Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To investigate the incidence and risk factors for dressing-induced allergic contact dermatitis (DIACD) following total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA, respectively) across different dressings and sealants. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted of patients who underwent primary, elective THA or TKA between 2019 and 2024 with ≥ 90 days of follow-up. Incidences of DIACD were identified by reviewing medical records for "allergy" diagnoses and use of antihistamines or corticosteroids within 30 days postoperatively. Patient characteristics, prior exposure, treatment, dressing type, and allergy history were analyzed. RESULTS:A total of 61 (0.3%) of the 23,396 investigated patients developed a DIACD on average 12.2 ± 7.3 days postoperatively. Overall, 41% had a preoperative allergy (excluding seasonal), and 55.7% were treated with topical or low-dose oral antihistamines and corticosteroids. The majority (41%) of the DIACD involved mesh-adhesive dressings, and a liquid skin adhesive (2-octyl cyanoacrylate) was also used in 41% of cases, often in combination with the primary dressing. Of the 61 DIACD patients, 24 (39.3%) had previously undergone THA or TKA, and nearly half of these (n = 11, 45.8%) had been exposed to the same dressing without prior occurrence of DIACD. DIACD patients were significantly more likely to have undergone TKA (73.8 vs. 58.3%, p = 0.015) and to have never smoked (75.4 vs. 58.4%, p = 0.014). The effect sizes of these findings were negligible (Cramer's V = 0.016 and 0.019, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The incidence of DIACD following joint arthroplasty is low (0.3%) but remains a frustrating complication, primarily occurring two weeks postoperatively, with mesh-adhesive dressings most frequently implicated. Patients with prior exposure to dressings, those undergoing TKA, and non-smokers are at higher risk. Identifying at-risk patients can guide dressing selection and application.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:Determine factors that impart increased risk of acetabular component malposition in the lateral decubitus position. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective review of 813 X-rays from posterior THA procedures at a single institution. Pelvic tilt and rotation were measured on preoperative standing AP-pelvis and intraoperative cross-table x-rays. Proper intraoperative pelvic orientation (PPO) was defined as vertical tilt and axial rotation within ± 15° of the preoperative standing pelvis orientation. Acetabular abduction was measured on standing postoperative x-rays with Goal abduction (GA) of 30-50°. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:PPO was obtained in 284/413 cases (69 %). Patient sex, weight, BMI, and operative laterality were not significantly associated with PPO. Patients with PPO were shorter (1.68m vs 1.72m, p < 0.01). PPO occurred in 168/221 patients (76 %) with the Capello or Wixson hip positioner, compared to 116/192 (60 %) with the De Mayo positioner (p < 0.01). GA was obtained in 249/284 (88 %) of patients with PPO, as compared to 103/129 (80 %) patients without PPO. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:The risk of pelvic malpositioning significantly increases with the use of certain hip positioning systems, and taller patients. Acetabular component abduction is negatively affected by an improperly positioned pelvis.

BACKGROUND:We investigated a skin adhesive closure device consisting of a self-adhesive polyester mesh placed over the surgical incision, followed by a liquid adhesive that is spread over the mesh and surrounding the skin. It is intended to reduce wound closure times, scarring, and skin complications associated with traditional closure with sutures or staples. The aim of this study was to report on skin reactions in patients who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using the skin adhesive closure system. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients who underwent TKA using adhesive closure between 2016 to 2021 at a single institute was performed. A total of 1,719 cases were analyzed. Patient demographics were collected. The primary outcome was any postoperative skin reaction. Skin reactions were classified as allergic dermatitis, cellulitis, or other. Treatment(s), duration of symptoms, and surgical infections were also collected. RESULTS:A total of 5.0% (86) of patients were found to have any type of skin reaction following their TKA. Of these 86, 39 (2.3%) had symptoms of allergic dermatitis (AD), 23 (1.3%) had symptoms of cellulitis, and 24 (1.4%) had other symptoms. A total of 27 (69%) allergic dermatitis patients were treated with a topical corticosteroid cream only; their symptoms resolved within an average of 25 days. There was only 1 case of superficial infection (<0.001%). No prosthetic joint infections were observed. CONCLUSION:Despite skin reactions appearing in 5.0% of cases, the rate of infection was low. A patient-specific preoperative workup and effective treatment strategies can minimize complications associated with adhesive closure system and increase patient satisfaction following TKA.

A 64-year-old male with a recalled modular-neck stem implant presented with a soft tissue mass in the lateral thigh. Preoperative testing revealed no signs of infection by the 2018 periprosthetic joint infection criteria. MRI revealed a large soft tissue mass around the implant consistent with a pseudotumor, and we performed revision surgery of the femoral component for trunnionosis. One intraoperative culture was positive for infection, and the patient was placed on antibiotics. Six weeks following revision surgery of the femoral component, the patient presented with acute drainage and was diagnosed with an acute on chronic periprosthetic joint infection and underwent explantation of the femoral and acetabular components with the placement of an antibiotic spacer. Cultures revealed identical bacteria from the index procedure. Given the clinical course, this case likely represents adverse local tissue reaction with an atypical presentation of periprosthetic joint infection. This is the first case presentation of an adverse local tissue reaction and superimposed periprosthetic joint infection with normal infection workup, representing an important consideration when differentiating between pseudotumor and periprosthetic joint infection in modular-neck femoral stem implants.