Alphabet Soup of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Liner Options-Cruciate Retaining, Posterior Stabilized, Medial Congruent, Medial Pivot: Making Sense of the Options and What the Latest Data Show.

The traditional dual-option debate of cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized knee arthroplasty designs has evolved into a more complex discussion in recent years. The growing interest and rapid adoption of medial conforming and medial pivot designs has made the original debate surrounding cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized designs more interesting. Each liner option has its own advantages and disadvantages. Although conforming tibial liner options are increasing rapidly, traditional cruciate retaining and posterior stabilized are the most common designs, as recorded in most registries. However, it is important to understand the updated pros and cons of each liner design as surgeons focus on personalization of their total knee arthroplasty procedures to the individual patient. Different liner options may be more advantageous in certain situations or vary with surgical technique. Several different types of tibial liner options are currently available, and it is important to review and summarize the latest literature available for each.

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Direct Anterior Versus Mini-Posterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: Small, Early Functional Differences Did Not Lead to Meaningful Clinical Differences at 7.5 Years.

BACKGROUND: Our previously reported randomized clinical trial of direct anterior approach (DAA) versus mini-posterior approach (MPA) total hip arthroplasty showed slightly faster initial recovery for patients who had a DAA and no differences in complications or clinical or radiographic outcomes beyond 8 weeks. The aims of the current study were to determine if early advantages of DAA led to meaningful clinical differences beyond 5 years and to identify differences in midterm complications. METHODS: Of the 101 original patients, 93 were eligible for follow-up at a mean of 7.5 years (range, 2.1 to 10). Clinical outcomes were compared with Harris Hip, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Scores (HOOS) scores and subscores, complications, reoperations, and revisions. RESULTS: Harris Hip scores were similar (95.3 ± 6.0 versus 93.5 ± 10.3 for DAA and MPA, respectively, P = .79). The 12-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental scores were similar (46.2 ± 9.3 versus 46.2 ± 10.6, P = .79, and 52.3 ± 7.1 versus 55.2 ± 4.5, P = .07 in the DAA and MPA groups, respectively). The HOOS scores were similar (97.4 ± 7.9 versus 96.3 ± 6.7 for DAA and MPA, respectively, P = .07). The HOOS quality of life subscores were 96.9 ± 10.8 versus 92.3 ± 16.0 for DAA and MPA, respectively (P = .046). No clinical outcome met the minimally clinically important difference. There were 4 surgical complications in the DAA group (1 femoral loosening requiring revision, 1 dislocation treated closed, and 2 wound dehiscences requiring debridement), and 6 surgical complications in the MPA group (3 dislocations, 2 treated closed, and 1 revised to dual mobility; 2 intraoperative fractures treated with a cable; and 1 wound dehiscence treated nonoperatively). CONCLUSIONS: At a mean of 7.5 years, this randomized clinical trial demonstrated no clinically meaningful differences in outcomes, complications, reoperations, or revisions between DAA and MPA total hip arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

The Chitranjan S. Ranawat Award: Manipulation Under Anesthesia to Treat Postoperative Stiffness After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) occurs in 4% of patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Anti-inflammatory medications may target arthrofibrosis pathogenesis, but the data are limited. This multicenter randomized clinical trial investigated the effect of adjuvant anti-inflammatory medications with MUA and physical therapy on range of motion (ROM) and outcomes. METHODS: There were 124 patients (124 TKAs) who developed stiffness after primary TKA for osteoarthritis enrolled across 15 institutions. All received MUA when ROM was < 90° at 4 to 12 weeks postoperatively. Randomization proceeded via a permuted block design. Controls received MUA and physical therapy, while the treatment group also received one dose of pre-MUA intravenous dexamethasone (8 mg) and 14 days of oral celecoxib (200 mg). The ROM and clinical outcomes were assessed at 6 weeks and 1 year. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. RESULTS: The ROM significantly improved a mean of 46° from a pre-MUA ROM of 72 to 118° immediately after MUA (P < .001). The ROM was similar between the treatment and control groups at 6 weeks following MUA (101 versus 99°, respectively; P = .35) and at one year following MUA (108 versus 108°, respectively; P = .98). Clinical outcomes were similar at both end points. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter randomized clinical trial, the addition of intravenous dexamethasone and a short course of oral celecoxib after MUA did not improve ROM or outcomes. However, MUA provided a mean ROM improvement of 46° immediately, 28° at 6 weeks, and 37° at 1 year. Further investigation in regards to dosing, duration, and route of administration of anti-inflammatory medications remains warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, RCT.

Hot Topics and Current Controversies in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Total knee arthroplasty continues to evolve. It is important to review some of the current controversies and hot topics in arthroplasty. Optimal knee alignment strategy is now just a matter of debate. Mechanical, kinematic, and functional alignment and the role of robotics in achieving optimum alignment are important topics, along with fixation and outpatient knee arthroplasty.

AAHKS Surgical Techniques & Technologies Award: Resurfacing the Thin Native Patella: Is It Safe?

BACKGROUND: Whether to resurface the patella during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains debated. One often cited reason for not resurfacing is inadequate patellar thickness. The aim of this study was to describe the implant survivorships, reoperations, complications and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent patellar resurfacing of a thin native patella. METHODS: From 2000 to 2010, 7,477 patients underwent primary TKA with patellar resurfacing and had an intraoperatively, caliper-measured patella thickness at our institution. Of these, 200 (2.7%) had a preresection patellar thickness of ≤19 millimeters (mm). Mean preresection thickness was 18 mm (range, 12-19). Mean age was 69 years, mean body mass index was 31 kg/m2, and 93% of the patients were women. Median follow-up was 10 years (range, 2-20). RESULTS: At 10 years, survivorships free of any patella revision, patella-related reoperation, and periprosthetic patella fracture were 98%, 98%, and 99%, respectively. There were 3 patella revisions (1 aseptic loosening, 2 periprosthetic joint infections). There were 2 additional patella-related reoperations for patellar clunk. There were 3 nonoperatively managed periprosthetic patella fractures. Radiographically, all nonrevised knees had well-fixed patellae. Knee society scores improved from mean 36 points (interquartile range [IQR] 24-49) preoperatively to mean 81 points (IQR 77-81) at 10-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Resurfacing the thin native patella was associated with high survivorship free of patellar revision at 10-year follow-up. Nevertheless, there was 1 case of patellar loosening and 3 periprosthetic patella fractures. These risks must be weighed against the known higher incidence of revision when the thin native patella is left unresurfaced.

John N. Insall Award: Randomized Clinical Trial of Cementless Versus Cemented Tibial Components: Durable and Reliable at a Mean 10-Years Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Cementless fixation is gaining popularity for primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). The prior 5-year results of our randomized clinical trial that included 3 different tibial designs found minimal differences. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the 10-year results in the same cohort. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2006, 389 primary TKAs were randomized: traditional modular cemented tibia (135); hybrid (cemented baseplate with uncemented pegs) monoblock tibia (128); and cementless monoblock tibia (126). Implant survivorships, radiographs, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Mean age at TKA was 68 years (range, 41 to 85), 46% were male, and mean body mass index was 32 (range, 21 to 59). The mean follow-up was 10 years. RESULTS: The 10-year survivorship free of any revision was similar between the hybrid monoblock and cementless monoblock groups at 96%, but lower (89%) for the traditional modular cemented tibia (P = .05). The traditional modular cemented tibia group had significantly more revisions for aseptic tibial loosening than the other 2 groups (7 versus 0%) at 10 years (P = .003). The traditional modular cemented tibia group had significantly more nonprogressive radiolucent lines than the hybrid and cementless monoblock groups (24, 12, and 9%, respectively). Clinical outcomes were similar and excellent between all 3 groups. CONCLUSION: Cementless and hybrid monoblock tibial components have excellent implant survivorship (96%) with no cases of aseptic tibial loosening to date. The traditional cemented modular tibial group had a 7% cumulative incidence of aseptic loosening at 10 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, Prospective Randomized Control Trial.

Current Concepts in Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to increase satisfaction among total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients, emphasis has been placed on implant positioning and limb alignment. Traditionally, the aim for TKA has been to achieve a neutral mechanical alignment (MA) to maximize implant longevity. However, with the recent spike in interest in individualized alignment techniques and with the advent of new technologies, surgeons are slowly evolving away from classical MA. METHODS: This review elucidates the differences in alignment techniques for TKA, describes the concept of knee phenotypes, summarizes comparative studies between MA and individualized alignment, and provides a simple way to incorporate the latter into surgeons' practice. RESULTS: In order to manage patients by applying these strategies in day-to-day practice, a basic understanding of the aforementioned concepts is essential. Transition to an individualized alignment technique should be done gradually with caution in a stepwise approach. CONCLUSION: Alignment and implant positioning are now at the heart of the debate and surgeons are investigating a more personalized approach to TKA.

Does Metabolic Syndrome Impact the Risk of Reoperation, Revision, or Complication After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is an increasingly frequent condition characterized by insulin resistance, abdominal obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. This study evaluated implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes of primary TKAs performed in patients who have MetS. METHODS: Utilizing our institutional total joint registry, 2,063 primary TKAs were performed in patients with a diagnosis of MetS according to the World Health Organization criteria. MetS patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and surgical year to those who did not have the condition. The World Health Organization's body mass index (BMI) classification was utilized to evaluate the effect of obesity within MetS patients. Kaplan-Meier methods were utilized to determine implant survivorship. Clinical outcomes were assessed with Knee Society scores. The mean follow-up was 5 years. RESULTS: MetS and non-MetS patients did not have significant differences in 5-year implant survivorship free from any reoperation (P = .7), any revision (P = .2), and reoperation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI; P = .2). When stratifying, patients with MetS and BMI >40 had significantly decreased 5-year survivorship free from any revision (95 versus 98%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2.1, P = .005) and reoperation for PJI (97 versus 99%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2.2, P = .02). Both MetS and non-MetS groups experienced significant improvements in Knee Society Scores (77 versus 78, respectively; P < .001) that were not significantly different (P = .3). CONCLUSION: MetS did not significantly increase the risk of any reoperation after TKA; however, MetS patients with BMI >40 had a two-fold risk of any revision and reoperation for PJI. These results suggest that obesity is an important condition within MetS criteria and remains an independent risk factor. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, Case-control study.

Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Contemporary Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: Interest in spinal anesthesia utilization in revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) is rising. This study investigated the pain control, length of stay (LOS), and complications associated with spinal versus general anesthesia in a single institution series of revision TKAs. METHODS: We identified 3,711 revision TKAs (3,495 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our institutional total joint registry. There were 66% who had general anesthesia and 34% who had spinal anesthesia. Mean age, sex, and BMI were similar between groups at 67 years, 53% women, and 32, respectively. Data were analyzed using inverse probability of treatment weighted models based on propensity scores that accounted for patient and operative factors. Mean follow-up was 6 years (range, 2 to 17). RESULTS: Patients treated with spinal anesthesia required fewer postoperative oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) (P < .0001) and had lower numeric pain rating scale scores (P < .001). Spinal anesthesia was associated with shorter LOS (4.0 versus 4.6 days; P < .0001), less cases of altered mental status (AMS; Odds Ratio (OR) 2.0, P = .004), less intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (OR 1.6, P = .02), fewer re-revisions (OR 1.7, P < .001), and less reoperations (OR 1.4, P < .001). There was no difference in the incidence of VTE (P = .82), 30-day readmissions (P = .06), or 90-day readmissions (P = .18) between anesthetic techniques. CONCLUSION: We found that spinal anesthesia for revision TKAs was associated with significantly lower pain scores, reduced OME requirements, and decreased LOS. Furthermore, spinal anesthesia was associated with fewer cases of AMS, ICU admissions, and re-revisions even after accounting for numerous patient and operative factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Contemporary Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: Spinal anesthesia is increasingly used in complex patient populations including revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). This study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay (LOS), and complications associated with spinal versus general anesthesia in a large institutional series of revision THAs. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 4,767 revision THAs (4,533 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our institutional total joint registry. Of these cases, 86% had general and 14% had spinal anesthesia. Demographics between groups were similar with mean age of 66 years, 52% women, and mean body mass index of 29. Complications including all-cause rerevisions and reoperations were studied. Data were analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted model based on propensity score that accounted for patient and surgical factors. The mean follow-up was 7 years. RESULTS: Patients treated with spinal anesthesia required fewer postoperative oral morphine equivalents (P < .001) and had lower numeric pain rating scale scores (P < .001). Spinal anesthesia had a decreased LOS (4.2 versus 4.8 days; P = .007), fewer cases of altered mental status (odds ratio (OR) 3.1, P = .001), fewer blood transfusions (OR 2.3, P < .001), fewer intensive care unit admissions (OR 2.3, P < .001), fewer rerevisions (OR 1.6, P = .04), and fewer reoperations (OR 1.5, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Spinal anesthesia was associated with lower oral morphine equivalent use and reduced LOS in this large cohort of revision THAs. Furthermore, spinal anesthesia was associated with fewer cases of altered mental status, transfusion, intensive care unit admission, rerevision, and reoperation after accounting for numerous patient and operative factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

Comparative Survival of Contemporary Cementless Acetabular Components Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The advent of highly porous ingrowth surfaces and highly crosslinked polyethylene has been expected to improve implant survivorship in revision total hip arthroplasty. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the survival of several contemporary acetabular designs following revision total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Acetabular revisions performed from 2000 to 2019 were identified from our institutional total joint registry. We studied 3,348 revision hips, implanted with 1 of 7 cementless acetabular designs. These were paired with highly crosslinked polyethylene or dual-mobility liners. A historical series of 258 Harris-Galante-1 components, paired with conventional polyethylene, was used as reference. Survivorship analyses were performed. For the 2,976 hips with minimum 2-year follow-up, the median follow-up was 8 years (range, 2 to 35 years). RESULTS: Contemporary components with adequate follow-up had survivorship free of acetabular rerevision of ≥95% at 10-year follow-up. Relative to Harris-Galante-1 components, 10-year survivorship free of all-cause acetabular cup rerevision was significantly higher in Zimmer Trabecular Metarevision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2-0.45), Zimmer Trabecular MetaModular (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13-0.89), Zimmer Trilogy (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.24-0.69), DePuy Pinnacle Porocoat (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11-0.51), and Stryker Tritanium revision (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.91) shells. Among contemporary components, there were only 23 rerevisions for acetabular aseptic loosening and no rerevisions for polyethylene wear. CONCLUSION: Contemporary acetabular ingrowth and bearing surfaces were associated with no rerevisions for wear and aseptic loosening was uncommon, particularly with highly porous designs. Therefore, it appears that contemporary revision acetabular components have dramatically improved upon historical results at available follow-up.

Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty With a Rotating-Hinge Prosthesis Mated to a Well-Fixed Femoral Sleeve.

BACKGROUND: Some knee systems have the unique capability to mate a new hinged femoral component to a well-fixed metaphyseal sleeve from a prior revision. We compared survivorship, radiographs, and clinical outcomes of a rotating-hinge total knee arthroplasty mated to a new metaphyseal sleeve vs a well-fixed sleeve. METHODS: Sixty patients with an S-ROM Noiles (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, IN) rotating-hinge total knee arthroplasty implanted from 1998 to 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Nine patients (15%) had the femoral component mated to a well-fixed sleeve and 51 patients (85%) had a new sleeve. Mean age was 68 years, 68% were female, and mean body mass index was 33 kg/m2. The incidences of re-revision and reoperation were calculated, Knee Society Scores were measured, and radiographs were reviewed. Mean follow-up was 5 years. RESULTS: There were 2 re-revisions (22%) in patients with a well-fixed sleeve: 1 for infection and 1 for aseptic loosening of the femur and tibia. There were no unique failures including the taper junction. Nine patients (18%) with a new sleeve were re-revised: 7 for infection and 2 for tibial aseptic loosening. The mean Knee Society Score for all patients improved from 39 to 73. Radiographically, all components were well fixed except for one loose femur in a patient with a new sleeve. CONCLUSION: Mating an S-ROM femur to a well-fixed sleeve from a prior revision is a safe, simple, and durable option in the short term that prevents morbidity associated with removal of a well-fixed sleeve. No new modes of failure were observed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV (retrospective), Therapeutic.

Changing Surgical Approach From Primary to Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Is Not Associated With Increased Risk of Dislocation or Re-Revisions.

BACKGROUND: No prior studies have examined outcomes based on approach concordance between primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). There is theoretical concern that performing surgery through multiple planes could potentiate dislocation risk. This study aimed to assess the impact of utilizing concordant vs discordant surgical approaches between primary and revision THA on incidence of dislocation, re-revision, reoperation, and nonoperative complications. METHODS: Between 2000 and 2018, 705 revision THAs were retrospectively identified in patients who underwent primary THA at the same academic center. Surgical approach was determined for primary and revision THA from operative notes with dislocations, re-revisions, reoperations, and complications determined from our total joint registry. Complication rates were compared between those with concordant and discordant surgical approaches. Mean age was 65 years, 50% were female, mean body mass index was 31 kg/m2, and mean follow-up was 4 years. RESULTS: Surgical approach discordance occurred in 97 cases (14%), which was more frequent when the direct anterior approach was used for primary THA (72%, P < .001) compared to lateral (12%) or posterior (10%) approaches. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of dislocations, re-revisions, reoperations, and nonoperative complications among those with concordant and discordant approaches for the overall cohort and when analyzed by primary approach (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSION: Comparable dislocation and complication rates were observed among revision THAs with concordant and discordant approaches between primary and revision THA. These data provide reassurance that changing vs maintaining the surgical approach from primary to revision THA does not significantly increase dislocation or re-revision risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

What are the Outcomes After Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in Patients With Prior Cerebrovascular Accidents?

BACKGROUND: For patients who have a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) with neurological sequelae undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), we sought to determine mortality rate, implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Our total joint registry identified CVA sequelae patients undergoing primary THA (n = 42 with 25 on affected hip) and TKA (n = 56 with 34 on affected knee). Patients were 1:2 matched based upon age, sex, body mass index, and surgical year to a non-CVA cohort. Mortality and implant survivorship were evaluated via Kaplan-Meier methods. Clinical outcomes were assessed via Harris Hip scores or Knee Society scores . Mean follow-up was 5 years (range, 2-12). RESULTS: For CVA sequelae and non-CVA patients, respectively, the 5-year patient survivorship was 69 versus 89% after THA (HR = 2.5; P = .006) and 56 versus 90% after TKA (HR = 2.4, P = .003). No significant difference was noted between groups in implant survivorship free from any reoperation after THA (P > .2) and TKA (P > .6). Postoperative CVA occurred at an equal rate in CVA sequelae and non-CVA patients after TKA (1.8%); none after THA in either group. The magnitude of change in Harris Hip scores (P = .7) and Knee Society scores (P = .7) were similar for CVA sequelae and non-CVA patients. CONCLUSION: Complications, including the risk of postoperative CVA, implant survivorship, and outcome score improvement are similar for CVA sequelae and non-CVA patients. A 2.5-fold increased risk of death at a mean of 5 years after primary THA or TKA exist for CVA sequelae patients.

Recent Antibiotic Treatment Impacts Serum and Synovial Laboratory Values in Early Periprosthetic Joint Infection Workup.

BACKGROUND: Accurately detecting early postoperative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains challenging. The purpose of our study was to determine the impact of antibiotics given prior to laboratory evaluation on the reliability of serologic and synovial fluid tests to identify PJI in the early postoperative period. METHODS: We identified 49,861 primary total hip arthroplasties and total knee arthroplasties performed between 2000 and 2019. Among these patients, 21 hips and 28 knees that underwent arthrocentesis within 12 weeks of their arthroplasty were identified as infected. Patients who had received antibiotics within 2 weeks prior to laboratory evaluation were compared to those who had not. Median values of C-reactive protein, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, synovial white blood cell (WBC) count, synovial neutrophil percentage, and synovial absolute neutrophil count were compared between groups. The false negative rate for detecting PJI using laboratory values was compared using published cutoffs for PJI in the early postoperative period. RESULTS: Median values of C-reactive protein (105 vs 22 mg/L; P = .006), synovial WBC count (57,591 vs 4,473 cells/µL; P = .003), synovial neutrophil percentage (94% vs 76%; P = .004), and synovial absolute neutrophil count (50,748 vs 2,804 cells/µL; P < .001) were significantly lower in patients who received antibiotics compared to those who did not. False negative rates for detecting PJI were significantly higher for synovial WBC and synovial neutrophil percentage in patients treated with antibiotics compared to untreated patients. CONCLUSION: False negative rates for detecting early PJI when using published cutoffs were markedly higher in antibiotic-treated patients compared to untreated patients for synovial WBC count and synovial neutrophil percentage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV retrospective review.

Treatment of Flexion Instability After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: Operative and Nonoperative Management of 218 Cases.

BACKGROUND: For patients with flexion instability, there is a paucity of literature on the effectiveness of nonoperative management, and series on revision TKAs are limited. The purpose of this study is to evaluate effectiveness and prognostic factors of nonoperative management of flexion instability, and report survivorship, clinical outcomes, and radiographic results after revision TKA for flexion instability. METHODS: We identified 218 patients with flexion instability after primary TKA through our total joint registry between 1990 and 2019. Mean age was 66 years, 59% were women, and 58% had a cruciate-retaining (CR) implant. Initially, 152 patients (70%) were treated nonoperatively. First-time revision TKA was ultimately performed in 173 patients. Kaplan-Meier survivorship was calculated. Knee Society Scores and radiographs were reviewed. Mean follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: Of the 152 patients treated nonoperatively, 66% reported no improvement. Patients with a CR design (hazard ratio [HR] 3.3, P < .001), inflammatory arthritis (HR 1.6, P = .03), smokers (HR 2.1, P = .04), and patient-reported instability (HR 3.8, P < .001) or effusions (HR 3.5, P < .001) were more likely to undergo revision. Of the 173 revised, the 10-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 87% with recurrent flexion instability (7), global instability (3), and infection (3) being most common. Knee Society Scores improved from 50 to 65 (P = .14). At final follow-up, all implants were well-fixed. CONCLUSION: In this large series of flexion instability after primary TKA, nonoperative management led to improvement in one third. Patients with a CR design or with patient-reported instability and/or effusions were most likely to undergo revision. Revision TKA demonstrated modest 10-year functional improvements and good survivorship. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV (retrospective), Therapeutic.

The Impact of Metabolic Syndrome on Reoperations and Complications After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) represents a constellation of interrelated conditions including insulin resistance, abdominal obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. The goals of this study are to determine the impact of MetS on implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Utilizing our institutional total joint registry, 1,268 patients undergoing primary THA were identified with MetS based on the World Health Organization definition and matched 1:1 to those without MetS based on age, gender, and surgical year. MetS patients were further stratified according to the World Health Organization body mass index (BMI) classification to contextualize obesity. Kaplan-Meier analyses were utilized to compare survivorship free of any reoperation, revision, and complications. Clinical outcomes were assessed with Harris hip scores. Mean follow-up after THA was 5 years. RESULTS: MetS patients had significantly worse 5-year survivorship free from any reoperation compared to those without MetS (93.5% vs 96.1%, respectively; hazard ratio [HR] 1.4, P = .04). When stratifying MetS and BMI classification, the BMI >40 kg/m2 had significantly decreased 5-year implant survivorship free from any reoperation (85.9% vs 96.1%, HR 3.4, P < .001), any revision (91.7% vs 97.3%, HR 2.7, P < .001), and reoperation for periprosthetic joint infection (95% vs 99%, HR 5.1, P < .001). Both groups experienced significant and similar improvement in final Harris hip scores (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with MetS had a 1.4-fold increased risk of reoperation after primary THA compared to a matched cohort without the condition. MetS patients with a BMI >40 kg/m2 had the highest risk of reoperation, and had a significantly higher revision and periprosthetic joint infection rates, suggesting that morbid obesity remains a critical, independent risk factor beyond MetS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, Case-control study.

Laboratory Value Effectiveness in Predicting Early Postoperative Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosing early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains challenging. We sought to validate optimal laboratory value cutoffs for detecting early PJIs in a series of primary THAs from one institution. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 22,795 primary THAs performed between 2000 and 2019. Within 12 weeks, 43 hips (43 patients) underwent arthrocentesis. Patients were divided into 2 groups: evaluation ≤6 weeks or 6-12 weeks following THA. The 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society major criteria for PJI diagnosed PJI in 15 patients. Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to compare median laboratory values and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to evaluate optimal cutoff values. RESULTS: Both within 6 weeks and between 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively, median C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate, synovial white blood cell (WBC) count, neutrophil percentage, and absolute neutrophil count (ANC) values were significantly higher in infected THAs. Optimal cutoffs within 6 weeks were: CRP ≥100 mg/L, synovial WBCs ≥4390 cells/µL, neutrophil percentage ≥74%, and ANC ≥3249 cells/µL. Between 6 and 12 weeks, optimal cutoffs were: CRP ≥33 mg/L, synovial WBCs ≥26,995 cells/µL, neutrophil percentage ≥93%, and ANC ≥25,645 cells/µL. CONCLUSION: Early PJI following THA should be suspected within 6 weeks with CRP ≥100 mg/L or synovial WBCs ≥4390 cells/µL. Between 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively, cutoffs of CRP ≥33 mg/L, synovial fluid WBC ≥26,995 cells/µL, and neutrophil percentage ≥93% diagnosed PJI with high accuracy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV Diagnostic.

Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Does It Decrease Infection Risk?

BACKGROUND: Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOA) has been shown to reduce infection after high-risk primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and reimplantations. However, data are limited regarding EOA after aseptic revision THAs. This study evaluated the impact of EOA on infection-related outcomes after aseptic revision THAs. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 1,107 aseptic revision THAs performed between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received EOA >24 hours perioperatively (n = 370) were compared to those who did not (n = 737) using an inverse probability of treatment weighting model. Their mean age was 65 years (range, 19-98 years), mean body mass index was 30 kg/m2 (range, 16-72), and 54% were women. Outcomes included cumulative probabilities of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and re-revision or reoperation for infection. Mean follow-up was 4 years (range, 2-8 years). RESULTS: The cumulative probability of any infection after aseptic revision THA was 2.3% at 90 days, 2.7% at 1 year, and 3.5% at 5 years. The cumulative probability of PJI was 1.7% at 90 days, 2.1% at 1 year, and 2.8% at 5 years. There was a trend toward an increased risk of any infection (hazards ratio [HR] = 2.6; P = .058), PJI (HR = 2.6; P = .085), and re-revision (HR = 6.5; P = .077) or reoperation (HR = 2.3; P = .095) for infection in patients who did not have EOA at the final clinical follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: EOA after aseptic revision THA was not associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of any infection, PJI, or re-revision or reoperation for infection at all time points. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Revision TKA: Does It Decrease Infection Risk?

BACKGROUND: Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOA) has been shown to potentially reduce infection rates after high-risk primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) and reimplantations. However, data is limited regarding EOA after aseptic revision TKAs. This study evaluated the impact of EOA on infection-related outcomes after aseptic revision TKAs. METHODS: 904 aseptic revision TKAs from 2014-2019 were retrospectively identified. Patients who received EOA >24 hours perioperatively (n = 267) were compared to those who did not (n = 637) using an inverse probability of treatment weighting model. Mean age was 66 years, mean BMI was 33 kg/m2, and 54% were female. Outcomes included cumulative probabilities of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), superficial infection, and re-revision or reoperation for infection. RESULTS: The cumulative probability of any infection after aseptic revision TKA was 1.9% at 90 days, 3.5% at 1 year, and 8.1% at 5 years. Patients without EOA had a higher risk of any infection at 90 days (HR = 7.1; P = .01), but not other time points. The cumulative probability of PJI after aseptic revision TKA was 0.8% at 90 days, 2.3% at 1 year, and 6.5% at 5 years. Patients without EOA did not have an increased risk of PJI. There were no differences in re-revision or reoperation for infection at any time point between groups. CONCLUSION: Extended oral antibiotics after aseptic revision TKA were associated with a 7-fold decreased risk of any infection at 90 days. The results suggest a potential role for EOA after aseptic revision TKA and warrant additional prospective studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.