Arthroscopic Versus Open Treatment of Septic Wrist Arthritis: National Trends in Usage and Impact on Length of Stay, Reoperation, Postoperative Readmissions, and Complications.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to use a national claims database to analyze trends in the usage of arthroscopic versus open irrigation and debridement of septic wrist arthritis and compare complication rates, readmission rates, and reoperation rates between the 2 treatment modalities. Methods: The PearlDiver database was used to identify patients in the United States who underwent open or arthroscopic debridement for suspected septic wrist arthritis from 2010 to 2017. Data on patient demographics and comorbidities were obtained. Pearson's chi-square tests were performed to compare the treatment modality to demographic data and the year of diagnosis. Univariate logistic regressions were used to measure differences in 90-day hospital readmission rates, 90-day complication rates, and 1-year reoperation rates. Results: The database captured 1,145 patients who received treatment for septic arthritis of the wrist during this period. Among these, 212 (18.5%) patients underwent arthroscopic debridement and 933 (81.5%) patients underwent open debridement. Open management was more common in all ages; however, arthroscopic debridement was used more frequently in younger age groups. The proportion of open cases per year seemed to increase over the study period. In limited comparisons, no significant differences were observed in 90-day hospital readmission rates, 90-day complication rates, and 1-year reoperation rates. Conclusions: Open irrigation and debridement was the preferred method for treatment of septic wrist arthritis in all age groups and time points in this study. No univariate differences were found between rates of readmission, complications, and reoperations between arthroscopic and open treatment modalities; however, more robust data and analyses are needed to better understand the differences between these approaches, especially across different patient groups. Level of evidence: Prognostic IV.

Revision of Flexor Tendon Repair: Factors Associated With Flexor Tenolysis.

BACKGROUND: Tenolysis restores mobility to the flexor tendon through the lysis of adhesions that inhibit and negatively impact functional outcomes following flexor tendon repair. Despite extensive literature on operative techniques and therapy protocols used to minimize adhesion formation, there are limited data examining the association of patient, injury, and postoperative factors with tenolysis. This study aims to: (1) quantify tenolysis rates following flexor tendon repair or reconstruction; and (2) identify patient demographic factors, medical comorbidities, injury characteristics, postoperative diagnoses, and complications associated with tenolysis. METHODS: PearlDiver was used to identify patients who underwent a flexor tendon repair or reconstruction from 2010 to 2020. Patients were stratified by whether or not flexor tenolysis was performed. Patient demographics, comorbidities, injury characteristics, postoperative diagnoses, and complications were recorded. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors associated with tenolysis. RESULTS: Database review identified 10 264 patients who underwent either flexor tendon repair or reconstruction, with 612 patients (6.0%) subsequently undergoing tenolysis. Logistic regression analysis determined that vascular injury preceding flexor tendon repair, surgical wound disruption, nerve injury diagnosed postoperatively, postoperative tendon rupture, and need for repeat flexor tendon repair were associated with an increased odds of tenolysis. Patient age, sex, and comorbidities were not associated with performance of tenolysis. CONCLUSIONS: Although tenolysis rates may differ according to physician and patient preferences, identification of factors associated with tenolysis following flexor tendon repair allows surgeons to risk-stratify patients prior to surgery and help guide postoperative expectations if complications arise.

Traumatic Osteonecrosis of the Distal Ulna.

A 46-year-old male was referred to our clinic for persistent ulnar-sided wrist pain 9 weeks after sustaining a traumatic injury while playing volleyball. The patient unsuccessfully underwent nonoperative management for a suspected injury to the triangular fibrocartilage complex. After magnetic resonance imaging revealed a lesion of the distal ulna, he was treated with diagnostic wrist arthroscopy and Bowers hemiresection. The diagnosis of osteonecrosis was confirmed through histology. While traumatic osteonecrosis of the carpal bones has been described, no previous literature was found on traumatic osteonecrosis of the distal ulna. Treatment with diagnostic wrist arthroscopy and Bowers hemiresection resulted in an excellent outcome at 12 months after surgery.

Emergency Department Visits in the Year Prior to Total Shoulder Arthroplasty as a Risk Factor for Postoperative Emergency Department Visits.

Background: Recent research has found a high rate of emergency department (ED) use after lower extremity arthroplasty; one study found a risk factor for ED presentation after lower extremity arthroplasty was presentation to the ED in the year prior to surgery. It is not known whether a similar association exists for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Questions/Purposes: The goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between preoperative ED visits and postoperative ED visits after anatomic TSA. Methods: The 100% Medicare database was queried for patients who underwent anatomic TSA from 2005 to 2014. Emergency department visits within the year prior to the date of TSA were identified. Patients were additionally stratified by the number and timing of preoperative ED visits. The primary outcome measure was one or more postoperative ED visits within 90 days. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to control for patient demographics and comorbidities. Results: Of the 144,338 patients identified, 32,948 (22.8%) had an ED visit in the year prior to surgery. Patients with at least 1 ED visit in the year before surgery presented to the ED at a significantly higher rate than patients without preoperative ED visits (16% versus 6%). An ED visit in the year prior to TSA was the most significant risk factor for postoperative ED visits (in the multivariate analysis). The number of preoperative ED visits in the year prior to surgery demonstrated a significant dose-response relationship with increasing risk of postoperative ED visits. Conclusions: Postoperative ED visits occurred in nearly 10% of Medicare patients who underwent TSA in the period studied. More frequent presentation to the ED in the year prior to anatomic TSA was associated with increasing risk of postoperative ED visits. Future studies are needed to investigate the reasons for preoperative ED visits and if any modifiable risk factors are present to improve the ability to risk stratify and optimize patients for elective TSA.

A retrospective analysis of the use of intravenous dexamethasone for postoperative nausea and vomiting in total joint replacement.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal perioperative pain-management protocols have contributed to the success of elective total joint replacement in orthopedic surgery. General or neuraxial anesthesia for arthroplasty is accompanied by complications such as pruritis, nausea, and vomiting. Dexamethasone has been demonstrated to be a safe perioperative antiemetic. This study evaluates the benefit of low-dose intravenous dexamethasone used in the perioperative period to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: Two scheduled doses of 8 mg of dexamethasone 12 hours apart after total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty were given to a dexamethasone group (n = 492) and were retrospectively compared with a no-dexamethasone group (n = 364) based on the use of antiemetics in the postoperative period. Frequency of antiemetic use in both groups was compared using a zero-inflated fixed-model Poisson distribution. Additional analysis included need for opioid analgesic, administration of diphenhydramine, and postoperative infection rates at 30 and 90 days. RESULTS: The dexamethasone group was found to have a significant reduction in need for the rescue antiemetic ondansetron (P = .00194). There was an associated reduction in length of stay for the treatment group (mean 1.83 days) relative to the control group (mean 2.17 days) (P < .001). There was no significant difference in postoperative infection rates at 30 or 90 days after arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone is a safe adjunct to perioperative protocol that may reduce nausea, thus improving patient satisfaction. There is an associated reduction in length of stay that may reduce cost of hospitalization.