Comparable Results of Single and Two-Stage Exchange for Select Periprosthetic Hip and Knee Infection.

INTRODUCTION: Although two-stage exchange has been the standard of care for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the United States, single-stage exchange is emerging as an option in select patients. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients undergoing single-stage and two-stage exchange using strict surgical indications. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 196 patients with diagnosed PJI undergoing revision total knee and hip arthroplasty from 2017 to 2021. Patients were excluded if they had PJI history, plastic surgery coverage, or extensive bone loss requiring endoprosthesis. We compared the number of patients PJI-free at 1-year follow-up using MusculoSkeletal Infection Society criteria and patients requiring re-revision between the single-stage and two-stage groups. RESULTS: In total, 126 patients met inclusion criteria. Of 61 knee patients (48.4%), 22 underwent single-stage (36%) and 39 underwent two-stage (63.9%). Of 65 hip patients (51.6%), 38 underwent single-stage (58.5%) and 27 underwent two-stage (41.5%). At a mean follow-up of 1.95 ± 0.88 years, a higher rate of knee patients were classified as having treatment success in the single-stage group (77.3% versus 69.2%, P = 0.501), however with comparable septic failure rates (18.1% single-stage versus 17.9% two-stage; P = 0.982). At a mean follow-up of 1.81 ± 0.9 years, a higher rate of hip patients were classified as having treatment success in the single-stage group (94.7% versus 81.5%, P = 0.089), and more patients had septic failures in the two-stage group (18.5% versus 5.3%; P = 0.089). No differences were observed in the microorganism profile. More total complications (P = 0.021) and mortalities were found in the single-stage knee cohort than in the two-stage cohort (22.7% versus 2.6%; P = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Single-stage arthroplasty is a viable alternative to standard two-stage exchange in patients with PJI without a history of infection and with no bone or soft-tissue compromise. Additional studies with longer term follow-up are needed to evaluate its efficacy.

Serum and Synovial Markers in the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infection of the Hip, Knee, and Shoulder: An Algorithmic Approach.

➤ No single test has demonstrated absolute accuracy for the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).➤ Physicians rely on a combination of serological tests, synovial markers, and clinical findings plus clinical judgment to help to guide preoperative decision-making.➤ Several organizations have proposed criteria for the diagnosis of hip or knee PJI on which we now rely.➤ Given that shoulder arthroplasty has only recently become popular, it is possible that a shoulder-specific definition of PJI will be introduced in the coming years.➤ Although a number of serum and synovial markers have demonstrated high accuracy for the diagnosis of PJI of the hip and knee, further research is needed in order to identify markers that may be more suitable for the diagnosis of shoulder PJI and for the potential development and identification of specific serological tests as screening tools for PJI.

AAHKS Surgical Techniques & Technologies Award: Inferior Screw Fixation Decreases Acetabular Component Failure Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Adjunctive screw fixation has been shown to be reliable in achieving acetabular component stability in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of inferior screw placement on acetabular component failure following revision THA. We hypothesized that inferior screw fixation would decrease acetabular failure rates. METHODS: We reviewed 250 patients who had Paprosky Type II or III defects who underwent acetabular revision between 2001 and 2021 across three institutions. Demographic factors, the number of screws, location of screw placement (superior versus inferior), use of augments and/or cup-cage constructs, Paprosky classification, and presence of discontinuity were documented. Multivariate regression was performed to identify the independent effect of inferior screw fixation on the primary outcome of aseptic rerevision of the acetabular component. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 53.4 months (range, 12 to 261), 16 patients (6.4%) required re-revision for acetabular loosening. There were 140 patients (56.0%) who had inferior screw fixation, all of whom did not have neurovascular complications during screw placement. Patients who had inferior screws had a lower rate of acetabular rerevision than those who only had superior screw fixation (2.1 versus 11.8%, P = .0030). Multivariate regression demonstrates that inferior screw fixation decreased the likelihood of rerevision for acetabular loosening when compared to superior screw fixation alone (odds ratio: 0.1, confidence interval: 0.03 to 0.5; P = .0071). No other risk factors were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Inferior screw fixation is a safe and reliable technique to reduce acetabular component failure following revision THA in cases of severe acetabular bone loss.

A Cautionary Tale: Malaligned Incentives in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Payment Model Reforms Threaten Promising Innovation and Access to Care.

Over the past several years, there have been notable changes and controversies involving Medicare reimbursement for total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We have seen the development and implementation of experimental bundled payment model pilot programs goals of improving quality and decreasing overall costs of care during the last decade. Many orthopaedic surgeons have embraced these programs and have demonstrated the ability to succeed in these new models by implementing strategies, such as preservice optimization, to shift care away from inpatient or postdischarge settings and reduce postoperative complications. However, these achievements have been met with continual reductions in surgeon reimbursement rates, lower bundle payment target pricings, modest increases in hospital reimbursement rates, and inappropriate valuations of THA and TKA Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. These challenges have led to an organized advocacy movement and spurred research involving the methods by which improvements have been made throughout the entire episode of arthroplasty care. Collectively, these efforts have recently led to a novel application of CPT codes recognized by payers to potentially capture presurgical optimization work. In this paper, we present an overview of contemporary payment models, summarize notable events involved in the review of THA and TKA CPT codes, review recent changes to THA and TKA reimbursement, and discuss future challenges faced by arthroplasty surgeons that threaten access to high-quality THA and TKA care.

Allograft or Synthetic Mesh Extensor Mechanism Reconstruction After TKA Carries a High Risk of Infection, Revision, and Extensor Lag.

BACKGROUND: Extensor mechanism disruption is a devastating complication after TKA. Extensor mechanism reconstruction can be performed using an allograft or synthetic mesh. Recent studies have disagreed about the durability of these reconstructions. Evaluating a larger series of reconstructions that use current popular techniques and principles provides information to guide patient and surgeon expectations while bringing to light the potential fate of patients who experience an infection postoperatively. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What was the 5-year survival free of repeat revision surgery or persistent extensor lag of more than 30° after allograft or synthetic mesh reconstruction of extensor mechanism disruptions after TKA, and did this differ between techniques? (2) What was the 5-year survival free of infection after allograft or mesh reconstruction, and what proportion of those patients experienced a secondary severe complication (arthrodesis or amputation)? METHODS: Between April 2008 and December 2020, 123 patients underwent extensor mechanism reconstruction after TKA at one center. Of those, 37% (45) were lost to follow-up before 2 years, had not been seen in the past 5 years, did not reach a study endpoint (repeat revision or extensor lag > 30°) before that time, or underwent primary repair and thus could not be analyzed, leaving 63% (78) for analysis here. During the study period, we considered extensor mechanism surgery when acute or chronic disruption of the patellar or quadriceps tendon was present or there was a fracture of the patella resulting in extensor lag. The decision to use either mesh or an allograft largely depended on surgeon experience and familiarity with either technique. We collected patient demographics, operative details (location of disruption and presence of a hinged prosthesis), subsequent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and postoperative SF-12 and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement, scores. We used Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis, with endpoints of extensor lag more than 30° or revision of the reconstruction and PJI. The mean follow-up duration was 5.3 ± 3.2 years. RESULTS: Survivorship free from revision or recurrent extensor lag was 54% (95% CI 44% to 66%) at 5 years. There was no difference between those undergoing reconstruction with allografts and those with mesh in terms of survivorship free from those endpoints at that timepoint (52% [95% CI 40% to 68%] versus 57% [95 CI% 41 to 78%]; p = 0.99). Survivorship free from PJI was 81% (95% CI 73% to 90%) at 2 years. There was no difference between those with allografts and those with mesh in terms of survivorship free from PJI at that timepoint (79% [95% CI 69% to 92%] versus 83% [95% CI 71% to 98%]; p = 0.75). Of the 17 patients who experienced PJI, four ultimately underwent arthrodesis and three more underwent transfemoral amputation. CONCLUSION: Allograft and synthetic mesh reconstructions commonly left patients with persistent limb dysfunction, while several patients had PJI and some underwent salvage procedures. Although improvements have been made with regard to treating extensor mechanism disruptions, patients and surgeons should be well aware of the potential adverse outcomes when determining management and use these findings to conduct risk-benefit analyses. There is a need for future studies to identify protocols that improve the durability of reconstructions and to determine whether interventions such as prolonged prophylactic antibiotic therapy have a role in minimizing the risk of PJI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

The Appropriateness of Preoperative Patient Reported Outcome Measures as an Indication for Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: While Medicare requires patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for many quality programs, some commercial insurers have begun requiring preoperative PROMs when determining patient eligibility for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Concerns exist these data may be used to deny THA to patients above a specific PROM score, but the optimal threshold is unknown. We aimed to evaluate outcomes following THA based on theoretical PROM thresholds. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 18,006 consecutive primary THA patients from 2016-2019. Hypothesized preoperative Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR) cutoffs of 40, 50, 60, and 70 points were used. Preoperative scores below each threshold were considered "approved" surgery. Preoperative scores above each threshold were considered "denied" surgery. In-hospital complications, 90-day readmissions, and discharge disposition were evaluated. HOOS-JR scores were collected preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement was calculated using previously validated anchor-based methods. RESULTS: Using preoperative HOOS-JR thresholds of 40, 50, 60, and 70 points, the percentage of patients who would have been denied surgery was 70.4%, 43.2%, 20.3%, and 8.3%, respectively. For these denied patients, 1-year MCID achievement was 75.9%, 69.0%, 59.1%, and 42.1%, respectively. In-hospital complication rates for approved patients were 3.3%, 3.0%, 2.8%, and 2.7%, while 90-day readmission rates were 5.1%, 4.4%, 4.2%, and 4.1%, respectively. Approved patients had higher MCID achievement (P < .001) but higher nonhome discharge (P = .01) and 90-day readmissions rates (P = .036) than denied patients. CONCLUSION: Most patients achieved MCID at all theoretical PROM thresholds with low complication and readmission rates. Setting preoperative PROM thresholds for THA eligibility did not guarantee clinically successful outcomes.

Poor Patient Compliance Limits the Attainability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Completion Thresholds for the Comprehensive Care for Joint Arthroplasty Model.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) links patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with hospital reimbursement in some value-based models for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). This study evaluates PROM reporting compliance and resource utilization using protocol-driven electronic collection of outcomes for commercial and CMS alternative payment models (APMs). METHODS: We analyzed a consecutive series of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from 2016 and 2019. Compliance rates were obtained for reporting hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement (HOOS-JR.), knee disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement (KOOS-JR.), and 12-item short form survey (SF-12) surveys preoperatively and postoperatively at 6-months, 1 year, and 2- years. Of 43,252 THA and TKA patients, 25,315 (58%) were Medicare-only. Direct supply and staff labor costs for PROM collection were obtained. Chi-square testing compared compliance rates between Medicare-only and all-arthroplasty groups. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) estimated resource utilization for PROM collection. RESULTS: In the Medicare-only cohort, preoperative HOOS-JR./KOOS-JR. compliance was 66.6%. Postoperative HOOS-JR./KOOS-JR. compliance was 29.9%, 46.1%, and 27.8% at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. Preoperative SF-12 compliance was 70%. Postoperative SF-12 compliance was 35.9%, 49.6%, and 33.4% at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. Medicare patients had lower PROM compliance than the overall cohort (P < .05) at all time points except preoperative KOOS-JR., HOOS-JR., and SF-12 in TKA patients. The estimated annual cost for PROM collection was $273,682 and the total cost for the entire study period was $986,369. CONCLUSION: Despite extensive experience with APMs and a total expenditure near $1,000,000, our center demonstrated low preoperative and postoperative PROM compliance rates. In order for practices to achieve satisfactory compliance, Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) compensation should be adjusted to reflect the costs associated with collecting these PROMs and CJR target compliance rates should be adjusted to reflect more attainable levels consistent with currently published literature.

Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Thresholds Should Not be Used for Indicating Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: While Medicare requires patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for many quality programs, some commercial insurers are requiring preoperative PROMs when determining eligibility for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Concerns exist that these data may be used to deny TKA to patients above a specific PROM score, but the optimal threshold is unknown. We aimed to evaluate TKA outcomes based on theoretical PROM thresholds. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 25,246 consecutive primary TKA patients from 2016 to 2019. Hypothesized preoperative knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement cutoffs of 40, 50, 60, and 70 points were used. Preoperative scores below each threshold were considered "approved" surgery. Preoperative scores above each threshold were considered "denied" surgery. In-hospital complications, 90-day readmissions, and discharge disposition were evaluated. One-year minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement was calculated using previously validated anchor-based methods. RESULTS: For "denied" patients below thresholds 40, 50, 60, and 70 points, 1-year MCID achievement was 88.3%, 85.9%, 79.6%, and 77%, respectively. In-hospital complication rates for approved patients were 2.2%, 2.3%, 2.1%, and 2.1%, while 90-day readmission rates were 4.6%, 4.5%, 4.3%, and 4.3%, respectively. Approved patients had higher MCID achievement rates (P < .001) for all thresholds but higher nonhome discharge rates than denied patients for thresholds 40 (P < .001), 50 (P = .002), and 60 (P = .024). Approved and denied patients had similar in-hospital complication and 90-day readmission rates. CONCLUSION: Most patients achieved MCID at all theoretical PROMs thresholds with low complication and readmission rates. Setting preoperative PROM thresholds for TKA eligibility can help optimize patient improvement, but such a policy can create access to care barriers for some patients who would otherwise benefit from a TKA.

Determinants of High Facility Costs in Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients: A Time-driven Activity-based Costing Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Although several studies identify risk factors for high-cost patients in an episode of care for total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA), few have looked at cost outliers from a facility perspective. The purpose of this study was to use time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to identify characteristics of high-cost patients. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of primary THA and TKA patients by 22 different surgeons at two hospitals between 2015 and 2020. Facility costs were calculated using a TDABC algorithm for their entire hospital stay. Patients in the top decile of costs were considered to be high-cost patients. Multivariate regression was done to identify independent patient factors that predicted high costs. RESULTS: Of the 8,647 patients we identified, 60.5% underwent THA and 39.5% underwent TKA. Implant purchase price accounted for 49.5% of total inpatient costs (mean $2,880), followed by intraoperative (15.9%, mean $925) and postoperative personnel costs (16.8%, mean $980). Implant price demonstrated the highest variation between high-cost and low-cost groups (4.4 times). Patient-related factors associated with high costs were female sex (OR = 1.332), Hispanic ethnicity (OR = 1.409), American Society of Anesthesiology score (OR = 1.658), need for transfusion (OR = 2.008), and lower preoperative HOOS/KOOS Jr (OR = 1.009). CONCLUSION: This study identifies several variables for patients at risk to have high facility costs after primary THA and TKA. From the hospital's perspective, efforts to reduce implant purchase prices may translate into substantial cost savings. At the patient level, multidisciplinary initiatives to optimize medical comorbidities, decrease transfusion risk, and control medication expenses in high-risk patients may narrow the existing variation in costs.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Octogenarians Compared with Septuagenarians: Is There a Real Difference?

BACKGROUND: The increasing frequency of total hip arthroplasty (THA) as well as an aging population indicate that the need for revision THA will continue to grow, especially in older and potentially medically complex patients. The purpose of this study was to compare THA revision indications, perioperative complications, and readmissions between octogenarian and septuagenarian patients. We hypothesized that patients aged 80 to 89 years would have similar outcomes to patients aged 70 to 79 years undergoing revision THA. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2019, 572 revision THAs were performed at a single tertiary care hospital. Patients were stratified by age group: 70 to 79 years (n = 407) and 80 to 89 years (n = 165). Indication for revision, perioperative medical complications, and 90-day readmission were identified for each patient. Chi-square tests and t-tests were used to compare the groups. Logistic regression was used to assess medical complications and readmissions. RESULTS: Aseptic loosening was a more common indication for revision in patients aged 70 to 79 years (33.4% versus 26.7%; p < 0.001), while periprosthetic fracture was a more common indication for revision in those aged 80 to 89 years (30.9% versus 13.0%). Perioperative medical complications occurred more often in octogenarians (10.9% versus 3.0%; p = 0.001), with arrythmia being the most common type. Patients aged 80 to 89 years were at increased risk for medical complications (odds ratio [OR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 7.3; p = 0.004) and readmission (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 6.3; p < 0.001) when adjusting for body mass index (BMI) and indication for revision. Octogenarians had a higher rate of reoperation following first-time revision than septuagenarians (10.3% versus 4.2%, p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Octogenarians more commonly underwent revision THA for periprosthetic fracture and had higher rates of perioperative medical complications, 90-day readmissions, and reoperations than septuagenarians. Such findings should be considered when counseling patients on both primary and revision THAs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comparing Risk Assessment Between Payers and Providers: Inconsistent Agreement in Medical Comorbidity Records for Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The proper risk adjustment for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) relies on an accurate assessment of comorbidity profiles by both the payer and the institution. The purpose of this study was to determine how strongly comorbidities tracked by our institution agreed with the same comorbidities reported by payers in patients undergoing THA and TKA. METHODS: All patients of a single payer undergoing primary THA and TKA at a single institution between January 5, 2021 and March 31, 2022 were included (n = 876). There were 8 commonly collected medical comorbidities obtained from institutional medical records and matched with patient records reported by the payer. Fleiss Kappa tests were used to determine agreement of payer data with institutional records. There were 4 medical risk calculations collected from our institutional records and compared with an insurance member risk score reported by the payer. RESULTS: Comorbidities reported by the institution differed significantly from those reported by payers, with Kappa varying between 0.139 and 0.791 for THA, and 0.062 and 0.768 for TKA. Diabetes was the only condition to demonstrate strong agreement for both procedures (THA; k = 0.791, TKA; k = 0.768). The insurance member risk score demonstrates the closest association with total cost and surplus for THA regardless of insurance type and for TKA procedures paid for with private commercial insurance. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of agreement between medical comorbidities within payer and institutional records for both THA and TKA. These differences may put institutions at a disadvantage within value-based care models and when optimizing patients perioperatively.

Dual-Mobility versus Large Femoral Heads in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Interim Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: This multicenter randomized controlled trial evaluated if dual-mobility bearings (DM) lower the risk of dislocation compared to large femoral heads (≥36 mm) for patients undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) via a posterior approach. METHODS: A total of 146 patients were randomized to a DM (n = 76; 46 mm median effective head size, range 36 to 59 mm) or a large femoral head (n = 70; twenty-five 36 mm heads [35.7%], forty-one 40 mm heads [58.6%], and four 44 mm heads [5.7%]). There were 71 single-component revisions (48.6%), 39 both-component revisions (26.7%), 24 reimplantations of THA after 2-stage revision (16.4%), seven isolated head and liner exchanges (4.8%), four conversions of hemiarthroplasty (2.7%), and 1 revision of a hip resurfacing (0.7%). Power analysis determined that 161 patients were required in each group to lower the dislocation rate from 8.4 to 2.2% (power = 0.8, alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: At a mean of 18.2 months (range, 1.4 to 48.2), there were three dislocations in the large femoral head group compared to two in the DM cohort (4.3 versus 2.6%; P = .67). One patient in the large head group and none in the DM group were successfully treated with closed reduction without subsequent revision. CONCLUSION: Interim analysis of this randomized controlled trial found no difference in the risk of dislocation between DM and large femoral heads in revision THA, although the rate of dislocation was lower than anticipated and continued follow-up is needed.

Outpatient Total Knee Arthroplasty Shows Decreasing Complication Burden From 2010 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: The number of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) performed on an outpatient basis continues to increase. The purpose of this study was to compare complication rates over the last decade to evaluate trends in the safety of outpatient TKA. METHODS: Patients who underwent TKA from 2010 to 2020 from a large administrative claims database were retrospectively identified and stratified based on the year of surgery. Propensity-score matching was performed to match patients who were discharged within 24 hours of surgery to inpatients based on age, sex, comorbidity index, and year of surgery. Linear regression analyses were used to compare trends from 2010 to 2020. The 90-day adverse events in the early cohort (2010-2012) were compared to those in the late cohort (2018-2020) using multivariable regression analyses. Of the 547,137 patients in the sample, 28,951 outpatients (5.3%) were propensity matched to inpatients. RESULTS: The incidence of outpatient TKA increased from 2010 to 2018 (1.9 versus 13.8%, P < .001). Despite a similar complication rate early (24.1 versus 22.6%, P = .164), outpatient TKA had fewer complications at the end of the study period (13.7 versus 16.7%, P < .001). Multivariate analyses demonstrated that the risk of any complication after outpatient TKA was lower than inpatient from 2018 to 2020 (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Complications in both cohorts declined dramatically suggesting improvements in quality of care over time, with the greatest decline in patients undergoing outpatient surgery. These results suggest that outpatient TKA today is not higher risk for the patient than inpatient TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.