Are current rates of uncemented fixation in total hip arthroplasty supported by the literature? An update on the uncemented paradox.

The optimal fixation method in total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains controversial. Initial concerns related to the long-term performance of cement fixation as well as cement disease led to the development of cementless implants, and registry data has indicated that the use of this type of fixation has increased in recent years. However, data from these same registries has not shown any improvement in outcomes when compared to cement fixation. On the contrary, while similar outcomes are seen when comparing these fixation types in younger patients (<70 years of age), cementless fixation has shown increased implant failure and revision rates in elderly patients (>70 years of age). Given the increased projected volume of THA in the United States over the next decade, it is important to utilise available data to make clinical decisions that minimise not only individual patient harm, but also the burden on the healthcare system itself. This review provides an overview of currently available outcomes data comparing cement and cementless fixation, as well as an updated analysis of current trends in fixation use in THA. We furthermore provide a comprehensive technique guide to help surgeons optimise cement fixation of the femoral component for THA and hemiarthroplasty.

Opioid Use During Hospitalization Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: Trends in Consumption From 2016 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: In response to physician and patient concerns, many institutions have adopted protocols aimed at reducing postoperative opioid consumption after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Thus, this study sought to examine how consumption of opioids has changed following TKA in the past 6 years. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all 10,072 patients who received primary TKA at our institution from January 2016 to April 2021. We collected baseline demographic data including patient age, sex, race, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) classification, as well as dosage and type of opioid medication prescribed on each postoperative day while the patient was hospitalized following TKA. This data was converted to milligram morphine equivalents (MME) per day hospitalized to compare rates of opioid use over time. RESULTS: Our analysis found the greatest daily opioid use was in 2016 (43.2 ± 68.6 MME/day) and the least was in 2021 (15.0 ± 29.2 MME/day). Linear regression analyses found a significant linear downward trend in postoperative opioid consumption over time, with a decrease of 5.55 MME per day per year (Adjusted R-squared: 0.982, P < .001). The highest visual analog scale (VAS) score was 4.45 in 2016 and the lowest was 3.79 in 2021 (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Opioid reducing protocols have been implemented for patients recovering from primary TKA in an effort to decrease reliance on opioids for postoperative pain control. The results of this study demonstrate that such protocols have been successful in reducing overall opioid use during hospitalization following TKA. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort.

Perioperative Outcomes in Total Knee Arthroplasty for Non-English Speakers.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have demonstrated that in patients whose primary language is not English, outcomes after an orthopaedic surgery are worse compared to primary English speakers. The goal of this study was to compare perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) who prefer English as their first language versus those who prefer a different language. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent primary TKA from May 2012 to July 2021. Patients were separated into two groups based on whether English was their preferred primary language (PPL). Of the 13,447 patients who underwent primary TKA, 11,290 reported English as their PPL, and 2,157 preferred a language other than English. Patients whose PPL was not English were further stratified based on whether they requested interpreter services. Multiple regression analyses were performed to determine the significance of perioperative outcomes while controlling for demographic differences. RESULTS: Our analysis found that non-English PPL patients had significantly lower rates of readmission (P = .040), overall revision (P = .028), and manipulation under anesthesia (MUA; P = .025) within 90 days postoperatively. Sub analyses of the non-English PPL group showed that those who requested interpreter services had significantly lower 1-year revision (P < .001) and overall MUA (P = .049) rates. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that TKA patients who communicated in English without an interpreter were significantly more likely to undergo revision, readmission, and MUA. These findings may suggest that language barriers may make it more difficult to identify postoperative problems or concerns in non-English speakers, which may limit appropriate postoperative care. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort Study.

Cementing a Monoblock Dual-Mobility Implant into a Fully Porous Cup in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty to Address Hip Instability: Surgical Technique.

Background: The use of a cemented monoblock dual-mobility implant into a fully porous cup is indicated for patients with acetabular bone loss who have a high risk of postoperative hip instability. Patients undergoing lumbar fusion for sagittal spinal deformities have an increased risk of hip dislocation (7.1%) and should be assessed on sitting and standing radiographs1. Gabor et al. conducted a multicenter, retrospective study assessing the use of a cemented monoblock dual-mobility bearing in a porous acetabular shell in patients with acetabular bone loss and a high risk of hip instability2. Of the 38 patients, 1 (2.6%) experienced a postoperative dislocation that was subsequently treated with closed reduction without further dislocation. This surgical technique represents a favorable surgical option for patients with acetabular bone loss who are at risk for hip instability. In the example case described in the present video article, the patients had a history of dislocations, lumbar fusion, and evidence of Paprosky 3B acetabular defect; as such, the decision was made to revise to a porous shell and cement a monoblock dual-mobility implant. Description: With use of the surgeon's preferred approach, the soft tissue is dissected and the hip is aspirated. The hip is dislocated and a subgluteal pocket is made with use of electrocautery to mobilize the trunnion of the femoral stem to aid in acetabular exposure. The femoral component is assessed to ensure appropriate positioning with adequate anteversion. The acetabular component and any acetabular screws are removed. A "ream to fit" technique is performed in the acetabulum until bleeding bone is encountered, with minimal reaming performed in healthy bone from the posterior column. A trial prosthesis is placed within the acetabulum to evaluate if there is satisfactory fixation and if any augment is necessary. Care must be taken during reaming to ensure that enough bone is reamed to accommodate a porous shell that can fit the monoblock dual-mobility implant with a 2-mm cement mantle. Smaller porous shells measuring 56 mm are available for smaller defects but are often not utilized in cases of substantial acetabular bone loss. Fresh-frozen cancellous allograft is utilized to fill any contained defects. The revision porous shell with circumferential screw holes is utilized to allow for screw fixation posterosuperior and anterior toward the pubis. The implants are dried prior to placement of the cement. The cement is applied to the shell and the monoblock dual-mobility implant to ensure adequate coverage. Antibiotic-loaded cement can be utilized according to surgeon preference. Excess cement is removed under direct visualization while the cement is drying, and the position of the dual-mobility implant is adjusted in approximately 20° anteversion and 40° inclination. Stability is assessed after the cement cures, and intraoperative radiography can be performed to confirm cup positioning prior to closure. Any remaining capsule is closed, followed by closure of the remaining soft tissue in a layered fashion. Alternatives: A fully porous multi-hole jumbo cup with conventional polyethylene liner and femoral head can be utilized to increase the jump distance of the femoral head. Constrained, lipped, or offset polyethylene liners can be utilized if the shell is well fixed and a dual-mobility implant cannot be inserted. A cemented dual-mobility implant can be utilized in a well-fixed acetabular shell without evidence of loosening or osteolysis. Rationale: Dual-mobility implants have become increasingly utilized because of their advantages: (1) ability to decrease dislocation rate without increasing constraint and (2) increasing range of motion with reduced impingement risk2-8. These implants are particularly useful in the setting of revision cases with large acetabular bone defects. In a study of 76 patients with dual-mobility implants cemented into porous acetabular shells, Muthusamy et al. found that only 3.3% of patients experienced postoperative dislocations9. Moreover, acetabular cup survival was excellent, with 100% survival at 1 year and 96.2% at 2 years. Expected Outcomes: The use of a dual-mobility implant is a viable treatment option in cases of revision total hip arthroplasty, particularly those in which postoperative stability is a concern; monoblock dual-mobility implants cemented into porous shells are particularly useful in this setting2-8. These trends are similarly seen in patients treated with monoblock dual-mobility implants cemented into porous shells. Muthusamy et al. evaluated the use of this construct to treat instability or risk of hip dislocation in 76 hips, reporting a dislocation rate of 3.3% at 2 years. Additionally, the authors reported rates of all-cause acetabular survival from re-revision of 96.7% at 6 months, 93.3% at 1 year, and 89.7% at 2 years9. Physicians should be aware of the possibility for intra-prosthetic dislocations, as although this complication is rare, it has been reported in the literature7,10. Important Tips: In order to allow for circumferential coverage for fixation and ingrowth potential in cases with acetabular defects, the shell is typically impacted slightly vertical (45° to 50° of inclination) and in neutral version (0° to 5° of anteversion). Positioning can be adjusted to improve osseous contact and ingrowth as determined by the size and shape of the defect.The use of a drill guide for the locking screws allows limited degrees of variable screw angulation. In the revision setting, longer screws may be placed posterosuperior toward the sciatic notch or anteroinferior into the pubis. Surgeons should be aware of the anatomy and should predrill holes to reduce the risk of injury to surrounding neurovascular structures such as the obturator artery anteriorly.Any screw holes that are not filled should be covered with plastic hole covers in order to prevent cement from migrating behind the cup. Implants should be dried prior to the placement of the cement, and the cement should be applied to the shell and the dual-mobility implant to ensure adequate coverage.Utilize a monoblock dual-mobility implant that is designed for cementation in order to avoid implant dissociation from the acetabular shell.Remove all fibrous tissue that may hinder bony integration.Assess for pelvis discontinuity; pelvis discontinuity and acetabular bone loss are risk factors in the setting of any revision and should be properly assessed preoperatively and intraoperatively and managed accordingly.Avoid over-reaming and damage of the posterior column.Utilize a reamer or trial to assess defect size and need for augments.Place a compression screw where the cup is in contact with the bone in order to avoid tilting.Cover unused screw holes. Acronyms and Abbreviations: THA = total hip arthroplastyS/P = status postTKA = total knee arthroplastyCT = computed tomographyKM = Kaplan MeierDMC = dual-mobility cupPE = polyethylene.