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.

The James A. Rand Young Investigator's Award: Keeping It Simple: Are all Musculoskeletal Infection Society Tests Useful to Diagnose Periprosthetic Joint Infection?

BACKGROUND: Current data evaluating the clinical value and cost-effectiveness of advanced diagnostic tests for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis, including alpha-defensin and synovial C-reactive protein (CRP), is conflicting. This study aimed to evaluate the adequacy of preoperative and intraoperative PJI workups without utilizing these tests. METHODS: This retrospective analysis identified all patients who underwent revision total knee or hip arthroplasty (rTKA and rTHA, respectively) for suspected PJI between 2018 and 2020 and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Perioperative data and lab results were collected, and cases were dichotomized based on whether they met the 2018 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI. In total, 204 rTKA and 158 rTHA cases suspected of PJI were reviewed. RESULTS: Nearly 100% of the cases were categorized as "infected" for meeting the 2018 MSIS criteria without utilization of alpha-defensin or synovial CRP (rTKA: n = 193, 94.6%; rTHA: n = 156, 98.7%). Most cases were classified as PJI preoperatively by meeting either the major MSIS or the combinational minor MSIS criteria of traditional lab tests (rTKA: n = 177, 86.8%; rTHA: n = 143, 90.5%). A subset of cases was classified as PJI by meeting combinational preoperative and intraoperative MSIS criteria (rTKA: 16, 7.8%; rTHA: 13, 8.2%). Only 3.6% of all cases were considered "inconclusive" using preoperative and intraoperative data. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high rate of cases satisfying PJI criteria during preoperative workup using our available tests, the synovial alpha-defensin and synovial CRP tests may not be necessary in the routine diagnostic workup of PJI. We suggest that the primary PJI workup process should be based on a stepwise algorithmic approach with the most economical testing necessary to determine a diagnosis first. The use of advanced, commercialized, and costly biomarkers should be utilized only when traditional testing is indeterminate.

Perioperative Demographic and Laboratory Characteristics of Failed Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention: Can We Determine Which Patients Will Fail?

BACKGROUND: Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) are the mainstays surgical treatment for acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, reoperation following DAIR is common and the risk factors for DAIR failure remain unclear. This study aimed to assess the perioperative characteristics of patients who failed initial DAIR treatment. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on 83 patients who underwent DAIR for acute PJI within 3 months following index surgery from 2011 to 2022, with a minimum one-year follow-up. Surgical outcomes were categorized using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society outcome reporting tool (Tiers 1 to 4). Patient demographics, laboratory data, and perioperative outcomes were compared between patients who had failed (Tiers 3 and 4) (n = 32) and successful (Tiers 1 and 2) (n = 51) DAIR treatment. Logistic regression was also performed. RESULTS: After logistic regression, Charlson Comorbidity Index (odds ratio [OR]: 1.57; P = .003), preoperative C-reactive protein (OR: 1.06; P = .014), synovial white blood cell (OR: 1.14; P = .008), and polymorphonuclear cell (PMN%) counts (OR: 1.05; P = .015) were independently associated with failed DAIR. Compared with total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty patients (OR: 6.08; P = .001) were at increased risk of DAIR failure. The type of organism and time from primary surgery were not correlated with DAIR failure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had failed initial DAIR tended to have significantly higher Charlson Comorbidity Index, C-reactive protein, synovial white blood cell, and PMN%. The total knee arthroplasty DAIRs were more likely to fail than the total hip arthroplasty DAIRs. These characteristics should be considered when planning acute PJI management, as certain patients may be at higher risk for DAIR failure and may benefit from other surgical treatments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Does Surgical Approach Affect Dislocation Rate After Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Who Have Prior Lumbar Spinal Fusion? A Retrospective Analysis of 16,223 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) is a risk factor for dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The effect of the surgical approach on this association has not been investigated. This study examined the association between the surgical approach and dislocation following THA in patients who had prior LSF. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 16,223 primary elective THAs at our institution from June 2011 to September 2022. Patients who had LSF prior to THA were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Patients were stratified by LSF history, surgical approach, and intraoperative robot or navigation use to compare dislocation rates. There were 8,962 (55.2%) posterior, 5,971 (36.8%) anterior, and 1,290 (8.0%) laterally based THAs. Prior LSF was identified in 323 patients (2.0%). Binary logistic regressions were used to assess the association of patient factors with dislocation risk. RESULTS: There were 177 dislocations identified in total (1.1%). In nonadjusted analyses, the dislocation rate was significantly higher following the posterior approach among all patients (P = .003). Prior LSF was associated with a significantly higher dislocation rate in all patients (P < .001) and within the posterior (P < .001), but not the anterior approach (P = .514) subgroups. Multivariate regressions demonstrated anterior (OR [odds ratio] = 0.64, 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.45 to 0.91, P = .013), and laterally based (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.96, P = .039) approaches were associated with decreased dislocation risk, whereas prior LSF (OR = 4.28, 95% CI 2.38 to 7.69, P < .001) was associated with increased dislocation risk. Intraoperative technology utilization was not significantly associated with dislocation in the multivariate regressions (OR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.06, P = .095). CONCLUSIONS: The current study confirmed that LSF is a significant risk factor for dislocation following THA; however, anterior and laterally based approaches may mitigate dislocation risk in this population. In multivariate analyses, including surgical approach, LSF, and several perioperative variables, intraoperative technology utilization was not found to be significantly associated with dislocation risk.

Factors influencing patient selection of orthopaedic surgeons for total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

INTRODUCTION: The importance of identifying how patients choose their healthcare providers has grown with the prevalence of consumer-centric health insurance plans. There is currently a lack of studies exploring the factors associated with how patients select their hip and knee joint arthroplasty surgeons. The purpose of this study was to determine how patients find their arthroplasty providers and the relative importance of various arthroplasty surgeon characteristics. METHODS: An electronic mail survey was sent to 3522 patients who had visited our institution for an arthroplasty surgeon office visit between August 2022 and January 2023. The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions, which aimed to inquire about the patients' referral sources for their current arthroplasty surgeon. In addition, patients were requested to rate the significance of 22 surgeon-related factors, on a scale of 1 (Not Important At All) to 5 (Very Important), in choosing their arthroplasty surgeon. RESULTS: Of the 3522 patients that received the survey, 538 patients responded (15.3%). The most common referral sources were physician referral (50.2%), family/friend referral (27.7%), and self-guided research (24.5%). Of those that were referred by a physician, 54.4% of respondents were referred by another orthopaedic provider. Patients rated board certification (4.72 ± 0.65), in-network insurance status (4.66 ± 0.71), fellowship training (4.50 ± 0.81), bedside manner/personality (4.32 ± 0.86), and facility appearance (4.26 ± 0.81) as the five most important factors in picking an arthroplasty surgeon. Television (1.42 ± 0.83), print (1.50 ± 0.88), and online (1.58 ± 0.93) advertisements, along with social media presence (1.83 ± 1.08), and practice group size (2.97 ± 1.13) were rated as the five least important factors. CONCLUSION: Patients are most likely to select an arthroplasty surgeon based on referral from other physicians, namely orthopedic surgeons, in addition to board certification status, in-network insurance, and fellowship training. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of physician credentials and reputation within the orthopaedic community in order to attract and retain patients.

How Does Surgical Approach Affect Characteristics of Dislocation After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been voiced regarding how surgical approach impacts risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study investigated how surgical approach impacts rate, direction, and timing of dislocations following THA. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 13,335 primary THAs from 2011 to 2020 and identified 118 patients with prosthetic hip dislocation. Patients were stratified into cohorts by surgical approach used during primary THA. Patient demographics, index THA acetabular cup positioning, number, direction, timing of dislocations, and subsequent revisions were collected. RESULTS: Dislocation rate differed significantly between posterior approach (PA), direct anterior approach (DAA), and laterally-based approach (LA) (1.1 versus 0.7% versus 0.5%, P = .026). Rate of hips dislocating anteriorly was lowest in the PA group (19.2%) compared to LA (50.0%) and DAA groups (38.2%, P = .044). There was no difference in rate of hips dislocating posteriorly (P = .159) or multidirectional (P = .508) instability; notably 58.8% of dislocations in the DAA cohort occurred posteriorly. There were no differences in dislocation timing or revision rate. Acetabular anteversion was highest in the PA cohort compared to DAA and LA (21.5 versus 19.2 versus 11.7 degrees, P = .049). CONCLUSION: After THA, patients in the PA group had a slightly higher dislocation rate compared to the DAA and LA groups. The PA group had a lower rate of anterior dislocation and nearly 60% of DAA dislocations occurred posteriorly. However, with no differences in other parameters including revision rates or timing, our data suggests surgical approach may impact dislocation characteristics to a lesser degree than previous studies have suggested.

Comparison of Aseptic Partial- and Full-Component Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) can be performed with isolated tibial, isolated femoral, and combined tibial and femoral component exchange for different indications. Replacement of only 1 fixed component in rTKA leads to shorter operative times and decreased complexity. We sought to compare functional outcomes and rates of rerevision in patients undergoing partial and full rTKA. METHODS: This retrospective study examined all aseptic rTKA patients with a minimum follow-up of 2 years in a single center between September 2011 and December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: full rTKA (F-rTKA) if both components (femoral and tibial) were revised and partial rTKA (P-rTKA) if only 1 component was revised. A total of 293 patients (P-rTKA = 76, F-rTKA = 217) were included. RESULTS: P-rTKA patients had significantly shorter surgical time (109 ± 37 Versus. 141 ± 44 minutes, P < .001). At mean follow-up of 4.2 (range 2.2-6.2) years, rerevision rates did not significantly differ between groups (11.8 Versus. 16.1%, P = .358). Improvements in postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Scale (KOOS), Joint Replacement scores were similar as well (P = .100 and P = .140, respectively). For patients undergoing rTKA due to aseptic loosening, freedom from rerevision due to aseptic loosening was similar between groups (100 Versus. 97.8%, P = .321). For patients undergoing rTKA due to instability, freedom from rerevision due to instability did not significantly differ as well (100 Versus. 98.1%, P = .683). In the P-rTKA cohort, freedom from all-cause and aseptic revision of preserved components was 96.1% and 98.7% at the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to F-rTKA, P-rTKA yielded similar functional outcomes and implant survivorship with shorter surgical time. When indications and component compatibility allow for such a procedure, surgeons can expect good outcomes when performing P-rTKA.

Effects of Dexamethasone on Postoperative Glycemic Control in Diabetic Patients Following Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding the effects of dexamethasone on diabetics' glucose control have stymied its use following total joint arthroplasty. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 intravenous (IV) perioperative doses of dexamethasone on glucose levels, pain scores, and inpatient opioid consumption following total joint arthroplasty in diabetic patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of 523 diabetic patients who underwent primary elective THA and 953 diabetic patients who underwent primary elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between May 6, 2020, and December 17, 2021 was conducted. Patients who received 1 dose (1D) of perioperative dexamethasone 10 mg IV were compared to patients who received 2 doses (2D). Primary outcomes included postoperative glucose levels, opioid consumption as morphine milligram equivalences, postoperative pain as Verbal Rating Scale pain scores, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: The 2D TKA cohort had significantly greater average and maximum blood glucose levels from 24 to 60 hours compared to the 1D TKA cohort. The 2D THA cohort had significantly greater average blood glucose levels at 24 to 36 hours compared to the 1D THA cohort. However, the 2D TKA group had significantly reduced opioid consumption from 24 to 72 hours and reduced total consumption compared to the 1D TKA group. Verbal Rating Scale pain scores did not differ between cohorts for both TKA and THA at any interval. CONCLUSION: Administration of a second perioperative dose of dexamethasone was associated with increased postoperative blood glucose levels. However, the observed effect on glucose control may not outweigh the clinical benefits of a second perioperative dose of glucocorticoids.

Selective Use of Dual-Mobility Did Not Significantly Reduce 90-Day Readmissions or Reoperations After Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Selective use of dual mobility (DM) implants in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients at high dislocation risk has been proposed. However, evidence-based utilization thresholds have not been defined. We explored whether surgeon-specific rates of DM utilization correlate with rates of readmission and reoperation for dislocation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 14,818 primary THA procedures performed at a single institution between 2011 and 2021, including 14,310 fixed-bearing (FB) and 508 DM implant constructs. Outcomes including 90-day readmissions and reoperations were compared between patients who had FB and DM implants. Cases were then stratified into 3 groups based on the attending surgeon's rate of DM utilization (≤ 1, 1 to 10, or > 10%) and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: There were no differences in 90-day outcomes between FB and DM implant groups. Surgeon frequency of DM utilization ranged from 0% to 43%. There were 48 surgeons (73%) who used DM in ≤ 1% of cases, 11 (17%) in 1% to 10% of cases, and 7 (10%) in > 10% of cases. The 90-day rates of readmission (7.3% versus 7.6% versus 7.2%, P = .7) and reoperation (3.4% versus 3.9% versus 3.8%, P = .3), as well as readmission for instability (0.5% versus 0.6% versus 0.8%, P = .2) and reoperation for instability (0.5% versus 0.5% versus 0.8%, P = .6), did not statistically differ between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Selective DM utilization did not reduce 90-day readmissions or reoperations following primary THA. Other dislocation-mitigation strategies (ie, surgical approach, computer navigation, robotic assistance, and large diameter FBs) may have masked any benefits of selective DM use.

Aspirin Thromboprophylaxis Following Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With a Lower Rate of Early Prosthetic Joint Infection Compared With Other Agents.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Aspirin has been shown to be effective at reducing rates of VTE. In select patients, more potent thromboprophylaxis is indicated, which has been associated with increased rates of bleeding and wound complications. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of thromboprophylaxis choice on the rates of early prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following TKA. METHODS: A review of 11,547 primary TKA patients from 2013 to 2019 at a single academic orthopaedic hospital was conducted. The primary outcome measure was PJI within 90 days of surgery as measured by Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. There were 59 (0.5%) patients diagnosed with early PJI. Chi-square and Welch-2 sample t-tests were used to determine statistically significant relationships between thromboprophylaxis and demographic variables. Significance was set at P < .05. Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for age, body mass index, sex, and Charlson comorbidity index was performed to identify and control for independent risk factors for early PJI. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the rates of early PJI between the aspirin and non-aspirin group (0.3 versus 0.8%, P < .001). Multivariate logistic regressions revealed that patients given aspirin thromboprophylaxis had significantly lower odds of PJI (odds ratios = 0.51, 95% confidence interval = 0.29-0.89, P = .019) compared to non-aspirin patients. CONCLUSION: The use of aspirin thromboprophylaxis following primary TKA is independently associated with a lower rate of early PJIs. Arthroplasty surgeons should consider aspirin as the gold standard thromboprophylaxis in all patients in which it is deemed medically appropriate and should carefully weigh the morbidity of PJI in patients when non-aspirin thromboprophylaxis is considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective, Therapeutic Level III.

The Effect of Prosthetic Joint Infection on Work Status and Quality of Life: A Multicenter, International Study.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and subsequent revision surgeries may affect patients' social and physical health, ability to complete daily activities, and disability status. This study sought to determine how PJI affects patients' quality of life through patient-reported outcome measures with minimum 1-year follow-up. METHODS: Patients who suffered PJI following primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) from 2012 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients met Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for acute or chronic PJI, underwent revision TJA surgery, and had at least 1 year of follow-up. Patients were surveyed regarding how PJI affected their work and disability status, as well as their mental and physical health. Outcome measures were compared between acute and chronic PJIs. In total, 318 patients (48.4% total knee arthroplasty and 51.6% total hip arthroplasty) met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Following surgical treatment for knee and hip PJI, a substantial proportion of patients reported that they were unable to negotiate stairs (20.5%), had worse physical health (39.6%), and suffered worse mental health (25.2%). A high proportion of patients reported worse quality of life (38.5%) and social satisfaction (35.3%) following PJI. Worse reported patient-reported outcome measures including patients' ability to complete daily physical activities were found among patients undergoing treatment for chronic PJI, and also, 23% of patients regretted their initial decision to pursue primary TJA. CONCLUSIONS: A PJI negatively affects patients' ability to carry out everyday activities. This patient population is prone to report challenges overcoming disability and returning to work. Patients should be adequately educated regarding the risk of PJI to decrease later potential regrets. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series (IV).

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

Total hip arthroplasty for hip fractures in patients older than 80 years of age: a retrospective matched cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing age and hip fractures are considered risk factors for post-operative complications in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Consequently, older adults undergoing THA due to hip fracture may have different outcomes and require additional healthcare resources than younger patients. This study aimed to identify the influence of age on discharge disposition and 90-day outcomes of THA performed for hip fractures in patients ≥ 80 years to those aged < 80. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 344 patients who underwent primary THA for hip fracture from 2011 to 2021 was conducted. Patients ≥ 80 years old were propensity-matched to a control group < 80 years old. Patient demographics, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and 90-day post-operative outcomes were collected and assessed using Chi-square and independent sample t tests. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients remained for matched comparison after propensity matching, and the average age in the younger cohort (YC, n = 55) was 67.69 ± 10.48, while the average age in the older cohort (OC, n = 55) was 85.12 ± 4.77 (p ≤ 0.001). Discharge disposition differed between the cohorts (p = 0.005), with the YC being more likely to be discharged home (52.7% vs. 27.3%) or to an acute rehabilitation center (23.6% vs. 16.4%) and less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (21.8% vs. 54.5%). 90-day revision (3.6% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.558), 90-day readmission (10.9% vs. 14.5%; p = 0.567), 90-day complications (p = 0.626), and 90-day mortality rates (1.8% vs 1.8%; p = 1.000) did not differ significantly between cohorts. CONCLUSION: While older patients were more likely to require a higher level of post-hospital care, outcomes and perioperative complication rates were not significantly different compared to a younger patient cohort. Payors need to consider patients' age in future payment models, as discharge disposition comprises a large percentage of post-discharge expenses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Comparing Articulating Spacers for Periprosthetic Joint Infection After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: All-Cement Versus Real-Component Articulating Spacers.

BACKGROUND: There are a variety of methods available to treat periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), including 2-stage revision with the use of an antibiotic spacer. This study compares the outcomes of real-component (RC) and all-cement (AC) articulating spacers for total hip arthroplasty (THA) PJI treatment. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study assessed all articulating spacers placed for THA PJI between April 2011 and August 2020. Patients were dichotomized based on spacer type (RC vs AC). RESULTS: One hundred four patients received articulating spacer constructs (RC group = 75, AC group = 29). Leg-length discrepancy was significantly greater in the AC group after the second stage (3.58 vs 12.00 mm, P = .023). There were no significant differences in reoperation rates following first-stage spacer placement (P = .752) and time to reimplantation (P = .127) between the groups. There were no significant differences in reinfection rates (RC group = 10.0%, AC group = 7.1%, P = 1.000) and reoperation rates following second-stage revision THA (RC group = 11.7%, AC group = 10.7%, P = 1.000). Hospital length of stay (in days) had a trend toward being shorter following the first (7.35 vs 11.96, P = .166) and second stage (3.95 vs 5.43, P = .107) for patients in the RC group. Patients in the RC group were more likely to be discharged home following the first (P = .020) and second (P = .039) stages. CONCLUSION: Given that there were no differences in reinfection and reoperation rates between the 2 spacer constructs, RC articulating spacers may provide a significant benefit for patient comfort during 2-stage exchange treatment of PJI while adding no increase in risk profile.

How Does a "Dry Tap" Impact the Accuracy of Preoperative Aspiration Results in Predicting Chronic Periprosthetic Joint Infection?

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is challenging to diagnose. We aimed to evaluate the impact of dry taps requiring saline lavage during preoperative intra-articular hip aspiration on the accuracy of diagnosing PJI before revision surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted for THA patients with suspected PJI who received an image-guided hip aspiration from May 2016 to February 2020. Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) diagnostic criteria for PJI were compared between patients who had dry tap (DT) vs successful tap (ST). Sensitivity and specificity of synovial markers were compared between the DT and ST groups. Concordance between preoperative and intraoperative cultures was determined for the 2 groups. RESULTS: In total, 335 THA patients met inclusion criteria. A greater proportion of patients in the ST group met MSIS criteria preoperatively (30.2% vs 8.3%, P < .001). Patients in the ST group had higher rates of revision for PJI (28.4% vs 17.5%, P = .026) and for any indication (48.4% vs 36.7%, P = .039). MSIS synovial white blood cell count thresholds were more sensitive in the ST group (90.0% vs 66.7%). There was no difference in culture concordance (67.9% vs 65.9%, P = .709), though the DT group had a higher rate of negative preoperative cultures followed by positive intraoperative cultures (85.7% vs 41.1%, P = .047). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that approximately one third of patients have dry hip aspiration, and in these patients cultures are less predictive of intraoperative findings. This suggests that surgeons considering potential PJI after THA should apply extra scrutiny when interpreting negative results in patients who require saline lavage for hip joint aspiration.

Tourniquet Use Is Associated With Reduced Blood Loss and Fewer Reoperations in Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although tourniquet use in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been widely studied, the outcomes associated with tourniquet use in revision TKA (rTKA) remains relatively unexplored. This study investigates surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction in association with tourniquet use during aseptic rTKA. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent rTKA for aseptic causes at our institution from 2011 to 2020. Patients were separated into 2 cohorts based on tourniquet inflation during the procedure. Outcomes of interest included estimated blood loss, change in hemoglobin, surgical time, length of stay, reoperation rate, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR) scores. RESULTS: Of the 1212 patients included, 1007 (83%) underwent aseptic rTKA with the use of a tourniquet and 205 (17%) without the use of a tourniquet. The mean tourniquet inflation time was 93.0 minutes (standard deviation 33.3 minutes). Blood loss was significantly less for patients in the tourniquet cohort as measured through estimated blood loss (224.1 vs 325.1 mL, P < .001) and change in preoperative to postoperative hemoglobin (1.75 vs 2.04 g/dL, P < .001). There were no statistical differences in surgical time (P = .267) and length of stay (P = .206) between the 2 groups. The reoperation rate was significantly greater for patients who did not have a tourniquet utilized (20.5% vs 15.0%, P = .038). Delta improvement in KOOS, JR scores from baseline to 3 months postoperatively did not statistically differ between the 2 cohorts (P = .560). CONCLUSION: Although delta improvements in KOOS, JR scores were similar for both cohorts, patients who did not have a tourniquet inflated during aseptic rTKA had increased blood loss and were more likely to undergo subsequent reoperation compared to patients who did. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Are Patient-Reported Drug Allergies Associated With Prosthetic Joint Infections and Functional Outcomes Following Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to determine if the number and types of patient-reported drug allergies are associated with prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and functional outcomes following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). METHODS: This is a retrospective review of all patients who underwent a primary, elective total hip (THA) or knee arthroplasty (TKA) over a 10-year period at a single academic institution. Demographic, clinical information, and number and type of patient-reported drug allergy was collected. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to identify risk factors for PJI and risk of PJI based on number of allergies. Univariate analysis was also performed to identify if the number of patient-reported allergies affected functional outcome scores. RESULTS: Of 31,109 patients analyzed, there were 941 (3%) revisions for infection (491 knees and 450 hips). At least one allergy was reported by 16,435 (52.8%) patients, with a mean of 1.2 ± 1.9. Those who underwent revision for infection had a significantly higher number of reported allergies (1.68 ± 1.9 vs 1.23 ± 1.9, P < .0005, 95% confidence interval -0.58 to 0.33). On univariate regression the number of allergies independently predicted revision TJA for infection (P < .0001) as did age, gender, body mass index, and smoking status. On multivariate regression for each additional patient-reported allergy, risk of PJI increased by 1.11 times (95% confidence interval 1.07-1.14, P < .0001). Number of patient-reported allergies did not predict 3-month or 1-year functional outcome scores. CONCLUSION: Patients with a higher number of reported allergies may be at increased risk of PJI following TJA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II.

The number of stairs into home do not impact discharge disposition and patient reported outcomes after total joint arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to report on the association between the number of stairs to enter home and length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) among patients who underwent primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent primary total hip or knee arthroplasty between January 2016 and March 2020. Only patients with documentation of the number of stairs to enter their homes were included in the study. The two cohorts were separated into four groups: none, 1-10, 11-20, and > 20 stairs. Collected variables included demographic data, LOS, discharge disposition, and PROMs. Chi-square and ANOVA were utilized to determine significance. RESULTS: Of the 1116 patients included, 510 underwent THA, and 606 underwent TKA. There was no statistical difference in LOS (THA: p = 0.308; TKA: p = 0.701) and discharge disposition (THA: p = 0.371; TKA: p = 0.484) in both cohorts regardless the number of stairs. There was no statistical difference in FJS-12 scores at 3 months (THA: p = 0.590; TKA: p = 0.206), 12 months (THA: p = 0.217; TKA: p = 0.845), and 21 months (THA: p = 0.782; TKA: p = 0.296) postoperatively for both cohorts. There was no statistical difference in HOOS, JR scores preoperatively (p = 0.278) and at 3 months postoperatively (p = 0.527) for the THA cohort, as well as KOOS, JR scores preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively (p = 0.557; p = 0.522; p = 0.747) for the TKA cohort. CONCLUSION: We found no statistical differences in LOS, discharge disposition, and PROMs in patients who underwent TJA, irrespective of the number of stairs negotiated to enter their home. These findings can aid surgeons to provide preoperative education and reassurance to patients who have concerns with their discharge planning due to the walk-up stairway at their residence.

Effect of Marital Status on Outcomes Following Total Joint Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the specific socioeconomic factor such as marital status has any effect on clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after primary total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent primary THA or TKA from January 2019 to August 2019 who answered all PROM questionnaires. Both THA and TKA patients were separated into two groups based on their marital status at the time of surgery (married vs. non-married). Demographics, clinical data, and PROMs (FJS-12, HOOS, JR, KOOS, JR, and VR-12 PCS&MCS) were collected at various time-periods. Demographic differences were assessed using chi-square and independent sample t tests. Clinical data and mean PROMs were compared using multilinear regressions while accounting for demographic differences. RESULTS: This study included 389 patients who underwent primary THA and 193 that underwent primary TKA. In the THA cohort, 256 (66%) patients were married and 133 (34%) were non-married. In the TKA cohort, there were 117 (61%) married patients and 76 (39%) non-married patients. Length of stay was significantly shorter for married patients in both the THA (1.30 vs. 1.64; p = 0.002) and TKA (1.89 vs. 2.36; p = 0.024) cohorts. Surgical-time, all-cause emergency department visits, discharge disposition, and 90-day all-cause adverse events (readmissions/revisions) did not statistically differ between both cohorts. Both HOOS, JR and KOOS, JR score improvements from baseline to 1-year did not statistically differ for the THA and TKA cohorts, respectively. Although VR-12 PCS (p = 0.012) and MCS (p = 0.004) score improvement from baseline to 1-year statistically differed for the THA cohort, they did not for the TKA cohort. CONCLUSION: Total joint arthroplasty may yield similar clinical benefits in all patients irrespective of their marital status. Although some PROMs statistically differed among married and non-married patients, the differences are likely not clinically significant. Surgeons should continue to assess levels of psychosocial support in their patients prior to undergoing TJA to optimize outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective Cohort Study.

Lack of small tibial component size availability for females in a highly utilized total knee arthroplasty system.

PURPOSE: Surgeons must rely on manufacturers to provide an appropriate distribution of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) sizes. There is a lack of literature regarding current appropriateness of tibial sizing schemes according to sex. As such, a study was devised assessing the adequacy of off-the-shelf tibial component size availability according to sex. METHODS: A search was conducted to identify all primary TKAs between July 2012 and June 2019 performed using a single implant. Baseline patient characteristics were collected (age, weight, height, BMI, and race). Two cohorts were created according to patient sex. Tibial sizes for each cohort were collected. Tibial component bar graph and histogram were created according to component sizes. Skewness and kurtosis were calculated for each distribution. Overhang was noted and measured radiographically. RESULTS: A total of 864 patients were identified, 38.7% males and 61.3% females. Most patients were Caucasian, and BMI was similar between cohorts. Tibial size distribution for males was as follows: 0.3% C, 4.8% D, 16.5% E, 40.1% F, 31.4% G, 6.9% H. Tibial size distribution for females was as follows: 30.8% C, 42.8% D, 23.0% E, 2.6% F, 0.8% G, 0.0% H. Histograms and normal curves demonstrated a fairly symmetric distribution of sizes for males (skewness = - 0.31, kurtosis = - 0.03). The distribution for females was positively skewed (skewness = 0.57, kurtosis = 0.12). Overall, overhang was noted in 16.6% of all size C tibias. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study highlight an implant-specific discrepancy in size availability affecting female patients which could result in inferior outcomes. The authors urge manufacturers to critically assess current implant size distribution availability to ensure both genders are adequately, and equally represented. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.