High-volume revision surgeons have better outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty.

AIMS: It has previously been shown that higher-volume hospitals have better outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). We were unable to identify any studies which investigated the effect of surgeon volume on the outcome of rTKA. We sought to investigate whether patients of high-volume (HV) rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following this procedure compared with those of low-volume (LV) surgeons. METHODS: This retrospective study involved patients who underwent aseptic unilateral rTKA between January 2016 and March 2019, using the database of a large urban academic medical centre. Surgeons who performed ≥ 19 aseptic rTKAs per year during the study period were considered HV and those who performed < 19 per year were considered LV. Demographic characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 308 rTKAs were identified, 132 performed by HV surgeons and 176 by 22 LV surgeons. The LV group had a significantly greater proportion of non-smokers (59.8% vs 49.2%; p = 0.029). For all types of revision, HV surgeons had significantly shorter mean operating times by 17.75 minutes (p = 0.007). For the 169 full revisions (85 HV, 84 LV), HV surgeons had significantly shorter operating times (131.12 (SD 33.78) vs 171.65 (SD 49.88) minutes; p < 0.001), significantly lower re-revision rates (7.1% vs 19.0%; p = 0.023) and significantly fewer re-revisions (0.07 (SD 0.26) vs 0.29 (SD 0.74); p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Patients of HV rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following full rTKA. These findings support the development of revision teams within arthroplasty centres of excellence to offer patients the best possible outcomes following rTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):131-136.

Discontinuation of the liposomal delivery of bupivacaine has no effect on pain management after primary total knee arthroplasty : no effect on pain scores, opioid consumption, or functional status.

AIMS: Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) as part of a periarticular injection protocol continues to be a highly debated topic in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We evaluated the effect of discontinuing the use of LB in a periarticular protocol on immediate postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, and objective functional outcomes. METHODS: On 1 July 2019, we discontinued the use of intraoperative LB as part of a periarticular injection protocol. A consecutive group of patients who received LB as part of the protocol (Protocol 1) and a subsequent group who did not (Protocol 2) were compared. All patients received the same opioid-sparing protocol. Verbal rating scale (VRS) pain scores were collected from our electronic data warehouse and averaged per patient per 12-hour interval. Events relating to the opiate administration were derived as morphine milligram equivalences (MMEs) per patient per 24-hour interval. The Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) tool was used to assess the immediate postoperative function. RESULTS: A total of 888 patients received Protocol 1 and while 789 received Protocol 2. The mean age of the patients was significantly higher in those who did not receive LB (66.80 vs 65.57 years, p = 0.006). The sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, race, smoking status, marital status, operating time, length of stay, and discharge disposition were similar in the two groups. Compared with the LB group, discontinuing LB showed no significant difference in postoperative VRS pain scores up to 72 hours (p > 0.05), opioid administration up to 96 hours (p > 0.05), or AM-PAC scores within the first 24 hours (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The control of pain after TKA with a multimodal management protocol is not improved by the addition of LB compared with traditional bupivacaine. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):102-107.

Telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic : adult reconstructive surgery perspective.

AIMS: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a swift adoption of telehealth in orthopaedic surgery. This study aimed to analyze the satisfaction of patients and surgeons with the rapid expansion of telehealth at this time within the division of adult reconstructive surgery at a major urban academic tertiary hospital. METHODS: A total of 334 patients underging arthroplasty of the hip or knee who completed a telemedicine visit between 30 March and 30 April 2020 were sent a 14-question survey, scored on a five-point Likert scale. Eight adult reconstructive surgeons who used telemedicine during this time were sent a separate 14-question survey at the end of the study period. Factors influencing patient satisfaction were determined using univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients (20.4%) and 100% of the surgeons completed the surveys. Patients were "Satisfied" with their telemedicine visits (4.10/5.00 (SD 0.98)) and 19 (27.9%) would prefer telemedicine to in-person visits in the absence of COVID-19. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression modelling revealed that patients were more likely to be satisfied if their surgeon effectively responded to their questions or concerns (odds ratio (OR) 3.977; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.260 to 13.190; p = 0.019) and if their visit had a high audiovisual quality (OR 2.46; 95% CI 1.052 to 6.219; p = 0.042). Surgeons were "Satisfied" with their telemedicine experience (3.63/5.00 (SD 0.92)) and were "Fairly Confident" (4.00/5.00 (SD 0.53)) in their diagnostic accuracy despite finding the physical examinations to be only "Slightly Effective" (1.88/5.00 (SD 0.99)). Most adult reconstructive surgeons, seven of eight (87.5%) would continue to use telemedicine in the future. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine emerged as a valuable tool during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients undergoing arthroplasty and their surgeons were satisfied with telemedicine and see a role for its use after the pandemic. The audiovisual quality and the responsiveness of physicians to the concerns of patients determine their satisfaction. Future investigations should focus on improving the physical examination of patients through telemedicine and strategies for its widespread implementation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):196-204.

Evaluation of the spine is critical in the workup of recurrent instability after total hip arthroplasty.

AIMS: While previously underappreciated, factors related to the spine contribute substantially to the risk of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). These factors must be taken into consideration during preoperative planning for revision THA due to recurrent instability. We developed a protocol to assess the functional position of the spine, the significance of these findings, and how to address different pathologies at the time of revision THA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively collected data on 111 patients undergoing revision THA for recurrent instability from January 2014 to January 2017 at two institutions were included (protocol group) and matched 1:1 to 111 revisions specifically performed for instability not using this protocol (control group). Mean follow-up was 2.8 years. Protocol patients underwent standardized preoperative imaging including supine and standing anteroposterior (AP) pelvis and lateral radiographs. Each case was scored according to the Hip-Spine Classification in Revision THA. RESULTS: Survival free of dislocation at two years was 97% in the protocol group (three dislocations, all within three months of surgery) versus 84% in the control group (18 patients). Furthermore, 77% of the inappropriately positioned acetabular components would have been unrecognized by supine AP pelvis imaging alone. CONCLUSION: Using the Hip-Spine Classification System in revision THA, we demonstrated a significant decrease in the risk of recurrent instability compared with a control group. Without the use of this algorithm, 77% of inappropriately positioned acetabular components would have been unrecognized and incorrect treatment may have been instituted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:817-823.