Positive Cultures Can Be Safely Ignored in Revision Arthroplasty Patients That Do Not Meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting Criteria.

BACKGROUND: During aseptic revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA), one or more cultures may occasionally isolate an organism. The hypothesis of this study was that in a portion of patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for aseptic failure, culture may isolate an organism(s) that can be left untreated. METHODS: All patients undergoing revision TJA from 2000 to 2017 at two institutions were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized as aseptic if they were appropriately investigated preoperatively and did not meet the 2018 International Consensus Meeting criteria. In the aseptic revision cohort, patients with a single positive culture or multiple cultures positive for different organisms ("organism-positive") and patients who had negative intraoperative cultures ("organism-negative") were compared based on demographics, comorbidities, operative details, subsequent reoperations, and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). RESULTS: In total, 3,234 International Consensus Meeting-negative aseptic revision TJAs were included, of which 215 patients (6.6%) were organism-positive, 196 (91.2%) had a single positive culture, and 19 (8.8%) were positive for 2 or more distinct organisms (ie, polymicrobial). The most prevalent organisms were coagulase-negative Staphylococci (37.5%), Staphylococcus epidermidis (9.6%), and Cutibacterium acnes (8.0%). Demographics and operative details were comparable between the groups. Using multiple regressions there was no association between culture positivity and the rate of reoperation or PJI. CONCLUSION: Isolation of organisms by culture in patients undergoing revision for aseptic failure was not uncommon. As long as these patients were appropriately investigated preoperatively and PJI was excluded, these findings suggest that culture results may be ignored without subjecting patients to additional antimicrobial treatment.

Melatonin Does Not Improve Sleep Quality in a Randomized Placebo-controlled Trial After Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Sleep disturbance is a common concern among patients who have undergone total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Poor sleep during the postoperative period affect quality of life directly and may influence pain recovery after TJA. The purpose of this prospective study was to investigate whether the daily use of exogenous melatonin for 6 weeks after TJA can mitigate the effects of TJA on sleep. METHODS: A cohort of 118 patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty from 2018 to 2020 were randomized to melatonin (6 mg) or placebo for 42 days after surgery. Inclusion criterion was patients undergoing unilateral primary TJA. Patients who underwent bilateral TJA and revision TJA, with a history of sleep disturbance, and on opioid medication or sleep aids preoperatively were excluded. Sleep quality was assessed at baseline and at 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively using the validated self-administered questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Continuous and categorical variables were analyzed using Student t-test and chi-square analysis, respectively. Multivariate linear regression analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: Patients in both groups exhibited higher PSQI scores, representing lower sleep quality, at both 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively compared with that at baseline. Overall, global PSQI scores were 6.8, 9.8, and 8.8 at baseline, week 2, and week 6, respectively. No significant differences were noted between melatonin and placebo groups at baseline (6.8 versus 6.8, P = 0.988), week 2 (10.2 versus 9.3, P = 0.309), or week 6 (8.8 versus 8.7, P = 0.928). In multivariable regression, the only significant predictors of increased PSQI scores were an elevated baseline PSQI score (at both time points), a decreased length of stay (at week 2 only), and patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty (at week 6 only). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing TJA had poor sleep quality both preoperatively and postoperatively. The use of exogenous melatonin did not demonstrate any notable effect on sleep quality.

Opioid Use Following Inpatient Versus Outpatient Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although the risks of continued opioid use following inpatient total joint arthroplasty (TJA) have been well-studied, these risks in the outpatient setting are not well known. The purpose of the present study was to characterize opioid use following outpatient compared with inpatient TJA. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, opioid-naïve patients who underwent inpatient or outpatient (no overnight stay) primary, elective TJA from 2007 to 2017 were identified within a large national commercial-claims insurance database. For inclusion in the study, patients had to have been continuously enrolled in the database for ≥12 months prior to and ≥6 months after the TJA procedure. Multivariable analyses controlling for demographics, geography, procedure, year, and comorbidities were utilized to determine the association between surgical setting and risk of persistent opioid use, defined as the patient still filling new opioid prescriptions >90 days postoperatively. RESULTS: We identified a total of 92,506 opioid-naïve TJA patients, of whom 57,183 (61.8%) underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Overall, 7,342 patients (7.9%) underwent an outpatient TJA procedure, including 4,194 outpatient TKAs. Outpatient TJA was associated with reduced surgical opioid prescribing (78.9% compared with 87.6% for inpatient procedures; p < 0.001). Among the 80,393 patients (86.9%) who received surgical opioids, the total amount of opioids prescribed (in morphine milligram equivalents) was similar between inpatient (median, 750; interquartile range, 450 to 1,200) and outpatient procedures (median, 750; interquartile range, 450 to 1,140; p = 0.47); however, inpatient TJA patients were significantly more likely to still be taking opioids after 90 days postoperatively (11.4% compared with 9.0% for outpatient procedures; p < 0.001). These results persisted in adjusted analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.24; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient TJA patients who received opioid prescriptions were prescribed a similar amount of opioids as those undergoing inpatient TJA procedures, but were significantly less likely to become persistent opioid users, even when controlling for patient factors. Outpatient TJA, as compared with inpatient TJA, does not appear to be a risk factor for new opioid dependence, and these findings support the continued transition to the outpatient-TJA model for lower-risk patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Evading the host response: Staphylococcus "hiding" in cortical bone canalicular system causes increased bacterial burden.

Extremity reconstruction surgery is increasingly performed rather than amputation for patients with large-segment pathologic bone loss. Debate persists as to the optimal void filler for this "limb salvage" surgery, whether metal or allograft bone. Clinicians focus on optimizing important functional gains for patients, and the risk of devastating implant infection has been thought to be similar regardless of implant material. Recent insights into infection pathophysiology are challenging this equipoise, however, with both basic science data suggesting a novel mechanism of infection of Staphylococcus aureus (the most common infecting agent) into the host lacunar-canaliculi network, and also clinical data revealing a higher rate of infection of allograft over metal. The current translational study was therefore developed to bridge the gap between these insights in a longitudinal murine model of infection of allograft bone and metal. Real-time Staphylococci infection characteristics were quantified in cortical bone vs metal, and both microarchitecture of host implant and presence of host immune response were assessed. An orders-of-magnitude higher bacterial burden was established in cortical allograft bone over both metal and cancellous bone. The establishment of immune-evading microabscesses was confirmed in both cortical allograft haversian canal and the submicron canaliculi network in an additional model of mouse femur bone infection. These study results reveal a mechanism by which Staphylococci evasion of host immunity is possible, contributing to elevated risks of infection in cortical bone. The presence of this local infection reservoir imparts massive clinical implications that may alter the current paradigm of osteomyelitis and bulk allograft infection treatment.

A Comparison of Defense and Plaintiff Expert Witnesses in Orthopaedic Surgery Malpractice Litigation.

BACKGROUND: According to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Standards of Professionalism, the responsible testimony of expert witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice lawsuits is important to the public interest. However, these expert witnesses are recruited and compensated without established standards, and their testimony can potentially sway court opinion, with substantial consequences. The objective of this study was to characterize defense and plaintiff expert orthopaedic surgeon witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice litigation. METHODS: Utilizing the WestlawNext legal database, defense and plaintiff expert witnesses involved in orthopaedic surgery malpractice lawsuits from 2013 to 2017 were identified. Each witness's subspecialty, mean years of experience, involvement in academic or private practice, fellowship training, and scholarly impact, as measured by the Hirsch index (h-index), were determined through a query of professional profiles, the Scopus database, and a PubMed search. Statistical comparisons were made for each parameter among defense and plaintiff expert witnesses. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2017, 306 expert medical witnesses for orthopaedic cases were identified; 174 (56.9%) testified on behalf of the plaintiff, and 132 (43.1%) testified on behalf of the defense. Orthopaedic surgeons who identified themselves as general orthopaedists comprised the largest share of expert witnesses on both the plaintiff (n = 61) and defense (n = 25) sides. The plaintiff witnesses averaged 36 years of experience versus 31 years for the defense witnesses (p < 0.001); 26% of the plaintiff witnesses held an academic position versus 43% of the defense witnesses (p = 0.013). Defense witnesses exhibited a higher proportion of fellowship training in comparison to plaintiff expert witnesses (80.5% versus 64.5%, respectively, p = 0.003). The h-index for the plaintiff group was 6.6 versus 9.1 for the defense group (p = 0.04). Two witnesses testified for both the plaintiff and defense sides. CONCLUSIONS: Defense expert witnesses held higher rates of academic appointments and exhibited greater scholarly impact than their plaintiff counterparts, with both sides averaging >30 years of experience. These data collectively show that there are differences in characteristics between plaintiff and defense witnesses. Additional study is needed to illuminate the etiology of these differences.