Dysplastic Hips Have Decreased Iliofemoral Ligament Thickness on Coronal Sequences in Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

PURPOSE: To characterize hip capsule thickness on advanced imaging in patients with and without hip dysplasia and to also evaluate differences in capsular thickness between borderline and true dysplastic patients. METHODS: Patients evaluated by the senior author for concerns of hip pathology from June 2020 to June 2021 were queried and images reviewed to determine dysplasia status by lateral center edge angle (LCEA) ≤ 25 degrees. A group of non-dysplastic patients was identified and matched for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Hip capsular thickness was quantified using MRI. A sub-analysis was conducted to compare true dysplastic patients (LCEA < 20°) to borderline dysplastic patients (LCEAs between 20 - 25°). Analysis included independent samples t-tests, Chi-square tests, and multivariable regression. RESULTS: Eighty total patients were included, with a mean age of 31.8 ± 11.7 years, a mean BMI of 26.6 ± 6.5 points, and 70% (56) female patients. Dysplastic patients had a mean LCEA of 19.8 ± 4.3 degrees. Dysplastic individuals had decreased capsular thickness compared to their non-dysplastic controls (2.75 ± 0.96 vs 3.52 ± 1.22 mm, p = 0.003). Multivariable regression showed decreased capsular thickness associated with decreased LCEAs (ß = 2.804, R = 0.432, p<0.001) and dysplasia (ß = -0.709, R2 = 0.056, p = 0.004). Results of a sub-analysis of the dysplastic group examining differences between accepted definitions of borderline dysplasia and true dysplasia showed no significant differences in capsular thickness between the two groups (p = 0.379). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with hip dysplasia were found to have thinner iliofemoral ligaments in the coronal plane on magnetic resonance imaging on magnetic resonance imaging. Further investigation is needed to evaluate any potential implications with hip instability given the thinner hip capsule demonstrated in this study.

Similar Efficacy and Lower Cost Associated With Ceftazidime Compared to Tobramycin Coupled With Vancomycin in Antibiotic Spacers in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: Vancomycin and tobramycin have traditionally been used in antibiotic spacers. In 2020, our institution replaced tobramycin with ceftazidime. We hypothesized that the use of ceftazidime/vancomycin (CV) in antibiotic spacers would not lead to an increase in treatment failure compared to tobramycin/vancomycin (TV). METHODS: From 2014 to 2022, we identified 243 patients who underwent a stage I revision for periprosthetic joint infection. The primary outcome was a recurrent infection requiring antibiotic spacer exchange. We were adequately powered to detect a 10% difference in recurrent infection. Patients who had a prior failed stage I or two-stage revision for infection, acute kidney injury prior to surgery, or end-stage renal disease were excluded. Given no other changes to our spacer constructs, we estimated cost differences attributable to the antibiotic change. Chi-square and t-tests were used to compare the two groups. Multivariable logistic regressions were utilized for the outcomes. RESULTS: The combination of TV was used in 127 patients; CV was used in 116 patients. Within one year of stage I, 9.8% of the TV group had a recurrence of infection versus 7.8% of the CV group (P = .60). By final follow-up, results were similar (12.6 versus 8.6%, respectively, P = .32). Adjusting for potential risk factors did not alter the results. Cost savings for ceftazidime versus tobramycin are estimated to be $68,550 per one hundred patients treated. CONCLUSIONS: Replacing tobramycin with ceftazidime in antibiotic spacers yielded similar periprosthetic joint infection eradication success at a lower cost. While larger studies are warranted to confirm these efficacy and cost-saving results, our data justifies the continued investigation and use of ceftazidime as an alternative to tobramycin in antibiotic spacers.

Hydrogen Peroxide May Reduce the Risk for Revision Surgery and Infection in Primary Shoulder Arthroplasty: Two-year Follow-up From a Prospective, Blinded, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the addition of hydrogen peroxide to the preoperative skin preparation for primary total shoulder arthroplasty is associated with a difference in patient-reported outcomes, risk for postoperative infection, and risk for revision surgery at a minimum of 2-year follow-up. METHODS: This was a prospective, blinded, and controlled trial, which included a consecutive series of patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty. The control group underwent standard sterile skin preparation using ethyl alcohol and ChloraPrep applicators, and the peroxide group had the same preparation with the addition of hydrogen peroxide between the alcohol and ChloraPrep applications. We then compared patient-reported outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score [ASES], simple shoulder test [SST], visual analog scale [VAS]), infections, and revision surgeries between the two groups at 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 61 patients included in the original study, 52 of 58 (85%) living patients agreed to participate in this study. No preoperative differences were observed between groups. No difference was observed in ASES, SST, or VAS scores at 2 years. More revision surgeries were done in the control group (7 versus 2, P = 0.268) and Cutibacterium acnes infections (2 versus 0, P = 0.168). CONCLUSION: The addition of hydrogen peroxide to the preoperative skin preparation before primary shoulder arthroplasty is safe, and additional research is warranted to investigate whether it may decrease the risk for revision surgery and postoperative C acnes infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.