A Randomized Clinical Trial of Direct Anterior versus Mini-Posterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: Small, Early Functional Differences Did Not Lead to Meaningful Clinical Differences at 7.5 Years.

INTRODUCTION: Our previously reported randomized clinical trial of direct anterior approach (DAA) versus mini-posterior approach (MPA) total hip arthroplasty (THA) showed slightly faster initial recovery for patients who had a DAA and no differences in complications or clinical or radiographic outcomes beyond 8 weeks. The aims of the current study were to determine if early advantages of DAA led to meaningful clinical differences beyond 5 years and to identify differences in midterm complications. METHODS: Of 101 original patients, 93 were eligible for follow-up at a mean 7.5 years (range, 2.1 to 10). Clinical outcomes were compared with Harris Hip, 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Scores (HOOS) scores and sub-scores, complications, reoperations, and revisions. RESULTS: Harris Hip scores were similar (95.3 ± 6.0 versus 93.5 ± 10.3 for DAA and MPA, respectively, P = 0.79). The SF-12 physical and mental scores were similar (46.2 ± 9.3 versus 46.2 ± 10.6, P = 0.79, and 52.3 ± 7.1 versus 55.2 ± 4.5, P = 0.07 in the DAA and MPA groups, respectively). The HOOS scores were similar (97.4 ± 7.9 versus 96.3 ± 6.7 for DAA and MPA, respectively, P = 0.07). The HOOS quality of life subscores were 96.9 ± 10.8 versus 92.3 ± 16.0 for DAA and MPA, respectively (P = 0.046). No clinical outcome met the minimally clinically important difference. There were 4 surgical complications in the DAA group (1 femoral loosening requiring revision, 1 dislocation treated closed, and 2 wound dehiscences requiring debridement), and 6 surgical complications in the MPA group (3 dislocations, 2 treated closed, and 1 revised to dual-mobility; 2 intraoperative fractures treated with a cable; and 1 wound dehiscence treated nonoperatively). CONCLUSIONS: At a mean of 7.5 years, this RCT demonstrated no clinically meaningful differences in outcomes, complications, reoperations, or revisions between DAA and MPA THA.

The Chitranjan S. Ranawat Award: Manipulation Under Anesthesia to Treat Postoperative Stiffness After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) occurs in 4% of patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Anti-inflammatory medications may target arthrofibrosis pathogenesis, but the data are limited. This multicenter randomized clinical trial investigated the effect of adjuvant anti-inflammatory medications with MUA and physical therapy on range of motion (ROM) and outcomes. METHODS: There were 124 patients (124 TKAs) who developed stiffness after primary TKA for osteoarthritis enrolled across 15 institutions. All received MUA when ROM was < 90° at 4 to 12 weeks postoperatively. Randomization proceeded via a permuted block design. Controls received MUA and physical therapy, while the treatment group also received one dose of pre-MUA intravenous dexamethasone (8 mg) and 14 days of oral celecoxib (200 mg). The ROM and clinical outcomes were assessed at 6 weeks and 1 year. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. RESULTS: The ROM significantly improved a mean of 46° from a pre-MUA ROM of 72 to 118° immediately after MUA (P < .001). The ROM was similar between the treatment and control groups at 6 weeks following MUA (101 versus 99°, respectively; P = .35) and at one year following MUA (108 versus 108°, respectively; P = .98). Clinical outcomes were similar at both end points. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter randomized clinical trial, the addition of intravenous dexamethasone and a short course of oral celecoxib after MUA did not improve ROM or outcomes. However, MUA provided a mean ROM improvement of 46° immediately, 28° at 6 weeks, and 37° at 1 year. Further investigation in regards to dosing, duration, and route of administration of anti-inflammatory medications remains warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, RCT.

Marlex Mesh Reconstruction of the Extensor Mechanism: A Concise 5-Year Follow-up of 2 Previous Reports.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Alphabet Soup of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Liner Options-Cruciate Retaining, Posterior Stabilized, Medial Congruent, Medial Pivot: Making Sense of the Options and What the Latest Data Show.

The traditional dual-option debate of cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized knee arthroplasty designs has evolved into a more complex discussion in recent years. The growing interest and rapid adoption of medial conforming and medial pivot designs has made the original debate surrounding cruciate-retaining versus posterior-stabilized designs more interesting. Each liner option has its own advantages and disadvantages. Although conforming tibial liner options are increasing rapidly, traditional cruciate retaining and posterior stabilized are the most common designs, as recorded in most registries. However, it is important to understand the updated pros and cons of each liner design as surgeons focus on personalization of their total knee arthroplasty procedures to the individual patient. Different liner options may be more advantageous in certain situations or vary with surgical technique. Several different types of tibial liner options are currently available, and it is important to review and summarize the latest literature available for each.

Contemporary mortality rate and outcomes in nonagenarians after aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

Aims: Nonagenarians (aged 90 to 99 years) have experienced the fastest percent decile population growth in the USA recently, with a consequent increase in the prevalence of nonagenarians living with joint arthroplasties. As such, the number of revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in nonagenarians is expected to increase. We aimed to determine the mortality rate, implant survivorship, and complications of nonagenarians undergoing aseptic revision THAs and revision TKAs. Methods: Our institutional total joint registry was used to identify 96 nonagenarians who underwent 97 aseptic revisions (78 hips and 19 knees) between 1997 and 2018. The most common indications were aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture for both revision THAs and revision TKAs. Mean age at revision was 92 years (90 to 98), mean BMI was 27 kg/m2 (16 to 47), and 67% (n = 65) were female. Mean time between primary and revision was 18 years (SD 9). Kaplan-Meier survival was used for patient mortality, and compared to age- and sex-matched control populations. Reoperation risk was assessed using cumulative incidence with death as a competing risk. Mean follow-up was five years. Results: Mortality rates were 9%, 18%, 26%, and 62% at 90 days, one year, two years, and five years, respectively, but similar to control populations. There were 43 surgical complications and five reoperations, resulting in a cumulative incidence of reoperation of 4% at five years. Medical complications were common, with a cumulative incidence of 65% at 90 days. Revisions for periprosthetic fractures were associated with higher mortality and higher 90-day risk of medical complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening. Conclusion: Contemporary revision THAs and TKAs appeared to be relatively safe in selected nonagenarians managed with multidisciplinary teams. Cause of revision affected morbidity and mortality risks. While early medical and surgical complications were frequent, they seldom resulted in reoperation.

Comparative Survival of Contemporary Cementless Acetabular Components Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The advent of highly porous ingrowth surfaces and highly crosslinked polyethylene has been expected to improve implant survivorship in revision total hip arthroplasty. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the survival of several contemporary acetabular designs following revision total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Acetabular revisions performed from 2000 to 2019 were identified from our institutional total joint registry. We studied 3,348 revision hips, implanted with 1 of 7 cementless acetabular designs. These were paired with highly crosslinked polyethylene or dual-mobility liners. A historical series of 258 Harris-Galante-1 components, paired with conventional polyethylene, was used as reference. Survivorship analyses were performed. For the 2,976 hips with minimum 2-year follow-up, the median follow-up was 8 years (range, 2 to 35 years). RESULTS: Contemporary components with adequate follow-up had survivorship free of acetabular rerevision of ≥95% at 10-year follow-up. Relative to Harris-Galante-1 components, 10-year survivorship free of all-cause acetabular cup rerevision was significantly higher in Zimmer Trabecular Metarevision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2-0.45), Zimmer Trabecular MetaModular (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13-0.89), Zimmer Trilogy (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.24-0.69), DePuy Pinnacle Porocoat (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11-0.51), and Stryker Tritanium revision (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.91) shells. Among contemporary components, there were only 23 rerevisions for acetabular aseptic loosening and no rerevisions for polyethylene wear. CONCLUSION: Contemporary acetabular ingrowth and bearing surfaces were associated with no rerevisions for wear and aseptic loosening was uncommon, particularly with highly porous designs. Therefore, it appears that contemporary revision acetabular components have dramatically improved upon historical results at available follow-up.

Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Contemporary Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: Spinal anesthesia is increasingly used in complex patient populations including revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). This study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay (LOS), and complications associated with spinal versus general anesthesia in a large institutional series of revision THAs. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 4,767 revision THAs (4,533 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our institutional total joint registry. Of these cases, 86% had general and 14% had spinal anesthesia. Demographics between groups were similar with mean age of 66 years, 52% women, and mean body mass index of 29. Complications including all-cause rerevisions and reoperations were studied. Data were analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted model based on propensity score that accounted for patient and surgical factors. The mean follow-up was 7 years. RESULTS: Patients treated with spinal anesthesia required fewer postoperative oral morphine equivalents (P < .001) and had lower numeric pain rating scale scores (P < .001). Spinal anesthesia had a decreased LOS (4.2 versus 4.8 days; P = .007), fewer cases of altered mental status (odds ratio (OR) 3.1, P = .001), fewer blood transfusions (OR 2.3, P < .001), fewer intensive care unit admissions (OR 2.3, P < .001), fewer rerevisions (OR 1.6, P = .04), and fewer reoperations (OR 1.5, P = .02). CONCLUSION: Spinal anesthesia was associated with lower oral morphine equivalent use and reduced LOS in this large cohort of revision THAs. Furthermore, spinal anesthesia was associated with fewer cases of altered mental status, transfusion, intensive care unit admission, rerevision, and reoperation after accounting for numerous patient and operative factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

John N. Insall Award: Randomized Clinical Trial of Cementless Versus Cemented Tibial Components: Durable and Reliable at a Mean 10-Years Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Cementless fixation is gaining popularity for primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). The prior 5-year results of our randomized clinical trial that included 3 different tibial designs found minimal differences. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the 10-year results in the same cohort. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2006, 389 primary TKAs were randomized: traditional modular cemented tibia (135); hybrid (cemented baseplate with uncemented pegs) monoblock tibia (128); and cementless monoblock tibia (126). Implant survivorships, radiographs, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. Mean age at TKA was 68 years (range, 41 to 85), 46% were male, and mean body mass index was 32 (range, 21 to 59). The mean follow-up was 10 years. RESULTS: The 10-year survivorship free of any revision was similar between the hybrid monoblock and cementless monoblock groups at 96%, but lower (89%) for the traditional modular cemented tibia (P = .05). The traditional modular cemented tibia group had significantly more revisions for aseptic tibial loosening than the other 2 groups (7 versus 0%) at 10 years (P = .003). The traditional modular cemented tibia group had significantly more nonprogressive radiolucent lines than the hybrid and cementless monoblock groups (24, 12, and 9%, respectively). Clinical outcomes were similar and excellent between all 3 groups. CONCLUSION: Cementless and hybrid monoblock tibial components have excellent implant survivorship (96%) with no cases of aseptic tibial loosening to date. The traditional cemented modular tibial group had a 7% cumulative incidence of aseptic loosening at 10 years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, Prospective Randomized Control Trial.

The language of knee alignment : updated definitions and considerations for reporting outcomes in total knee arthroplasty.

Orthopaedic surgeons are currently faced with an overwhelming number of choices surrounding total knee arthroplasty (TKA), not only with the latest technologies and prostheses, but also fundamental decisions on alignment philosophies. From 'mechanical' to 'adjusted mechanical' to 'restricted kinematic' to 'unrestricted kinematic' - and how constitutional alignment relates to these - there is potential for ambiguity when thinking about and discussing such concepts. This annotation summarizes the various alignment strategies currently employed in TKA. It provides a clear framework and consistent language that will assist surgeons to compare confidently and contrast the concepts, while also discussing the latest opinions about alignment in TKA. Finally, it provides suggestions for applying consistent nomenclature to future research, especially as we explore the implications of 3D alignment patterns on patient outcomes.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):102-108.

AAHKS Surgical Techniques & Technologies Award: Resurfacing the Thin Native Patella: Is It Safe?

BACKGROUND: Whether to resurface the patella during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains debated. One often cited reason for not resurfacing is inadequate patellar thickness. The aim of this study was to describe the implant survivorships, reoperations, complications and clinical outcomes in patients who underwent patellar resurfacing of a thin native patella. METHODS: From 2000 to 2010, 7,477 patients underwent primary TKA with patellar resurfacing and had an intraoperatively, caliper-measured patella thickness at our institution. Of these, 200 (2.7%) had a preresection patellar thickness of ≤19 millimeters (mm). Mean preresection thickness was 18 mm (range, 12-19). Mean age was 69 years, mean body mass index was 31 kg/m2, and 93% of the patients were women. Median follow-up was 10 years (range, 2-20). RESULTS: At 10 years, survivorships free of any patella revision, patella-related reoperation, and periprosthetic patella fracture were 98%, 98%, and 99%, respectively. There were 3 patella revisions (1 aseptic loosening, 2 periprosthetic joint infections). There were 2 additional patella-related reoperations for patellar clunk. There were 3 nonoperatively managed periprosthetic patella fractures. Radiographically, all nonrevised knees had well-fixed patellae. Knee society scores improved from mean 36 points (interquartile range [IQR] 24-49) preoperatively to mean 81 points (IQR 77-81) at 10-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Resurfacing the thin native patella was associated with high survivorship free of patellar revision at 10-year follow-up. Nevertheless, there was 1 case of patellar loosening and 3 periprosthetic patella fractures. These risks must be weighed against the known higher incidence of revision when the thin native patella is left unresurfaced.

Current Concepts in Alignment in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to increase satisfaction among total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients, emphasis has been placed on implant positioning and limb alignment. Traditionally, the aim for TKA has been to achieve a neutral mechanical alignment (MA) to maximize implant longevity. However, with the recent spike in interest in individualized alignment techniques and with the advent of new technologies, surgeons are slowly evolving away from classical MA. METHODS: This review elucidates the differences in alignment techniques for TKA, describes the concept of knee phenotypes, summarizes comparative studies between MA and individualized alignment, and provides a simple way to incorporate the latter into surgeons' practice. RESULTS: In order to manage patients by applying these strategies in day-to-day practice, a basic understanding of the aforementioned concepts is essential. Transition to an individualized alignment technique should be done gradually with caution in a stepwise approach. CONCLUSION: Alignment and implant positioning are now at the heart of the debate and surgeons are investigating a more personalized approach to TKA.

Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Contemporary Revision Total Knee Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: Interest in spinal anesthesia utilization in revision total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) is rising. This study investigated the pain control, length of stay (LOS), and complications associated with spinal versus general anesthesia in a single institution series of revision TKAs. METHODS: We identified 3,711 revision TKAs (3,495 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our institutional total joint registry. There were 66% who had general anesthesia and 34% who had spinal anesthesia. Mean age, sex, and BMI were similar between groups at 67 years, 53% women, and 32, respectively. Data were analyzed using inverse probability of treatment weighted models based on propensity scores that accounted for patient and operative factors. Mean follow-up was 6 years (range, 2 to 17). RESULTS: Patients treated with spinal anesthesia required fewer postoperative oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) (P < .0001) and had lower numeric pain rating scale scores (P < .001). Spinal anesthesia was associated with shorter LOS (4.0 versus 4.6 days; P < .0001), less cases of altered mental status (AMS; Odds Ratio (OR) 2.0, P = .004), less intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (OR 1.6, P = .02), fewer re-revisions (OR 1.7, P < .001), and less reoperations (OR 1.4, P < .001). There was no difference in the incidence of VTE (P = .82), 30-day readmissions (P = .06), or 90-day readmissions (P = .18) between anesthetic techniques. CONCLUSION: We found that spinal anesthesia for revision TKAs was associated with significantly lower pain scores, reduced OME requirements, and decreased LOS. Furthermore, spinal anesthesia was associated with fewer cases of AMS, ICU admissions, and re-revisions even after accounting for numerous patient and operative factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

Hot Topics and Current Controversies in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Total knee arthroplasty continues to evolve. It is important to review some of the current controversies and hot topics in arthroplasty. Optimal knee alignment strategy is now just a matter of debate. Mechanical, kinematic, and functional alignment and the role of robotics in achieving optimum alignment are important topics, along with fixation and outpatient knee arthroplasty.

Does Metabolic Syndrome Impact the Risk of Reoperation, Revision, or Complication After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is an increasingly frequent condition characterized by insulin resistance, abdominal obesity, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. This study evaluated implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes of primary TKAs performed in patients who have MetS. METHODS: Utilizing our institutional total joint registry, 2,063 primary TKAs were performed in patients with a diagnosis of MetS according to the World Health Organization criteria. MetS patients were matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and surgical year to those who did not have the condition. The World Health Organization's body mass index (BMI) classification was utilized to evaluate the effect of obesity within MetS patients. Kaplan-Meier methods were utilized to determine implant survivorship. Clinical outcomes were assessed with Knee Society scores. The mean follow-up was 5 years. RESULTS: MetS and non-MetS patients did not have significant differences in 5-year implant survivorship free from any reoperation (P = .7), any revision (P = .2), and reoperation for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI; P = .2). When stratifying, patients with MetS and BMI >40 had significantly decreased 5-year survivorship free from any revision (95 versus 98%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2.1, P = .005) and reoperation for PJI (97 versus 99%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2.2, P = .02). Both MetS and non-MetS groups experienced significant improvements in Knee Society Scores (77 versus 78, respectively; P < .001) that were not significantly different (P = .3). CONCLUSION: MetS did not significantly increase the risk of any reoperation after TKA; however, MetS patients with BMI >40 had a two-fold risk of any revision and reoperation for PJI. These results suggest that obesity is an important condition within MetS criteria and remains an independent risk factor. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, Case-control study.

Spinal versus general anaesthesia in contemporary primary total knee arthroplasties.

AIMS: Spinal anaesthesia has seen increased use in contemporary primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). However, controversy exists about the benefits of spinal in comparison to general anaesthesia in primary TKAs. This study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay (LOS), and complications associated with spinal versus general anaesthesia in primary TKAs from a single, high-volume academic centre. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 17,690 primary TKAs (13,297 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our institutional total joint registry, where 52% had general anaesthesia and 48% had spinal anaesthesia. Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts with a mean age of 68 years (SD 10), 58% female (n = 7,669), and mean BMI of 32 kg/m2 (SD 7). Pain was evaluated using oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) and numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) data. Complications including 30- and 90-day readmissions were studied. Data were analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted model based on propensity score that included many patient and surgical factors. Mean follow-up was seven years (2 to 18). RESULTS: Patients treated with spinal anaesthesia required fewer postoperative OMEs (p < 0.001) and had lower NPRS scores (p < 0.001). Spinal anaesthesia also had fewer cases of altered mental status (AMS; odds ratio (OR) 1.3; p = 0.044), as well as 30-day (OR 1.4; p < 0.001) and 90-day readmissions (OR 1.5; p < 0.001). General anaesthesia was associated with increased risk of any revision (OR 1.2; p = 0.021) and any reoperation (1.3; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the largest single institutional report to date, we found that spinal anaesthesia was associated with significantly lower OME use, lower risk of AMS, and lower overall 30- and 90-day readmissions following primary TKAs. Additionally, spinal anaesthesia was associated with reduced risk of any revision and any reoperation after accounting for numerous patient and operative factors. When possible and safe, spinal anaesthesia should be considered in primary TKAs.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1209-1214.

Revision total knee arthroplasty for flexion instability : a concise follow-up of a previous report.

AIMS: We have previously reported the mid-term outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for flexion instability. At a mean of four years, there were no re-revisions for instability. The aim of this study was to report the implant survivorship and clinical and radiological outcomes of the same cohort of of patients at a mean follow-up of ten years. METHODS: The original publication included 60 revision TKAs in 60 patients which were undertaken between 2000 and 2010. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision TKA was 65 years, and 33 (55%) were female. Since that time, 21 patients died, leaving 39 patients (65%) available for analysis. The cumulative incidence of any re-revision with death as a competing risk was calculated. Knee Society Scores (KSSs) were also recorded, and updated radiographs were reviewed. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of any re-revision was 13% at a mean of ten years. At the most recent-follow-up, eight TKAs had been re-revised: three for recurrent flexion instability (two fully revised to varus-valgus constrained implants (VVCs), and one posterior-stabilized (PS) implant converted to VVC, one for global instability (PS to VVC), two for aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and two for periprosthetic joint infection). The ten-year cumulative incidence of any re-revision for instability was 7%. The median KSS improved significantly from 45 (interquartile range (IQR) 40 to 50) preoperatively to 70 (IQR 45 to 80) at a mean follow-up of ten years (p = 0.031). Radiologically, two patients, who had not undergone revision, had evidence of loosening (one tibial and one patellar). The remaining components were well fixed. CONCLUSION: We found fair functional outcomes and implant survivorship at a mean of ten years after revision TKA for flexion instability with a PS implant. Recurrent instability and aseptic loosening were the most common indications for re-revision. Components with increased constraint, such as a VVC or hinged, should be used in these patients in order to reduce the risk of recurrent instability.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1126-1131.

Creation of a Total Hip Arthroplasty Patient-Specific Dislocation Risk Calculator.

BACKGROUND: Many risk factors have been described for dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA), yet a patient-specific risk assessment tool remains elusive. The purpose of this study was to develop a high-dimensional, patient-specific risk-stratification nomogram that allows dynamic risk modification based on operative decisions. METHODS: In this study, 29,349 THAs, including 21,978 primary and 7371 revision cases, performed between 1998 and 2018 were evaluated. During a mean 6-year follow-up, 1521 THAs were followed by a dislocation. Patients were characterized, through individual-chart review, according to non-modifiable factors (demographics, indication for THA, spine disease, prior spine surgery, and neurologic disease) and modifiable operative decisions (operative approach, femoral head diameter, and type of acetabular liner [standard, elevated, constrained, or dual-mobility]). Multivariable regression models and nomograms were developed with dislocation as a binary outcome at 1 year and 5 years postoperatively. RESULTS: Dislocation risk, based on patient-specific comorbidities and operative decisions, was wide-ranging-from 0.3% to 13% at 1 year and from 0.4% to 19% at 5 years after primary THA, and from 2% to 32% at 1 year and from 3% to 42% at 5 years after revision THA. In the primary-THA group, the direct anterior approach (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.27) and lateral approach (HR = 0.58) decreased the dislocation risk compared with the posterior approach. After adjusting for the approach in that group, the combination of a ≥36-mm-diameter femoral head and an elevated liner yielded the largest decrease in dislocation risk (HR = 0.28), followed by dual-mobility constructs (HR = 0.48). In the patients who underwent revision THA, the adjusted risk of dislocation was most markedly decreased by the use of a dual-mobility construct (HR = 0.40), followed by a ≥36-mm femoral head and an elevated liner (HR = 0.88). The adjusted risk of dislocation after revision THA was decreased by acetabular revision (HR = 0.58), irrespective of whether other components were revised. CONCLUSIONS: Our patient-specific dislocation risk calculator, which was strengthened by our use of a robust multivariable model that accounted for comorbidities associated with instability, demonstrated wide-ranging patient-specific risks based on comorbidity profiles. The resultant nomograms can be used as a screening tool to identify patients at high risk for dislocation following THA and to individualize operative decisions for evidence-based risk mitigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

What are the Outcomes After Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in Patients With Prior Cerebrovascular Accidents?

BACKGROUND: For patients who have a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) with neurological sequelae undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), we sought to determine mortality rate, implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Our total joint registry identified CVA sequelae patients undergoing primary THA (n = 42 with 25 on affected hip) and TKA (n = 56 with 34 on affected knee). Patients were 1:2 matched based upon age, sex, body mass index, and surgical year to a non-CVA cohort. Mortality and implant survivorship were evaluated via Kaplan-Meier methods. Clinical outcomes were assessed via Harris Hip scores or Knee Society scores . Mean follow-up was 5 years (range, 2-12). RESULTS: For CVA sequelae and non-CVA patients, respectively, the 5-year patient survivorship was 69 versus 89% after THA (HR = 2.5; P = .006) and 56 versus 90% after TKA (HR = 2.4, P = .003). No significant difference was noted between groups in implant survivorship free from any reoperation after THA (P > .2) and TKA (P > .6). Postoperative CVA occurred at an equal rate in CVA sequelae and non-CVA patients after TKA (1.8%); none after THA in either group. The magnitude of change in Harris Hip scores (P = .7) and Knee Society scores (P = .7) were similar for CVA sequelae and non-CVA patients. CONCLUSION: Complications, including the risk of postoperative CVA, implant survivorship, and outcome score improvement are similar for CVA sequelae and non-CVA patients. A 2.5-fold increased risk of death at a mean of 5 years after primary THA or TKA exist for CVA sequelae patients.

Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: Does It Decrease Infection Risk?

BACKGROUND: Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOA) has been shown to reduce infection after high-risk primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and reimplantations. However, data are limited regarding EOA after aseptic revision THAs. This study evaluated the impact of EOA on infection-related outcomes after aseptic revision THAs. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 1,107 aseptic revision THAs performed between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received EOA >24 hours perioperatively (n = 370) were compared to those who did not (n = 737) using an inverse probability of treatment weighting model. Their mean age was 65 years (range, 19-98 years), mean body mass index was 30 kg/m2 (range, 16-72), and 54% were women. Outcomes included cumulative probabilities of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and re-revision or reoperation for infection. Mean follow-up was 4 years (range, 2-8 years). RESULTS: The cumulative probability of any infection after aseptic revision THA was 2.3% at 90 days, 2.7% at 1 year, and 3.5% at 5 years. The cumulative probability of PJI was 1.7% at 90 days, 2.1% at 1 year, and 2.8% at 5 years. There was a trend toward an increased risk of any infection (hazards ratio [HR] = 2.6; P = .058), PJI (HR = 2.6; P = .085), and re-revision (HR = 6.5; P = .077) or reoperation (HR = 2.3; P = .095) for infection in patients who did not have EOA at the final clinical follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: EOA after aseptic revision THA was not associated with a statistically significant decreased risk of any infection, PJI, or re-revision or reoperation for infection at all time points. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.