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.

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.

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.

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.

Spinal Compared with General Anesthesia in Contemporary Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: The specific advantages of spinal anesthesia compared with general anesthesia for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains unknown. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay, and postoperative outcomes associated with spinal anesthesia compared with general anesthesia in a large cohort of primary THAs from a single, high-volume academic institution. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 13,730 primary THAs (11,319 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our total joint registry. Of these cases, 58% had general anesthesia and 42% had spinal anesthesia. The demographic characteristics were similar between groups, with mean age of 64 years, 51% female, and mean body mass index (BMI) of 31 kg/m 2 . Data were analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted model based on a propensity score that accounted for numerous patient and operative factors. The mean follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: Patients treated with spinal anesthesia had lower Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) scores (p < 0.001) and required fewer postoperative oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) at all time points evaluated (p < 0.001). Patients treated with spinal anesthesia also had shorter hospital length of stay (p = 0.02), fewer altered mental status events (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; p = 0.02), and fewer intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (OR, 0.7; p = 0.01). There was no difference in the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (p = 0.8), pulmonary embolism (p = 0.4), 30-day readmissions (p = 0.17), 90-day readmissions (p = 0.18), all-cause revisions (p = 0.17), or all-cause reoperations (p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: In this large, single-institution study, we found that spinal anesthesia was associated with reduced pain scores and OME use postoperatively. Furthermore, spinal anesthesia resulted in fewer altered mental status events and ICU admissions. These data favor the use of spinal anesthesia in primary THAs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Extended Oral Antibiotic Prophylaxis After Aseptic Revision TKA: Does It Decrease Infection Risk?

BACKGROUND: Extended oral antibiotic prophylaxis (EOA) has been shown to potentially reduce infection rates after high-risk primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) and reimplantations. However, data is limited regarding EOA after aseptic revision TKAs. This study evaluated the impact of EOA on infection-related outcomes after aseptic revision TKAs. METHODS: 904 aseptic revision TKAs from 2014-2019 were retrospectively identified. Patients who received EOA >24 hours perioperatively (n = 267) were compared to those who did not (n = 637) using an inverse probability of treatment weighting model. Mean age was 66 years, mean BMI was 33 kg/m2, and 54% were female. Outcomes included cumulative probabilities of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), superficial infection, and re-revision or reoperation for infection. RESULTS: The cumulative probability of any infection after aseptic revision TKA was 1.9% at 90 days, 3.5% at 1 year, and 8.1% at 5 years. Patients without EOA had a higher risk of any infection at 90 days (HR = 7.1; P = .01), but not other time points. The cumulative probability of PJI after aseptic revision TKA was 0.8% at 90 days, 2.3% at 1 year, and 6.5% at 5 years. Patients without EOA did not have an increased risk of PJI. There were no differences in re-revision or reoperation for infection at any time point between groups. CONCLUSION: Extended oral antibiotics after aseptic revision TKA were associated with a 7-fold decreased risk of any infection at 90 days. The results suggest a potential role for EOA after aseptic revision TKA and warrant additional prospective studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Outcomes of Intramedullary Nail Fixation for Metastatic Disease: Impending and Pathologic Fractures.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Intramedullary nail (IMN) fixation has become a treatment mean for impending and pathologic femur fractures. Currently there continues to be a lack of data examining functional outcomes, complications, and survivorship of patients treated with IMNs for metastatic disease of the femur. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 183 IMNs placed for impending (n=145) or pathologic (n=38) metastatic fractures from 2010 to 2018. Functional outcomes and complications including blood transfusions, venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) and reoperations were studied. RESULTS: Patients with impending lesions were more likely to be ambulatory at final follow-up (pathologic: 82%, impending: 99%, p<0.0001) and reported greater musculoskeletal tumor society scores (p<0.0001). Likewise, pathologic fractures were associated with greater discharge to non-home locations (p<0.0001) and were more likely to require a postoperative transfusion (pathologic: 66%, impending: 22%, p=0.0001). However, there was no difference in the incidence of VTEs (p=1.00) or reoperations (p=0.69) between cohorts. Patients treated for impending fractures had improved overall survival at 1 year (54% vs. 26%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: IMN fixation was durable in impending and pathologic femoral fractures. Early identification of metastases remains critical as patients treated for impending lesions had greater functional outcomes, fewer complications and improved survivorship compared to patients treated for pathologic fractures.

Comparison of free vascularized fibular flaps and allograft fibular strut grafts to supplement spinopelvic reconstruction for sacral malignancies.

AIMS: Orthopaedic and reconstructive surgeons are faced with large defects after the resection of malignant tumours of the sacrum. Spinopelvic reconstruction is advocated for resections above the level of the S1 neural foramina or involving the sacroiliac joint. Fixation may be augmented with either free vascularized fibular flaps (FVFs) or allograft fibular struts (AFSs) in a cathedral style. However, there are no studies comparing these reconstructive techniques. METHODS: We reviewed 44 patients (23 female, 21 male) with a mean age of 40 years (SD 17), who underwent en bloc sacrectomy for a malignant tumour of the sacrum with a reconstruction using a total (n = 20), subtotal (n = 2), or hemicathedral (n = 25) technique. The reconstructions were supplemented with a FVF in 25 patients (57%) and an AFS in 19 patients (43%). The mean length of the strut graft was 13 cm (SD 4). The mean follow-up was seven years (SD 5). RESULTS: There was no difference in the mean age, sex, length of graft, size of the tumour, or the proportion of patients with a history of treatment with radiotherapy in the two groups. Reconstruction using an AFS was associated with nonunion (odds ratio 7.464 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77 to 31.36); p = 0.007) and a significantly longer mean time to union (12 months (SD 3) vs eight (SD 3); p = 0.001) compared with a reconstruction using a FVF. Revision for a pseudoarthrosis was more likely to occur in the AFS group compared with the FVF group (hazard ratio 3.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 19.80); p = 0.109); however, this was not significant. Following the procedure, 32 patients (78%) were mobile with a mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score 93 of 52% (SD 24%). There was a significantly higher mean score in patients reconstructed with a FVF compared with an AFS (62% vs 42%; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Supplementation of spinopelvic reconstruction with a FVF was associated with a shorter time to union and a trend towards a reduced risk of hardware failure secondary to nonunion compared with reconstruction using an AFS. Spinopelvic fixation supplemented with a FVF is our preferred technique for reconstruction following resection of a sacral tumour. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1414-1420.

Contemporary Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty is Durable in Patients Diagnosed With Ankylosing Spondylitis.

INTRODUCTION: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a seronegative spondyloarthropathy affecting the axial spine and peripheral joints. Despite innovations in medical management, patients with AS experience two-fold the lifetime risk of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) compared to the general population. Moreover, recent data have indicated a correlation between spinal pathology and outcomes of TKAs. METHODS: Our institutional total joint registry identified 19 patients (28 knees) with a diagnosis of AS treated with primary TKA from 2000 to 2016. The mean age at TKA was 68 years, and 84% of patients were men. The mean follow-up period was 6 years. Outcomes included implant survivorship, clinical outcomes, and complications. RESULTS: Survivorship free from any revision was 88% at 10 years. A single patient required revision at 8 years for aseptic loosening. Survivorship free from any reoperation was 77% at 10 years. Reoperations included 2 manipulations under anesthesia and 1 superficial wound irrigation and debridement. Mean Knee Society score improved from 46 preoperatively to 89 postoperatively (P < .0001). The mean arc of motion improved from 108o preoperatively to 116° postoperatively (P = .01). There were 6 complications that did not require reoperation. CONCLUSION: Primary TKAs in patients with AS resulted in significant improvement in clinical outcomes with excellent 10-year implant survivorship. Although 2 manipulations under anesthesia were required, the range of motion was restored postoperatively. These data suggest that the contemporary primary TKA can achieve durable and reliable outcomes in patients with axial skeletal disease resulting from AS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.