Predictive Factors for Intraoperative Determination for the Need of Femoral Osteochondroplasty After Periacetabular Osteotomy for Acetabular Dysplasia.

Background: Determination of need for osteochondroplasty (OCP) during periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) commonly relies on intraoperative assessment of internal rotation at 90° flexion (IRF). Performing an OCP helps decrease the risk of iatrogenic femoroacetabular impingement from PAO reduction. Avoiding impingement helps decrease risks of accelerated secondary osteoarthritis. The literature is limited for factors that predict need for OCPs during PAOs. The purpose of this study was to (1) define the characteristics of patients needing concurrent OCP and provide OCP rate based on IRF and femoral version and (2) identify predictive factors (clinical, radiographic) associated with need for OCP during PAO. As some surgeons determine need for OCP pre-operatively, predictive factors would aid decision making. Methods: This was a prospective cohort of 224 hips (207 patients) who underwent PAO for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia, of which 154 hips (69%) underwent OCP between years 2013 and 2017. Patients underwent OCP if they had restrictions in motion or impingement intra-operatively. Pre-operative factors such as age, sex, BMI, and CT findings were recorded that underwent univariate and multivariable analyses. Multivariable analysis found predictors that were described using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. IRF>30° and femoral version 10°-25° were used as the reference groups during categorical analysis. P-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. Results: Alpha angles >55° (OR= 2.20, CI: 1.08-4.52, p= 0.03), IRF≤20° (OR: 9.52, CI: 3.87-23.40, p<0.001), IRF >20°-30° (OR: 2.68, CI: 1.08-6.62, p=0.03), and femoral version <10° (OR: 5.26, CI: 1.09-25.30, p=0.04) were associated with increased odds of OCP. On continuous modeling, decreasing femoral version (OR: 1.07, CI: 1.02-1.12, p=0.002) and IRF (OR: 1.06, CI: 1.03-1.09, p<0.001) were associated with increased chance of OCP. For 5° changes, the chance of OCP increased by 40% (OR: 1.40, CI: 1.13-1.73, p=0.002) and 35% (OR: 1.35, IC: 1.16-1.57, p<0.001), respectively. Conclusion: Awareness of need for OCP may be valuable in peri-operative planning for these patients especially since some surgeons perform this technique arthroscopically before PAO. Factors associated with increased chances of OCP were alpha angles >55°, decreased IRF, and decreased femoral version. More studies in the future would help determine how OCP affects patient outcomes. Level of Evidence: III.

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.