Total knee replacement with an accelerometer-based, hand-held navigation system improves knee alignment: reliable in all patients.

BACKGROUND: Achieving adequate alignment has traditionally been an important goal in total knee arthroplasty to achieve long-term implant survival. While accelerometer-based hand-held navigation systems (ABN) has been introduced as a way to achieve alignment, there is a limited body of evidence on its accuracy, especially in patients under 65 years with differing etiologies for knee arthritis. This study aimed to assess the precision of a specific ABN system in restoring the mechanical axis and report surgical variables and complications, with particular attention to younger patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 310 primary TKA performed with ABN from May 2016 to February 2021. The mean patient age was 67.4 (SD 8.9) years, with 43% under 65 years and mean body mass index of 33.2 (SD 6.8). The average surgical time was 96.8 min (57-171) and the average follow-up was 3.3 years (1.9-6.7). Data regarding length of stay, pain, range of motion (ROM), complications, and reinterventions were collected from the institutional joint arthroplasty registry and the medical records. Preoperative mechanical axis measurements and postoperative radiological data, including mechanical axis, component alignment and mechanical alignment outliers were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean preoperative mechanical axis was 175.4° (SD 7.6), with 248 knees (80%) in preoperative varus. The mean postoperative mechanical axis was 179.5° (SD 1.96) with 98% of knees falling within ± 3° of the neutral mechanical axis. Only 6 knees (2 varus, 4 valgus) fell outside the ± 3° range. And 3 knees (1 varus, 2 valgus) fell outside the ± 5° range. In the sagittal plane, 296 knees (95.5%) knees were within ± 3° of goal of 3 degrees of femoral flexion and 302 (97.4%) knees were within ± 2° of goal 1° of slope for tibial component. Far outliers (alignment outside ± 5° of targeted position) were found in 3 knees. Factors such as posttraumatic arthrosis, previous surgery, presence of retained hardware, and age below 65 years were not associated with increase in alignment outliers and far outliers. No complications related to the navigation system were observed. There were 22 complications and 20 reoperations, including 2 revisions for periprosthetic joint infection and 1 revision for flexion instability. Patients that required knee manipulation achieved an ultimate flexion of 110° (SD 14.1). CONCLUSIONS: The ABN system proved to be user-friendly and accurate in reducing alignment outliers in both coronal and sagittal planes in all patient populations. It offers a straightforward navigation solution while preserving surgeon autonomy and the use of traditional surgical tools. These findings advocate for the integration of this navigation system as a valuable tool to enhance the precision of TKA surgery in all patient groups.

Duration of cefazolin prophylaxis did not impact infection risk in a murine model of joint arthroplasty.

To minimize periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) risk, some clinicians prescribe extended antibiotic prophylaxis (EAP) following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Given the limited evidence supporting EAP, we sought to evaluate impact of prophylactic antibiotic duration on PJI risk in a murine TJA model. A titanium prosthesis was implanted into the proximal tibia of 89 mice and inoculated with 102 colony forming units (cfu) of Staphylococcus aureus Xen36. Control mice (n = 20) did not receive antibiotics. Treated mice received either 24 h (n = 35) or 4 days (n = 34) of cefazolin prophylaxis. Cultures were obtained from the prostheses, tibia, femur, and knee tissues 3 weeks after surgery. All mice in the control group developed PJI. Both prophylaxis regimens reduced the rate of PJI relative to the control, with only 2/35 mice in the 24-h cohort (p < 0.0001) and 1/34 in 4-day cohort developing PJI (p < 0.0001). CFU counts from the prostheses, bone and knee tissues were reduced for the 24-h and 4-day prophylaxis cohorts relative to the control (p < 0.0001 for both). There was no difference in rates of PJI or CFU counts between the two prophylaxis cohorts (p = 0.58). Prophylactic cefazolin profoundly reduced rates of PJI in a murine model of TJA in which all control animals developed PJI. Extending cefazolin prophylaxis duration from 24 h to 4 days did not result in improved PJI rates or decreased bacterial loads in infected cases. While these results strongly support use of antibiotic prophylaxis for TJA, EAP did not appear to add benefit in the described mouse model.

The Femur-First Technique for Oxford Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Background: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a reliable procedure to treat medial compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA). The reported survivorship of UKA has varied in the literature3-7. In part, the higher failure rates of UKA seen in registries could be related to the caseload and experience of the reporting surgeon8. The introduction of techniques that make procedures more reliable, especially in the hands of inexperienced surgeons, can decrease the rate of failure. With the Oxford UKA implant (Zimmer Biomet), the recommended surgical technique involves cutting the tibia first, followed by the femoral preparation. However, a technique that allows for preparation of the femur first, as well as the use of the femoral component as a reference for the tibial cut, may reduce the common technical errors seen with the procedure. We have utilized the femur-first technique in cases of medial Oxford UKA. Description: The femur-first method outlined in the present article does not require any unique instruments beyond what is supplied by the manufacturer. Before beginning, the femoral positional guide needs to be decoupled from its base. To start, the intramedullary guide is introduced approximately 1 cm anterior and medial to the intercondylar notch. Once the femoral osteophytes are removed, the surgeon identifies the center of the femoral condyle and marks it. The posterior tibial cartilage is then removed with a saw to facilitate the placement of the appropriately sized femoral spherical guide. The size of the femoral component is determined by selecting the implant that aligns best with the width of the femoral condyle. The femoral drill guide is detached from its base because there is not enough space for the base, as the tibia has not yet been resected. The decoupled femoral guide is connected to the intramedullary rod, allowing the precise positioning of the femoral component in approximately 10° of flexion relative to the femoral sagittal plane and drilling of the 2 peg holes. The posterior condylar resection guide is impacted into position, and the osteotomy of the posterior condyle is made. The distal femur is then milled with use of a number-0 spigot, and the femoral component trial is positioned into place. The femoral condyle is "resurfaced" with the femoral component, which restores joint obliquity and the natural height, a critical element of the femur-first technique. Following this, the 1-mm (size-dependent) spherical gauge is placed around the femoral component trial. The tibial guide is secured with the G-clamp and a number-0 resection block, and is pinned into place. We recommend swapping the number-0 cutting guide for a +2 when making the cut in order to avoid over-resection. Recutting is advised if a minimum 3-mm feeler gauge does not adequately occupy the flexion space. The final step is to balance the flexion and extension gaps in the usual fashion. Alternatives: The alternative technique is a traditional tibia-first approach, in which tibial resection is performed prior to femoral resection. As described in the original manufacturer's manual, the tibial cut is accomplished with use of a number-0 cutting guide, and the tibial rotation is based on the axis formed by the anterior superior iliac spine and knee center, irrespective of the femoral condyle. Rationale: The femur-first technique is advantageous in several ways. When performing the femoral cut first, the surgeon can better align the drill guide at the center of medial femoral condyle. This will result in the femoral component being positioned more in line with the coronal plane of the femoral condyle. Additionally, the tibial resection is made with the femoral trial in place; therefore, the depth of resection can be more accurate, potentially avoiding excessive bone resection. Finally, with the femoral trial in place, the surgeon can judge the rotation and medial-lateral position of the tibial component more precisely, hence lowering the possibility of bearing spin-out, impingement, and dislocation or unexplained pain. Expected Outcomes: The femur-first technique is a bone-preserving procedure that results in thinner bearings when compared with a tibia-first approach1. The femur-first approach also improves radiographic outcomes, including femoral coronal, femoral sagittal, and tibial sagittal alignments, while tibial coronal alignment does not differ. There is an early trend toward improved 5-year survivorship with the femur-first (98%) versus tibia-first (94%, p = 0.35) techniques. There has been no significant difference reported in Knee Society Scores between techniques. Important Tips: Perform a preliminary cut of the posterior tibial cartilage in order to allow insertion of the femoral drill guide under the femoral condyle.Make sure the femoral drill guide lies in the center of the marked medial femoral condyle.Align the tibial sagittal cut with the femoral component trial in order to avoid bearing impingement.Be conservative in the tibial cutting by utilizing a +2 cutting guide (since the coupling is performed with the intramedullary guide in place, which drives the tibial guide distally). Acronyms and Abbreviations: UKA = unicompartmental knee arthroplastyFF = femur-firstM-L = medial-lateralAP = anteroposteriorPA = posteroanteriorASA = acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin)BID = bis in die, twice a dayPT = physical therapyTF = tibia-firstFCA = femoral coronal angleFSA = femoral sagittal angleTSA = tibial sagittal angleIM = intramedullaryOA = osteoarthritis.

A New Arthroscopic Classification for Chondrolabral Disease in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip.

BACKGROUND: Current classification systems for intra-articular pathology intraoperatively have been described for patients with femoroacetabular impingement rather than dysplasia. PURPOSE: To (1) describe intra-articular findings in dysplastic hips undergoing combined hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO); (2) propose a new chondrolabral classification system for dysplastic hips based on these findings; and (3) correlate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) with the newly proposed classification. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A total of 46 hips underwent combined hip arthroscopy and PAO at our institution between September 2013 and December 2014, irrespective of symptoms or radiographic findings. PROMs were evaluated preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively. At the time of hip arthroscopy, the chondrolabral junction was classified as normal without tear (1 hip, type 1); hypertrophic labrum without chondrolabral disruption (19 hips, type 2); chondrolabral disruption on the articular side, not extending into the capsular side (16 hips, type 3A); chondrolabral disruption extending through the capsular side (3 hips, type 3B); and exposed acetabular subchondral bone (7 hips, type 4). RESULTS: There was a significant difference in postoperative modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) (P = .020), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scores (P = .037), and WOMAC total scores (P = .049) between chondrolabral junction types. Post hoc analyses demonstrated significant differences between type 2 (84.9 ± 12.9) and type 3A (67.8 ± 20.7; P = .198), and between type 2 and type 4 (59.3 ± 24.3; P = .011) in postoperative mHHS scores; and between type 2 (83.9 ± 12.9) and type 3A (68.9 ± 23.7; P = .045) in postoperative WOMAC total scores. In multivariate analysis, chondrolabral type 3 or type 4, age >35 years, and previous surgery were significantly correlated with worse mHHS scores at 2 years. CONCLUSION: This new chondrolabral classification is proposed to describe intra-articular pathology seen during combined hip arthroscopy and PAO, specifically in dysplastic hips. More advanced chondrolabral disease was associated with worse PROMs at 2 years.

Combined Anteversion Technique for Total Hip Arthroplasty With Handheld Accelerometer-Based Navigation System.

Aiming for a combined cup and stem anteversion within a target range is one way to assess appropriate prosthetic component orientation and restoration of functional range of motion. We describe a surgical technique that allows the surgeon to assess the combined anteversion using a handheld accelerometer-based navigation system for total hip arthroplasty through a posterior approach. The femur is prepared first, at which time the femoral version is estimated by the surgeon. The acetabular component is then positioned using the navigation system to estimate anteversion, with the goal of providing a combined version of 37° ± 7°. The described technique allows surgeons to achieve the desired intraoperative combined anteversion. Level of evidence: IV (technical note).