020-04/2023) who completed preoperative and postoperative Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement questionnaires. The exclusion criteria included bilateral procedures or revision within 1 year. MCID was defined using anchor-based (23 points) and distribution-based thresholds (7.6 points). Multivariable interval-censored accelerated failure time models assessed time to MCID. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= .140). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Anchor-based MCID demonstrated comparable recovery times across RA, NA, and conventional THA, suggesting no patient-perceived advantage with technology. Distribution-based thresholds indicated RA-THA achieved faster statistically significant improvement, though the relevance remains uncertain.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The subset of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has yet to be studied in detail. Specifically, there is little data on the effects of vasopressor administration in patients who require critical care after TJA. We sought to characterize patient outcomes and mortality by vasopressor administration in the ICU following primary TJA. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 187 patients who required admission to the ICU within 14 days following primary, unilateral TJA from 2012 to 2024, out of 47,083 patients who underwent TJA during this time (0.40%). Exclusion criteria included TJA for trauma, acute fracture, and revision or conversion TJA. Patients were classified by whether they received any vasopressor (i.e., norepinephrine, phenylephrine, or vasopressin) medication at any point during their ICU stay. Limited intraoperative use of vasopressor did not qualify. Demographic and surgical data were collected and compared. Primary outcomes included complications, revisions/reoperations. RESULTS:Of the 187 patients requiring ICU admission following primary TJA, 20 received vasopressors during their stay. No significant demographic differences were found between cohorts. Hypotension (26%) was the most common indication for ICU admission. Vasopressor use was not associated with a significant increase in 30-day or one-year mortality (5.0 vs. 0.6%, P=0.07; 5.0 vs. 1.2%, P=0.20, respectively), but was associated with a significant increase in revisions/reoperations 25.0 vs 6.0%, P=0.005). No significant differences were observed for 90-day VTE events (P=0.62). Dislocations were significantly more common in patients who received vasopressors (14.3 vs. 1.0%, P=0.047). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients who received vasopressors in the ICU following TJA had significantly higher rates of revisions, reoperations, and dislocation. There were no differences in mortality rates or VTE rates between groups. Further investigation is required to better characterize outcomes following vasopressor requirement in the total joint arthroplasty population.

BACKGROUND:10 years after changing our institution's total hip arthroplasty (THA) preoperative antibiotic prophylactic protocol by adding gram-negative (GN) coverage, this study aimed to assess the impact of adding GN specific coverage (GNSC) prior to THA on periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates. METHODS:This was a retrospective case-control study of 14,598 patients who underwent primary, elective THA between July 2012 and January 2022, with minimum 1-year follow-up. All patients were under perioperative antibiotic protocol that included GNSC with either weight-based gentamicin or aztreonam (+GNSC) and were compared to a historical control group of patients for which the antibiotic prophylactic protocol did not include GNSC (-GNSC). PJI and nephrotoxicity rates, as well as the severity of nephrotoxicity according to the RIFLE criteria, were compared between the study populations and 4122 controls. RESULTS: = 0.567), which are the two more severe forms of nephrotoxicity, were comparable between the groups. CONCLUSIONS:The addition of gentamicin or aztreonam prior to THA reduces the incidence of GN-related PJIs. Increased nephrotoxicity rates were limited to the mildest form, usually associated with reversibility and favourable outcomes.

BACKGROUND:The relationship between total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgeon volume and outcomes is informative in this era of health care value optimisation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes based on modern-day surgeon practice volumes. METHODS:The SPARCS database was queried for patients undergoing primary THA from 2010 to 2020. Annual case volume thresholds were 30 and 150, differentiating high-volume (HV), intermediate-volume (IV), and low-volume (LV) groups. Perioperative outcomes and all-cause cumulative revision rates were evaluated. RESULTS: 0.001). While controlling for confounders, multivariate regression revealed increased odds of PJI for IV (1.5) and LV (1.87) and increased all-cause revision hazard ratio for IV (1.1) and LV (1.3). Cumulative revision rates were lower for HV at 1 and 2 years, but rates converged with IV group at 9 years. CONCLUSIONS:HV surgeons have the most favourable short-term outcomes. However, in the long-term the difference in all-cause revision event rates becomes less apparent.

BACKGROUND:With the increased rates of revision total hip (rTHA) and total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), the financial burden of these procedures is at risk of straining the healthcare system. Our study sought to create a model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rTKA and rTHA performed by high-volume (HV) and low-volume (LV) surgeons. METHODS:percentile in annual volume were classified as HV surgeons and the remainder were classified as LV surgeons. Previously published cost estimates were utilised for operative time, hospital length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, 90-day readmission, and 1-year re-revision. RESULTS: < 0.001). Both groups had equivalent discharge disposition, 90-day readmission, and 1-year re-revision. HV surgeons had lower estimated mean costs for rTHA ($22,027.81 vs. $24,617.39) and rTKA ($20,343.23 vs. $18,554.67). CONCLUSIONS:HV surgeons have a lower estimated mean cost for both rTHA and rTKA. Healthcare systems may benefit from having rTHA and rTKA procedures performed by HV surgeons who are able to perform these revision procedures for a lower cost without negatively impacting patient outcomes.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Technology is increasingly incorporated into unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) through computer-assisted navigation (N-UKA) and robot-assisted surgery (R-UKA) to improve alignment, implant positioning, and gap balancing. Whether intraoperative technology helps achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) compared to conventional UKA (C-UKA) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess whether differences in PROMs between C-UKA and technology-assisted UKA reached MCID values. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane Library were reviewed for studies comparing PROMs between primary C-UKA (control group) and N-UKA or R-UKA. Delta improvements were compared to established MCID values. Additional radiographic and clinical differences were assessed. The review yielded four (N=328) N-UKA and seven (N=526) R-UKA studies with C-UKA cohorts as controls. RESULTS:Differences in preoperative and postoperative PROMs were reported as statistically significant in three of four studies (75%) comparing N-UKA and C-UKA; however, none of the studies reported values that reached the MCID. Differences in preoperative and postoperative PROMs were reported as statistically significant in four of seven studies (57.1%) comparing R-UKA and C-UKA; however, only three of the studies (42.9%) reported values that reached the MCID. Improved radiographic outcomes for N-UKA and R-UKA were reported in 75% and 57.1% of studies, respectively. Only one study reported improved revision rates with R-UKA compared to C-UKA. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Though studies may report better improvements in PROMs in N-UKA and R-UKA compared to C-UKA, these often may not achieve clinical significance. Future studies should present outcome differences in the context of validated MCID as well as other metrics such as revision rates and radiographic outliers as the impetus for technology-assisted UKA.