Unipolar Hemiarthroplasty, Bipolar Hemiarthroplasty, or Total Hip Arthroplasty for Hip Fracture in Older Individuals.

BACKGROUND: Practice patterns regarding the use of unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for femoral neck fractures in older patients vary widely. This is due in part to limited data stipulating the specific circumstances under which each form of arthroplasty provides the most predictable outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the patient characteristics for which unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, or THA might be preferable due to a lower risk of all-cause revision. METHODS: A U.S. health-care system's hip fracture registry was used to identify patients ≥60 years old who underwent unipolar hemiarthroplasty, bipolar hemiarthroplasty, or THA for hip fracture from 2009 through 2021. Unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty were compared with THA within patient subgroups defined by age (60 to 79 versus ≥80 years) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification (I or II versus III); patients with an ASA classification of IV or higher were excluded. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to evaluate all-cause revision risk while adjusting for confounders, with mortality considered as a competing risk. RESULTS: There were 14,277 patients in the final sample (median age, 82 years; 70% female; 80% White; 69% with an ASA classification of III; median follow-up, 2.7 years), and the procedures included 7,587 unipolar hemiarthroplasties, 5,479 bipolar hemiarthroplasties, and 1,211 THAs. In the multivariable analysis of all patients, both unipolar (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.48 to 3.12; p < 0.001) and bipolar (HR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.31 to 2.80; p < 0.001) hemiarthroplasty had higher revision risks than THA. In the age-stratified multivariable analysis of patients aged 60 to 79 years, both unipolar (HR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.42 to 3.34; p = 0.004) and bipolar (HR = 1.69, 95% CI = 1.08 to 2.65; p = 0.022) hemiarthroplasty also had higher revision risks than THA. In the ASA-stratified multivariable analysis, patients with an ASA classification of I or II had a higher revision risk after either unipolar (HR = 3.52, 95% CI = 1.87 to 6.64; p < 0.001) or bipolar (HR = 2.31, 95% CI = 1.19 to 4.49; p = 0.013) hemiarthroplasty than after THA. No difference in revision risk between either of the hemiarthroplasties and THA was observed among patients with an age of ≥80 years or those with an ASA classification of III. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of hip fractures in older patients, THA was associated with a lower risk of all-cause revision compared with unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty among patients who were 60 to 79 years old and those who had an ASA classification of I or II. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Can Dual Mobility Cups Reduce Revision and Dislocation Risks? An Analysis of 107,528 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Dual mobility acetabular cups (DMC) were designed to increase the effective femoral head size and improve stability with the goal of reducing revision risk at the potential cost of polyethylene thickness. We sought to evaluate revision risk following primary elective total hip arthroplasty with DMC compared to highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE). METHODS: A cohort study was conducted using data from a Kaiser Permanente's total joint arthroplasty registry. Patients ≥18 years who underwent primary elective total hip arthroplasty using DMC, unipolar Metal-on-XLPE (MoXLPE), or unipolar Ceramic-on-XLPE (CoXLPE) were identified (2010 to 2021). The final sample comprised 2,219 DMC, 48,251 MoXLPE, and 57,058 CoXLPE. Multiple Cox proportional hazard regressions were used to evaluate aseptic revision and any dislocation regardless of revision within 6 years follow-up. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, no differences in aseptic revision risk were observed for MoXLPE (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72 to 1.51) or CoXLPE (HR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.69 to 1.40) compared to DMC. No differences in dislocation risk were observed for MoXLPE (HR = 1.42, 95% CI = 0.93 to 2.15) or CoXLPE (HR = 1.25, 95% CI = 0.84 to 1.87) compared to DMC. CONCLUSIONS: In a US-based cohort, 6-year aseptic revision risk of DMC was similar to metal or ceramic femoral head unipolar constructs. Furthermore, no difference in dislocation risk was observed. Continued longer-term follow-up may reveal if there is a reduced risk of dislocation that comes at the cost of increased late revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Use of Preoperative CT Scans and Patient-Specific Instrumentation May Not Improve Short-Term Adverse Events After Shoulder Arthroplasty: Results from a Large Integrated Health-Care System.

Ongoing innovation leads to a continuous influx of new technologies related to shoulder arthroplasty. These are made available to surgeons and marketed to both health-care providers and patients with the hope of improving outcomes. We sought to evaluate how preoperative planning technologies for shoulder arthroplasty affect outcomes. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted using data from an integrated health-care system's shoulder arthroplasty registry. Adult patients who underwent primary elective anatomic or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (2015 to 2020) were identified. Preoperative planning technologies were identified as (1) a computed tomography (CT) scan and (2) patient-specific instrumentation (PSI). Multivariable Cox regression and logistic regression were used to compare the risk of aseptic revision and 90-day adverse events, respectively, between procedures for which technologies were and were not used. Results: The study sample included 8,117 procedures (in 7,372 patients) with an average follow-up of 2.9 years (maximum, 6 years). No reduction in the risk of aseptic revision was observed for patients having either preoperative CT scans (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87 to 1.72) or PSI (HR = 1.44; 95% CI = 0.71 to 2.92). Patients having CT scans had a lower likelihood of 90-day emergency department visits (odds ratio [OR] = 0.84; 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.97) but a higher likelihood of 90-day venous thromboembolic events (OR = 1.79; 95% CI = 1.18 to 2.74). Patients with PSI use had a higher likelihood of 90-day deep infection (OR = 7.74; 95% CI = 1.11 to 53.94). Conclusions: We found no reduction in the risk of aseptic revision with the use of these technologies. Patients having CT scans and PSI use had a higher likelihood of venous thromboembolism and deep infection, respectively. Ongoing research with extended follow-up is being conducted to further examine the effects of these technologies on patient outcomes. Level of Evidence: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Association Between Race/Ethnicity and 90-Day Emergency Department Visits in Patients Undergoing Elective Total Knee Arthroplasty or Total Hip Arthroplasty in a Universally Insured Population.

BACKGROUND: Research has identified disparities in returns to care by race/ethnicity following primary total joint arthroplasty. We sought to identify risk factors for 90-day emergency department (ED) returns following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) for these populations. METHODS: Black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic White patients who underwent elective primary unilateral TKA and THA in an integrated US healthcare system were identified. Risk factors for 90-day postoperative ED visits including patient demographics, household income and education, comorbidities, preoperative healthcare utilization, and copay data were identified with multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Postoperative 90-day ED visits occurred in 13.3% of 79,565 TKA patients (17.2% Black; 14.9% Hispanic; 12.5% White) and 11.0% of THA patients (13.4% Black; 12.1% Hispanic; 10.7% White). Across racial/ethnic categories, patients who had an ED visit within 1 year of their TKA or THA date were more likely to have a 90-day ED return. Shared risk factors for TKA patients were chronic lung disease and outpatient utilization (25th and 75th percentile), while peripheral vascular disease was a shared risk factor for THA patients. Risk factors for multiple races of TKA and THA patients included depression, drug abuse, and psychosis. Prior copay for White (TKA) and Hispanic (TKA and THA) patients was protective, while preoperative primary care was protective for Black THA patients. CONCLUSION: Future strategies to reduce postoperative ED returns should include directed patient outreach for patients who had ED visits and mental health in the year prior to TKA and THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Preoperative Patient Optimization: Outcomes from Elective Total Joint Arthroplasty in a Large US Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: Patient factors are known to affect outcomes in arthroplasty surgery. A preoperative program to address modifiable factors may aid in more appropriate patient selection. We sought to assess patient selection and 90-day postoperative outcomes for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) candidates before and after implementation of a preoperative optimization protocol. METHODS: A retrospective time-trend study using data from an integrated healthcare system's total joint replacement registry was done. The study sample consisted of patients aged 18 years or older who underwent primary elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for osteoarthritis between 2009 and 2019. Patients were divided into two cohorts: procedures performed from 2009 to 2013 ("preoptimization protocol") and those from 2015 to 2019 ("postoptimization protocol"); 2014 was excluded because an evidence-based preoperative patient optimization protocol was progressively implemented throughout the year. Patient characteristics, optimization factors, and 90-day outcomes (including emergency department [ED] visits, readmission, all-cause revision, deep infection, venous thromboembolism, and mortality) were compared between the two cohorts using the Pearson chi-square test or Wilcoxon test. RESULTS: The study sample included 25,925 THA and 60,484 TKA. In the THA cohort, 10,364 (40.0%) and 15,561 (60.0%) were from the preoptimization and postoptimization cohorts, respectively. The postoptimization THA cohort saw lower rates of ED visits (12.1% vs. 9.4%, P < 0.001) and readmissions (5.6% vs. 3.8%, P < 0.001). In the TKA cohort, 24,054 (39.8%) and 36,430 (60.2%) were from the preoptimization and postoptimization cohorts, respectively. The postoptimization TKA cohort saw lower rates of ED visits (13.1% vs. 11.9%, P < 0.001), readmissions (5.6% vs. 3.0%, P < 0.001), all-cause revisions (0.5% vs. 0.3%, P = 0.003), venous thromboembolism (1.3% vs. 0.9%, P < 0.001), and mortality (0.3% vs. 0.2%, P = 0.011). DISCUSSION: An evidence-based protocol to improve patient selection based on modifiable patient factors was adopted by orthopaedic surgeons in the system and utilization of the protocol before TJA was associated with fewer postoperative complications over time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Similar rates of revision surgery following primary anatomic compared with reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged 70 years or older with glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a cohort study of 3791 patients.

BACKGROUND: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), initially indicated for cuff tear arthropathy, is increasingly used to treat elderly patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) and an intact rotator cuff. This is often done to avoid revision surgery in elderly patients for rotator cuff failure with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) despite traditionally good outcomes of TSA. We sought to determine whether there was a difference in outcomes in patients aged ≥70 years who received RTSA vs. TSA for GHOA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from a US integrated health care system's shoulder arthroplasty registry. Patients aged ≥70 years who underwent primary shoulder arthroplasty for GHOA with an intact rotator cuff were included (2012-2021). RTSA was compared with TSA. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate all-cause revision risk during follow-up, whereas multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate 90-day emergency department (ED) visits and 90-day readmissions. RESULTS: The final study sample comprised 685 RTSA patients and 3106 TSA patients. The mean age was 75.8 years (standard deviation, 4.6 years), and 43.4% of patients were men. After accounting for confounders, we observed no significant difference in all-cause revision risk for RTSA vs. TSA (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-1.58). The most common reason for revision following RTSA was glenoid component loosening (40.0%). Over half of revisions following TSA were for rotator cuff tear (54.0%). No difference based on procedure type was observed in the likelihood of 90-day ED visits (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26) and 90-day readmissions (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.83-2.09). CONCLUSION: RTSA and TSA for GHOA with an intact rotator cuff in patients aged ≥70 years had a similar revision risk, as well as a similar likelihood of 90-day ED visits and readmissions. Although revision risk was similar, the most common causes of revision were different, with rotator cuff tears in TSA patients and glenoid component loosening in RTSA patients.

Prolonged Opioid Usage Following Hip Fracture Surgery in Opioid-Naïve Older Patients.

BACKGROUND: While the risk of long-term dependence following the opioid treatment of musculoskeletal injury is often studied in younger populations, studies in older patients have centered on short-term risks such as oversedation and delirium. This study investigated prolonged opioid usage after hip fracture in older individuals, focusing on prevalence, risk factors, and changes over time. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study of 47,309 opioid-naïve patients aged ≥ 60 years who underwent hip fracture surgery (2009 to 2020), outpatient opioid use was evaluated in 3 postoperative time periods: P1 (day 0 to 30 postsurgery); P2 (day 31 to 90); and P3 (day 91 to 180). The primary outcome was prolonged outpatient opioid use, defined as having one or more opioid prescriptions dispensed in all 3 time periods. RESULTS: The incidence of prolonged opioid usage among patients surviving to P3 was 6.3% (2,834 of 44,850). Initial prescription quantities decreased over time, as did the risk of prolonged opioid usage (from 8.0% in 2009 to 3.9% in 2019). In the multivariable analyses, risk factors for prolonged opioid usage included younger age, women, current/former smoking, fracture fixation (as compared to hemiarthroplasty), and anxiety. Prolonged opioid usage was less common among patients who were Asian or had a history of dementia. CONCLUSIONS: While prior research on the hazards of opioids in the elderly has focused on short-term risks such as oversedation and delirium, these findings suggest that prolonged opioid usage may be a risk for this older population as well. As initial prescription amounts have decreased, declines in prolonged opioid medication usage have also been observed.

Does Aseptic Revision Risk Differ for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients Who Have and Do not Have a Prior Primary or Revision Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients who have and do not have a history of primary or revision arthroplasty of a different major joint. METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort study using data from Kaiser Permanente's arthroplasty registries. Patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA (index knee) were identified (2009-2018). Two matches based on exposure history were performed: (1) 33,714 TKAs with a history of primary arthroplasty of a different joint (contralateral knee, either hip, and/or either shoulder) were matched to 67,121 TKAs without an arthroplasty history and (2) 597 TKAs with a history of aseptic revision in a different joint were matched to 1,190 TKAs with a history of a prior arthroplasty in a different joint, but without any revision. After the matches were performed, Cox regressions were used to evaluate aseptic revision risk of the index knee using the no history groups as the reference in regression models. RESULTS: No difference in aseptic revision risk for the index knee was observed when comparing patients who had a prior primary arthroplasty in a different joint to those who did not have an arthroplasty history (hazard ratio = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.86-1.06). Those patients who did not have any prior aseptic revision history in a different joint had higher risk of aseptic revision in the index knee (hazard ratio = 2.06, 95% CI = 1.17-3.63). CONCLUSION: Patients who had a prior revision history had over a 2-fold higher risk of aseptic revision in the index knee, warranting close surveillance of these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Tranexamic acid is not associated with decreased infection risk after primary shoulder arthroplasty: a cohort study of 9276 patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of tranexamic acid (TXA) is associated with less blood loss and reduced transfusion risk after shoulder arthroplasty surgery. Recent studies have shown lower odds of postoperative infection after hip or knee arthroplasty with its use. The purpose of this study was to determine whether TXA use reduces the risk of infection after primary elective shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from a US integrated health care system's shoulder arthroplasty registry. Patients aged 18 years who underwent primary elective anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis or primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty for rotator cuff arthropathy were included (2013-2020). We compared patients who received preoperative intravenous TXA to those who did not receive TXA by assessing the risk for revision due to deep infection within 5 years' follow-up using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression. Interaction between TXA and diabetes status was analyzed separately. RESULTS: The study sample included 9276 shoulder arthroplasties performed by 153 surgeons at 43 hospitals. The mean age was 70.0 years and 48% were male. The 5-year probability of revision for deep infection was 0.8% and 0.7% for patients with and without TXA, respectively. We failed to observe a difference in infection risk after adjustment for confounders and surgeon differences (hazard ratio [HR] 1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-1.80, P = .998). Further, no differences were observed in patients with (HR 1.64, 95% CI 0.42-6.44, P = .481) or without diabetes (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.40-1.55, P = .488). CONCLUSION: In a multicenter cohort of more than 9000 primary shoulder arthroplasty procedures, the use of preoperative TXA was not associated with a decrease in the 5-year probability of revision for deep infection.

Temporal Trends in Deep Surgical Site Infections After Six Orthopaedic Procedures Over a 12-year Period Within a US-based Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: Centers of excellence and bundled payment models have driven perioperative optimization and surgical site infection (SSI) prevention with decolonization protocols and antibiotic prophylaxis strategies. We sought to evaluate time trends in the incidence of deep SSI and its causative organisms after six orthopaedic procedures in a US-based integrated healthcare system. METHODS: We conducted a population-level time-trend study using data from Kaiser Permanente's orthopaedic registries. All patients who underwent primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), elective total hip arthroplasty (THA), hip fracture repair, shoulder arthroplasty, and spine surgery were identified (2009 to 2020). The annual incidence of 90-day deep SSI was identified according to the National Healthcare Safety Network/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines with manual chart validation for identified infections. Poisson regression was used to evaluate annual trends in SSI incidence with surgical year as the exposure of interest. Annual trends in overall incidence and organism-specific incidence were considered. RESULTS: The final study sample was composed of 465,797 primary orthopaedic procedures. Over the 12-year study period, a decreasing trend in deep SSI was observed for ACLR and hip fracture repair. Although there was variation in incidence rates for specific operative years for TKA, elective THA, shoulder arthroplasty, and spine surgery, no consistent decreasing trends over time were found. Decreasing rates of Staphylococcus aureus infections over time after hip fracture repair, shoulder arthroplasty, and spine surgery and decreasing trends in antibiotic resistance after elective THA and spine surgery were also observed. Increasing trends of polymicrobial infections were observed after TKA and Cutibacterium acnes after elective THA. CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of deep SSI after six orthopaedic procedures was rare. Decreasing SSI rates were observed for ACLR and hip fracture repair within our US-based healthcare system. Polymicrobial infections after TKA and Cutibacterium acnes after elective THA warrant closer surveillance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Association Between the Femoral Stem Design Type and the Risk of Aseptic Revision After Hemiarthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Although noncemented hemiarthroplasty has been associated with a higher risk of revision surgery as compared with cemented fixation, it remains uncertain whether this increased risk applies to all noncemented stem design types or only a subset. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of aseptic revision associated with three common types of noncemented stem designs as compared with cemented fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 60 years and older who sustained a hip fracture and underwent hemiarthroplasty between 2009 and 2018 at one of 35 hospitals owned by a large US health maintenance organization. Hemiarthroplasty fixation was categorized as cemented or noncemented, with the noncemented stems further classified as single wedge without collar, fit and fill without collar, or fit and fill with collar. The primary outcome was aseptic revision, and the median follow-up time was 4.8 years. RESULTS: Of 12,071 patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty during the study period (average age 82.0 ± 8.4 years, 67.9% women), 807 (6.7%) received a single-wedge stem without collar, 2,124 (17.6%) received a fit-and-fill stem without collar, 2,453 (20.3%) received a fit-and-fill stem with collar, and 6,687 (55.4%) received a cemented stem. Compared with cemented fixation, all the noncemented stem design types were associated with a markedly higher risk of aseptic revision in the multivariable analysis, including single wedge without collar (hazard ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38 to 2.89, P < 0.001), fit and fill without collar (HR 1.52, 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.04, P = 0.005), and fit and fill with collar (HR 2.11, 95% CI, 1.63 to 2.72, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the hemiarthroplasty treatment of elderly patients with hip fracture, all routinely used noncemented stem design types were associated with a higher risk of aseptic revision as compared with cemented fixation.

Revision Risk in a Cohort of US Patients Younger Than 55 Undergoing Primary Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: As indications for elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) expand to younger patients, we sought to (1) compare revision risk following primary elective THA in patients <55 years at the time of their THA to patients aged ≥65 years and (2) identify specific risk factors for revision in patients <55 years. METHODS: A Kaiser Permanente's total joint replacement registry was used to conduct a cohort study including primary elective THA patients aged ≥18 (2001-2018). In total, 11,671 patients <55 years and 53,106 patients ≥65 years were included. Multiple Cox regression was used to evaluate cause-specific revision risk, including septic revision, aseptic loosening, instability, and periprosthetic fracture. Stepwise Cox regression was used to identify patient and surgical factors associated with cause-specific revision in patients <55 years. RESULTS: Patients <55 years had a higher risk of septic revision (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.66), aseptic loosening (HR = 2.60, 95% CI = 1.99-3.40), and instability (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.09-1.68), but a lower risk of revision for periprosthetic fracture (HR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.22-0.59) compared to patients aged ≥65 years. In the <55 age group, risk factors for septic revision included higher body mass index, drug abuse, and liver disease. Hypertension, anterior approach, and ceramic-on-ceramic were associated with aseptic loosening. White race, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥3, smoker, paralysis, posterior approach, ceramic-on-ceramic, and smaller head diameter were associated with instability. CONCLUSION: Identified risk factors varied depending on the cause for revision. Although septic revisions were related to patient characteristics, more modifiable factors, such as implant or surgical approach, were associated with revision due to aseptic loosening and instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Cause-Specific Stem Revision Risk in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Cemented vs Cementless Femoral Stem Fixation in a US Cohort.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the cause-specific revision risk following hybrid (cemented stem mated to a cementless acetabular implant) vs cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA) in a US cohort. METHODS: Primary elective THA for osteoarthritis was identified using Kaiser Permanente's Total Joint Replacement Registry (2001-2018). Multivariable Cox regression was used to evaluate cause-specific revision, including aseptic loosening, infection, instability, and periprosthetic fracture (PPF), for hybrid vs cementless THA. Analysis was stratified by age (<65, 65-74, and ≥75 years) and gender. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 88,830 THAs, including 4539 (5.1%) hybrid THAs. In stratified analysis, hybrid THA had a higher revision risk for loosening in females in all 3 age subgroups. A lower risk of revision for PPF was observed following hybrid THA in females aged ≥75 years. For females ≥75 years, cementless THA had an excess PPF risk of 0.9% while hybrid THA had an excess loosening risk of 0.2%, translating to a theoretical prevention of 10 PPF revisions but a price of 3 loosening revisions per 1000 hybrid THAs. No difference in revision risk was observed in males. CONCLUSION: We observed differences in cause-specific revision risks by method of stem fixation which depended upon patient age and gender. Although the trend toward all cementless fixation continue, there may be a role for hybrid fixation in females ≥75 years to mitigate risk for revision due to PPF at the potential cost of a slight increase in longer term aseptic loosening. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

The association between critical shoulder angle and revision following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a matched case-control study.

HYPOTHESIS: The concept of the critical shoulder angle (CSA) was introduced in 2013, with studies showing that larger CSA is associated with rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and smaller CSA with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. We hypothesized outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) would differ depending on CSA. METHODS: We conducted a matched case-control study using Kaiser Permanente's Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry to identify patients who underwent primary elective anatomic TSA for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis from 2009-2018. Seventy-eight adult patients who underwent revision following the primary TSA due to glenoid component failure or rotator cuff tear comprised the case group. A control group of nonrevised patients were identified from the same source population. Two controls were matched to each case by age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, surgeon who performed the index TSA, and post-TSA follow-up time. The relationship between revision and CSA as measured on radiographs were analyzed as a 1:2 matched-pairs case-control study with use of multiple conditional multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Revised cases had a higher likelihood of a CSA ≥35° (odds ratio [OR] = 2.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27-4.59). A higher likelihood of CSA ≥35° was observed for those revised for glenoid loosening (OR = 4.58, 95% CI = 1.20-17.50) and revised for rotator cuff tear (OR = 2.41, 95% CI = 1.18-4.92) compared with nonrevised controls. Every 5° increase in CSA had higher odds of overall revision (OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.18-2.21), glenoid loosening (OR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.27-4.92), and rotator cuff tear (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.07-2.14). CONCLUSION: In a matched case-control study of primary anatomic TSA, individuals who were revised for aseptic glenoid loosening and superior cuff failure had a higher CSA compared with nonrevised individuals. These data suggest that surgeons may consider using reverse arthroplasty in cases of primary shoulder arthritis with a CSA of 35° or greater.

The effect of a statewide COVID-19 shelter-in-place order on shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture volume and length of stay.

BACKGROUND: Although the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted elective shoulder arthroplasty throughput, traumatic shoulder arthroplasty procedures are less apt to be postponed. We sought to evaluate shoulder arthroplasty utilization for fracture during the COVID-19 pandemic and California's associated shelter-in-place order compared to historical controls. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study with historical controls, identifying patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture in California using our integrated electronic health record. The time period of interest was following the implementation of the statewide shelter-in-place order: March 19, 2020-May 31, 2020. This was compared to three historical periods: January 1, 2020-March 18, 2020, March 18, 2019-May 31, 2019, and January 1, 2019-March 18, 2019. Procedure volume, patient characteristics, in-hospital length of stay, and 30-day events (emergency department visit, readmission, infection, pneumonia, and death) were reported. Changes over time were analyzed using linear regression adjusted for usual seasonal and yearly changes and age, sex, comorbidities, and postadmission factors. RESULTS: Surgical volume dropped from an average of 4.4, 5.2, and 2.6 surgeries per week in the historical time periods, respectively, to 2.4 surgeries per week after shelter-in-place. While no more than 30% of all shoulder arthroplasty procedures performed during any given week were for fracture during the historical time periods, arthroplasties performed for fracture was the overwhelming primary indication immediately after the shelter-in-place order. More patients were discharged the day of surgery (+33.2%, P = .019) after the shelter-in-place order, but we did not observe a change in any of the corresponding 30-day events. CONCLUSIONS: The volume of shoulder arthroplasty for fracture dropped during the time of COVID-19. The reduction in volume could be due to less shoulder trauma due to shelter-in-place or a change in the indications for arthroplasty given the perceived higher risks associated with intubation and surgical care. We noted more patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty for fracture were safely discharged on the day of surgery, suggesting this may be a safe practice that can be adopted moving forward. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; Retrospective Case-control Comparative Study.

Aseptic Revision and Reoperation Risks After Meniscectomy at the Time of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: An intact meniscus is considered a secondary stabilizer of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). While loss of the meniscus can increase forces on the anterior cruciate ligament graft after reconstruction, it is unclear whether this increased loading affects the success of the graft after ACLR. PURPOSE: To identify the risk of subsequent knee surgery when meniscectomy, either partial or total, is performed at the time of index ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We conducted a matched cohort study using data from the Kaiser Permanente Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Registry. Patients were identified who had a primary ACLR performed between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2016, with up to 12 years of follow-up. The study sample comprised patients with ACLR who had a lateral meniscectomy (n = 2581), medial meniscectomy (n = 1802), or lateral and medial meniscectomies (n = 666). For each meniscectomy subgroup, patients with ACLR alone were matched to patients with a meniscectomy on a number of patient and procedure characteristics. After the application of matching, Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision, while competing risks regression was used to evaluate the risk of cause-specific ipsilateral reoperation between meniscectomy and ACLR alone. Analysis was performed for each meniscectomy subgroup. RESULTS: After the application of matching, we failed to observe a difference in aseptic revision risk for patients with ACLR and a meniscectomy-lateral (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.02), medial (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.70-1.29), or both (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.77-2.04)-as compared with ACLR alone. When compared with patients who had ACLR alone, patients with a lateral meniscectomy had a higher risk for subsequent lateral meniscectomy (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.18-3.02; P = .008), and those with a medial meniscectomy had a lower risk for manipulation under anesthesia (HR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .041). CONCLUSION: No difference in aseptic revision risk was observed for patients undergoing primary ACLR between groups with and without meniscectomy at the time of index surgery. Partial lateral meniscectomy at the time of index ACLR did associate with a higher risk of subsequent lateral meniscectomy.

Factors Influencing Patient Satisfaction With Care and Surgical Outcomes for Total Hip and Knee Replacement.

INTRODUCTION: Although patient satisfaction with total joint arthroplasty has been a well-measured outcome, little is known about how preadmission and post-discharge care experiences affect patients' rating of satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to identify actionable factors associated with better ratings of overall care and surgical results. METHODS: A 36-item survey assessing care in the preoperative, perioperative, and post-discharge phases of care and across all phases was mailed to 7,031 patients who underwent primary unilateral elective total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in 2018. Exploratory factor analysis identified 7 actionable domains. Stepwise logistic regression models identified domains associated with ratings of overall care and satisfaction with surgical outcome. RESULTS: Of the 3,026 (43%) patients who returned the survey; 2,814 (93%) rated their overall experience of care as very good or excellent and satisfaction with surgical results as ≥ 7 on a 10-point scale. In exploratory factor analysis, four factors predicted higher ratings of both overall care and surgical outcome: knowing what to do with symptoms and pain during recovery (factor 1), self-reported health (factor 3), knowing what to expect before surgery (factor 4), and shared decision making (factor 6). Coordinated information among providers (factor 2), home health experience (factor 5), and patient-provider relationships (factor 7) also predicted overall care ratings. CONCLUSION: Patient-centered quality improvement in total joint replacement care requires thinking of care across the entire episode, including before and after the hospital stay for surgery, in addition to perioperative care. The actionable factors identified from this study can be incorporated into total joint replacement care to improve patients' satisfaction with overall care and surgical results.

Postoperative opioid utilization associated with revision risk following primary shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: With a substantial increase in utilization of primary shoulder arthroplasty, it is important to understand risk factors that may signal early failure and need for revision. Recent studies have reported that sustained postoperative opioid use is associated with a higher revision risk after total hip or knee arthroplasty. In this study, we evaluated postoperative opioid utilization as a risk factor for revision after primary shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: We conducted a cohort study using data from a United States integrated health care system's Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry. Patients who had a primary elective shoulder arthroplasty were identified (2009-2017); those with cancer or who underwent other arthroplasty procedures (either shoulder, hip, or knee) within the preceding year were excluded. Cumulative daily opioid utilization during the first year postoperative, calculated as oral morphine equivalents (OME), was categorized into 3 exposure groups: high user (≥15 mg OME daily), moderate user (<15 mg OME daily), and no opioid use (reference group). The exposure window was stratified into 2 time periods: postoperative days 1-90 and postoperative days 91-360. Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to evaluate the association between postoperative opioid use and aseptic revision risk. RESULTS: The final study sample included 8325 shoulder arthroplasty procedures. Of these individuals, 3707 (45%) received some opioid within the 1 year before the index procedure. We failed to observe a difference in aseptic revision risk between opioid utilization in the first 90 days postoperatively, regardless of dose. After the first 90 days, a higher revision risk was observed for high opioid users compared with nonusers (hazard ratio = 1.62, 95% confidence interval = 1.10-2.41), and no association was observed for moderate users (hazard ratio = 1.25, 95% confidence interval = 0.82-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: We found a positive association between opioid consumption and aseptic revision risk after primary shoulder arthroplasty. This study cannot determine if opioids have a direct physiological cause that increases the risk of revision; rather it is likely that opioid consumption is a marker of chronic pain, poor function, and/or poor coping mechanisms. Further study is needed to determine if programs designed to decrease opioid use may impact revision risk after shoulder arthroplasty.