Chronic Oral Corticosteroid Use and 10-Year Incidence of Major Complications Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Oral corticosteroids are the primary treatment for several autoimmune conditions. The risk of long-term implant, bone health, and infectious-related complications in patients taking chronic oral corticosteroids before total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is unknown. We compared the 10-year cumulative incidence of revision, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), fragility fracture (FF), and periprosthetic fracture following TKA in patients who had and did not have preoperative chronic oral corticosteroid use. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using a national database. Primary TKA patients who had chronic preoperative oral corticosteroid use were identified using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Disease 9 and 10 codes. Exclusion criteria included malignancy, osteoporosis treatment, trauma, and < 2-year follow-up. Primary outcomes were 10-year cumulative incidence and hazard ratios (HRs) of all-cause revision (ACR), aseptic revision, PJI, FF, and periprosthetic fracture. A Kaplan-Meier analysis and a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model were utilized. Overall, 611,596 patients were identified, and 5,217 (0.85%) were prescribed chronic corticosteroids. There were 10,000 control patients randomly sampled for analysis. RESULTS: Corticosteroid patients had significantly higher 10-year HR of FF (HR; 95% confidence interval); P value (1.47; 1.34 to 1.62; P < .001)], ACR (1.21; 1.05 to 1.40; P = .009), and PJI (1.30; 1.01 to 1.69; P = .045) when compared to the control. CONCLUSIONS: Patients prescribed preoperative chronic oral corticosteroids had higher risks of ACR, PJI, and FF within 10 years following TKA compared to patients not taking corticosteroids. This information can be used by surgeons during preoperative counseling to educate this high-risk patient population about their increased risk of postoperative complications.

Does Prior Lumbar Fusion Influence Dislocation Risk in Hip Arthroplasty Performed for Femoral Neck Fracture?

BACKGROUND: Immobility of the lumbar spine predicts instability following elective total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study is to determine how prior lumbar fusion (LF) influenced dislocation rates and revision rates for patients undergoing THA or hemiarthroplasty (HA) for femoral neck fracture (FNF). METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted utilizing the PearlDiver database from 2010 to 2018. Patients who underwent arthroplasty for FNF were identified based on history of LF and whether they underwent THA or HA. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 328 patients with prior LF and FNF who underwent THA were at increased risk for 1-year dislocation (odds ratio [OR] 2.19, P < .001) and 2-year revision (OR 2.22, P < .001) compared to 14,217 patients without LF. The 461 patients with prior LF and FNF who underwent HA were at increased risk for dislocation (OR 2.22, P < .001) compared to 42,327 patients without LF. Patients with prior LF and FNF who underwent THA had higher rates of revision than patients with prior LF who underwent HA for FNF (OR 2.11, P < .001). In patients with prior LF and FNF, THA was associated with significantly increased risk for dislocation (OR 3.07, P < .001) and revision (OR 2.53, P < .001) compared to THA performed for osteoarthritis. CONCLUSION: Patients with prior LF who sustained an FNF and underwent THA or HA were at increased risk for early dislocation and revision compared to those without prior LF. This risk of dislocation and revision is even greater than that observed in patients with prior LF who underwent THA for osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Comparison of Short-term Complication Rates Between Cephalomedullary Hip Screw Devices and Sliding Hip Screws: An Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database.

BACKGROUND: The literature pertaining to the management of intertrochanteric hip fractures using cephalomedullary hip screws (CMHSs) and sliding hip screws (SHSs) has shown varying results. CMHS use has increased over time without validation of its superiority in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Program database. Patients who had sustained a peritrochanteric hip fracture were identified. Short-term (<30 day) complications were identified with adjustments made for preoperative comorbidities. We also examined the relative percentages of CMHS and SHS surgeries over time. RESULTS: A total of 14,415 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing SHS surgery were generally healthier, having a lower American College of Surgeon class, preoperative bleeding, hypertension, pulmonary risk factors, congestive heart failure, and higher preoperative hematocrit. After adjusting for demographics and comorbidities, we noted a higher rate of 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.19; P = 0.024), bleeding (OR = 1.10; P = 0.007), pulmonary complications (OR = 1.19; P = 0.049), and clotting events (OR = 1.35; P = 0.035) in the CMHS group. We observed a higher rate of urinary tract infection (OR = 0.81; P = 0.023) and length of stay (1.0 days; P < 0.0001) in the SHS group. The overall percentage of SHS cases was 33% and trended lower over time. CONCLUSIONS: Although differences in complication subtypes and the overall complication rate were found, further multicenter, randomized controlled trials would be helpful in elucidating differences between the treatment groups. The popularity of the CMHS continues to increase over time.

The impact of trauma centre accreditation on patient outcome.

Trauma centre accreditation originated as a North American initiative in the 1970's with the aim of standardising and improving care for injured patients. This system of grading a hospital's ability to receive serious trauma has subsequently spread, most notably to Australasia. Many studies have focussed on determing whether this accreditation results in improved patient outcomes. We review the evidence to date, which suggests significant mortality reductions albeit from mainly Class III studies and reflect on the future sustainability of this initiative given mounting financial pressures.