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.

BACKGROUND:Patients who undergo primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may return to work at variable times following surgery, the timeline for which is partly affected by the physical intensity of their occupation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and limitations when returning to work following TKA. METHODS:This retrospective review surveyed patients undergoing primary TKA between June 2011 and January 2022, with at least 1 year of follow up, regarding return to work. Of the 914 respondents, 507 (55.5 %) worked preoperatively and were stratified into high intensity (HI) (i.e., laborer, construction), standard intensity (SI) (i.e., walking, climbing stairs), or low intensity (LI) (i.e., sedentary desk jobs) groups. Baseline characteristics and survey responses were compared across groups. Among those who worked preoperatively, 35 (6.9 %), 213 (42 %), and 259 (51.1 %) were in the HI, SI, and LI groups, respectively. RESULTS:Of the 507 patients who worked prior to TKA, 447 (88.2 %) returned to work after surgery and 60 (11.8 %) did not. The HI group was comprised of more young males and more smokers than the SI and LI groups. In the LI group, 30 % returned within 1 month following surgery and an additional 44 % within 2 months. Similarly in the SI group, 11 % returned to work in less than 1 month with an additional 39 % returning within 2 months. In the HI group, 4 % returned within the first month and additional 42 % returned within 2 months. HI workers were more commonly hindered in their return (HI: 30.8 %, SI: 23.1 %, LI: 7.7 %), 'moderately declined' in their work ability (HI: 23.1 %, SI: 9.7 %, 3.0 %), and 'very unsatisfied' with their return (HI: 11.5 %, SI: 10.8 %, LI: 8.1 %). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:TKA leads to improvements in work function and satisfaction across all intensity levels, but HI work is associated with longer recovery times and comparatively lower return-to-work satisfaction compared to SI and LI groups.

BACKGROUND:Sleep impairment following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is common and may decrease patient satisfaction and early recovery. Standardized postoperative recommendations for sleep disturbance have not been established. We aimed to assess whether melatonin use improves sleep quality and quantity in the acute period following THA. METHODS:Patients undergoing primary, elective THA between July 2021 and March 2024 were prospectively enrolled and randomized to receive either five mg of melatonin or a placebo nightly for 14 days postoperatively. Participants recorded nightly pain scores on the visual analog scale (VAS), the number of hours slept, and the number of nighttime awakenings in a sleep diary. Sleep disturbance was assessed preoperatively and on postoperative day (POD) 14 using the patient-reported outcome measurement information system sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) form. Epworth Sleepiness Scores (ESS) were collected to assess sleep quality and were the primary outcome of this study. Of the 139 patients who completed the study protocol, there were 64 patients in the placebo group and 75 patients in the melatonin group. RESULTS:Both groups demonstrated comparable postoperative ESS (melatonin: 6.0 ± 4.0; placebo: 6.8 ± 4.5, P = 0.35). Melatonin patients experienced significantly more hours slept on POD2 (6.5 ± 1.7; 5.7 ± 2.4, P = 0.017) and averaged over POD one to three (6.1 ± 1.6; 5.7 ± 2.0, P = 0.14), although this was not statistically significant. Fewer nighttime awakenings in the melatonin group were observed on POD two (2.7 ± 1.5; 3.1 ± 2.0, P = 0.28), although this was not statistically significant. The melatonin group demonstrated significantly lower postoperative PROMIS-SD scores (52.5 ± 9.3; 56.3 ± 9.2, P = 0.040). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Melatonin may not improve overall postoperative sleep quality following THA as measured by the ESS. Melatonin may promote sleep duration in the POD one to three period, although potential benefits wane after POD three. Melatonin is safe and can be considered for THA patients experiencing early postoperative sleep disturbance.

BACKGROUND:Cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has recently regained popularity, yet data has raised concerns about rates of arthrofibrosis following these procedures. The purpose of this study was to utilize the American Joint Replacement Registry to compare rates of early manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) in cementless and cemented primary TKAs that use technology or manual instrumentation. METHODS:We queried the American Joint Replacement Registry for all patients ages 18 to 95 years who underwent cemented or cementless primary TKA over a 7-year period. Patients were stratified based on whether technology (robotics or computer-assisted navigation) was used during the primary surgery. Groups were then compared for rates of MUA within 90-day of the index surgery using multivariable logistic regression models. A total of 340,841 cases were included in the study, 78,397 (23%) of which used technology and 262,444 (77%) which did not. Within the technology cohort, there were 51,500 (65%) robotic and 26,897 (35%) navigated cases. There were 65% of technology-assisted TKAs and 92% of manual TKAs cemented. RESULTS:In the technology group, multivariable analysis demonstrated significantly higher odds of MUA in cemented TKAs compared to cementless (odds ratio [OR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.06 to 3.59]; P = 0.031). Robotic cases had significantly higher odds of MUA with cemented compared to cementless implants (OR 2.38, 95% CI [1.27 to 4.46]; P = 0.007), while there was no difference in MUA related to cementation in the navigated cases (OR 3.53, 95% CI [0.48 to 25.95]; P = 0.22). In the manual group, there were no significant differences in MUA rates related to cementation use (OR 1.14, 95% CI [0.8 to 1.64]; P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS:Cementless TKA did not increase odds of MUA. In further analyzing cement use into technology and manual cohorts, robotic-assisted cemented TKAs had higher rates of early MUA than cementless. Identification of risk factors leading to early arthrofibrosis may be patient dependent and further study is required to elucidate any surgical considerations.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Maintaining follow-up after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is critical to monitor patient outcomes and complications. However, patient factors associated with follow-up compliance have not been described previously. This study aimed to characterize demographic and perioperative characteristics associated with TJA follow-up compliance. METHODS:This was a retrospective review of all primary, elective total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) procedures at an urban, tertiary care center from 2011 to 2022. Patient follow-ups were categorized as early (0 to 90 days), mid-term (91 days to two years), and late-term (greater than two years). Patient characteristics, including age, sex, race, smoking status, spoken language, body mass index, income class, insurance type, distance from hospital, 90-day readmission, American Society of Anesthesia Status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), were compared at each period, and logistic regression identified predictors of follow-up. RESULTS:In total, 2,836 TKA and 3,056 THA procedures were analyzed, with overall follow-up rates of 78.9 and 76.8%, respectively. Among all TJA patients, those who did not have follow-up were more likely to be younger, men, White, active smokers, live further from the hospital, and have lower CCIs. Uniquely, for TKA patients, higher income status predicted lower overall and early follow-up rates, while English-speaking predicted lower early and higher late follow-up rates in this subgroup. Differences between groups based on follow-up status decreased as follow-up time increased. Regression analyses showed loss to follow-up increased with increased distance from the hospital and current smoking. Uniquely, for THA, men predicted loss-to-follow-up. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Younger age, men, White race, higher income, current smoking, and increased distance from the hospital are associated with increased early, but not late, loss to follow-up after TJA. Future studies should assess the influence of other factors, including home support and telemedicine use, on follow-up rates.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:A two-stage revision has long been the gold standard for chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), with real-component articulating spacers becoming overwhelmingly popular. While several studies have evaluated the success of these spacers in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to our knowledge, this is the first to specifically compare outcomes of spacers stratified by the level of liner constraint. METHODS:This retrospective analysis reviewed 135 patients who were indicated for two-stage rTKA due to PJI between 2011 and 2023 at a single specialty urban academic institution. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the polyethylene liner constraint used during the first stage: cruciate retaining (CR), posterior stabilized (PS), and varus-valgus constrained (VVC). Of these 135 patients, 60 (44%) were categorized in the CR group, 47 (35%) were in the PS group, and 28 (21%) were in the VVC group. These groups were compared after each stage for peri- and postoperative outcomes such as operative time, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, knee range of motion (ROM), as well as incidence of re-revision and reinfection. RESULTS:The mean postoperative LOS was not different among cohorts for both stages. Operative time was significantly longer in the VVC group after the second stage (P = 0.007), while there was no difference after the first stage (P = 0.085). There were no differences in ROM after both stages. The mean ROM after the first stage was 92° in the CR group, 90° in the PS group, and 85° in the VVC group (P = 0.46). After the second stage, ROM was 101° in both the CR and VVC groups and 107° in the PS group (P = 0.28). There were no differences in the risk of re-revision due to re-infection across the groups after the first or second stage procedures. The re-infection incidence after the first stage was 14% in the VVC group, compared to 5% in the CR group and 4% in the PS group (P = 0.14). After the second stage, the reinfection risk was 21% in the VVC group, 8% in the CR group, and 13% in the PS group (P = 0.21). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:No significant differences were observed in the risk of complications such as re-infection, re-revisions, and postoperative ROM, suggesting that the choice of liner constraint in two-stage revision can be left up to surgeon's discretion.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:To our knowledge, outcomes of patients undergoing staged, bilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA) via dissimilar surgical approaches have not yet been investigated. This study examined demographics, implant selection, technology utilization, and component positioning between hips in patients who underwent one THA via posterior and one via direct anterior approach and secondarily evaluated patient-reported outcomes. METHODS:There were 36 patients (72 hips) who underwent staged, bilateral, primary, elective THAs via different approaches from January 2012 to December 2023. Patient demographics, intraoperative technology utilization, implants used, and pre- and postoperative Hip Dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR) scores were recorded. The hip center of rotation, acetabular height and anteversion, and metaphyseal canal fill were measured on postoperative radiographs. Femoral stem coronal and sagittal plane angulation following both approaches were also compared on postoperative radiographs. RESULTS:There were 15 (41.7%) patients who underwent posterior THA first. The mean time between operations was five years (range, 0.93 to 10.2). Intraoperative technology utilization was more common for the anterior THA (P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in hip center of rotation (P = 0.292), acetabular anteversion (P = 0.428), or acetabular height (P = 0.935) between patients' anterior and posterior approach THAs. The proportion of patients who had posterior stem angulation was significantly greater following anterior THA; neutral stem angulation was seen more frequently following posterior THA (P = 0.005). Lipped liners (P < 0.001), high offset femoral stems (P = 0.007), and dual or triple-taper stems (P < 0.001) were more commonly utilized in posterior THAs. For patients who had pre- and postoperative HOOS-JR for each hip, there was no significant difference in postoperative score improvement between anterior and posterior THAs (P = 0.697), with a mean follow-up time of 2.4 years (range, 0.3 to 9.28) for posterior and 6.1 years (range, 2.8 to 10.3) for anterior THAs (P = 0.249). CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing staged, bilateral THAs via different surgical approaches exhibit radiographic characteristics likely attributable to technical challenges for each approach. However, these differences related to approach do not seem to impact short-term clinical and patient-reported 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.