How-To Create an Orthopaedic Systematic Review: A Step-by-Step Guide Part II: Study Execution.

Systematic reviews are the apex of the evidence-based pyramid, representing the strongest form of evidence synthesizing results from multiple primary studies. In particular, a quantitative systematic review, or meta-analysis, pools results from multiple studies to help answer a respective research question. The aim of this review is to serve as a guide on how to: 1) design; 2) execute, and 3) publish an orthopaedic arthroplasty systematic review. In Part II, we focus on methods to assess data quality through the Cochrane Risk of Bias, Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria, or Newcastle-Ottawa scale; enumerate various methods for appropriate data interpretation and analysis; and summarize how to convert respective findings to a publishable manuscript (providing a previously published example). Use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines is recommended and standard in all scientific literature, including that of orthopaedic surgery. Pooled analyses with forest plots and associated odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals are common ways to present data. When converting to a manuscript, it is important to consider and discuss the inherent limitations of systematic reviews, including their inclusion and/or exclusion criteria and overall quality, which can be limited based on the quality of individual studies (e.g., publication bias, heterogeneity, search/selection bias). We hope our papers will serve as starting points for those interested in performing an orthopaedic arthroplasty systematic review.

Trends in Gender Diversity Among Total Hip Arthroplasty Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: A pronounced gender imbalance is evident among orthopaedic surgeons. In the field of arthroplasty, there exists a dearth of comprehensive data regarding gender representation. This study aimed to analyze the gender diversity, or lack thereof, within the field of total hip arthroplasty (THA). In addition, this study used literature review to identify possible reasons for the gender disparity among THA surgeons and identify the best next steps to promote gender equity within orthopaedics. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Practitioners data set to quantify orthopaedic surgeons who performed primary THA procedures from 2013 to 2020. To assess trends in the number of hip surgeons by sex and the evolving female-to-male ratio, two-sided correlated Mann-Kendall tests were conducted. RESULTS: Overall, 3,853 to 4,550 surgeons billed for primary THA annually. Of this number, an average of 1.7% was female. The mean number of services billed for by male surgeons was 31.62 ± 24.78 per year and by female surgeons was 26.43 ± 19.49 per year. Trend analysis of female-to-male ratio demonstrated an increasing trend of statistical significance (P = 0.009). The average number of procedures by female surgeons annually remained stable throughout the study, whereas there was a steady increase in that for male surgeons. CONCLUSION: Results showed a notable and sustained upward trajectory from 2013 to 2020 in the number of female surgeons billing for THA along with the female-to-male ratio. However, female surgeons constitute a mere 2% of surgeons engaging in primary THA billing. Furthermore, the annual average number of THAs conducted by female surgeons exhibited constancy, whereas there was a gradual increase in the median number of annual procedures performed by their male counterparts. Future studies should aim to identify and resolve specific barriers prohibiting female medical students from pursuing and obtaining a career as an orthopaedic THA surgeon. STUDY DESCRIPTION: Retrospective analysis using the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Practitioners data set.

Safety Profile of Seven-Day Intra-articular Antibiotic Irrigation for the Treatment of Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Prospective Randomized Phase II Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Systemic intravenous antimicrobials yield poor outcomes during treatment of periprosthetic joint infection due to the inability to obtain minimum biofilm eradication concentrations. This study evaluated the safety of a novel method of optimized local delivery of intra-articular antibiotics (IAAs). METHODS: This was a Phase II, multicenter, prospective randomized trial evaluating safety of a rapid (seven-day) two-stage exchange arthroplasty with IAA irrigation compared to standard two-stage exchange. The Experimental Group received irrigation using 80 mg tobramycin daily with a 2-hour soak, followed by hourly irrigation using 125 mg vancomycin with a 30-minute soak via an intramedullary irrigation device. The Control Group received an antibiotic-loaded cement spacer with vancomycin (average 8.4 g) and tobramycin (average 7.1 g, total 16 g antibiotics). Both groups received 12 weeks of systemic antibiotics following Stage 2. Safety measures included adverse events, peak vancomycin/tobramycin serum concentrations (Experimental Group), blood transfusion, and mortality. There were thirty-seven patients randomized to the Experimental Group and 39 to control. There was no difference in baseline demographics or comorbidities. RESULTS: There were no antibiotic medication-related adverse events and 2 serious adverse events related to antibiotic instillation. Of 188 vancomycin peak measurements, 69% had detectable serum level concentrations, with all concentrations well below the maximum acceptable trough threshold of 20 µg/mL. Of the 103 tobramycin peak measurements, 45% had detectable levels, with all below the maximum acceptable peak threshold of 18 to 24 µg/mL. There was no difference in blood transfused per subject (Experimental: 655 mL versus Control: 792 mL; P = .4188). There were two (2) deaths in the Experimental Group and four (4) in the control. CONCLUSIONS: The use of IAA is safe with minimal systemic antibiotic exposure. There was no difference in the rates or severity of serious adverse events between groups. Further research is being conducted to examine treatment efficacy.

Medicare's Post-Acute Care Reimbursement Models as of 2023: Past, Present, and Future.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is continually working to mitigate unnecessary expenditures, particularly in post-acute care (PAC). Medicare reimburses for orthopaedic surgeon services in varied models, including fee-for-service, bundled payments, and merit-based incentive payment systems. The goal of these models is to improve the quality of care, reduce health-care costs, and encourage providers to adopt innovative and efficient health-care practices. This article delves into the implications of each payment model for the field of orthopaedic surgery, highlighting their unique features, incentives, and potential impact in the PAC setting. By considering the historical, current, and future Medicare reimbursement models, we hope to provide an understanding of the optimal payment model based on the specific needs of patients and providers in the PAC setting.

A Nationwide Analysis of the Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Complications and Healthcare Utilizations After Total Knee Arthroplasty Using the Area Deprivation Index: Consideration of the Disadvantaged Patient.

INTRODUCTION: Socioeconomic status (SES) has been demonstrated to be an important prognostic risk factor among patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty. We evaluated patients living near neighborhoods with higher socioeconomic risk undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and if they were associated with differences in: 1) medical complications; 2) emergency department (ED) utilizations; 3) readmissions; and 4) costs of care. METHODS: A query of a national database from 2010 to 2020 was performed for primary TKAs. The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) is a weighted index comprised of 17 census-based markers of material deprivation and poverty. Higher numbers indicate a greater disadvantage. Patients undergoing TKA in zip codes associated with high ADI (90%+) were 1:1 propensity-matched to a comparison group by age, sex, and Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI). This yielded 225,038 total patients, evenly matched between cohorts. Outcomes studied included complications, ED utilizations, readmission rates, and 90-day costs. Logistic regression models computed the odds ratios (OR) of ADI on the dependent variables. P-values less than 0.003 were significant. RESULTS: High ADI led to higher rates and odds of any medical complications (11.7 versus 11.0%; OR: 1.05, P = 0.0006), respiratory failures (0.4 versus 0.3%; OR: 1.28, P = 0.001), and acute kidney injuries (1.7 versus 1.5%; OR: 1.15, P < 0.0001). Despite lower readmission rates (2.9 versus 3.5%), high ADI patients had greater 90-day ED visits (4.2 versus 4.0%; OR: 1.07, P = 0.0008). The 90-day expenditures ($15,066 versus $12,459; P < 0.0001) were higher in patients who have a high ADI. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients have increased complications and ED utilizations. Neighborhood disadvantage may inform healthcare policy and improve post-discharge care. The SES metrics, including ADI (which captures community effects), should be used to adequately risk-adjust or risk-stratify patients so that access to care for deprived regions and patients is not lost.

High Area Deprivation Index is Associated With Not Achieving the Patient-acceptable Symptom State After TKA.

BACKGROUND: The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) approximates a patient's relative socioeconomic deprivation. The ADI has been associated with increased healthcare use after TKA, but it is unknown whether there is an association with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Given that a high proportion of patients are dissatisfied with their results after TKA, and the large number of these procedures performed, knowledge of factors associated with PROMs may indicate opportunities to provide support to patients who might benefit from it. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is the ADI associated with achieving the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for pain, Joint Replacement (JR), and Physical Function (PS) short forms after TKA? (2) Is the ADI associated with achieving the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds for the KOOS pain, JR, and PS short forms? METHODS: This was a retrospective study of data drawn from a longitudinally maintained database. Between January 2016 and July 2021, a total of 12,239 patients underwent unilateral TKA at a tertiary healthcare center. Of these, 92% (11,213) had available baseline PROM data and were potentially eligible. An additional 21% (2400) of patients were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 1 year or had incomplete data, leaving 79% (8813) for analysis here. The MCID is the smallest change in an outcome score that a patient is likely to perceive as a clinically important improvement, and the PASS refers to the threshold beyond which patients consider their symptoms acceptable and consistent with adequate functioning and well-being. MCIDs were calculated using a distribution-based method. Multivariable logistic regression models were created to investigate the association of ADI with 1-year PROMs while controlling for patient demographic variables. ADI was stratified into quintiles based on their distribution in our sample. Achievement of MCID and PASS thresholds was determined by the improvement between preoperative and 1-year PROMs. RESULTS: After controlling for patient demographic factors, ADI was not associated with an inability to achieve the MCID for the KOOS pain, KOOS PS, or KOOS JR. A higher ADI was independently associated with an increased risk of inability to achieve the PASS for KOOS pain (for example, the odds ratio of those in the ADI category of 83 to 100 compared with those in the 1 to 32 category was 1.34 [95% confidence interval 1.13 to 1.58]) and KOOS JR (for example, the OR of those in the ADI category of 83 to 100 compared with those in the 1 the 32 category was 1.29 [95% CI 1.10 to 1.53]), but not KOOS PS (for example, the OR of those in the ADI category of 83 to 100 compared with those in the 1 the 32 category was 1.09 [95% CI 0.92 to 1.29]). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that social and economic factors are associated with patients' perceptions of their overall pain and function after TKA, but such factors are not associated with patients' perceptions of their improvement in symptoms. Patients from areas with higher deprivation may be an at-risk population and could benefit from targeted interventions to improve their perception of their healthcare experience, such as through referrals to nonemergent medical transportation and supporting applications to local care coordination services before proceeding with TKA. Future research should investigate the mechanisms underlying why socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with inability to achieve the PASS, but not the MCID, after TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

24-Year-Old Patient with Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome Underwent Cementless Robotic Cruciate-Retaining TKA: A Case Report.

CASE: A 24-year-old man with Klippel-Trenaunay syndrome (KTS) presented with severe knee osteoarthritis unresponsive to conservative measures. Owing to end-stage, debilitating arthritic symptoms, surgery was pursued. Careful preoperative, multidisciplinary planning/treatment included magnetic resonance imaging to characterize the venous malformations throughout the right lower extremity, preoperative sclerotherapy, sirolimus, and robotic-assisted cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA). CONCLUSION: Cementless robotic-assisted TKA with selective patellar resurfacing can be a viable option for young KTS patients with severe osteoarthritis when a meticulous multidisciplinary approach, including sclerotherapy and advanced imaging, is undertaken to analyze vascular abnormalities, minimize surgical risks, preserve bone stock, and optimize outcomes.

Custom Triflange Acetabular Implants for Complex Hip Revisions: A Case Series.

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) presents a formidable challenge when addressing extensive acetabular defects, particularly in severe cases classified under Paprosky types 3A and 3B and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons types 3 and 4. Traditional methods often fall short, prompting the potential use of custom triflange acetabular components or patient-specific acetabular implants (PSAIs). These implants are specifically designed to conform to an individual's anatomy, aiming to enhance defect reconstruction and pelvic stabilization. This case series describes the utilization of advanced 3-dimensional printing and rapid prototyping technologies to construct customized acetabular components, which can be instrumental in enabling precise preoperative planning and surgical execution for these difficult acetabular cases and potentially leading to improved surgical outcomes.

Short-term Comparison of Survivorship and Functional Outcomes for Metaphyseal Cones with Short and Long Stems in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Printed porous titanium metaphyseal cones have become a mainstay for managing bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). A short or long stem is routinely used when implanting a cone to augment fixation and offload stresses. This retrospective analysis compared the short-term survivorships and functional outcomes for use of a short or long stem with a metaphyseal cone.A total of 179 cases using metaphyseal cones and stems with median follow-up of 1.95 years (interquartile range, 1.00-2.14) were compared based on stem type. There were 55 cases with long stem(s) and 124 cases with short stem(s). Cases with both long and short stems were excluded. Demographics, Kaplan-Meier survivorships, and preoperative and 1-year postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; 2011 Knee Society Score [KSS] objective knee score, function, and satisfaction scores; EuroQol five-dimension scale; and Short Form Survey Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary scores) were compared using t-tests with a significance level of α = 0.05. There were no significant differences in body mass index (mean ± standard deviation) or sex (men [%]) between the short and long stem cohorts (32.3 ± 5.3, 36.3% and 31.5 ± 5.5, 38.2%, respectively; p > 0.05). Patients who had short stems were younger (65.9 ± 8.8 vs. 69.0 ± 9.4, p = 0.0323).Revision-free survivorship for the femoral or tibial component was 100% for long stems and 98.2% for short stems at 1 and 2 years, respectively (log-rank p = 0.6330). The two revisions in the short group were for infection, thus the survivorship for aseptic loosening was 100% at 2 years for both cohorts. There were no significant differences in preoperative or postoperative PROMs.This study demonstrated that highly porous printed metaphyseal cones provided rTKA with excellent early survivorship and similar PROMs whether a short or long stem was used. Additional studies will be needed to discern longer term differences.

Stepping Up Recovery: Integrating Patient-reported Outcome Measures and Wearable Technology for Rehabilitation Following Knee Arthroplasty.

Improvement after knee arthroplasty (KA) is often measured using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, PROMs are limited due to their subjectivity. Therefore, wearable technology is becoming commonly utilized to objectively assess physical activity and function. We assessed the correlation between PROMs and step/stair flight counts in total (TKA) and partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) patients.Analysis of a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal cohort study investigating the collection of average daily step and stair flight counts, was performed. Subjects (N = 1,844 TKA patients and N = 489 PKA patients) completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) and provided numerical rating scale pain scores pre- and postoperatively. Only patients who reported living in a multilevel home environment (N = 896 TKA patients and N = 258 PKA patients) were included in analysis of stair flight counts. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine correlations between variables.Among TKA patients, pain scores demonstrated a negative correlation to mean step counts at preoperative (r = -0.14, p < 0.0001) and 1-month follow-up (r = -0.14, p < 0.0001). Similar negative correlations were true for pain and stair flight counts at preoperative (r = -0.16, p < 0.0001) and 1-month follow-up (r = -0.11, p = 0.006). KOOS JR scores demonstrated weak positive correlations with mean step counts at preoperative (r = 0.19, p < 0.0001) and 1-month postoperative (r = 0.17, p < 0.0001). Similar positive correlations were true for KOOS JR scores and stair flight counts preoperatively (r = 0.13, p = 0.0002) and at 1-month postoperatively (r = 0.10, p = 0.0048). For PKA patients, correlations between pain and KOOS JR with step/stair counts demonstrated similar directionality.Given the correlation between wearable-generated data and PROMs, wearable technology may be beneficial in evaluating patient outcomes following KA. By combining subjective feedback with the objective data, health care providers can gain a holistic view of patients' progress and tailor treatment plans accordingly.

How to Raise the Bar in the Capture of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Total Joint Arthroplasty: Results from Active and Passive Follow-up Measures.

BACKGROUND: With the upcoming U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2027 policy for mandatory reporting of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for total hip or knee arthroplasty (THA or TKA), it is important to evaluate the resources required to achieve adequate PROM collection and reporting at a clinically relevant rate of follow-up. This study aimed to (1) determine follow-up rates for 1-year PROMs when the follow-up was conducted with active methods (attempted contact by staff) and passive (automated) methods, and (2) evaluate factors associated with higher odds of requiring active follow-up or being lost to follow-up following THA or TKA. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients undergoing primary elective THA (n = 7,436) or TKA (n = 10,119) between January 2016 and December 2020 at a single institution were included. The primary outcome was the response rate achieved with active and passive follow-up methods at our institution. Patient characteristics, health-care utilization parameters, PROM values, and patient satisfaction were compared between follow-up methods. RESULTS: Passive and active measures were successful for 38% (2,859) and 40% (3,004) of the THA cohort, respectively, while 21% (1,573) were lost to follow-up. Similarly, passive and active measures were successful for 40% (4,001) and 41% (4,161) of the TKA cohort, respectively, while 20% (2,037) were lost to follow-up. Younger age, male sex, Black or another non-White race, fewer years of education, smoking, Medicare or Medicaid insurance, and specific baseline PROM phenotypes (i.e., with scores in the lower half for pain, function, and/or mental health) were associated with loss to follow-up. Older age, male sex, Black race, and a residence with a higher Area Deprivation Index were associated with requiring active follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: One of 5 patients were lost to follow-up despite active and passive measures following THA or TKA. These patients were more likely to be younger, be male, be of Black or another non-White race, have fewer years of education, be a smoker, have Medicaid insurance, and have specific baseline PROM phenotypes. Innovative strategies aimed at targeting individuals with these baseline characteristics may help raise the bar and increase follow-up while mitigating costs after total joint arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Patient satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes do not vary by BMI class in total hip arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Obesity has been identified as a risk factor for postoperative complications in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aimed to investigate patient-reported outcomes, pain, and satisfaction as a function of body mass index (BMI) class in patients undergoing THA. METHODS: 1736 patients within a prospective observational study were categorized into BMI classes. Pre- and postoperative Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS JR), satisfaction, and pain scores were compared by BMI class using one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Healthy weight patients reported the highest preoperative HOOS JR (56.66 ± 13.35) compared to 45.51 ± 14.45 in Class III subjects. Healthy weight and Class III patients reported the lowest (5.65 ± 2.01) and highest (7.06 ± 1.98, p < 0.0001) preoperative pain, respectively. Changes in HOOS JR scores from baseline suggest larger improvements with increasing BMI class, where Class III patients reported an increase of 33.7 ± 15.6 points at 90 days compared to 26.1 ± 17.1 in healthy weight individuals (p = 0.002). Fewer healthy weight patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference (87.4%) for HOOS JR compared to Class II (96.5%) and III (94.7%) obesity groups at 90 days postoperatively. Changes in satisfaction and pain scores were largest in the Class III patients. Overall, no functional outcomes varied by BMI class postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Patients of higher BMI class reported greater improvements following THA. While risk/benefit shared decision-making remains a personalized requirement of THA, this study highlights that utilization of BMI cutoff may not be warranted based on pain and functional improvement.

How-To Create an Orthopaedic Systematic Review: A Step-by-Step Guide Part I: Study Design.

Systematic reviews are conducted through a consistent and reproducible method to search, appraise, and summarize information. Within the evidence-based pyramid, systematic reviews can be at the apex when incorporating high-quality studies, presenting the strongest form of evidence given their synthesis of results from multiple primary studies to level IV evidence, depending on the studies they incorporate. When combined and supplemented with a meta-analysis using statistical methods to pool the results of 3 or more studies, systematic reviews are powerful tools to help answer research questions. The aim of this review is to serve as a guide on how to: (1) design; (2) execute; and (3) publish an orthopaedic arthroplasty systematic review and meta-analysis. In Part I, we discuss how to develop an appropriate research question as well as source and screen databases. To date, commonly used databases to source studies include PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. Although not all-encompassing, this paper serves as a starting point for those interested in performing and/or critically reviewing lower extremity arthroplasty systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Enabling Personalized Medicine in Orthopaedic Surgery Through Artificial Intelligence: A Critical Analysis Review.

¼ The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of orthopaedic surgery holds potential for revolutionizing health care delivery across 3 crucial domains: (I) personalized prediction of clinical outcomes and adverse events, which may optimize patient selection, surgical planning, and enhance patient safety and outcomes; (II) diagnostic automated and semiautomated imaging analyses, which may reduce time burden and facilitate precise and timely diagnoses; and (III) forecasting of resource utilization, which may reduce health care costs and increase value for patients and institutions.¼ Computer vision is one of the most highly studied areas of AI within orthopaedics, with applications pertaining to fracture classification, identification of the manufacturer and model of prosthetic implants, and surveillance of prosthesis loosening and failure.¼ Prognostic applications of AI within orthopaedics include identifying patients who will likely benefit from a specified treatment, predicting prosthetic implant size, postoperative length of stay, discharge disposition, and surgical complications. Not only may these applications be beneficial to patients but also to institutions and payors because they may inform potential cost expenditure, improve overall hospital efficiency, and help anticipate resource utilization.¼ AI infrastructure development requires institutional financial commitment and a team of clinicians and data scientists with expertise in AI that can complement skill sets and knowledge. Once a team is established and a goal is determined, teams (1) obtain, curate, and label data; (2) establish a reference standard; (3) develop an AI model; (4) evaluate the performance of the AI model; (5) externally validate the model, and (6) reinforce, improve, and evaluate the model's performance until clinical implementation is possible.¼ Understanding the implications of AI in orthopaedics may eventually lead to wide-ranging improvements in patient care. However, AI, while holding tremendous promise, is not without methodological and ethical limitations that are essential to address. First, it is important to ensure external validity of programs before their use in a clinical setting. Investigators should maintain high quality data records and registry surveillance, exercise caution when evaluating others' reported AI applications, and increase transparency of the methodological conduct of current models to improve external validity and avoid propagating bias. By addressing these challenges and responsibly embracing the potential of AI, the medical field may eventually be able to harness its power to improve patient care and outcomes.

How-To Create an Orthopaedic Systematic Review: A Step-by-Step Guide. Part III: Executing a Meta-Analysis.

At the top of the evidence-based pyramid, systematic reviews stand out as the most powerful, synthesizing findings from numerous primary studies. Specifically, a quantitative systematic review, known as a meta-analysis, combines results from various studies to address a specific research question. This review serves as a guide on how to: (1) design; (2) perform; and (3) publish an orthopedic arthroplasty systematic review. In Part III, we focus on how to design and perform a meta-analysis. We delineate the advantages and disadvantages of meta-analyses compared to systematic reviews, acknowledging their potential challenges due to time constraints and the complexities posed by study heterogeneity and data availability. Despite these obstacles, a well-executed meta-analysis contributes precision and heightened statistical power, standing at the apex of the evidence-based pyramid. The design of a meta-analysis closely mirrors that of a systematic review, but necessitates the inclusion of effect sizes, variability measures, sample sizes, outcome measures, and overall study characteristics. Effective data presentation involves the use of forest plots, along with analyses for heterogeneities and subgroups. Widely-used software tools are common in this domain, and there is a growing trend toward incorporating artificial intelligence software. Ultimately, the intention is for these papers to act as foundational resources for individuals interested in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the context of orthopaedic arthroplasty, where applicable.

Mechanistic insights into bone remodelling dysregulation by human viral pathogens.

Bone-related diseases (osteopathologies) associated with human virus infections have increased around the globe. Recent findings have highlighted the intricate interplay between viral infection, the host immune system and the bone remodelling process. Viral infections can disrupt bone homeostasis, contributing to conditions such as arthritis and soft tissue calcifications. Osteopathologies can occur after arbovirus infections such as chikungunya virus, dengue virus and Zika virus, as well as respiratory viruses, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and enteroviruses such as Coxsackievirus B. Here we explore how human viruses dysregulate bone homeostasis, detailing viral factors, molecular mechanisms, host immune response changes and bone remodelling that ultimately result in osteopathologies. We highlight model systems and technologies to advance mechanistic understanding of viral-mediated bone alterations. Finally, we propose potential prophylactic and therapeutic strategies, introduce 'osteovirology' as a research field highlighting the underestimated roles of viruses in bone-related diseases, and discuss research avenues for further investigation.

New CMS Policy on the Mandatory Collection of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty by 2027: What Orthopaedic Surgeons Should Know.

ABSTRACT: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has finalized a landmark national policy to standardize and expand the collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This policy will be rolled out through phased implementation, beginning with voluntary reporting starting in 2023 and transitioning to mandatory reporting starting in 2025, which will be tied to hospital payment determinations in fiscal year 2028. The overarching goal of this policy is to gather meaningful pre- and postoperative PROM data directly from patients to enhance clinical care, shared decision-making, and quality measurement for these common elective procedures. This national initiative underscores the value of incorporating patient perspectives and priorities into assessments of surgical care quality. For orthopaedic surgeons and hospitals, participating in the initial voluntary reporting period provides an opportunity to integrate PROM collection into clinical workflows and to leverage these data to improve patient care. The achievement of robust PROM response rates and a strong performance on the underlying THA/TKA Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Performance Measure may have increasing relevance as payment models shift toward value-based care. The aim of the present forum was to provide an in-depth review of this new CMS policy and key details regarding required PROM instruments, data-collection time frames, and other specifications that surgical teams should understand as they prepare for implementation. The goal was to equip orthopaedic surgeons with actionable information as they embark on this new era of national PROM collection and reporting.

Outpatient Total Hip Arthroplasty Volume up Nearly 8-Fold After Regulatory Changes With Expanding Demographics and Unchanging Outcomes: A 10-Year Analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the removal of total hip arthroplasty (THA) from the inpatient-only (IPO) lists, the orthopedic landscape across the United States has changed rapidly. Thus, this study aimed to: 1) characterize the change in THA volume for outpatient and inpatient surgeries; 2) elucidate demographical differences before and after removal from the IPO list; and 3) analyze 30-day complications, readmissions, and reoperations. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for primary THAs between January 2010 and December 2021. The primary outcome was the annual volume of outpatient and inpatient THAs. Secondary outcomes involved 30-day complications, readmissions, and reoperations. The variables between cohorts were analyzed using goodness-of-fit Chi-square tests with summary statistics. RESULTS: Of the 332,423 THAs between 2010 and 2021, 88% were inpatient THAs (n = 292,974) and 12% were outpatient THAs (n = 39,449). From 2019 to 2021, the volume of inpatient THA decreased by 55% (42,779 to 19,075), while outpatient THA increased by 751% (2,518 to 21,424). Patients who had a THA after 2019 were older (P < .001), more commonly women (P < .001), white (P < .001), and more likely American Society of Anesthesiologists Class III (P < .001). The outpatient cohort had fewer 30-day complications, readmissions, and reoperations. The length of stay for both cohorts decreased until 2019, before increasing in 2020 and 2021 for inpatient THAs, while home discharge and operative time increased for both. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of outpatient THA increased almost eightfold after its removal from the IPO lists in 2020. Despite expanding eligibility with older patients and more comorbidities, 30-day complications, readmissions, and reoperations remain low. These findings support the safe transition to outpatient THA with appropriate patient selection and optimization.

What Are the Diagnosis-Specific Thresholds of Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State in Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds for Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain, physical short form (PS), and joint replacement (JR) 1 year after primary total hip arthroplasty stratified by preoperative diagnosis of osteoarthritis (OA) versus non-OA. METHODS: A prospective institutional cohort of 5,887 patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (January 2016 to December 2018) was included. There were 4,184 patients (77.0%) who completed a one-year follow-up. Demographics, comorbidities, and baseline and one-year HOOS pain, PS, and JR scores were recorded. Patients were stratified by preoperative diagnosis: OA or non-OA. Minimal detectable change (MDC) and MCIDs were estimated using a distribution-based approach. The PASS values were estimated using an anchor-based approach, which corresponded to a response to a satisfaction question at one year post surgery. RESULTS: The MCID thresholds were slightly higher in the non-OA cohort versus OA patients. (HOOS-Pain: OA: 8.35 versus non-OA: 8.85 points; HOOS-PS: OA: 9.47 versus non-OA: 9.90 points; and HOOS-JR: OA: 7.76 versus non-OA: 8.46 points). Similarly, all MDC thresholds were consistently higher in the non-OA cohort compared to OA patients. The OA cohort exhibited similar or higher PASS thresholds compared to the non-OA cohort for HOOS-Pain (OA: ≥80.6 versus non-OA: ≥77.5 points), HOOS-PS (OA: ≥83.6 versus non-OA: ≥83.6 points), and HOOS-JR (OA: ≥76.8 versus non-OA: ≥73.5 points). A similar percentage of patients achieved MCID and PASS thresholds regardless of preoperative diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: While MCID and MDC thresholds for all HOOS subdomains were slightly higher among non-OA than OA patients, PASS thresholds for HOOS pain and JR were slightly higher in the OA group. The absolute magnitude of the difference in these thresholds may not be sufficient to cause major clinical differences. However, these subtle differences may have a significant impact when used as indicators of operative success in a population setting.

Assessing Ability for ChatGPT to Answer Total Knee Arthroplasty-Related Questions.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence in the field of orthopaedics has been a topic of increasing interest and opportunity in recent years. Its applications are widespread both for physicians and patients, including use in clinical decision-making, in the operating room, and in research. In this study, we aimed to assess the quality of ChatGPT answers when asked questions related to total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: ChatGPT prompts were created by turning 15 of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines into questions. An online survey was created, which included screenshots of each prompt and answers to the 15 questions. Surgeons were asked to grade ChatGPT answers from 1 to 5 based on their characteristics: (1) relevance, (2) accuracy, (3) clarity, (4) completeness, (5) evidence-based, and (6) consistency. There were 11 Adult Joint Reconstruction fellowship-trained surgeons who completed the survey. Questions were subclassified based on the subject of the prompt: (1) risk factors, (2) implant/intraoperative, and (3) pain/functional outcomes. The average and standard deviation for all answers, as well as for each subgroup, were calculated. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) was also calculated. RESULTS: All answer characteristics were graded as being above average (ie, a score > 3). Relevance demonstrated the highest scores (4.43 ± 0.77) by surgeons surveyed, and consistency demonstrated the lowest scores (3.54 ± 1.10). ChatGPT prompts in the Risk Factors group demonstrated the best responses, while those in the Pain/Functional Outcome group demonstrated the lowest. The overall IRR was found to be 0.33 (poor reliability), with the highest IRR for relevance (0.43) and the lowest for evidence-based (0.28). CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT can answer questions regarding well-established clinical guidelines in total knee arthroplasty with above-average accuracy but demonstrates variable reliability. This investigation is the first step in understanding large language model artificial intelligence like ChatGPT and how well they perform in the field of arthroplasty.