Factors influencing patient selection of orthopaedic surgeons for total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

INTRODUCTION: The importance of identifying how patients choose their healthcare providers has grown with the prevalence of consumer-centric health insurance plans. There is currently a lack of studies exploring the factors associated with how patients select their hip and knee joint arthroplasty surgeons. The purpose of this study was to determine how patients find their arthroplasty providers and the relative importance of various arthroplasty surgeon characteristics. METHODS: An electronic mail survey was sent to 3522 patients who had visited our institution for an arthroplasty surgeon office visit between August 2022 and January 2023. The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions, which aimed to inquire about the patients' referral sources for their current arthroplasty surgeon. In addition, patients were requested to rate the significance of 22 surgeon-related factors, on a scale of 1 (Not Important At All) to 5 (Very Important), in choosing their arthroplasty surgeon. RESULTS: Of the 3522 patients that received the survey, 538 patients responded (15.3%). The most common referral sources were physician referral (50.2%), family/friend referral (27.7%), and self-guided research (24.5%). Of those that were referred by a physician, 54.4% of respondents were referred by another orthopaedic provider. Patients rated board certification (4.72 ± 0.65), in-network insurance status (4.66 ± 0.71), fellowship training (4.50 ± 0.81), bedside manner/personality (4.32 ± 0.86), and facility appearance (4.26 ± 0.81) as the five most important factors in picking an arthroplasty surgeon. Television (1.42 ± 0.83), print (1.50 ± 0.88), and online (1.58 ± 0.93) advertisements, along with social media presence (1.83 ± 1.08), and practice group size (2.97 ± 1.13) were rated as the five least important factors. CONCLUSION: Patients are most likely to select an arthroplasty surgeon based on referral from other physicians, namely orthopedic surgeons, in addition to board certification status, in-network insurance, and fellowship training. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of physician credentials and reputation within the orthopaedic community in order to attract and retain patients.

Does Surgical Approach Affect Dislocation Rate After Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Who Have Prior Lumbar Spinal Fusion? A Retrospective Analysis of 16,223 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal fusion (LSF) is a risk factor for dislocation following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The effect of the surgical approach on this association has not been investigated. This study examined the association between the surgical approach and dislocation following THA in patients who had prior LSF. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 16,223 primary elective THAs at our institution from June 2011 to September 2022. Patients who had LSF prior to THA were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes. Patients were stratified by LSF history, surgical approach, and intraoperative robot or navigation use to compare dislocation rates. There were 8,962 (55.2%) posterior, 5,971 (36.8%) anterior, and 1,290 (8.0%) laterally based THAs. Prior LSF was identified in 323 patients (2.0%). Binary logistic regressions were used to assess the association of patient factors with dislocation risk. RESULTS: There were 177 dislocations identified in total (1.1%). In nonadjusted analyses, the dislocation rate was significantly higher following the posterior approach among all patients (P = .003). Prior LSF was associated with a significantly higher dislocation rate in all patients (P < .001) and within the posterior (P < .001), but not the anterior approach (P = .514) subgroups. Multivariate regressions demonstrated anterior (OR [odds ratio] = 0.64, 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.45 to 0.91, P = .013), and laterally based (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.96, P = .039) approaches were associated with decreased dislocation risk, whereas prior LSF (OR = 4.28, 95% CI 2.38 to 7.69, P < .001) was associated with increased dislocation risk. Intraoperative technology utilization was not significantly associated with dislocation in the multivariate regressions (OR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.06, P = .095). CONCLUSIONS: The current study confirmed that LSF is a significant risk factor for dislocation following THA; however, anterior and laterally based approaches may mitigate dislocation risk in this population. In multivariate analyses, including surgical approach, LSF, and several perioperative variables, intraoperative technology utilization was not found to be significantly associated with dislocation risk.

Aseptic Acetabular Revisions ≤90 Days, 91 Days to 2 Years, and >2 Years After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Comparing Etiologies, Complications, and Postoperative Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Isolated acetabular component revision is an effective treatment for revision total hip arthroplasty patients who have well-fixed femoral implants. We aimed to evaluate the modes of acetabular failure following primary total hip arthroplasty and to identify factors associated with increased morbidities and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis and identified 318 isolated aseptic acetabular revisions. We separated patients by ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years for acetabular revisions and compared demographics, reasons for revision, 90-day readmissions, rerevisions, and postrevision infections. Revisions ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years accounted for 10.7, 19.2, and 70.1% of revisions, respectively. Revisions ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years had their primary total hip arthroplasty at a mean age of 66, 63, and 55 years (P < .001), respectively. RESULTS: Revisions within 90 days were mainly indicated for dislocation/instability (58.8%) or periprosthetic fracture (23.5%) while revisions over 2 years were indicated for polyethylene wear/osteolysis (37.2%). Patients with revisions past 90 days were more likely to require rerevision compared to patients with revisions within 90 days (P < .001). There were no differences in readmissions (P = .28) or infection rates (P = .37). CONCLUSIONS: Acetabular revisions within 90 days were more commonly indicated for instability and periprosthetic fracture, while those over 2 years were indicated for polyethylene wear. Revisions past 90 days were more likely to require subsequent rerevisions without increased 90-day readmissions or infections. LEVEL III EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study.

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.

The Effect of Prosthetic Joint Infection on Work Status and Quality of Life: A Multicenter, International Study.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and subsequent revision surgeries may affect patients' social and physical health, ability to complete daily activities, and disability status. This study sought to determine how PJI affects patients' quality of life through patient-reported outcome measures with minimum 1-year follow-up. METHODS: Patients who suffered PJI following primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) from 2012 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients met Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for acute or chronic PJI, underwent revision TJA surgery, and had at least 1 year of follow-up. Patients were surveyed regarding how PJI affected their work and disability status, as well as their mental and physical health. Outcome measures were compared between acute and chronic PJIs. In total, 318 patients (48.4% total knee arthroplasty and 51.6% total hip arthroplasty) met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Following surgical treatment for knee and hip PJI, a substantial proportion of patients reported that they were unable to negotiate stairs (20.5%), had worse physical health (39.6%), and suffered worse mental health (25.2%). A high proportion of patients reported worse quality of life (38.5%) and social satisfaction (35.3%) following PJI. Worse reported patient-reported outcome measures including patients' ability to complete daily physical activities were found among patients undergoing treatment for chronic PJI, and also, 23% of patients regretted their initial decision to pursue primary TJA. CONCLUSIONS: A PJI negatively affects patients' ability to carry out everyday activities. This patient population is prone to report challenges overcoming disability and returning to work. Patients should be adequately educated regarding the risk of PJI to decrease later potential regrets. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series (IV).

Comparison of Aseptic Partial- and Full-Component Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) can be performed with isolated tibial, isolated femoral, and combined tibial and femoral component exchange for different indications. Replacement of only 1 fixed component in rTKA leads to shorter operative times and decreased complexity. We sought to compare functional outcomes and rates of rerevision in patients undergoing partial and full rTKA. METHODS: This retrospective study examined all aseptic rTKA patients with a minimum follow-up of 2 years in a single center between September 2011 and December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: full rTKA (F-rTKA) if both components (femoral and tibial) were revised and partial rTKA (P-rTKA) if only 1 component was revised. A total of 293 patients (P-rTKA = 76, F-rTKA = 217) were included. RESULTS: P-rTKA patients had significantly shorter surgical time (109 ± 37 Versus. 141 ± 44 minutes, P < .001). At mean follow-up of 4.2 (range 2.2-6.2) years, rerevision rates did not significantly differ between groups (11.8 Versus. 16.1%, P = .358). Improvements in postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Scale (KOOS), Joint Replacement scores were similar as well (P = .100 and P = .140, respectively). For patients undergoing rTKA due to aseptic loosening, freedom from rerevision due to aseptic loosening was similar between groups (100 Versus. 97.8%, P = .321). For patients undergoing rTKA due to instability, freedom from rerevision due to instability did not significantly differ as well (100 Versus. 98.1%, P = .683). In the P-rTKA cohort, freedom from all-cause and aseptic revision of preserved components was 96.1% and 98.7% at the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to F-rTKA, P-rTKA yielded similar functional outcomes and implant survivorship with shorter surgical time. When indications and component compatibility allow for such a procedure, surgeons can expect good outcomes when performing P-rTKA.

Impact of time to revision total knee arthroplasty on outcomes following aseptic failure.

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies have demonstrated an association between time to revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and indication; however, the impact of early versus late revision on post-operative outcomes has not been reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective, observational study examined patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopedic hospital between 6/2011 and 4/2020 with > 1-year of follow-up. Patients were early revisions if they were revised within 2 years of primary TKA (pTKA) or late revisions if revised after greater than 2 years. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and post-operative outcomes were compared. RESULTS: 470 rTKA were included (199 early, 271 late). Early rTKA patients were younger by 2.5 years (p = 0.002). The predominant indications for early rTKA were instability (28.6%) and arthrofibrosis/stiffness (26.6%), and the predominant indications for late rTKA were aseptic loosening (45.8%) and instability (26.2%; p < 0.001). Late rTKA had longer operative times (119.20 ± 51.94 vs. 103.93 ± 44.66 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences in rTKA type, disposition, hospital length of stay, all-cause 90-day emergency department visits and readmissions, reoperations, and number of re-revisions. CONCLUSIONS: Aseptic rTKA performed before 2 years had different indications but demonstrated similar outcomes to those performed later. Early revisions had shorter surgical times, which could be attributed to differences in rTKA indication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective observational analysis.

How Does Surgical Approach Affect Characteristics of Dislocation After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been voiced regarding how surgical approach impacts risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study investigated how surgical approach impacts rate, direction, and timing of dislocations following THA. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 13,335 primary THAs from 2011 to 2020 and identified 118 patients with prosthetic hip dislocation. Patients were stratified into cohorts by surgical approach used during primary THA. Patient demographics, index THA acetabular cup positioning, number, direction, timing of dislocations, and subsequent revisions were collected. RESULTS: Dislocation rate differed significantly between posterior approach (PA), direct anterior approach (DAA), and laterally-based approach (LA) (1.1 versus 0.7% versus 0.5%, P = .026). Rate of hips dislocating anteriorly was lowest in the PA group (19.2%) compared to LA (50.0%) and DAA groups (38.2%, P = .044). There was no difference in rate of hips dislocating posteriorly (P = .159) or multidirectional (P = .508) instability; notably 58.8% of dislocations in the DAA cohort occurred posteriorly. There were no differences in dislocation timing or revision rate. Acetabular anteversion was highest in the PA cohort compared to DAA and LA (21.5 versus 19.2 versus 11.7 degrees, P = .049). CONCLUSION: After THA, patients in the PA group had a slightly higher dislocation rate compared to the DAA and LA groups. The PA group had a lower rate of anterior dislocation and nearly 60% of DAA dislocations occurred posteriorly. However, with no differences in other parameters including revision rates or timing, our data suggests surgical approach may impact dislocation characteristics to a lesser degree than previous studies have suggested.

Selective Use of Dual-Mobility Did Not Significantly Reduce 90-Day Readmissions or Reoperations After Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Selective use of dual mobility (DM) implants in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients at high dislocation risk has been proposed. However, evidence-based utilization thresholds have not been defined. We explored whether surgeon-specific rates of DM utilization correlate with rates of readmission and reoperation for dislocation. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 14,818 primary THA procedures performed at a single institution between 2011 and 2021, including 14,310 fixed-bearing (FB) and 508 DM implant constructs. Outcomes including 90-day readmissions and reoperations were compared between patients who had FB and DM implants. Cases were then stratified into 3 groups based on the attending surgeon's rate of DM utilization (≤ 1, 1 to 10, or > 10%) and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: There were no differences in 90-day outcomes between FB and DM implant groups. Surgeon frequency of DM utilization ranged from 0% to 43%. There were 48 surgeons (73%) who used DM in ≤ 1% of cases, 11 (17%) in 1% to 10% of cases, and 7 (10%) in > 10% of cases. The 90-day rates of readmission (7.3% versus 7.6% versus 7.2%, P = .7) and reoperation (3.4% versus 3.9% versus 3.8%, P = .3), as well as readmission for instability (0.5% versus 0.6% versus 0.8%, P = .2) and reoperation for instability (0.5% versus 0.5% versus 0.8%, P = .6), did not statistically differ between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Selective DM utilization did not reduce 90-day readmissions or reoperations following primary THA. Other dislocation-mitigation strategies (ie, surgical approach, computer navigation, robotic assistance, and large diameter FBs) may have masked any benefits of selective DM use.

Effects of Dexamethasone on Postoperative Glycemic Control in Diabetic Patients Following Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Concerns regarding the effects of dexamethasone on diabetics' glucose control have stymied its use following total joint arthroplasty. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 intravenous (IV) perioperative doses of dexamethasone on glucose levels, pain scores, and inpatient opioid consumption following total joint arthroplasty in diabetic patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of 523 diabetic patients who underwent primary elective THA and 953 diabetic patients who underwent primary elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between May 6, 2020, and December 17, 2021 was conducted. Patients who received 1 dose (1D) of perioperative dexamethasone 10 mg IV were compared to patients who received 2 doses (2D). Primary outcomes included postoperative glucose levels, opioid consumption as morphine milligram equivalences, postoperative pain as Verbal Rating Scale pain scores, and postoperative complications. RESULTS: The 2D TKA cohort had significantly greater average and maximum blood glucose levels from 24 to 60 hours compared to the 1D TKA cohort. The 2D THA cohort had significantly greater average blood glucose levels at 24 to 36 hours compared to the 1D THA cohort. However, the 2D TKA group had significantly reduced opioid consumption from 24 to 72 hours and reduced total consumption compared to the 1D TKA group. Verbal Rating Scale pain scores did not differ between cohorts for both TKA and THA at any interval. CONCLUSION: Administration of a second perioperative dose of dexamethasone was associated with increased postoperative blood glucose levels. However, the observed effect on glucose control may not outweigh the clinical benefits of a second perioperative dose of glucocorticoids.

Aspirin Thromboprophylaxis Following Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Associated With a Lower Rate of Early Prosthetic Joint Infection Compared With Other Agents.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Aspirin has been shown to be effective at reducing rates of VTE. In select patients, more potent thromboprophylaxis is indicated, which has been associated with increased rates of bleeding and wound complications. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of thromboprophylaxis choice on the rates of early prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following TKA. METHODS: A review of 11,547 primary TKA patients from 2013 to 2019 at a single academic orthopaedic hospital was conducted. The primary outcome measure was PJI within 90 days of surgery as measured by Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. There were 59 (0.5%) patients diagnosed with early PJI. Chi-square and Welch-2 sample t-tests were used to determine statistically significant relationships between thromboprophylaxis and demographic variables. Significance was set at P < .05. Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for age, body mass index, sex, and Charlson comorbidity index was performed to identify and control for independent risk factors for early PJI. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the rates of early PJI between the aspirin and non-aspirin group (0.3 versus 0.8%, P < .001). Multivariate logistic regressions revealed that patients given aspirin thromboprophylaxis had significantly lower odds of PJI (odds ratios = 0.51, 95% confidence interval = 0.29-0.89, P = .019) compared to non-aspirin patients. CONCLUSION: The use of aspirin thromboprophylaxis following primary TKA is independently associated with a lower rate of early PJIs. Arthroplasty surgeons should consider aspirin as the gold standard thromboprophylaxis in all patients in which it is deemed medically appropriate and should carefully weigh the morbidity of PJI in patients when non-aspirin thromboprophylaxis is considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective, Therapeutic Level III.

Impact of revision TKA indications on resource utilization.

BACKGROUND: Indications for surgery may impact resource utilization in aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), and understanding these relationships would facilitate risk-stratification preoperatively. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of rTKA indications on readmission, reoperation, length of stay (LOS), and cost. METHODS: We reviewed all 962 patients who underwent aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopedic specialty hospital between June 2011-April 2020 with at least 90 days of follow-up. Patients were categorized based on their indication for aseptic rTKA as listed in the operative report. Demographics, surgical factors, LOS, readmission, reoperation and cost were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: There were significant differences in operative time among cohorts (p < 0.001), highest among the periprosthetic fracture group (164.2 ± 59.8 min). Reoperation rate was greatest in the extensor mechanism disruption cohort (50.0 %, p = 0.009). Total cost differed significantly among groups (p < 0.001), which was highest among the implant failure cohort (134.6 % of mean) and lowest for component malpositioning cohort (90.2 % of mean). Similarly, there were significant differences in direct cost (p < 0.001) which was highest in the periprosthetic fracture cohort (138.5 % of mean), and lowest in the implant failure cohort (90.5 % of mean). There were no differences in discharge disposition, or number of re-revisions among all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Operative time, components revised, LOS, readmissions, reoperation rate, total cost and direct cost following aseptic rTKA varied significantly between different revision indications. These differences should be noted for preoperative planning, resource allocation, scheduling, and risk-stratification. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective observational analysis.