Outcomes in Nonagenarians with Hip Fractures Treated Conservatively and Surgically.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes in nonagenarians following a hip fracture. We also further investigated the factors that influence these outcomes, such as method of treatment (operative versus conservative), co-morbidities, and pre-morbid function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied 65 nonagenarians that were identifiable from our hospital hip fracture database. We reviewed various parameters of these patients admitted after sustaining a hip fracture (neck of femur or intertrochanteric) and investigated how these parameters affected patient outcomes. The main outcomes studied were: inpatient morbidity, and mortality at one year. RESULTS: Inpatient morbidity was more likely in patients with an ASA grade of 3 to 5. Urinary tract infection was the most common medical complication. The 1-year mortality was 15.4% and was significantly influenced by advancing age. Surgically managed patients had a 1-year mortality rate (14.3%) slightly less than non-operative patients (17.4%). Post injury mobility was significantly better in those who received operative treatment with 63% of surgical cases regaining ambulatory status versus 7% of conservatively managed patients. CONCLUSIONS: We presented the outcomes of hip fractures in an extreme age group in the population. In nonagenarians with hip fractures surgery was associated with a 1-year mortality rate of 14.3% which is comparable to the general hip fracture population and less than the mortality rate of conservatively managed patients (17.4%). The primary advantage of surgery would be that two-thirds of patients return to ambulatory status. This information is useful to counsel patients and their families especially since the elderly are often more fearful of surgical intervention.

Lateral extra-articular tenodesis with ACL reconstruction demonstrates better patient-reported outcomes compared to ACL reconstruction alone at 2 years minimum follow-up.

PURPOSE: The role for extra-articular procedures in addition to ACL reconstruction to restore rotational stability is debated. We use lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LEAT) for patients that meet criteria. Our null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between two groups of patients that were treated with ACL reconstruction alone or ACL reconstruction with LEAT according to criteria. METHODS: A prospectively collected database of patients that were treated primarily according to the presence of a high-grade pivot shift with LEAT at the time of ACL reconstruction was propensity-matched with a group of patients that underwent ACL reconstruction alone. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Stratified variable analysis of the groups was also performed. RESULTS: There were 218 and 55 patients in the ACL reconstruction group and ACL reconstruction with LEAT group, respectively. There were 125 patients and 46 patients after propensity matching with a median follow-up of 52 months and 27 months, respectively. Post-operative Lysholm score (P = 0.005), Tegner activity index (P = 0.003) and time to return to sport (P < 0.001) favoured ACL reconstruction with LEAT compared to ACL reconstruction alone. Sports with frequent change of direction maneuvers and higher rates of ACL injury (rugby, soccer, skiing) favoured ACL reconstruction with LEAT versus ACL reconstruction alone (P = 0.001). No significant difference in re-operation rate or type of surgery was found between the two surgical groups after propensity matching but 13 patients in the ACL reconstruction-only group re-injured their ACL, 8 of whom required supplementary LEAT at the time of revision surgery. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported outcomes and return to multi-directional sports after ACL reconstruction favour LEAT at the time of ACL reconstruction when narrow inclusion criteria are applied.

Assuring the long-term total joint arthroplasty: a triad of variables.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to compare accuracy in restoring the native centre of hip rotation in patients undergoing conventional manual total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus robotic-arm assisted THA. Secondary objectives were to determine differences between these treatment techniques for THA in achieving the planned combined offset, component inclination, component version, and leg-length correction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 50 patients undergoing conventional manual THA and 25 patients receiving robotic-arm assisted THA. Patients undergoing conventional manual THA and robotic-arm assisted THA were well matched for age (mean age, 69.4 years (sd 5.2) vs 67.5 years (sd 5.8) (p = 0.25); body mass index (27.4 kg/m2 (sd 2.1) vs 26.9 kg/m2 (sd 2.2); p = 0.39); and laterality of surgery (right = 28, left = 22 vs right = 12, left = 13; p = 0.78). All operative procedures were undertaken by a single surgeon using the posterior approach. Two independent blinded observers recorded all radiological outcomes of interest using plain radiographs. RESULTS: The correlation coefficient was 0.92 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95) for intraobserver agreement and 0.88 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.94) for interobserver agreement in all study outcomes. Robotic THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native horizontal (p < 0.001) and vertical (p < 0.001) centres of rotation, and improved preservation of the patient's native combined offset (p < 0.001) compared with conventional THA. Robotic THA improved accuracy in positioning of the acetabular component within the combined safe zones of inclination and anteversion described by Lewinnek et al (p = 0.02) and Callanan et al (p = 0.01) compared with conventional THA. There was no difference between the two treatment groups in achieving the planned leg-length correction (p = 0.10). CONCLUSION: Robotic-arm assisted THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native centre of rotation, better preservation of the combined offset, and more precise acetabular component positioning within the safe zones of inclination and anteversion compared with conventional manual THA.

Preoperative CT-Based Three-Dimensional Templating in Robot-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty More Accurately Predicts Implant Sizes than Two-Dimensional Templating.

Patient dissatisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a concern. Surgical error is a common, avoidable cause of failed TKA. Correct femoral and tibial component sizing improves implant longevity, clinical outcomes, knee balance, and pain scores. We hypothesized that preoperative three-dimensional (3D) templating for robot-assisted TKA (RA-TKA) is more accurate than two-dimensional (2D) digital templating. Prospectively collected data from 31 RA-TKAs were assessed to determine accuracy pertaining to implant sizing and positioning. All cases undergoing RA-TKA undergo preoperative CT-scans as per protocol. Three blinded observers retrospectively templated these knees for TKA using standard radiographs. We compared whether 2D templating was as accurate as CT-guided templating. Postoperative radiographs were then evaluated for sizing and positioning. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the effect of learning curve were assessed. Preoperative femoral component 3D templating and retrospective blinded 2D templating accuracies were 96.6% and 52.9%, respectively (χ 2: 17.965; odds ratio [OR]: 24.957, 3.250-191.661; p < 0.001). Tibial component 3D and 2D templating accuracies were 93.1% and 28.7%, respectively (χ 2: 36.436; OR: 33.480, 7.400-151.481; p < 0.001). ICC for the three radiograph observers was 0.920 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.652-0.890; p < 0.001) for the femur and 0.833 (0.717-0.911; p < 0.001) for the tibia, showing excellent agreement. We conclude that preoperative CT-based templating for RA-TKA more accurately predicts the size of implants compared with traditional 2D digital templating. This may improve operating room efficiency and cost containment.

Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of seven cases for integration into the surgical workflow but no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to determine the surgical team's learning curve for robotic-arm assisted TKA through assessments of operative times, surgical team comfort levels, accuracy of implant positioning, limb alignment, and postoperative complications. Secondary objectives were to compare accuracy of implant positioning and limb alignment in conventional jig-based TKA versus robotic-arm assisted TKA. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 60 consecutive conventional jig-based TKAs followed by 60 consecutive robotic-arm assisted TKAs performed by a single surgeon. Independent observers recorded surrogate markers of the learning curve including operative times, stress levels amongst the surgical team using the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) questionnaire, accuracy of implant positioning, limb alignment, and complications within 30 days of surgery. Cumulative summation (CUSUM) analyses were used to assess learning curves for operative time and STAI scores in robotic TKA. RESULTS: Robotic-arm assisted TKA was associated with a learning curve of seven cases for operative times (p = 0.01) and surgical team anxiety levels (p = 0.02). Cumulative robotic experience did not affect accuracy of implant positioning (n.s.) limb alignment (n.s.) posterior condylar offset ratio (n.s.) posterior tibial slope (n.s.) and joint line restoration (n.s.). Robotic TKA improved accuracy of implant positioning (p < 0.001) and limb alignment (p < 0.001) with no additional risk of postoperative complications compared to conventional manual TKA. CONCLUSION: Implementation of robotic-arm assisted TKA led to increased operative times and heightened levels of anxiety amongst the surgical team for the initial seven cases but there was no learning curve for achieving the planned implant positioning. Robotic-arm assisted TKA improved accuracy of implant positioning and limb alignment compared to conventional jig-based TKA. The findings of this study will enable clinicians and healthcare professionals to better understand the impact of implementing robotic TKA on the surgical workflow, assist the safe integration of this procedure into surgical practice, and facilitate theatre planning and scheduling of operative cases during the learning phase. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

The learning curve associated with robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study.

Aims: The primary aim of this study was to determine the surgical team's learning curve for introducing robotic-arm assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) into routine surgical practice. The secondary objective was to compare accuracy of implant positioning in conventional jig-based UKA versus robotic-arm assisted UKA. Patients and Methods: This prospective single-surgeon cohort study included 60 consecutive conventional jig-based UKAs compared with 60 consecutive robotic-arm assisted UKAs for medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. Patients undergoing conventional UKA and robotic-arm assisted UKA were well-matched for baseline characteristics including a mean age of 65.5 years (sd 6.8) vs 64.1 years (sd 8.7), (p = 0.31); a mean body mass index of 27.2 kg.m2 (sd 2.7) vs 28.1 kg.m2 (sd 4.5), (p = 0.25); and gender (27 males: 33 females vs 26 males: 34 females, p = 0.85). Surrogate measures of the learning curve were prospectively collected. These included operative times, the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) questionnaire to assess preoperative stress levels amongst the surgical team, accuracy of implant positioning, limb alignment, and postoperative complications. Results: Robotic-arm assisted UKA was associated with a learning curve of six cases for operating time (p < 0.001) and surgical team confidence levels (p < 0.001). Cumulative robotic experience did not affect accuracy of implant positioning (p = 0.52), posterior condylar offset ratio (p = 0.71), posterior tibial slope (p = 0.68), native joint line preservation (p = 0.55), and postoperative limb alignment (p = 0.65). Robotic-arm assisted UKA improved accuracy of femoral (p < 0.001) and tibial (p < 0.001) implant positioning with no additional risk of postoperative complications compared to conventional jig-based UKA. Conclusion: Robotic-arm assisted UKA was associated with a learning curve of six cases for operating time and surgical team confidence levels but no learning curve for accuracy of implant positioning. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1033-42.

Hip fractures, preceding distal radius fractures and screening for osteoporosis: should we be screening earlier? A minimum 10-year retrospective cohort study at a single centre.

UNLABELLED: Both men and women who sustain a fracture of the distal forearm run an increased risk of sustaining a subsequent hip fracture. Our study implies that these patients may not necessarily constitute a group in which osteoporosis screening is warranted. INTRODUCTION: People who sustain a distal radius fracture run an increased risk of sustaining a subsequent hip fracture. However, many institutions only screen for osteoporosis at the time of a hip fracture. We aimed to determine the true incidence of preceding distal radius fractures in an Asian population of patients with a hip fracture aged 60 years or older and whether screening for osteoporosis earlier would be beneficial. METHODS: We reviewed 22 parameters of 572 patients aged 60 years or older admitted after sustaining a hip fracture over a 3-year period. This included the occurrence or absence of a distal radius fracture in the 10 years preceding their hip fracture. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (5 %) had a fracture of the distal radius in the preceding decade. Univariate analyses suggested that hip fracture patients who had preceding distal radius fractures were older, female, have lower mean haemoglobin levels, and right-sided hip fractures. Of these factors, only age was found to have significant predictive value in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: A number of institutions have started to screen for osteoporosis when a patient presents with a fracture of the distal radius because these patients may have an increased risk of a subsequent hip fracture. Our study implies that this may not be warranted. Implementing such a screening service from both cost and resource utilization point of view must be studied prospectively and in greater detail considering earlier screening may only be beneficial to a very small percentage of patients.