New Ceramic Heads With Titanium Sleeves on Retained Femoral Components: Results of Over 500 Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: Ceramic heads are frequently combined with titanium sleeves in revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs), ostensibly to protect the ceramic head from existing damage to the retained trunnion. Although widely adopted, data on the performance and safety of this construct are minimal. The purpose of this study was to describe implant survivorships, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes of patients who underwent revision THA with a ceramic head and titanium sleeve on a retained femoral component. METHODS: We identified 516 revision THAs with femoral component retention (328 acetabular-only revisions and 188 bearing surface exchanges) treated with a new ceramic head and titanium sleeve between 2000 and 2020. Mean age at revision was 64 years, 56% were women, and mean body mass index was 30. The indications for revision THA were adverse local tissue reaction (25%), acetabular loosening (24%), dislocation (17%), infection (5%), and other (29%). Kaplan-Meier survivorships were analyzed, radiographs reviewed, and Harris Hip Scores evaluated. Mean follow-up was 4 years (range, 2 to 10). RESULTS: There were no reoperations or failures for ceramic head fracture, taper corrosion, or head/sleeve disengagement. The 10-year survivorship free of any re-revision was 85%. Indications for the 57 re-revisions included dislocation (33), infection (13), acetabular component loosening (7), periprosthetic fracture (2), psoas impingement (1), and sciatic nerve irritation (1). The 10-year survivorship free of any reoperation was 82%. There were an additional 14 reoperations. Radiographically, 1.9% had progressive femoral radiolucent lines, and 4.7% had progressive acetabular radiolucent lines. Mean Harris Hip Score was 81 at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: New ceramic heads with titanium sleeves in revision THAs with retained femoral components were durable and reliable with no cases of ceramic head fracture or taper complications at mean 4-year follow-up, including those revised for adverse local tissue reaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Incidence of Rapidly Progressive Osteoarthritis Following Intra-articular Hip Corticosteroid Injection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery recommends intra-articular corticosteroid injections (CSIs) for managing hip osteoarthritis (OA) based on short-term, prospective studies. Recent retrospective studies have raised concerns that CSIs may lead to rapidly progressive OA (RPOA). We sought to systematically review the literature of CSIs for hip OA to estimate the incidence of RPOA. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify original research of hip OA patients receiving CSIs. Overall, 27 articles involving 5831 patients published from 1988 to 2022 were included. Study design, patient characteristics, CSI details, follow-up, and cases of RPOA were recorded. Studies were classified by their ability to detect RPOA based on follow-up. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate the incidence of RPOA for studies able to detect RPOA. Results: The meta-analytic estimate of RPOA incidence was 6% (95% confidence interval, 3%-9%) based on 10 articles classified as able to detect RPOA. RPOA definitions varied from progression of OA within 6 months to the presence of destructive changes. These studies were subject to bias from excluding patients with missing post-CSI radiographs. The remaining 17 articles were classified as unable to detect RPOA, including all of the studies cited in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery recommendation. Conclusions: The incidence of RPOA after CSIs remains unknown due to variation in definitions and follow-up. While RPOA following CSIs may be 6%, many cases are not severe, and this may reflect selection bias. Further research is needed to understand whether clinically significant RPOA is incident enough to limit CSI use.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

Cementless Versus Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty: Concise Midterm Results of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported the 2-year results of a prospective randomized controlled trial of cementless versus cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implants of the same design. The purpose of the present study was to provide concise results at intermediate-term follow-up. METHODS: The original study included 141 TKAs (76 performed without cement and 65 performed with cement). Since then, 8 patients died and 4 withdrew. Of the remaining 129 patients, 127 (98%) were available for analysis. Survivorship analysis was performed; Oxford Knee, Knee Society, and Forgotten Joint Scores were calculated; and radiographs reviewed. Mean follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The survivorship free of any revision was 100% in both groups. There were no differences between the groups in any patient-reported functional outcome measure (p = 0.2 to 0.5). However, a higher percentage of patients in the cementless TKA group were either extremely or very satisfied with their overall function (p = 0.01). Radiographically, there was no evidence of implant loosening in either group. CONCLUSIONS: At 6 years, there were no differences between cementless and cemented TKA implants of the same design in terms of survivorship, clinical, or radiographic outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Chitranjan S. Ranawat Award: Tourniquet Use Does Not Impact Trajectory of Total Knee Arthroplasty Early Recovery: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of tourniquet use on recovery after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. The purpose of this prospective, single blinded, randomized controlled trial was to investigate the effect of tourniquet use on early recovery after TKA using a smartphone app-based patient engagement platform (PEP) with a wrist-based activity monitor to obtain more robust data on early recovery. METHODS: There were 107 patients undergoing primary TKA for osteoarthritis who were enrolled (54 tourniquet [TQ+]; 53 no tourniquet [TQ-]). All patients utilized a PEP and wrist-based activity sensor for 2 weeks preoperatively and 90 days postoperatively to collect Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores and opioid consumption, as well as weekly Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and monthly Forgotten Joint Score (FJS). There was no difference in demographics between groups. Formal physical therapy assessments were performed preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. Independent sample t-tests were used for continuous data and Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for discrete data. RESULTS: Tourniquet use did not have a statistically significant impact on daily VAS pain or opioid consumption during the first 30 days postoperatively (P > .05). Tourniquet use did not have a significant impact on OKS or FJS at 30 or 90 days postoperatively (P > .05), or on performance of formal physical therapy testing at 3 months postoperatively (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Using a digital technology to collect daily patient data, we found that tourniquet use has no clinically significant negative impact on pain and function in the first 90 days after primary TKA.

Patients' Perceptions of Remote Monitoring and App-Based Rehabilitation Programs: A Comparison of Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring rehabilitation programs are new technologies growing in popularity for patients undergoing lower extremity total joint arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to assess the patients' perceptions of these technologies. METHODS: Patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty arthroplasty (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) from September 2020 to February 2022, and participated in a clinical study utilizing remote monitoring and an app-based rehabilitation program were given a questionnaire 3 months postoperatively to assess their perceptions of these technologies. There were 166 patients who completed the survey (42 THA; 106 TKA; 18 UKA). RESULTS: There were 92% of patients who found the technology easy to use. A majority of patients felt the technologies motivated them. The TKA/UKA patients felt more strongly that these technologies allowed the surgeon to monitor their recovery closely (81.9% versus 65.9%; P = .009). There were 85% of THA patients and 94.5% of TKA/UKA patients recommended these technologies. The THA patients felt more strongly that digital rehabilitation could completely replace in-person physical therapy compared to TKA/UKA patients (85.4% versus 41.3%; P < .001). A majority (83%) of patients recommended a combination of inpatient and technology-assisted rehabilitation (THA 90.2%; 84.4% TKA/UKA). CONCLUSION: The THA and TKA/UKA patients found remote monitoring rehabilitation easy to use, increased motivation, and recommend it to other patients undergoing lower extremity arthroplasty. They recommend a combination of technology and in-person rehabilitation postoperatively. The THA patients felt these technologies could replace in-person rehabilitation programs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Prior Authorization in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Survey of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Membership.

BACKGROUND: This study surveyed the impact that prior authorization has on the practices of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS). METHODS: A 24-question survey was approved by the AAHKS Advocacy Committee and distributed to all 2,802 board-certified members of AAHKS. RESULTS: There were 353 survey responses (13%). Ninety-five percent of surgeons noted a 5-year increase in prior authorization. A majority (71%) of practices employ at least 1 staff member to exclusively work on prior authorization. Average time spent on prior authorization was 15 h/wk (range, 1 to 125) and average number of claims peer week was 18 (range, 1 to 250). Surgeries (99%) were the most common denial. These were denied because nonoperative treatment had not been tried (71%) or had not been attempted for enough time (67%). Most (57%) prior authorization processes rarely/never changed the treatment provided. Most (56%) indicated that prior authorization rarely/never followed evidence-based guidelines. A majority (93%) expressed high administrative burden as well as negative clinical outcomes (87%) due to prior authorization including delays to access care (96%) at least sometimes. DISCUSSION: Prior authorization has increased in the past 5 years resulting in high administrative burden. Prior authorizations were most common for TJA surgeries because certain nonoperative treatments were not attempted or not attempted for enough time. Surgeons indicated that prior authorization may be detrimental to high-value care and lead to potentially harmful delays in care without ultimately changing the management of the patient.

Did the Physical and Mental Health of Orthopaedic Patients Change After the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic?

BACKGROUND: The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has been associated with poor mental health outcomes and widened health disparities in the United States. Given the inter-relationship between psychosocial factors and functional outcomes in orthopaedic surgery, it is important that we understand whether patients presenting for musculoskeletal care during the pandemic were associated with worse physical and mental health than before the pandemic's onset. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Did patients seen for an initial visit by an orthopaedic provider during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrate worse physical function, pain interference, depression, and/or anxiety than patients seen before the pandemic, as measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instrument? (2) During the COVID-19 pandemic, did patients living in areas with high levels of social deprivation demonstrate worse patterns of physical function, pain interference, depression, or anxiety on initial presentation to an orthopaedic provider than patients living in areas with low levels of social deprivation, compared with prepandemic PROMIS scores? METHODS: This was a retrospective, comparative study of new patient evaluations that occurred in the orthopaedic department at a large, urban tertiary care academic medical center. During the study period, PROMIS computer adaptive tests were routinely administered to patients at clinical visits. Between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019, we identified 26,989 new patients; we excluded 4% (1038 of 26,989) for being duplicates, 4% (1034 of 26,989) for having incomplete demographic data, 44% (11,925 of 26,989) for not having a nine-digit home ZIP Code recorded, and 5% (1332 of 26,989) for not completing all four PROMIS computer adaptive tests of interest. This left us with 11,660 patients in the "before COVID-19" cohort. Between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021, we identified 30,414 new patients; we excluded 5% (1554 of 30,414) for being duplicates, 4% (1142 of 30,414) for having incomplete demographic data, 41% (12,347 of 30,414) for not having a nine-digit home ZIP Code recorded, and 7% (2219 of 30,414) for not completing all four PROMIS computer adaptive tests of interest. This left us with 13,152 patients in the "during COVID-19" cohort. Nine-digit home ZIP Codes were used to determine patients' Area Deprivation Indexes, a neighborhood-level composite measure of social deprivation. To ensure that patients included in the study represented our overall patient population, we performed univariate analyses on available demographic and PROMIS data between patients included in the study and those excluded from the study, which revealed no differences (results not shown). In the before COVID-19 cohort, the mean age was 57 ± 16 years, 60% (7046 of 11,660) were women, 86% (10,079 of 11,660) were White non-Hispanic, and the mean national Area Deprivation Index percentile was 47 ± 25. In the during COVID-19 cohort, the mean age was 57 ± 16 years, 61% (8051 of 13,152) were women, 86% (11,333 of 13,152) were White non-Hispanic, and the mean national Area Deprivation Index percentile was 46 ± 25. The main outcome measures in this study were the PROMIS Physical Function ([PF], version 2.0), Pain Interference ([PI], version 1.1), Depression (version 1.0), and Anxiety (version 1.0). PROMIS scores follow a normal distribution with a mean t-score of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Higher PROMIS PF scores indicate better self-reported physical capability, whereas higher PROMIS PI, Depression, and Anxiety scores indicate more difficulty managing pain, depression, and anxiety symptoms, respectively. Clinically meaningful differences in PROMIS scores between the cohorts were based on a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) threshold of 4 points. Multivariable linear regression models were created to determine whether presentation to an orthopaedic provider during the pandemic was associated with worse PROMIS scores than for patients who presented before the pandemic. Regression coefficients (ß) represent the estimated difference in PROMIS scores that would be expected for patients who presented during the pandemic compared with patients who presented before the pandemic, after adjusting for confounding variables. Regression coefficients were evaluated in the context of clinical importance and statistical significance. Regression coefficients equal to or greater than the MCID of 4 points were considered clinically important, whereas p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We found no clinically important differences in baseline physical and mental health PROMIS scores between new patients who presented to an orthopaedic provider before the COVID-19 pandemic and those who presented during the COVID-19 pandemic (PROMIS PF: ß -0.2 [95% confidence interval -0.43 to 0.03]; p = 0.09; PROMIS PI: ß 0.06 [95% CI -0.13 to 0.25]; p = 0.57; PROMIS Depression: ß 0.09 [95% CI -0.14 to 0.33]; p = 0.44; PROMIS Anxiety: ß 0.58 [95% CI 0.33 to 0.84]; p < 0.001). Although patients from areas with high levels of social deprivation had worse PROMIS scores than patients from areas with low levels of social deprivation, patients from areas with high levels of social deprivation demonstrated no clinically important differences in PROMIS scores when groups before and during the pandemic were compared (PROMIS PF: ß -0.23 [95% CI -0.80 to 0.33]; p = 0.42; PROMIS PI: ß 0.18 [95% CI -0.31 to 0.67]; p = 0.47; PROMIS Depression: ß 0.42 [95% CI -0.26 to 1.09]; p = 0.23; PROMIS Anxiety: ß 0.84 [95% CI 0.16 to 1.52]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Contrary to studies describing worse physical and mental health since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we found no changes in the health status of orthopaedic patients on initial presentation to their provider. Although large-scale action to mitigate the effects of worsening physical or mental health of orthopaedic patients may not be needed at this time, orthopaedic providers should remain aware of the psychosocial needs of their patients and advocate on behalf of those who may benefit from intervention. Our study is limited in part to patients who had the self-agency to access specialty orthopaedic care, and therefore may underestimate the true changes in the physical or mental health status of all patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Future longitudinal studies evaluating the impact of specific COVID-19-related factors (for example, delays in medical care, social isolation, or financial loss) on orthopaedic outcomes may be helpful to prepare for future pandemics or natural disasters. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

Orthopedic Surgery and Anesthesiology Surgical Improvement Strategies Project - Phase III Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Our institution initiated the Orthopedic Surgery and Anesthesiology Surgical Improvement Strategies (OASIS) project in 2017 to improve the quality and efficiency for hip and knee arthroplasties. Phase III of this project aimed to: 1) increase same-day discharge (SDD) of primary total joint arthroplasties (TJAs) to 20%; 2) maintain or improve 30-day readmission rates; and 3) realize cost savings and revenue increases. METHODS: All primary TJAs performed between 2021 and 2022 represented our study cohort, with those in 2019 (prepandemic) establishing the baseline cohort. A multidisciplinary team met weekly to track project tactics and metrics through the entire episode of care from preoperative surgical visit through 30 days postoperatively. RESULTS: The SDD rate increased from 4% at baseline to 37%, with mean lengths of stay (LOS) decreasing from 1.5 to 0.9 days for all primary TJAs. The 30-day readmission rate decreased to 1.2 from 1.3%. Composite changes in surgical volume and cost reductions equaled $5 million. CONCLUSION: Application of a multidisciplinary team with health systems engineering tools and methods allowed SDD to increase from 4 to 37% with a mean LOS <1 day, resulting in a $5 million incremental gain in profit at a major academic medical center. Importantly, patient safety was not compromised as 30-day readmission rates remained stable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III Therapeutic.

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Ketamine in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Ketamine is administered intraoperatively to treat pain associated with primary total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ketamine in primary THA and TKA to support the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS), American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), Hip Society, Knee Society, and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management (ASRA). METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for studies published prior to 2020 on ketamine in THA and TKA. All included studies underwent qualitative assessment and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of ketamine. After a critical appraisal of 136 publications, 7 high-quality studies were included for analyses. RESULTS: High-quality evidence demonstrates that intraoperative ketamine decreases postoperative opioid consumption. Four of 7 studies found that ketamine reduces postoperative pain. Intraoperative ketamine is not associated with an increase in adverse events and may reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk [RR] 0.68; 95% CI 0.50-0.92). CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence supports the use of ketamine intraoperatively in THA and TKA to reduce postoperative opioid consumption. Most studies found ketamine reduces postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. Moderate quality evidence supports the safety of ketamine, but it should be used cautiously in patients at risk for postoperative delirium, such as the elderly.

The Effect of Aberrant Rotation on Radiographic Patellar Height Measurement Using Canton-Deschamps Index: A Cadaveric Analysis.

The Caton-Deschamps Index (CDI) is a measurement used to evaluate patella alta based on true lateral radiographs; however, no prior study has investigated how altering the degree of radiograph aberrancy affects CDI measurement. The primary and secondary purpose of this study was to evaluate effects of rotational radiographic changes on patella height measurements and compare these findings to MRI measurements, respectively. Five cadaver knees (n = 5) were utilized in this study. True lateral radiographs were obtained for each specimen by using a fluoroscopic C-arm machine. The C-arm was then altered in two planes (axial and coronal) in both the clockwise and counterclockwise direction and radiographs were taken at 5, 10, and 15 degrees of error from the true lateral position. A CDI measurement of each specimen was performed based on sagittal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) slices and compared with radiographic CDI measurements. Three orthopedic surgeons measured the CDI for each radiograph and MRI performed. Interrater reliability and changes in CDI were analyzed. Clinically significant difference in CDI was set to 0.1. Mean intraclass correlation coefficient was high (≥0.7) at true lateral and at all varying degrees of error. When performing a pairwise comparison of mean CDI from the true lateral position to increasing degrees of error, statistically significant differences were observed in the axial plane. The largest change in CDI measurements was seen with rotational malposition in the axial plane and counterclockwise direction. No statistically significant differences in mean CDI were observed in the coronal plane. The change in CDI from the true lateral position reached an absolute maximum of at least 0.1 in all four scenarios at each tested degree of error. This study found that aberrant radiographic rotation in the axial plane resulted in a significantly different mean CDI measurement when compared with true lateral radiographs. All degrees of error in both directions and in both planes could have a clinically significant effect on CDI (≥0.1). Our findings confirm the importance of a perfect true lateral radiograph when measuring patella height.

Extended Trochanteric Osteotomy in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Background: Removal of well-fixed femoral components during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be difficult and time-consuming1, leading to numerous complications, such as femoral perforation, bone loss, and fracture. Extended trochanteric osteotomies (ETOs), which provide wide exposure and direct access to the femoral canal under controlled conditions, have become a popular method to circumvent these challenges. ETOs were popularized by Wagner (i.e., the anterior-based osteotomy), and later modified by Paprosky (i.e., the lateral-based osteotomy)2. Description: The decision to utilize the laterally based Paprosky ETO versus the anteriorly based Wagner ETO is primarily based on surgeon preference, the location and type of in situ implants, and the osseous anatomy. Typically, a laterally based ETO is most facile in conjunction with a posterior approach and an anteriorly based ETO is most commonly paired with a lateral or anterolateral approach. Attention must be paid to maintaining vascularity to the osteotomy fragment, including minimizing stripping of the vastus lateralis from the osteotomy fragment and maintaining abductor attachments to the osteotomy fragment. When utilizing a laterally based ETO, the posterior border of the vastus lateralis must be carefully elevated to provide exposure for performance of the osteotomy. When an anteriorly based osteotomy is performed, the surgeon may instead extend the abductor tenotomy proximally with use of a longitudinal split of the vastus lateralis distally, which helps to keep the anterior and posterior sleeves of soft tissue in continuity. In either approach, dissection of the vastus lateralis involves managing several large vascular perforators. We prefer performing careful blunt dissection to identify the perforators and prophylactically controlling them, with ligation of large vessels and electrocautery of smaller vessels. Vascular clips are also available in case difficult-to-control bleeding is encountered. In general, an oscillating saw (with preference for a thin blade) is utilized to complete the posterior longitudinal limb of the ETO, extending approximately 12 to 16 cm distally from the tip of the greater trochanter. Although a 12 to 16-cm zone is required to maintain maximum vascularity to the osteotomized fragment, the osteotomy length must ultimately be determined by (1) the length of the femoral component to be removed; (2) the presence of distal bone ingrowth, ongrowth, or cement; and (3) the presence of distal hardware or stemmed knee components. A smaller oscillating saw is then utilized to complete the transverse limb at the previously identified distal extent. A high-speed pencil-tip burr is utilized to complete the corners of the osteotomy in a rounded configuration, and a combination of saws and pencil-tip burrs is utilized to create partial proximal and distal anterior longitudinal limbs of the osteotomy to the extent allowed by the soft-tissue attachments. The anterior longitudinal limb may be further weakened in a controlled fashion with use of serial drill holes. The anterior longitudinal limb then undergoes controlled fracture by placement of 2 to 4 broad straight osteotomes in the posterior longitudinal limb. These osteotomes are carefully levered anteriorly in unison with a gentle, steady force. After the ETO is completed, intramedullary prostheses, hardware, and cement are removed; the acetabulum is addressed as needed; and a final femoral stem is implanted, if appropriate. After completion of the osteotomy, the osteotomized fragment must be retracted gently, with care taken to avoid a fracture and maintain vascularity. To this end, debridement of the endosteum of the osteotomized fragment, including any cement removal, should be avoided until the end of the procedure, when the osteotomy is ready to be closed. Our preferred method for closure is to place 1 prophylactic cable 1 cm distal to the osteotomy, 1 to 2 cables along the diaphyseal segment of the osteotomy, and 1 Luque wire above the less trochanter. A Luque wire is our specific choice for the location above the lesser trochanter because it sits in the effective joint space; however, the use of Luque wires distal to the lesser trochanter is also acceptable. A strut allograft or locking plate can be utilized to reinforce the osteotomy in rare cases or to bridge interprosthetic stress risers. Trochanteric implants are typically avoided because of the low rate of clinically relevant trochanteric migration with this closure technique and because of the high rate of symptomatic implants with trochanteric claws or plates. Alternatives: An alternative osteotomy of similar exposure is the transfemoral osteotomy. Additionally, a variety of non-extended trochanteric osteotomies, such as trochanteric slide osteotomies, offer more limited exposure. Rationale: Femoral surgical exposure for revision THA can be aided by performing transfemoral osteotomies, but these provide less precise control of the separate proximal femoral osteotomized segment(s), and healing and fixation can be less reliable. Less invasive osteotomies such as non-extended trochanteric osteotomies typically do not provide adequate exposure in challenging cases for which ETO is being considered. Expected Outcomes: ETOs have high union rates, and notable trochanteric migration is infrequent. The most common complications are fracture of the osteotomy fragment intraoperatively or postoperatively. Radiographic and clinical union is achieved in 98% of patients. The mean proximal trochanteric osteotomy fragment migration prior to union is 3 mm. ETO fragment migration of >1 cm occurs in just 7% of hips. Postoperative greater trochanter fractures occur in 9% of hips. The 10-year survivorship free of revision for aseptic femoral loosening, free of femoral or acetabular component removal or revision for any reason, and free of reoperation for any reason is 97%, 91%, and 82%, respectively3. Important Tips: Attention should be paid to patient anatomy, deformity, surgical approach, and implant type when choosing to perform a laterally based Paprosky or anteriorly based Wagner ETO.Appropriate length of the posterior longitudinal limb of the ETO is approximately 12 to 16 cm distally from the tip of the greater trochanter.Attention must be paid to maintaining vascularity to the osteotomy fragment, including minimizing stripping of the vastus lateralis from the osteotomy fragment and maintaining abductor attachments to the osteotomy fragment.A high-speed pencil-tip burr should be utilized to complete the corners of the osteotomy in a rounded configuration in order to avoid stress risers.The anterior longitudinal limb is completed by controlled fracture of the remaining intervening segment in order to maintain vastus lateralis attachments and vascular supply to the osteotomy fragment.The ETO is closed with use of cerclage cables and/or double-stranded Luque wires, typically utilizing a total of 3 to 4 in order to obtain secure fixation without compromising local biology. Acronyms and Abbreviations: MFT = modular fluted tapered.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with a Modular Fluted Tapered Stem for a Periprosthetic Femoral Fracture.

Background: As the number of primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed each year continues to rise, so too do the number of complications, including periprosthetic femoral fracture1-9. Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures are difficult to treat because they require the surgeon to simultaneously manage a femoral fracture and gain new implant fixation. Fluted tapered stems have advanced the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures by providing immediate axial and rotational implant fixation distal to the fracture10-18. Modular fluted tapered stems provide the added practical advantage of allowing length and anteversion adjustment after implantation of the distal fixation portion of the stem. Description: In this technique, a modified extended trochanteric osteotomy incorporating the fracture is utilized to gain access to the loose femoral implant and femoral diaphyseal canal. The femoral diaphyseal canal is then sequentially reamed in 1-mm increments. A fluted tapered stem with the appropriate length, diameter, and axial and rotational stability is inserted into the canal. A proximal body is then chosen that establishes the appropriate leg length, femoral offset, and version. The final proximal body is engaged into the fluted tapered stem. Finally, the fracture is fixed around the implant with a combination of cables or wires. Alternatives: Historically, implants such as extensively porous coated stems were utilized to treat Vancouver B2 or B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Unfortunately, these implants were associated with high rates of failure and revision7,9. Rationale: The introduction of a fluted tapered stem provided a more reliable implant that achieves immediate axial and rotational stability. In addition, utilizing a fluted tapered stem allowed for a more soft-tissue-preserving approach to these complex injuries, in turn allowing the fracture to be reduced around the implant proximally with cerclage cables and or wires. Modular fluted tapered stems provide the additional advantage of allowing the surgeon to modify leg length, offset, and femoral version, independently of the fluted tapered stem. As a result of these unique advantages, these stems were introduced several years ago for the treatment of Vancouver B2 or B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Expected Outcomes: Contemporary series have demonstrated that the use of a modular fluted tapered stem leads to improved implant survivorship and clinical outcomes with lower complication rates for Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures1,10-12,14-19. Important Tips: Template both the fluted tapered stem and proximal body preoperatively. The proximal body should be templated at the ideal hip center of rotation that appropriately restores leg lengths and offset. Template the fluted tapered stem so that it provides appropriate isthmic fit and bypasses the most distal extent of the fracture by at least 2 cortical diameters.Utilize a modified extended trochanteric osteotomy for your exposure in order to facilitate visualization of the fracture and to provide direct access to the femoral canal.Place a prophylactic cable prior to preparing the femur for the implant in order to help prevent iatrogenic fracture.Place a trial stem and obtain intraoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs in order to assess the position of the implants and the risk of anterior cortical perforation.When placing the final implants, be sure the fluted tapered stem has both axial and rotational stability.Reduce and fix the fracture after the final implants are placed and the hip is reduced. Acronyms and Abbreviations: AP = anteroposteriorMFT = modular fluted tapered (stem)ETO = extended trochanteric osteotomyTHA = total hip arthroplastyCT = computed tomographyPJI = periprosthetic joint infection.

Outcomes of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients 60 Years and Younger.

Background: The annual volume of patients requiring revision total hip arthroplasty prior to age 60 is projected to increase considerably. Despite this, outcome data for revision THA in these younger patients remain limited. The purpose of this study was to define implant survivorship, identify risk factors for re-revision, and determine clinical outcomes of revision THA in patients aged ≤60 years. Methods: We identified 191 revision THAs performed in patients aged ≤60 years. Minimum 4-year follow-up was obtained in 141 (73.8%) hips (mean 10.3 years [range, 4-20]). Mean age was 48 years (range, 20-60). Forty-five hips (32%) had previously been revised. Indications for index revision included aseptic loosening (28%), polyethylene wear (26%), dislocation (20%), and infection (14%). Outcome measures were Kaplan-Meier survival free from re-revision and patient-reported outcome scores (mHHS, UCLA). Results: Survivorship free from re-revision for any cause was 78% [95% CI=70-85] at five years and 71% [62-78] at ten years. The most common indication for re-revision at both five and ten years was dislocation (12% [8-19], 16% [10-23]), followed by infection (6% [3-12], 10% [5-18]) and aseptic loosening (2% [1-7], 4% [1-11]). Mean scores were improved from baseline at six (mHHS +21.4, UCLA +0.9) and twelve years (mHHS +13.4, UCLA +0.5). Conclusion: Revision THA in patients less than 60 years of age was associated with considerably lower rates of early loosening-related failure than historically reported. Recurrent dislocation and infection appear to remain challenges in this population. Despite improvements in survivorship from earlier studies, patient-reported functional improvements remained relatively unchanged. Level of Evidence: IV.

The Evolution, Current Indications and Outcomes of Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been performed by orthopedic surgeons for decades, but the cementless TKA has only recently gained much interest in the world of arthroplasty. Initially, early designs had multiple complications, particularly with aseptic loosening due to osteolysis and micromotion. However, modifications have shown good outcomes and excellent survivorship. Over the last several decades, changes in implant designs as well as implant materials/coatings have helped with bone in growth and stability. Furthermore, surgeons have been performing TKA in younger and more obese patients as these populations have been increasing. Good results from the cementless TKA compared to cemented TKA may be a better option in these more challenging populations, as several studies have shown greater survivorship in patients that are younger and have a greater BMI. Additionally, a cementless TKA may be more cost effective, which remains a concern in today's healthcare environment. Overall, cemented and cementless TKA have great results in modern times and there is still a debate as to which implant is superior.

Revision total knee arthroplasty for flexion instability : a concise follow-up of a previous report.

AIMS: We have previously reported the mid-term outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for flexion instability. At a mean of four years, there were no re-revisions for instability. The aim of this study was to report the implant survivorship and clinical and radiological outcomes of the same cohort of of patients at a mean follow-up of ten years. METHODS: The original publication included 60 revision TKAs in 60 patients which were undertaken between 2000 and 2010. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision TKA was 65 years, and 33 (55%) were female. Since that time, 21 patients died, leaving 39 patients (65%) available for analysis. The cumulative incidence of any re-revision with death as a competing risk was calculated. Knee Society Scores (KSSs) were also recorded, and updated radiographs were reviewed. RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of any re-revision was 13% at a mean of ten years. At the most recent-follow-up, eight TKAs had been re-revised: three for recurrent flexion instability (two fully revised to varus-valgus constrained implants (VVCs), and one posterior-stabilized (PS) implant converted to VVC, one for global instability (PS to VVC), two for aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and two for periprosthetic joint infection). The ten-year cumulative incidence of any re-revision for instability was 7%. The median KSS improved significantly from 45 (interquartile range (IQR) 40 to 50) preoperatively to 70 (IQR 45 to 80) at a mean follow-up of ten years (p = 0.031). Radiologically, two patients, who had not undergone revision, had evidence of loosening (one tibial and one patellar). The remaining components were well fixed. CONCLUSION: We found fair functional outcomes and implant survivorship at a mean of ten years after revision TKA for flexion instability with a PS implant. Recurrent instability and aseptic loosening were the most common indications for re-revision. Components with increased constraint, such as a VVC or hinged, should be used in these patients in order to reduce the risk of recurrent instability.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1126-1131.

The Efficacy and Safety of Corticosteroids in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Direct Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroids are commonly used intraoperatively to treat pain and reduce opioid consumption and nausea associated with primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in primary TJA to support the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, Knee Society, and the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched for studies published before February 2020 on corticosteroids in TJA. All included studies underwent qualitative and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids. RESULTS: Critical appraisal of 1,581 publications revealed 23 studies regarded as the best available evidence for analysis. Intraoperative dexamethasone reduces postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and nausea and vomiting. Multiple doses lead to further reduction in pain, opioid consumption, nausea and vomiting. There is insufficient evidence on the risk of adverse events with perioperative dexamethasone in TJA. CONCLUSION: Strong evidence supports the use of a single dose or multiple doses of intravenous dexamethasone to reduce postoperative pain, opioid consumption, nausea and vomiting after primary TJA. There is insufficient evidence on perioperative dexamethasone in primary TJA to determine the optimal dose, number of doses, or risk of postoperative adverse events.