15-year survivorship of a unique dual-modular femoral stem in primary hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Hip offset, version, and length are interdependent femoral variables which determine stability and leg length. Balancing these competing variables remains a core challenge in hip arthroplasty. The potential benefits of modular femoral stems have been overshadowed by higher rates of failure. The objective of this study was to assess the survivorship of a unique dual-modular femoral stem at an average 15-year follow-up period. METHODS: The records of all patients with osteoarthritis who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty with this device between 2004-2009 were reviewed. There were no exclusions for BMI or other factors. We examined the data with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The primary endpoint for survival was mechanical failure of the modular neck-body junction. RESULTS: The survivorship of this device in 172 subjects was 100% with none experiencing mechanical failure of the modular junction at an average of 15 years. 60 patients died of causes unrelated to their THA and 9 patients were lost to follow-up. There were three early (≤ 12 months) dislocations (1.7%), and seven total dislocations (4.1%). 16 patients underwent reoperations during the follow-up period, none for any complication of the modular junction. Radiographic results showed well-fixed femoral stems in all cases. There were no leg length discrepancies of greater than 10 mm, and 85% were within 5 mm. CONCLUSION: There were no mechanical failures of the modular junction in any of the subjects over the average 15-year period, demonstrating that this dual-modular design is not associated with increased failure rates. We achieved a 1.7% early dislocation rate and a 4.1% total dislocation rate without any clinically significant leg length discrepancies.

Evaluation of the Safety of Uninterrupted Warfarin Anticoagulation With Tranexamic Acid in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The continuation of long-term warfarin therapy is gaining acceptance in minor surgeries but maintaining therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) values among patients during major orthopedic procedures raises concern. While bridging therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin is currently recommended for patients receiving anticoagulation, few studies have evaluated the safety of continuing warfarin during total joint arthroplasty. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of continuous warfarin anticoagulation through total joint arthroplasty with and without prophylactic tranexamic acid (TXA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, matched-pair analysis of two experimental groups of patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty performed by a single surgeon. Our first experimental group, warfarin plus TXA (warfarin+TXA), consisted of 21 patients who underwent arthroplasty while receiving therapeutic anticoagulation with warfarin (INR, 2.0-3.0) and who received prophylactic TXA. Our second experimental group, warfarin without TXA (warfarin-TXA), consisted of 40 patients who underwent arthroplasty while receiving therapeutic anticoagulation with warfarin (INR, 2.0-3.0) without prophylactic TXA. RESULTS: The percent change in hemoglobin value after surgery, red blood cells transfused, surgical site infections, bleeding complications, and thrombotic complications were similar between both experimental and control groups. When comparing the historical group with the warfarin+TXA group, the addition of TXA resulted in a statistical decrease in mean red blood cells transfused and estimated blood loss, with no statistically significant increase in complications. CONCLUSION: Many factors must be considered when choosing perioperative thromboembolic prophylaxis for arthroplasty candidates with medical comorbidities requiring long-term anticoagulation. This study presents data indicating that it could be safe and effective to continue therapeutic warfarin while using prophylactic TXA. [Orthopedics. 202x;4x(x):xx-xx.].

The Joint Awareness Score: A Shortened, Simplified, Improved Alternative to the Forgotten Joint Score.

Background: The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) is a 12-question patient-reported outcomes measure created to measure a patient's awareness of their artificial joint. The FJS has attained wide usage, though it is not without weaknesses. Our patients report that the semantics of the English translation are flawed and that the 5 answer options for each question are poorly differentiated. Additionally, the FJS will result in no score if 3 or more questions are unanswered. This prompted the development of an alternative patient-reported outcomes measure, the Joint Awareness Score (JAS), that builds upon the core concept of joint awareness underlying the FJS, but that is easier to understand and shorter to complete. We completed an exploratory, pilot study to evaluate this outcomes instrument. Our hypothesis is that the JAS will correlate strongly with the FJS and could be used as a substitute. Methods: Knee arthroplasty patients in a prospective registry were administered the FJS and the JAS. Internal consistency and correlation were calculated with Cronbach's alpha and Pearson's correlation coefficient, respectively. Results: This study included 174 patients. Cronbach's alpha for FJS was 0.97 for 6 months and 0.97 for 12 months, whereas JAS was 0.89 at 6 months and 0.85 at 12 months. Pearson correlation comparing FJS and JAS at 6 months was 0.88 (95% confidence interval: 0.83, 0.92) and 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.78, 0.92) at 12 months. Conclusions: The Joint Awareness Score is a new patient-reported outcomes measure that is a substitute for the FJS, with half the number of questions, improved semantics, and simplified answers.

Outcomes are Better With a Medial-Stabilized vs a Posterior-Stabilized Total Knee Implanted With Kinematic Alignment.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus whether a posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee device is superior to a more congruent, cruciate-substituting, medial-stabilized device (MS). This study compared the clinical outcomes of these devices. The primary hypothesis was that the clinical outcomes would be better in the MS group implanted with kinematic alignment. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, single-center Level 1 study compared the outcomes of 99 patients who received a PS device and 101 patients who received an MS device implanted with kinematic alignment. Institutional Review Board approval and informed consent were obtained. Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed preoperatively, 6 weeks, 6 months, and annually. RESULTS: All subjects reached the minimum follow-up of 2 years. There were no statistically significant differences in demographic characteristics, preoperative scores, or alignment (preoperative or postoperative). Tourniquet time was 7.24% longer for the PS group (40.28 min vs 37.56 min, P < .0086). There were significant differences between groups for the 1-year and 2-year Knee Society scores, Forgotten Joint Score, and ROM; in every case favoring the MS group. The FJS was 68.3 in the MS group at 2 years and 58.3 in the PS group (P = .02). The maximum flexion at 2 years was 132° in the MS group and 124° in the PS group (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The clinical outcomes of the MS group at 1 and 2 years were better. At the minimum 2-year follow-up, the results demonstrate the superiority of the medial-stabilized device in terms of multiple clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.