Patellar Component Design Does Not Impact Clinical Outcomes in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Round or oval implants are used in patellar resurfacing during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, whether component geometry affects clinical outcomes is unclear. This study aimed to determine if one implant shape conferred superior outcomes to the other. METHODS: A retrospective review of primary TKA cases performed from 2016 to 2020 was conducted at an urban, tertiary academic center. Four hundred consecutive, primary TKAs were included in these analyses. Cases were included if a surgeon used the round design then oval design for fifty consecutive cases. Baseline demographic data and radiographic measurements were assessed. Surgical data, reasons for revision, and patient-reported outcome measures were analyzed. Independent samples t-test and chi-square tests were used to compare means and proportions. There were no demographic differences between the cohorts. RESULTS: Postoperative patellar tilt was statistically different between the cohorts. Sixteen patients required revision surgery; however, revision rates did not differ between the cohorts. Of the 9 rounds, 1 button was revised for infection. Of the 7 ovals, 1 button was revised for infection and 1 for loosening. Veterans RAND 12 Physical Component Score at 3 months postoperatively was higher for the round cohort, but no differences were observed at 1 year. CONCLUSION: While radiographic patellar tilt was significantly different between the cohorts, there was no clinical correlation in outcomes at 3 months or 1 year postoperatively. Longer-term follow-up studies are needed to evaluate the implications of patellar component design on outcomes and function. Nevertheless, the current study affirms that both designs are clinically equivalent which should be used to guide clinical decision-making. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort.

Streamlining orthopaedic trauma surgical care: do all patients need medical clearance?

INTRODUCTION: Preoperative medical optimization is necessary for safe and efficient care of the orthopaedic trauma patient. To improve care quality and value, a preoperative matrix was created to more appropriately utilize subspecialty consultation and avoid unnecessary consults, testing, and operating room delays. Our study compares surgical variables before and after implementation of the matrix to assess its utility. METHODS: A retrospective review of all orthopaedic trauma cases 6 months before and after the use of the matrix (2/2021-8/2021) was conducted an urban, level one trauma centre in collaboration with internal medicine, cardiology, anaesthesia, and orthopaedics. Patients were separated into two cohorts based on use of the matrix during the initial orthopaedic consultation. Logistic regressions were performed to limit significant differences in comorbidities. Independent samples t-tests and Chi-squared tests were used to compare means and proportions, respectively, between the two cohorts. RESULTS: In total, 576 patients were included in this study (281 pre- and 295 post-matrix implementation). Use of the matrix resulted in no significant difference in time to OR, LOS, readmissions, or ER visits; however, it resulted in 18% fewer overall preoperative consults for general trauma, and 25% fewer pre-operative consults for hip fractures. Older patients were more likely to require a consult regardless of matrix use. When controlling for comorbidities, patients with renal disease were at higher risk for increased LOS. CONCLUSION: Use of an orthopaedic surgical matrix to predict preoperative subspecialty consultation is easy to implement and allows for better care utilization without a corresponding increase in complications and readmissions. Follow-up studies are needed to reassess the relationships between matrix use and a potential decrease in ER to OR time, and validate its use.

Validation of Single-Outcome Questionnaire in Primary TKA and THA.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures can be used to evaluate post-operative health care quality and patient satisfaction. The Patient's Joint Perception (PJP) question gathers a single patient-reported outcome to measure how patients appraise their joint. This study compares PJP to the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) at 21 months post-operation to assess its value. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed at an orthopedic specialty hospital for patients who completed both PJP and FJS questionnaires in 2020-2021 and underwent either a unilateral elective primary Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) or Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). Spearman's correlation coefficients and P-values were calculated to determine external validity of PJP. Floor and ceiling effects were analyzed and considered present if ≥ 15% of patients achieved the worst or best score (0-4 for PJP and 0-100 for FJS). RESULTS: In total, 534 patients (327 THA and 207 TKA) were surveyed at 21 months post-operation. External validity against FJS was assessed for both TKA (r = 0.66, P < .01) and THA (r = 0.69, P < .01). For TKA, the floor and ceiling effects were 0.97% and 25.12% for PJP and 3.86% and 4.83% for FJS, respectively. For THA, the floor and ceiling effects were 0.92% and 50.46% for PJP and 2.47% and 20.50% for FJS, respectively. CONCLUSION: The PJP was correlated with FJS moderately for both TKA and THA and can be collected with lesser burden. However, ceiling effects were higher in both TKA and THA for PJP compared to FJS. Further studies are needed to investigate the questionnaires at additional time points and to evaluate the implications of high ceiling effects.