Mid-term outcomes of a kinematically designed cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Advances in implant material and design have allowed for improvements in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes. A cruciate retaining (CR) TKA provides the least constraint of TKA designs by preserving the native posterior cruciate ligament. Limited research exists that has examined clinical outcomes or patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of a large cohort of patients undergoing a CR TKA utilizing a kinematically designed implant. It was hypothesized that the studied CR Knee System would demonstrate favorable outcomes and a clinically significant improvement in pain and functional scores. AIM: To assess both short-term and mid-term clinical outcomes and PROMs of a novel CR TKA design. METHODS: A retrospective, multi-surgeon study identified 255 knees undergoing a TKA utilizing a kinematically designed CR Knee System (JOURNEY™ II CR; Smith and Nephew, Inc., Memphis, TN) at an urban, academic medical institution between March 2015 and July 2021 with a minimum of two-years of clinical follow-up with an orthopedic surgeon. Patient demographics, surgical information, clinical outcomes, and PROMs data were collected via query of electronic medical records. The PROMs collected in the present study included the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) scores. The significance of improvements in mean PROM scores from preoperative scores to scores collected at six months and two-years postoperatively was analyzed using Independent Samples t-tests. RESULTS: Of the 255 patients, 65.5% were female, 43.8% were White, and patients had an average age of 60.6 years. Primary osteoarthritis (96.9%) was the most common primary diagnosis. The mean surgical time was 105.3 minutes and mean length of stay was 2.1 d with most patients discharged home (92.5%). There were 18 emergency department (ED) visits within 90 d of surgery resulting in a 90 d ED visit rate of 7.1%, including a 2.4% orthopedic-related ED visit rate and a 4.7% non-orthopedic-related ED visit rate. There were three (1.2%) hospital readmissions within 90 d postoperatively. With a mean time to latest follow-up of 3.3 years, four patients (1.6%) required revision, two for arthrofibrosis, one for aseptic femoral loosening, and one for peri-prosthetic joint infection. There were significant improvements in KOOS JR, PROMIS Pain Intensity, PROMIS Pain Interference, PROMIS Mobility, and PROMIS Physical Health from preoperative scores to six month and two-year postoperative scores. CONCLUSION: The evaluated implant is an effective, novel design offering excellent outcomes and low complication rates. At a mean follow up of 3.3 years, four patients required revisions, three aseptic and one septic, resulting in an overall implant survival rate of 98.4% and an aseptic survival rate of 98.8%. The results of our study demonstrate the utility of this kinematically designed implant in the setting of primary TKA.

Human versus artificial intelligence-generated arthroplasty literature: A single-blinded analysis of perceived communication, quality, and authorship source.

BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLM) have unknown implications for medical research. This study assessed whether LLM-generated abstracts are distinguishable from human-written abstracts and to compare their perceived quality. METHODS: The LLM ChatGPT was used to generate 20 arthroplasty abstracts (AI-generated) based on full-text manuscripts, which were compared to originally published abstracts (human-written). Six blinded orthopaedic surgeons rated abstracts on overall quality, communication, and confidence in the authorship source. Authorship-confidence scores were compared to a test value representing complete inability to discern authorship. RESULTS: Modestly increased confidence in human authorship was observed for human-written abstracts compared with AI-generated abstracts (p = 0.028), though AI-generated abstract authorship-confidence scores were statistically consistent with inability to discern authorship (p = 0.999). Overall abstract quality was higher for human-written abstracts (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: AI-generated abstracts' absolute authorship-confidence ratings demonstrated difficulty in discerning authorship but did not achieve the perceived quality of human-written abstracts. Caution is warranted in implementing LLMs into scientific writing.

Aspirin prophylaxis is not associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolism in arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures: a non-inferiority study.

PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known complication of hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures (FNF) with various prophylactic anticoagulants utilized to decrease risk. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and perioperative outcomes associated with aspirin for VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty for FNF. METHODS: Medical records of 1,220 patients who underwent hip hemiarthroplasty (HHA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) at an urban academic center from 2011 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes, including length of stay (LOS), VTE, 90-day hospital encounters, and discharge disposition, were collected. Outcomes for patients prescribed aspirin (n = 214) were compared to those prescribed non-aspirin VTE prophylaxis (n = 1006) using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Patients who received aspirin had higher rates of THA (36.0 vs 26.7%; p = 0.008). There were no significant risk-adjusted differences in the incidence of VTE (0.5 vs 0.5%, p = 1.000) and 90-day readmissions (10.4 vs 12.3%, p = 0.646) between patients prescribed aspirin and non-aspirin VTE prophylaxis, respectively. Patients prescribed non-aspirin agents had higher rates of non-home discharge (73.9 vs 58.5%; p < 0.001) and longer LOS (143.5 vs 124.9 h; p = 0.005). Sub-analysis of patients prescribed aspirin and non-aspirin prophylaxis based on comorbidity scores demonstrated no difference in VTE incidence for low (0.0 vs 1.6%, p = 1.000) and high scores (0.0 vs 0.0%, p = 1.000), respectively. CONCLUSION: Aspirin is not associated with increased incidence of VTE after HHA or THA for FNF. Aspirin prophylaxis should be considered in hip fracture patients to mitigate bleeding risk, particularly those with low to intermediate VTE risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective study.

Two-Year Outcomes of Novel Dual-Mobility Implant in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Introduction: Dual-mobility (DM) implants for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have gained popularity due to their potential to reduce hip instability and dislocation events that may lead to revision surgery. These implants consist of a femoral head articulated within a polyethylene liner, which articulates within an outer acetabular shell, creating a dual-bearing surface. Our study aimed to report our observations on the survivorship of a novel DM implant for primary total hip arthroplasty at two years. Methods: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study to assess the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing a THA with a novel DM implant (OR3O acetabular system™, Smith & Nephew, Inc., Memphis, TN) from January 2020 to September 2021. Patient demographics, surgical information, and survivorship data were collected from medical records for patients with a minimum of two years of follow-up. Primary outcomes included overall implant survivorship at two years as well as aseptic survivorship, revision rates of the DM acetabular shell, and average time to revision. Patient-reported outcomes were collected in the form of HOOS JR. Results: A total of 250 hips in 245 patients had a minimum two-year follow-up. Primary osteoarthritis (80%) was the most common indication for index THA. The average aseptic survivorship of the DM acetabular components at two years for the cohort was 98.4% and survivorship of the acetabular implants overall was 97.6%. There were a total of four (1.6%) aseptic revisions of the DM acetabular component. Reasons for aseptic acetabular revision included one case of instability, one intraprosthetic dislocation, one periprosthetic acetabular fracture, and one malpositioned acetabular cup resulting in impingement. The mean time of follow-up was 893.9 days. Eighty-seven patients had preoperative and two-year HOOS JR available. HOOS JR improved by an average of 38.5 points. Conclusion: This novel DM acetabular implant demonstrates excellent survivorship at two years follow-up with low rates of instability and intraprosthetic dislocation and no episodes of metal-on-metal corrosion. Use of the DM implant demonstrated clinically relevant improvements in patient-reported outcomes at two years.

Aseptic Acetabular Revisions ≤90 Days, 91 Days to 2 Years, and >2 Years After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Comparing Etiologies, Complications, and Postoperative Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Isolated acetabular component revision is an effective treatment for revision total hip arthroplasty patients who have well-fixed femoral implants. We aimed to evaluate the modes of acetabular failure following primary total hip arthroplasty and to identify factors associated with increased morbidities and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis and identified 318 isolated aseptic acetabular revisions. We separated patients by ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years for acetabular revisions and compared demographics, reasons for revision, 90-day readmissions, rerevisions, and postrevision infections. Revisions ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years accounted for 10.7, 19.2, and 70.1% of revisions, respectively. Revisions ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years had their primary total hip arthroplasty at a mean age of 66, 63, and 55 years (P < .001), respectively. RESULTS: Revisions within 90 days were mainly indicated for dislocation/instability (58.8%) or periprosthetic fracture (23.5%) while revisions over 2 years were indicated for polyethylene wear/osteolysis (37.2%). Patients with revisions past 90 days were more likely to require rerevision compared to patients with revisions within 90 days (P < .001). There were no differences in readmissions (P = .28) or infection rates (P = .37). CONCLUSIONS: Acetabular revisions within 90 days were more commonly indicated for instability and periprosthetic fracture, while those over 2 years were indicated for polyethylene wear. Revisions past 90 days were more likely to require subsequent rerevisions without increased 90-day readmissions or infections. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study.

Can pain be improved with retention of the posterior cruciate ligament during total knee arthroplasty?

PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study was to determine if differences exist between cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) implant articulations for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with regards to early post-operative pain. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent primary TKA, with the same TKA implant design, at our institution between January 2018 and July 2021. Patients were stratified based on whether they received a CR or non-constrained PS (PSnC) articulation and propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio. A sub-analysis matching patient who received a constrained PS implant (PSC) to those undergoing CR TKA and PSnC TKA was also carried out. Opioid dosages were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MME). RESULTS: 616 patients after CR TKA were matched 1:1 to 616 patients with a PSnC implant. There were no significant differences between demographic variables. There were no statistically significant differences in opioid usage measured by MME on post-operative day (POD) 0 (p = 0.171), POD1 (p = 0.839), POD2 (p = 0.307), or POD3 (p = 0.138); VAS pain scores (p = 0.175); or 90-day readmission rate for pain (p = 0.654). A sub-analysis of CR versus PSC TKA demonstrated no significant differences in opioid usage on POD0 (p = 0.765), POD1 (p = 0.747), POD2 (p = 0.564), POD3 (p = 0.309); VAS pain scores (p = 0.293); and 90-day readmission rate for pain (p > 0.9). CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrated no significant difference in post-operative VAS pain scores and MME usage based on implant. The results suggest that neither the type of articulation or constraint used for primary TKA has a significant impact on immediate post-operative pain and opioid consumption. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort Study.

History, indications, and advantages of orthopaedic operating room tables: a review.

Although surgical procedures have been occurring as early at 6500 BC, the modern sense of the operating room (OR) did not exist until more recently. As aseptic techniques and surgical procedures began to evolve, so too did the OR table. The OR table began to transition from a static, wooden table to a dynamic table with the ability to position patients for a variety of procedures. With the advent of intraoperative imaging for orthopaedic procedures, OR tables have adapted and allow for imaging of bony anatomy by using radiolucent materials. These changes have led to the development of numerous OR tables, each with their own sets of advantages and disadvantages. There is currently no summary of the development, indications, benefits, and disadvantages of the various OR tables available to orthopaedic surgeons in the literature. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive review of orthopaedic operating tables for both the junior orthopaedic resident and experienced attending surgeon.

Bias Does Not Exist in Treating Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection Among Patients With Substance Use Disorder.

Debridement, antibiotics with implant retention (DAIR), and 2-stage revision are standard surgical interventions for treating knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Patients with substance use disorder (SUD), especially addictive drug use disorder (DUD), have been shown to receive inferior medical care in many specialties compared with nonusers. The authors identified patients with a diagnosis of PJI after knee arthroplasty who received either DAIR or 2-stage revision with the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2010 to 2014. Patients were stratified into 2 groups, patients with DUD and nonusers, based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, criteria. Descriptive analysis was conducted to show the national trend for knee PJI treatment among the 2 patient groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the prevalence of DAIR and 2-stage revision between these 2 groups, adjusted for likely confounders, including age, sex, income, race, and comorbidities. Among the 11,331 patients with knee infection, 139 (1.23%) had DUD. Compared with nonusers, patients with DUD were significantly younger (P<.001), had more chronic conditions (P<.001), and were predominantly in lower income quartiles (P=.046). The 2 groups did not differ in sex and race (P=.072 and P=.091, respectively). The authors found that 30.22% of patients with DUD and 36.36% of nonusers received DAIR. The difference in these proportions was not statistically significant (P=.135). The results did not change after adjustment for confounding factors (P=.509). The findings suggested that bias does not exist among orthopedic surgeons who choose DAIR or 2-stage revision for knee PJI among patients with DUD. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(3):e385-e389.].