Revision Hip Arthroplasty Performed by Fellowship-Trained Versus Non-Fellowship-Trained Surgeons: A Comparison of Perioperative Management and Complications.

INTRODUCTION: Successful revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) requires major resource allocation and a surgical team adept at managing these complex cases. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of rTHA performed by fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained surgeons. METHODS: A national administrative database was utilized to identify 5,880 patients who underwent aseptic rTHA and 1,622 patients who underwent head-liner exchange for infection by fellowship- and non-fellowship-trained surgeons from 2010 to 2020 with a 5-year follow-up. Postoperative opioid and anticoagulant prescriptions were compared among surgeons. Patients treated by fellowship- and non-fellowship-trained surgeons had propensity scores matched based on age, sex, comorbidity index, and diagnosis. The five-year surgical complications were compared using descriptive statistics. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine the odds of failure following head-liner exchange when performed by a fellowship-trained versus non-fellowship-trained surgeon. RESULTS: Aseptic rTHA patients treated by fellowship-trained surgeons received fewer opioids (132 versus 165 milligram morphine equivalents per patient) and non-aspirin anticoagulants (21.4 versus 32.0%, P < 0.001). Fellowship-training was associated with lower dislocation rates (9.9 versus 14.2%, P = 0.011), fewer postoperative infections, and fewer periprosthetic fractures and re-revisions (15.2 versus 21.3%, P < 0.001). Head-liner exchange for infection performed by fellowship-trained surgeons was associated with lower odds of failure (31.2 versus 45.7%, odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.91, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Revision THA performed by adult reconstruction fellowship-trained surgeons results in fewer re-revisions in aseptic cases and head-liner exchanges. Variations in resources, volumes, and perioperative protocols may account for some of the differences.

Three Differing Methods of Treating Intraoperative Nondisplaced Calcar Fractures Demonstrate Similar Radiographic Stem Subsidence.

BACKGROUND: Several management strategies have been described to treat intraoperative calcar fractures during total hip arthroplasty (THA), including retaining the primary implant and utilizing cerclage cables (CCs) or switching the implant to one that bypasses the fracture and achieves diaphyseal fixation. However, the radiographic and clinical outcomes of these differing strategies have never been described and compared. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 50 patients who sustained an intraoperative calcar fracture out of 9,129 primary total hip arthroplasties (0.55%) performed by one of three surgeons between 2008 and 2022. Each of the three surgeons consistently employed a distinct strategy for the management of these fractures: retention of the primary metaphyseal-engaging implant and placement of CCs; exchange to a modular, tapered-fluted stem (MTF); or exchange to a fully-coated, diaphyseal-engaging stem (FC). Stem subsidence was then evaluated on standing anteroposterior pelvis radiographs at three months and one year postoperatively. Postoperative medical and surgical complication rates were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of fifteen patients were treated with CC, 15 with MTF, and 20 with FC. At three-month follow-up, mean stem subsidence was 0.43 ± 0.08 mm, 1.47 ± 0.36 mm, and 0.68 ± 0.39 mm for CC, MTF, and FC cohorts, respectively (P = .323). At one-year, mean stem subsidence was 0.70 ± 0.08 mm, 1.74 ± 0.69 mm, and 1.88 ± 0.90 mm for the CC, MTF, and FC cohorts, respectively (P = .485). Medical complications included 2 venous thromboembolic events (4%) within 90 days of surgery. There were 6 reoperations (12%); 3 (6%) for acute periprosthetic joint infection (all within the FC cohort); 2 (4%) for postoperative periprosthetic fractures (one fracture distal to the stem in the FC cohort and one fracture at the level of the stem in the MTF cohort), and 1 (2%) closed reduction for instability (within the CC cohort). CONCLUSIONS: The three described methods of managing intraoperative nondisplaced calcar fractures demonstrated little radiographic stem subsidence; however, the risk of reoperation was much higher than expected.

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Ketamine is administered intraoperatively to treat pain associated with primary total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ketamine in primary THA and TKA to support the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS), American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), Hip Society, Knee Society, and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management (ASRA). METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for studies published prior to 2020 on ketamine in THA and TKA. All included studies underwent qualitative assessment and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of ketamine. After a critical appraisal of 136 publications, 7 high-quality studies were included for analyses. RESULTS: High-quality evidence demonstrates that intraoperative ketamine decreases postoperative opioid consumption. Four of 7 studies found that ketamine reduces postoperative pain. Intraoperative ketamine is not associated with an increase in adverse events and may reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk [RR] 0.68; 95% CI 0.50-0.92). CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence supports the use of ketamine intraoperatively in THA and TKA to reduce postoperative opioid consumption. Most studies found ketamine reduces postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. Moderate quality evidence supports the safety of ketamine, but it should be used cautiously in patients at risk for postoperative delirium, such as the elderly.

Recurrent Failures After 2-Stage Exchanges are Secondary to New Organisms Not Previously Covered by Antibiotics.

Background: Prior studies have shown that the majority of re-infections following two-stage revisions are due to organisms different from the initial organisms identified. It remains unknown whether these new organisms were susceptible to the antibiotics given (indicating the patient likely developed another infection following successful treatment) or not susceptible (indicating these organisms may have been initially present, but were not identified, and thus, inadequately treated). The purpose of this study was to determine if bacteria identified at time of re-infection following two-stage revisions were susceptible to the antibiotics administered during treatment of the index infection, in order to understand if these are new infections or from organisms that were present but not initially identified. Methods: Thirty failures (19 knees and 11 hips) following two-stage revisions from four institutions were identified. Cultures and antibiotic sensitivities were used to determine whether the re-infectious organisms were new and if they were susceptible to the antibiotics initially given. Results: Twenty-five (83.3%) re-infections were due to new organisms. Of these re-infections from new organisms, 16 (64.0%) were susceptible to the antibiotics previously administered, suggesting they were new infections rather than persistent infections from organisms that were not detected during initial treatment. No statistically significant differences in demographics or time to revision were observed when comparing by organism type (new vs. repeat) or by antibiotic susceptibility. Conclusions: Failures following two-stage revisions are frequently due to organisms different than those identified prior to two-stage revision and are likely new infections rather than persistent infections from undetected organisms.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Tibial Metaphyseal Cones in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of tibial cones in revision total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A Markov model was used for cost-effectiveness analysis. The average cone price was obtained from Orthopedic Network News. The average cone aseptic loosening rate was determined by literature review. Hospitalization costs and baseline re-revision rates were calculated using the PearlDiver Database. RESULTS: The maximum cost-effective cone price varied from $3514 at age 40 to $648 at age 90, compared to the current average selling price of $4201. Cones became cost-effective with baseline aseptic loosening rates of 0.89% annually at age 40 to 4.38% annually at age 90, compared to the current average baseline loosening rate of 0.76% annually. CONCLUSION: For the average patient, tibial cones are not cost-effective, but may become so at lower prices, in younger patients, or in patients at substantially increased risk of aseptic loosening.

Machine learning algorithms predict within one size of the final implant ultimately used in total knee arthroplasty with good-to-excellent accuracy.

PURPOSE: To develop a novel machine learning algorithm capable of predicting TKA implant sizes using a large, multicenter database. METHODS: A consecutive series of primary TKA patients from two independent large academic and three community medical centers between 2012 and 2020 was identified. The primary outcomes were final tibial and femoral implant sizes obtained from an automated inventory system. Five machine learning algorithms were trained using six routinely collected preoperative features (age, sex, height, weight, and body mass index). Algorithms were validated on an independent set of patients and evaluated through accuracy, mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean-squared error (RMSE). RESULTS: A total of 11,777 patients were included. The support vector machine (SVM) algorithm had the best performance for femoral component size(MAE = 0.73, RMSE = 1.06) with accuracies of 42.2%, 88.3%, and 97.6% for predicting exact size, ± one size, and ± two sizes, respectively. The elastic-net penalized linear regression (ENPLR) algorithm had the best performance for tibial component size (MAE 0.70, RMSE = 1.03) with accuracies of 43.8%, 90.0%, and 97.7% for predicting exact size, ± one size, and ± two sizes, respectively. CONCLUSION: Machine learning algorithms demonstrated good-to-excellent accuracy for predicting within one size of the final tibial and femoral components used for TKA. Patient height and sex were the most important factors for predicting femoral and tibial component size, respectively. External validation of these algorithms is imperative prior to use in clinical settings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case-control, III.

Trends of Femoral Neck Fracture Treatment Using Total Hip Arthroplasty: Reported From the American Joint Replacement Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) rather than hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fracture (FNF) is often chosen for younger patients who are more active and/or have underlying hip osteoarthritis. However, instability remains the primary concern of doing THA. Dual mobility (DM) has been shown to decrease this risk through a larger effective head size and greater head-to-neck ratio compared with conventional THA. The purpose of this study was to identify femoral head size and DM usage patterns for the treatment of FNF with THA in the United States using the American Joint Replacement Registry. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, including all primary THAs done for FNF from 2012 to 2019. THA and FNF were defined using Current Procedural Terminology or International Classification of Diseases-9 or -10 diagnosis and procedure codes. Analysis was based on patient demographics, femoral head size, and DM usage. Descriptive statistics were used using a Pearson chi-square test. All analyses were conducted using SAS version 9.4, and statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: There were 18,752 THAs done by 3,242 surgeons at 789 institutions during the 8-year study period. The overall population was 66% female, and the mean age was 72.3 ± 11.8 years. The most commonly used femoral head size was 36 mm (48.5%) followed by 32 mm (24.5%), ≤28 mm (10.7%), DM (10.8%), and ≥40 mm (5.7%). A trend was observed toward decreased use of ≤28, 32, and ≥40-mm heads starting in 2016 across the years and increased use of 36-mm heads (P < 0.0001). A significant increase was observed in the usage of DM over time from 6.4% in 2012 to 16.2% in 2019 (P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Most of the femoral heads used were ≥36 mm, and the use of DM increased during the study period. Additional analysis is warranted to understand how these trends will affect overall outcomes and postoperative dislocation rates.

Is American Joint Replacement Registry Data Representative of National Data? A Comparative Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) is the largest registry of total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) procedures performed in the United States. The purpose of this study was to examine whether AJRR data are representative of the national experience with hip and knee arthroplasty as represented in the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS). METHODS: All patients undergoing a THA or TKA procedure between 2012 to 2018 (AJRR) and 2012 to 2016 (NIS) were identified. Cohen d effect sizes were computed to ascertain the magnitude of differences in demographics, hospital volume (in 50 patient increments), and geographic characteristics between the AJRR and NIS databases. RESULTS: The study included (NIS: 2,316,345 versus AJRR: 557,684) primary THA and (NIS: 3,417,700 versus AJRR: 809,494) TKA procedures. The magnitude of distribution, as determined by the Cohen d effect size, showed that the proportions of AJRR and NIS patients were similar based on overall sex (THAs [d = 0.03] and TKAs [d = 0.02]) and age (THAs [d = 0.17] and TKAs [d = 0.12]). Similarly, only small differences (d = 0.34 or less) were identified between databases considering hospital volume and geography. The AJRR was underrepresented in Southern regions and hospitals with low procedure volume and overrepresented in Northern hospitals and those with larger volume. Both the NIS and the AJRR followed a similar overall trend, with most procedures performed at hospitals with <50 cases per year. DISCUSSION: Distributions across hospital volume, age, and geography were proportionally similar between the AJRR and NIS databases, supporting the generalizability of AJRR findings to the larger US cohort.

Conforming Polyethylene Inserts in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Beyond the Posterior-Stabilized and Cruciate-Retaining Debate.

Total knee arthroplasty continues to be one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide. However, considerable controversy exists regarding the optimal implant design. Total knee implants with both posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining designs have excellent long-term outcomes with inadequate data demonstrating superiority of either design. Recently, the popularity of total knee designs with more conforming polyethylene liners has increased. These polyethylene inserts prevent paradoxical anterior translation of the femur, without relying on a cam and post mechanism, and promote more physiologic native knee kinematics. This review summarizes the design rationale of several commercially available implants, discusses the kinematic data of several designs, and reviews the available clinical data.

The Impact of Race and Socioeconomic Status on Total Joint Arthroplasty Care.

BACKGROUND: Racial minorities and patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to undergo total joint arthroplasty (TJA) for degenerative joint disease (DJD). However, when these patients do present for care, little is known about the overall severity of DJD and surgical wait times. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of 407 patients (131 black and 276 white) who presented to an arthroplasty clinic and went on to receive TJA was established. Severity of osteoarthritis was assessed radiographically via Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade. Preoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) and Harris Hip Score (HHS) were used to measure joint pain and function. Multivariate regression modeling and analysis of covariance were used to examine racial and socioeconomic differences in KL grade, KSS, HHS, and time to surgery. RESULTS: Black patients presented with significantly greater KL scores than white patients (P = .046, odds ratio = 1.65, 95% confidence interval [1.01, 2.70]). In contrast, there were no statistically significant racial differences in the mean preoperative KSS (P = .61) or HHS (P = .69). Black patients were also found to wait, on average, 35% longer for TJA (P = .03, hazard ratio = 1.35, 95% confidence interval [1.04, 1.75]). Low income was associated with higher KL grade (P = .002), lower KSS (P = .07), and lower HHS (P = .001). CONCLUSION: Despite presenting with more advanced osteoarthritis, black patients reported similar levels of joint dysfunction and had longer surgical wait times when compared with white patients. Lower socioeconomic status was similarly associated with more severe DJD.

Clinical Outcomes in Isolated Tibial Revision With Cruciate Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Tibial component loosening is one of the most common modes of failure in contemporary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Limited literature is available on the outcomes of isolated tibial revision with retention of the cruciate retaining (CR) femoral component. The purpose of this study was to determine the results of isolated tibial revisions in CR TKA. METHODS: We identified 135 patients who underwent an isolated tibial revision after a primary CR TKA from our institutional registry between January 2007 and January 2017. The mean time between the primary and revision was 2.9 years (range 0.1-15.4). Revision with a press-fit stem was performed in 79 patients and 56 patients were revised with a fully cemented stem. Patients were evaluated at a minimum of two years using Knee Society Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score for Joint Replacement, and radiography. Implant survivorship was determined using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 5.1 years, there were six (4.4%) repeat revisions: three for periprosthetic infection (2.2%), two for instability (1.5%), and one for a fractured tibial stem (0.7%). The mean Knee Society Score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score for Joint Replacement increased from 51.6 and 56.1 preoperatively to 90.1 and 89.7 after surgery (P < .001). Survivorship free of repeat revision for any cause was 93.3% at 5 years, and aseptic revision survivorship was 95.8% at 5 years. No implants were radiographically loose. CONCLUSION: In patients with isolated tibial loosening and a well-fixed and well-positioned CR femoral component, isolated tibial revision provides excellent early to midterm implant survivorship and clinical outcomes with a low risk of instability and recurrent tibial loosening.

Randomized Trial of Static and Articulating Spacers for Treatment of the Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to compare perioperative and postoperative variables between static and articulating spacers for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) complicating total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Fifty-two patients undergoing resection arthroplasty as part of a 2-stage exchange for PJI at 3 centers were randomized to either a static (n = 23) or articulating spacer (n = 29). The primary endpoint was operative time of the second-stage reimplantation and power analysis determined that 22 patients per cohort were necessary to detect a 20-minute difference. Seven patients were lost to follow-up, 4 were never reimplanted, and one died before discharge after reimplantation. Forty patients were followed for a mean 3.2 years (range 2.0-7.1). RESULTS: There were no differences in operative time at second-stage reimplantation (143 minutes static vs 145 minutes articulating, P = .499). Length of hospital stay was longer in the static cohort after stage 1 (8.6 vs 5.4 days, P = .006) and stage 2 (6.3 vs 3.6 days, P < .001). Although it did not reach statistical significance with the numbers available for study, nearly twice as many patients in the static cohort were discharged to an extended care facility after stage 1 (65% vs 30%, P = .056). CONCLUSION: This randomized trial demonstrated that the outcomes of static and articulating spacers are similar in the treatment of THA PJI undergoing 2-stage exchange arthroplasty. The significantly longer length of hospital stay associated with the use of static spacers may have important economic implications for the health care system.

2020 Mark Coventry Award: Microorganism-directed oral antibiotics reduce the rate of failure due to further infection after two-stage revision hip or knee arthroplasty for chronic infection: a multicentre randomized controlled trial at a minimum of two years.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine if a three-month course of microorganism-directed oral antibiotics reduces the rate of failure due to further infection following two-stage revision for chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip and knee. METHODS: A total of 185 patients undergoing a two-stage revision in seven different centres were prospectively enrolled. Of these patients, 93 were randomized to receive microorganism-directed oral antibiotics for three months following reimplantation; 88 were randomized to receive no antibiotics, and four were withdrawn before randomization. Of the 181 randomized patients, 28 were lost to follow-up, six died before two years follow-up, and five with culture negative infections were excluded. The remaining 142 patients were followed for a mean of 3.3 years (2.0 to 7.6) with failure due to a further infection as the primary endpoint. Patients who were treated with antibiotics were also assessed for their adherence to the medication regime and for side effects to antibiotics. RESULTS: Nine of 72 patients (12.5%) who received antibiotics failed due to further infection compared with 20 of 70 patients (28.6%) who did not receive antibiotics (p = 0.012). Five patients (6.9%) in the treatment group experienced adverse effects related to the administered antibiotics severe enough to warrant discontinuation. CONCLUSION: This multicentre randomized controlled trial showed that a three-month course of microorganism-directed, oral antibiotics significantly reduced the rate of failure due to further infection following a two-stage revision of total hip or knee arthroplasty for chronic PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):3-9.

A Randomized Trial of Static and Articulating Spacers for the Treatment of Infection Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus whether the interim antibiotic spacer utilized in the 2-stage exchange arthroplasty should immobilize the joint or allow for motion. The purpose of this multicenter, randomized clinical trial was to compare static and articulating spacers as part of the 2-stage exchange arthroplasty for the treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection complicating total knee arthroplasty as defined with use of Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. METHODS: Sixty-eight patients undergoing 2-stage exchange arthroplasty were randomized to either a static (32 patients) or an articulating (36 patients) spacer. An a priori power analysis determined that 28 patients per group would be necessary to detect a 13° difference in range of motion between groups. Six patients were excluded after randomization, 6 died, and 7 were lost to follow-up before 2 years. RESULTS: Patients in the static group had a hospital length of stay that was 1 day greater than the articulating group after stage 1 (6.1 compared with 5.1 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3 to 6.9 days and 4.6 to 5.6 days, respectively; p = 0.032); no other differences were noted perioperatively. At a mean of 3.5 years (range, 2.0 to 6.4 years), 49 patients were available for evaluation. The mean motion arc was 113.0° (95% CI, 108.4° to 117.6°) in the articulating spacer group, compared with 100.2° (95% CI, 94.2° to 106.1°) in the static spacer group (p = 0.001). The mean Knee Society Score was higher in the articulating spacer cohort (79.4 compared with 69.8 points; 95% CI, 72.4 to 86.3 and 63.6 to 76.1, respectively; p = 0.043). Although not significantly different with the sample size studied, static spacers were associated with a greater need for an extensile exposure at the time of reimplantation (16.7% compared with 4.0%; 95% CI, 0.6% to 38.9% and 0.5% to 26.3%, respectively; p = 0.189) and a higher rate of reoperation (25.0% compared with 8.0%; 95% CI, 9.8% to 46.7% and 1.0% to 26.0%, respectively; p = 0.138). CONCLUSIONS: Articulating spacers provided significantly greater range of motion and higher Knee Society scores at a mean of 3.5 years. Static spacers were associated with a longer hospital stay following removal of the infected implant. When the soft-tissue envelope allows and if there is adequate osseous support, an articulating spacer is associated with improved outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Spacer Design Options and Consideration for Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

An articulating or nonarticulating antibiotic hip spacer can be placed following the first stage implant removal of a periprosthetic hip joint infection. Antibiotic spacers help fill in the dead space created at the time of resection and provide a high local concentration of antibiotics. Theoretical advantages of a static spacer include a higher elution of antibiotics because of the increased surface area, the ability to protect deficient bone in the proximal femur/acetabulum, and the ability to immobilize the periarticular soft tissues. Advantages of an articulating spacer include improved ambulation and easier motion for the patient, maintenance of soft tissue tension, and an easier surgical reconstruction at the time of the second stage. Additionally, an articulating antibiotic spacer may minimize the risk of dislocation following the second stage reconstruction. The choice of articulating or nonarticulating is currently one of surgeon preference yet it is advised that surgeons consider an articulating spacer for all patients except those with severe femoral/acetabular bone loss or deficient abductors.

Who Is Prescribing Opioids Preoperatively? A Survey of New Patients Presenting to Tertiary Care Adult Reconstruction Clinics.

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative opioid use is detrimental to outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasty. This study aims to identify the prevalence of preoperative opioid prescriptions and the specialty and practice setting of the prescriber, as well as the percentage of patients who do not report their opioid prescriptions and any variables associated with preoperative opioid prescriptions. METHODS: A total of 461 consecutive new patients evaluated for an arthritic hip or knee were retrospectively studied using institutional data from a tertiary-care, urban center at a university-affiliated private-practice and the state Prescription Monitoring Program to identify opioid prescriptions (including medication, number of pills and dosage, refills, prescriber specialty, and practice setting) within 6 months before their first appointment. Demographic data included age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, joint, laterality, diagnosis, Charlson Comorbidity Index, duration of symptoms, decision to have surgery, number of days from the first visit to surgery, smoking status, alcohol use, mental health diagnoses, preoperative outcome scores, nonopioid medications, and opioid medications. Patients were separated into opioid and nonopioid cohorts (opioid receivers were further subdivided into those who reported their opioid prescription and those who did not) for statistical analysis to analyze demographic differences using t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables, the Fisher exact test for categorical variables, and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: One hundred five patients (22.8%) received an opioid before the appointment. Fifty-two (11.3%) received schedule II or III opioids, 43 (9.3%) received tramadol, and 10 (2.2%) received both. Primary care physicians were the most common prescriber (59.5%, P < 0.001) followed by pain medicine specialists (11.3%) and orthopaedic surgeons (11.3%). More prescribers practiced in the community than academic setting (63.8% versus 36.2%, P < 0.001). Seventy-eight patients (74.3%) self-reported their opioid prescriptions, with the remaining 27 patients (25.7%; 14 schedule II or III opioids and 13 tramadol) identified only after query of the Prescription Monitoring Program. In regression analysis, higher body mass index, diagnosis other than osteoarthritis, and benzodiazepine use were associated with receiving opioids (P < 0.05), while antidepressant use decreased the likelihood of self-reporting opioid prescriptions (P = 0.044). DISCUSSION: A striking number of patients are being treated with opioids for hip and knee arthritis. Furthermore, many patients who have received opioids within 6 months do not report their prescriptions. Although primary care physicians prescribed most opioids for nonsurgical treatment of arthritis, a substantial percentage came from orthopaedic surgeons. Further education of physicians and patients on the ill effects of opioids when used for the nonsurgical treatment of hip and knee arthritis is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Periprosthetic Fractures of the Distal Femur: Is Open Reduction and Internal Fixation or Distal Femoral Replacement Superior?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) to distal femoral replacement (DFR) for treatment of displaced periprosthetic distal femur fractures. METHODS: We identified 72 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up following a displaced periprosthetic distal femur fracture: 50 were treated with ORIF and 22 with DFR. Outcomes were assessed with multivariate regression analysis and include Knee Society Scores (KSS), infection rates, revision incidence, and mortality. RESULTS: Patients treated with DFR had a higher Charlson comorbidity index (5.2 vs 3.8; P = .006). The mean postoperative KSS were similar between groups, but the Knee Society Functional Scores were higher in the ORIF group (P = .01). Six ORIF patients (12%) and 3 DFR patients (14%) underwent a revision surgery (P = .1). In the ORIF group, 3 revisions were associated with periprosthetic infection, and 3 revisions occurred for aseptic nonunion. In the DFR group, 1 infection was treated with irrigation and debridement, and 2 cases of patellar maltracking resulted in 1 liner exchange with soft tissue release and 1 femoral revision for malrotation. More patients in the ORIF group required repeat revisions, with twice as many total revisions (P < .001). Six ORIF patients and 7 DFR patients died within 2 years (P = .26). CONCLUSION: The Knee Society Functional Score favored ORIF, but the total incidence of revision was higher in the ORIF cohort. Given the high mortality and the substantial risk of reoperation in both groups, additional studies are needed regarding the prevention of and optimal treatment for patients with periprosthetic distal femur fractures.

Dilute Betadine Lavage Reduces the Risk of Acute Postoperative Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Aseptic Revision Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this randomized, controlled trial is to determine whether dilute betadine lavage compared to normal saline lavage reduces the rate of acute postoperative periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in aseptic revision total knee (TKA) and hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: A total of 478 patients undergoing aseptic revision TKA and THA were randomized to receive a 3-minute dilute betadine lavage (0.35%) or normal saline lavage before surgical wound closure. Fifteen patients were excluded following randomization (3.1%) and six were lost to follow-up (1.3%), leaving 457 patients available for study. Of them, 234 patients (153 knees, 81 hips) received normal saline lavage and 223 (144 knees, 79 hips) received dilute betadine lavage. The primary outcome was PJI within 90 days of surgery with a secondary assessment of 90-day wound complications. A priori power analysis determined that 285 patients per group were needed to detect a reduction in the rate of PJI from 5% to 1% with 80% power and alpha of 0.05. RESULTS: There were eight infections in the saline group and 1 in the betadine group (3.4% vs 0.4%, P = .038). There was no difference in wound complications between groups (1.3% vs 0%, P = .248). There were no differences in any baseline demographics or type of revision procedure between groups, suggesting appropriate randomization. CONCLUSION: Dilute betadine lavage before surgical wound closure in aseptic revision TKA and THA appears to be a simple, safe, and effective measure to reduce the risk of acute postoperative PJI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

Superior Survivorship for Posterior Stabilized Versus Constrained Condylar Articulations After Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective, Comparative Analysis at Short-Term Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: The decision to use a posterior stabilized (PS) or constrained condylar knee (CCK) articulation in revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) has traditionally been based on surgeon preference and knee stability. The purpose of this study is to compare various outcomes and survivorship in RTKA with PS or CCK articulations. METHODS: A retrospective comparative study of RTKA with CCK or PS articulations (PS = 106/CCK = 147) was performed with minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were patients with rotating hinged implants or non-CCK/PS constructs. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to determine whether implant articulation influenced (1) complications, (2) aseptic loosening, and (3) re-revision. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative implant survival were constructed with revision as the failure variable. RESULTS: PS articulation was an independent predictor of increased postoperative knee flexion (6.4°, P = .010) and the knee society functional score (10.0, P = .002). Survivorship was significantly reduced for CCK revision articulations when all-cause re-revision was the primary endpoint (P = .0003, log-rank test of equality). The primary reason for re-revision in the CCK cohort was a recurrent/persistent infection of the operative knee (N = 16, 37.2%), followed by aseptic loosening (N = 13, 30.2%). PS articulations conferred a lower likelihood of re-revision (odds ratio [OR] 0.3, P = .001), but articulation design was not associated with complications (OR 0.5, P = .123) or aseptic loosening (OR 2.6, P = .143). CONCLUSION: The PS articulation when used for appropriate indication conferred superior survivorship for the primary endpoint of all-cause re-revision and overall knee function when compared to the CCK articulation after RTKA. Implant articulation was not a predictor of aseptic loosening or complications.