Acetabular Distraction Technique: A Multicenter Study With a Minimum 2-Year Radiographic Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic discontinuity is a challenge during revision total hip arthroplasty due to the loss of structural continuity of the superior and inferior aspects of the acetabulum from severe acetabular bone loss. Acetabular distraction provides an alternative surgical treatment by stabilizing the acetabular component through elastic recoil of the pelvis, which may be supplemented with modular porous augments for addressing major acetabular defects. This study reports 2-year radiographic findings following acetabular distraction for the treatment of chronic pelvic discontinuity. METHODS: Patients undergoing acetabular distraction performed by 5 surgeons from 2002 to 2021 were identified across 5 institutions. Demographic, surgical, and postoperative outcomes, including radiographic component stability, were recorded. There were 53 of 91 (58.2%) patients (5 deceased, 33 lost to follow-up) consisting of 4 Paprosky IIC (7.5%), 8 Paprosky IIIA (15.1%), and 41 Paprosky IIIB (77.4%) defects included, with a mean follow-up time of 4.8 years (range, 2 to 13.5). Modular porous augments were used in 33 (62.3%) cases. Failure was defined as a subsequent revision of the acetabular construct. RESULTS: Among the 13 (24.5%) patients who returned to the operating room, 6 (46.2%) had a prior history of revision total hip arthroplasty before undergoing acetabular distraction. Only 5 (9.4%) patients underwent acetabular revision following acetabular distraction, leading to an overall cup survivorship of 90.6%. Of the remaining 48 patients, 46 (95.8%) had evidence of radiographic bridging callus of the chronic pelvic discontinuity at their last clinical follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, in the largest series to date, acetabular distraction has proven to be a viable treatment for acetabular bone loss with a chronic pelvic discontinuity, with excellent early survivorship and radiographic evidence of bridging callus. Future studies with longer follow-ups are needed to further monitor the efficacy of this technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

Acetabular Distraction: Promising 5-Year Outcomes for the Treatment of Chronic Pelvic Discontinuity.

BACKGROUND: Severe acetabular bone loss encountered during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) poses a clinical challenge. In cases involving pelvic discontinuity, where the ilium is separated superiorly from the inferior ischiopubic segment through the acetabulum, acetabular distraction may be used to restore the biomechanics of the hemipelvis. This technique allows for correct sizing of the acetabulum, and the subsequent peripheral distraction and medial compression at the discontinuity provide initial mechanical stability and biological fixation as bone in growth occurs. Accordingly, this study aimed to assess long-term 5-year outcomes following acetabular distraction across 2 institutions. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent revision THA in which the acetabular distraction technique was performed for the treatment of chronic pelvic discontinuity between 2002 and 2018. Demographic, operative, and clinical postoperative data were collected. Clinical endpoints included postoperative radiographic outcomes, complications requiring additional surgery, and reoperation for all causes. Only patients who had a minimum 5-year follow-up were included in this study. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients (Paprosky IIC: one patient, 6.7%; Paprosky IIIA: 5 patients, 33.3%; Paprosky IIIB: 9 patients, 60%) who had a mean follow-up time of 9 years (range, 5.1 to 13.5) were analyzed. Porous tantalum augments were used in 11 (73.3%) cases to primarily address posteriorsuperior defects (100%). There were 4 (26.7%) patients that required reoperation, only 2 of which were for indications related to the acetabular construct, leading to an overall survivorship of 86.7%. Both patients had a prior revision THA before the implementation of the distraction technique. Evidence of bridging callus formation was reported radiographically for 14 (93.3%) patients at the time of the last clinical follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: For patients who have chronic pelvic discontinuity, acetabular distraction shows promising long-term outcomes. Even so, larger multi-center studies are needed to better support the efficacy of this technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Time to Achieve the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Comparison of Anterior and Posterior Surgical Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Controversy remains over outcomes between total hip arthroplasty approaches. This study aimed to compare the time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-Physical for patients who underwent anterior and posterior surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Patients from 2018 to 2021 with preoperative and postoperative HOOS-PS or PROMIS Global-Physical questionnaires were grouped by approach. Demographic and MCID achievement rates were compared, and survival curves with and without interval-censoring were used to assess the time to achieve the MCID by approach. Log-rank and weighted log-rank tests were used to compare groups, and Weibull regression analyses were performed to assess potential covariates. RESULTS: A total of 2,725 patients (1,054 anterior and 1,671 posterior) were analyzed. There were no significant differences in median MCID achievement times for either the HOOS-PS (anterior: 5.9 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6 to 6.4; posterior: 4.4 months, 95% CI: 4.1 to 5.1, P = .65) or the PROMIS Global-Physical (anterior: 4.2 months, 95% CI: 3.5 to 5.3; posterior: 3.5 months, 95% CI: 3.4 to 3.8, P = .08) between approaches. Interval-censoring revealed earlier times of achieving the MCID for both the HOOS-PS (anterior: 1.509 to 1.511 months; posterior: 1.7 to 2.3 months, P = .87) and the PROMIS Global-Physical (anterior: 3.0 to 3.1 weeks; posterior: 2.7 to 3.3 weeks, P = .18) for both surgical approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The time to achieve the MCID did not differ by surgical approach. Most patients will achieve clinically meaningful improvements in physical function much earlier than previously believed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

Does the Primary Surgical Approach Matter When Choosing the Approach for Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Multiple surgical approaches are used for primary total hip arthroplasty (pTHA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). This study sought to investigate prevalence of discordance of pTHA and rTHA surgical approaches and to evaluate how approach concordance impacts postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent rTHA from 2000 to 2021 was conducted at 3 large urban academic centers. Patients who had minimum 1-year follow-up post-rTHA were included and grouped based on whether they received pTHA via a posterior (PA), direct anterior (DA), or laterally based (DL) approach, and by concordance of index rTHA approach with their pTHA approach. Of the 917 patients studied, 839 (91.5%) were included in the concordant cohort and 78 (8.5%) in the discordant cohort. Patient demographics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Discordance was most prevalent in the DA-pTHA subset (29.5%), compared to the DL-pTHA subset (14.7%) or PA-pTHA subset (3.7%). Discordance varied significantly between primary approaches among all revisions, with DA-pTHA patients having the highest discordance rate for patients revised for aseptic loosening (46.3%, P < .001), fracture (22.2%, P < .001), and dislocation (33.3%, P < .001). There were no differences between groups in dislocation rate, re-revision for infection, or re-revision for fracture. CONCLUSION: The results of this multicenter study showed patients who received pTHA via the DA were more likely to receive rTHA via a discordant approach compared to other primary approaches. Since approach concordance did not impact dislocation, infection, or fracture rates after rTHA, surgeons can feel reassured using a separate approach for rTHA. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort Study.

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.

Diagnostic Test Performances for Identifying Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Hip Hemiarthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of hip hemiarthroplasty (HHA) that is not well-represented in the literature. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate diagnostic markers for identifying PJI in patients after HHA and compare them with the most recent 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Musculoskeletal Infection criteria. METHODS: A total of 98 patients (64 PJIs, 65.3%) were analyzed. Patients were identified by relevant Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases-9/10 codes from 2000 to 2021 across a single healthcare system. Preoperative or intraoperative synovial fluid nucleated cell (NC) count, synovial polymorphonuclear (PMN) percentage, serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and serum white blood cell count were compared with Student t -test between aseptic and septic cohorts. Diagnostic utility and laboratory cutoff values were determined using receiver-operating characteristic curves and Youden index, respectively. RESULTS: Mean values were significantly higher in the septic cohort for synovial NC count (120,992.2 versus 1,498.0 cells/µL, P < 0.001), synovial PMN percentage (91.3% versus 56.2%, P < 0.001), serum ESR (75.6 versus 36.3 mm/hr, P < 0.001), serum CRP (20.2 versus 125.8 mg/L, P < 0.001), and serum white blood cell count (8.5 versus 11.5 cells/µL, P < 0.001). Synovial NC count, synovial PMN percentage, and serum CRP had excellent PJI discriminatory ability with an area under the curve of 0.99, 0.90, and 0.93, respectively. Optimal cutoffs were 2,700 cells/µL for synovial NC count (100% sensitivity and 94% specificity), 81.0% for synovial PMN percentage (96% sensitivity and 89% specificity), 52.0 mm/hr for serum ESR (75% sensitivity and 80% specificity), and 40.0 mg/L for serum CRP (85% sensitivity and 92% specificity). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the continued use of routine serum and synovial fluid tests for diagnosing PJI in HHA patients. Optimal cutoff values for both synovial fluid biomarkers were very close in alignment with the 2018 International Consensus Meeting criteria. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Mental Health Effects on the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of mental health on patient-reported outcome measures is not fully understood in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Thus, we investigated the relationship between mental health diagnoses (MHDs) and the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Improvement (MCID-I) and Worsening (MCID-W) in primary TJA and revision TJA (rTJA). METHODS: Retrospective data were collected using relevant Current Procedural Terminology and MHDs International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, codes with completed Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form, Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Physical Function Short Form 10a, PROMIS Global-Mental, or PROMIS Global-Physical questionnaires. Logistic regressions and statistical analyses were used to determine the effect of a MHD on MCID-I/MCID-W rates. RESULTS: Data included 4,562 patients (4,190 primary TJAs/372 rTJAs). In primary total hip arthroplasty (pTHA), MHD-affected outcomes for Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (MCID-I: 81% versus 86%, P = 0.007; MCID-W: 6.0% versus 3.2%, P = 0.008), Physical Function Short Form 10a (MCID-I: 68% versus 77%, P < 0.001), PROMIS Global-Mental (MCID-I: 38% versus 44%, P = 0.009), and PROMIS Global-Physical (MCID-I: 61% versus 73%, P < 0.001; MCID-W: 14% versus 7.9%, P < 0.001) versus pTHA patients without MHD. A MHD led to lower rates of MCID-I for PROMIS Global-Physical (MCID-I: 56% versus 63%, P = 0.003) in primary total knee arthroplasty patients. No effects from a MHD were observed in rTJA patients. DISCUSSION: The presence of a MHD had a prominent negative influence on pTHA patients. Patients who underwent rTJA had lower MCID-I rates, higher MCID-W rates, and lower patient-reported outcome measure scores despite less influence from a MHD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.