High Rate of Unplanned Reoperation for Interprosthetic Femur Fractures after Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Interprosthetic femur fractures (IPFFs) are a rare, but devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty. There is limited evidence to help guide their management. The purpose of this study was to describe the features, treatment, and outcomes of surgically managed IPFFs. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 75 patients who had 76 IPFFs. The mean age at the time of IPFF was 75 years (range, 29 to 94), and 78% were women. The mean body mass index was 30 (range, 19 to 51), and the mean follow-up was 3 years (range, 0 to 14). There were 16 Vancouver B1 fractures, 28 Vancouver B2 fractures, 2 Vancouver B3 fractures, and 30 Vancouver C fractures. All B1 fractures underwent open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). All Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures underwent revision arthroplasty, including 1 proximal femur replacement (PFR) and 1 total femur replacement (TFR). Vancouver C fractures were treated with ORIF (n = 20), distal femoral replacement (DFR) (n = 9), and in one case, TFR (n = 1). Kaplan-Meier survivorship was used to calculate 2-year survival free from all-cause reoperation and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). RESULTS: The 2-year survivorship-free rate from reoperation was 71%. There were 18 reoperations following initial surgical management of the IPFF, including 9 for infection, 3 for re-fracture, 3 for nonunion, 2 for hardware failure, and 1 for instability. An initial IPFF involving a stemmed femoral TKA component was associated with increased risk for reoperation (P = 0.007) and PJI (P = 0.044). There was no difference in survivorship free of reoperation between IPFFs managed with ORIF or revision arthroplasty (P = 0.72). CONCLUSION: An IPFF is a devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty with high reoperation rates, most commonly secondary to PJI. Those IPFFs that occurred between two stemmed components were at the highest risk for reoperation.

What's New in Periprosthetic Femur Fractures?

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femur fracture (PFF) is one of the most common indications for reoperation following total hip arthroplasty. METHODS/RESULTS: This article provides a review of a symposium on PFF that was presented at the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons 2023 annual meeting, including an overview of the Vancouver classification and its implications on treatment and subsequent complications, an updated approach to the management of intraoperative fractures, and finally, contemporary strategies for both osteosynthesis as well as revision arthroplasty for PFFs. CONCLUSION: As the incidence of PPF continues to increase, arthroplasty and trauma surgeons must be prepared to address this challenging complication with a contemporary understanding of the treatment options and their outcomes.

Femoral Component Debonding Frequently Missed on Advanced Imaging Prior to Revision of a Recalled Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Identification of femoral component debonding in the work-up of painful total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often poses a diagnostic challenge. The purpose of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of radiographs, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for identifying femoral component loosening with debonding at the time of revision of a primary TKA with a recalled polyethylene insert. METHODS: Using an institutional database, we identified all cases of revision TKA performed for this specific implant recall following a primary TKA between 2014 and 2022. Patients who had a preoperative radiograph, CT, and MRI were included (n = 77). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR) for predicting loosening were compared among the imaging modalities, using the intraoperative evidence of implant loosening as the gold standard. RESULTS: At the time of revision surgery, the femoral component was noted to have aseptic loosening with debonding in 46 of the 77 (60%) of the TKAs. There were no significant differences in demographics in the cohort with femoral debonding compared to those with well-fixed implants. The CT demonstrated a sensitivity of 28% and a specificity of 97%, while the MRI demonstrated a sensitivity of 37% and a specificity of 94% for detecting femoral loosening due to debonding. Both CT and MRI demonstrated poor negative LRs for femoral loosening (LR 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: In this series of revision TKAs for a specific recalled component, neither CT nor MRI accurately diagnosed femoral component debonding. For patients who have this implant, it is imperative to interrogate the implant-cement interface intraoperatively and prepare for full revision surgery as well as marked bone loss secondary to osteolysis.

A Consecutive Series of Vancouver B2 Periprosthetic Femur Fractures Treated With Contemporary Monoblock Versus Modular Revision Stems: Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems are the implant design of choice for managing Vancouver B2 periprosthetic femur fractures (PFFs), producing reliable results over the past few decades. The aim of this study was to compare the radiographic and clinical outcomes of Vancouver B2 PFFs treated with contemporary monoblock versus modular TFTs. METHODS: A consecutive series of 113 patients (72 women, 64%, mean age 70 years [range, 26 to 96]) who had a B2 PFF were treated with either a monoblock (n = 42) or modular (n = 71) TFT stem between 2008 and 2021. The mean body mass index was 30 ± 7. The mean follow-up was 2.9 years. A radiographic review was performed to assess leg length and offset restoration, endosteal cortical contact length, and stem subsidence. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to determine survivorship without revision, reoperation, or dislocation. RESULTS: There was no difference in the restoration of leg length (0.3 ± 8.0 mm) or offset (2.8 ± 8.2 mm) between the monoblock and modular cohorts (P > .05). Mean endosteal cortical contact length (47.2 ± 26.6 versus 46.7 ± 2 6.4 mm, P = .89) and stem subsidence (2.7 ± 3.5 versus 2.4 ± 3.2 mm, P = .66) did not differ. No difference in patient-reported outcome measures (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement; Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey Physical and Mental; visual analog score; and Lower Extremity Activity Scale) between the groups was observed. Survivorship at 2 years free from reoperation, revision, and dislocation was 90.4, 90.3, and 97.6%, respectively, for the monoblock cohort; and 84.0, 86.9, and 90.0%, respectively, for the modular cohort. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in radiographic or clinical outcomes were observed between patients treated with monoblock or modular TFTs in this large series of B2 PFFs.

The Efficacy and Safety of Tranexamic Acid in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: A Literature Review.

Historically, total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have been associated with significant perioperative blood loss and a relatively high rate of allogeneic blood transfusions. However, in recent years, tranexamic acid (TXA), a competitive inhibitor of tissue plasminogen activator, inhibiting fibrinolysis of existing thrombi, has substantially decreased the need for blood transfusion in THA and TKA. Various administration strategies have been studied, but there remains a lack of consensus on an optimal route and dosing regimen, with intravenous and topical regimens being widely used. A growing body of literature has demonstrated the safety and efficacy of TXA in primary and revision THA and TKA to reduce blood loss, allogeneic transfusions, and complications; it is associated with lowered lengths of stay, costs, and readmission rates.

Does Approach Matter in Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Comparison of Early Reoperations Between Direct Anterior and Postero-Lateral Approach.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on whether direct anterior approach (DAA) or postero-lateral approach (PLA) total hip arthroplasty (THA) confers a lower risk of postoperative complications. Robotic assistance in THA results in a more consistently accurate component position compared to manual THA. The objective of this study was to compare rates of dislocation, reoperation, revision, and patient-reported outcome measures between patients undergoing DAA and PLA robotic-assisted primary THA. METHODS: We identified 2,040 consecutive robotic-assisted primary THAs performed for primary osteoarthritis, using DAA (n = 497) or PLA (n = 1,542) between 2017 and 2020. The mean follow-up was 18 months. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated survivorship free of dislocation, reoperation, and revision. Achievement of patient acceptable symptom state and minimum clinically important difference were used to compare changes in the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement (HOOS JR) and Visual Analog Scale. RESULTS: Dislocation was rare in this series (14 in 2,040, 0.7%), including 1 of 497 (0.2%) in the DAA cohort and 13 of 1,542 (0.8%) in the PLA cohort (P = .210). There was no difference in 2-year reoperation-free survivorship (97.8 versus 98.6%, P = .59) or revision-free survivorship (98.8 versus 99.0%, P = .87) at any time point. After controlling for age, sex, and body mass index, there was no difference in dislocation, reoperation, or revision. At 6-week follow-up, after controlling for age, sex, and body mass index, patients in the DAA cohort had higher odds of achieving HOOS JR minimum clinically important difference (odds ratio = 2.01, P = .012) and HOOS JR patient acceptable symptom state (odds ratio = 1.72, P = .028). There were no differences in patient-reported outcome measures by 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: For robotic-assisted primary THA, DAA may confer enhanced early (<6 weeks) functional recovery compared to the PLA, but there was no significant difference in postoperative dislocation, reoperation, or revision rates.

The John N. Insall Award: Does Melatonin Improve Subjective Sleep Quality After Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance is a common problem following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The objective of this study was to determine if exogenous melatonin improves sleep quality following primary TKA. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. A total of 172 patients undergoing unilateral TKA for primary knee osteoarthritis were randomized to receive either 5 mg melatonin (n = 86) or 125 mg vitamin C placebo (n = 86) nightly for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) at 6 weeks and 90 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included 6-week and 90-day patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), morphine milligram equivalents prescribed, medication compliance, adverse events, and 90-day readmissions. RESULTS: Mean PSQI scores worsened at 6 weeks before returning to the preoperative baseline at 90 days in both groups. There were no differences in PSQI scores between melatonin and placebo groups at 6 weeks (10.2 ± 4.2 versus 10.5 ± 4.4, P = .66) or 90 days (8.1 ± 4.1 versus 7.5 ± 4.0, P = .43). Melatonin did not improve the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, Lower Extremity Activity Scale, Visual Analog Scale for pain, or Veterans Rand 12 Physical Component Score or Mental Component Score at 6 weeks or 90 days. Poor sleep quality was associated with worse PROMs at 6 weeks and 90 days on univariate and multivariable analyses, but melatonin did not modify these associations. There were no differences in morphine milligram equivalents prescribed, medication compliances, adverse events, or 90-day readmissions between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Exogenous melatonin did not improve subjective sleep quality or PROMs at 6 weeks or 90 days following TKA. Poor sleep quality was associated with worse patient-reported function and pain. Our results do not support the routine use of melatonin after TKA.

Patient Selection in Randomized Controlled Trials of Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review Assessing Inclusion Criteria.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at widely disparate stages of osteoarthritis, raising the possibility of high heterogeneity among patients enrolled in TKA research studies. Obscuration of treatment effectiveness and other problems that may stem from cohort heterogeneity can be controlled in clinical studies by rigorously defining target patients. The purpose of this review was to determine the extent to which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on TKA use osteoarthritis severity, as defined by radiographic grade or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), in their inclusion criteria, and to investigate potential impact on outcome. METHODS: A search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases used a combination of terms involving TKA, PROMs, and radiographic scoring. A total of 1,227 studies were independently reviewed by 2 screeners for the above terms. RCTs with ≥100 patients (236) and with <100 patients (325) undergoing TKA were analyzed with regard to the specific inclusion criteria and recruitment process. RESULTS: Among the identified RCTs with ≥100 patients, 18 (<8%, with a total of 2,952 randomized patients) used specific radiographic scoring or PROM thresholds in their inclusion criteria. Eleven of the 18 studies used specific radiographic scoring, such as the Kellgren-Lawrence or Ahlbäck classifications. Three studies used preoperative PROM thresholds: Knee Society Knee Score of <60, Knee Society Function Score of <60, Oxford Knee Score of <20, and Hospital for Special Surgery Score of <60. Among studies with <100 patients, 48 (<15%) used specific inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of RCTs (>85%) did not enroll patients based on disease severity, as measured by PROM score thresholds or radiographic classifications, in their inclusion criteria. The lack of consistent inclusion criteria likely results in heterogeneous cohorts, potentially undermining the validity of RCTs on TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

How Much Protection Does a Collar Provide? Assessing Risk of Early Periprosthetic Femur Fractures Following Total Hip Arthroplasty in Elderly Patients.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures (PPFs) account for approximately 25% of early revisions following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Cemented femoral fixation is associated with a lower-risk of PPF, and collared-cementless stems may reduce the risk as well. The objective of this study was to compare early-PPF rates between cemented, collared-cementless, and non-collared cementless stems in elderly patients. METHODS: A consecutieve-series of 11,522 primary THAs performed between 2016 and 2021 at our institution in patients >65 years of age was identified. Stem types used were categorized as cemented, collared-cementless, or non-collared cementless. Patients undergoing THA who had cemented-stems were older, more commonly women, and more likely to have a posterior-approach. To reduce confounding of patient characteristics, we matched patients in the 3 stem-categories according to age, sex, and body mass index. This generated 3-groups (cemented, collared-cementless, and non-collared cementless) consisting of 936 patients per group. The mean age of these 2,808 patients was 73 years, the mean body mass index was 27, and 67% were women. Logistic regressions were used to evaluate risk-factors for early-PPF. In the entire cohort of primary THA in elderly patients, there were 85 early PPFs (0.7%) over the study period. RESULTS: Non-collared cementless stems were associated with an increased risk of early PPF (OR: 3.11; P = .03) compared to collared-cementless stems. There were no early PPFs in the matched cemented cohort, 6 early PPFs in the matched collared-cementless cohort, and 16 early-PPFs in the matched non-collared cementless cohort (0% versus 0.64% versus 1.71%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large-series of patients >65 years of age undergoing primary THA, cemented stem fixation had the lowest incidence of early PPF, but collared-cementless stems had a nearly 3-fold decrease in risk for early PPF compared to non-collared cementless stems.

Deep-Learning Automation of Preoperative Radiographic Parameters Associated With Early Periprosthetic Femur Fracture After Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The radiographic assessment of bone morphology impacts implant selection and fixation type in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and is important to minimize the risk of periprosthetic femur fracture (PFF). We utilized a deep-learning algorithm to automate femoral radiographic parameters and determined which automated parameters were associated with early PFF. METHODS: Radiographs from a publicly available database and from patients undergoing primary cementless THA at a high-volume institution (2016 to 2020) were obtained. A U-Net algorithm was trained to segment femoral landmarks for bone morphology parameter automation. Automated parameters were compared against that of a fellowship-trained surgeon and compared in an independent cohort of 100 patients who underwent THA (50 with early PFF and 50 controls matched by femoral component, age, sex, body mass index, and surgical approach). RESULTS: On the independent cohort, the algorithm generated 1,710 unique measurements for 95 images (5% lesser trochanter identification failure) in 22 minutes. Medullary canal width, femoral cortex width, canal flare index, morphological cortical index, canal bone ratio, and canal calcar ratio had good-to-excellent correlation with surgeon measurements (Pearson's correlation coefficient: 0.76 to 0.96). Canal calcar ratios (0.43 ± 0.08 versus 0.40 ± 0.07) and canal bone ratios (0.39 ± 0.06 versus 0.36 ± 0.06) were higher (P < .05) in the PFF cohort when comparing the automated parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Deep-learning automated parameters demonstrated differences in patients who had and did not have early PFF after cementless primary THA. This algorithm has the potential to complement and improve patient-specific PFF risk-prediction tools.

High Prevalence of Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders and Limited Evidence-based Ergonomics in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control defines work-related musculoskeletal disorders as disorders of the nerves, muscles, tendons, joints, spinal discs, and cartilage that are caused or exacerbated by the environment or nature of work. Previous meta-analyses have characterized work-related musculoskeletal disorders among interventionists, general surgeons, and other surgical subspecialties, but prevalence estimates, prognosis, and ergonomic considerations vary by study and surgical specialty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the career prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in orthopaedic surgeons? (2) What is the treatment prevalence associated with work-related musculoskeletal disorders in orthopaedic surgeons? (3) What is the disability burden of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in orthopaedic surgeons? (4) What is the scope of orthopaedic surgical ergonomic assessments and interventions? METHODS: A systematic review of English-language studies from PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was performed in December 2022 and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies that presented prevalence estimates of work-related musculoskeletal disorders or assessed surgical ergonomics in orthopaedic surgery were included. Reviews, case reports, gray literature (conference abstracts and preprints), and studies with mixed-surgeon (nonorthopaedic) populations were excluded. The search yielded 5603 abstracts; 24 survey-based studies with 4876 orthopaedic surgeons (mean age 48 years; 79% of surgeons were men) were included for an analysis of work-related musculoskeletal disorders, and 18 articles were included for a descriptive synthesis of ergonomic assessment. Quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Tool revealed that studies had a low to moderate risk of bias, largely because of self-reporting survey-based methodology. Because of considerable heterogeneity and risk of bias, prevalence outcomes were not pooled and instead are presented as ranges (mean I 2 = 91.3%). RESULTS: The career prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in orthopaedic surgeons ranged from 37% to 97%. By anatomic location, the prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders in the head and neck ranged from 4% to 74%; back ranged from 9% to 77%; forearm, wrist, and hand ranged from 12% to 54%; elbow ranged from 3% to 28%; shoulder ranged from 3% to 34%; hip and thigh ranged from 1% to 10%; knee and lower leg ranged from 1% to 31%; and foot and ankle ranged from 4% to 25%. Of orthopaedic surgeons reporting work-related musculoskeletal disorders, 9% to 33% had a leave of absence, practice restriction or modification, or early retirement, and 27% to 83% received some form of treatment. Orthopaedic surgeons experienced biomechanical, cardiovascular, neuromuscular, and metabolic stress during procedures. Interventions to improve orthopaedic surgical ergonomics have been limited, but have included robotic assistance, proper visualization aids, appropriate use of power tools, and safely minimizing lead apron use. In hip and knee arthroplasty, robotic assistance was the most effective in improving posture and reducing caloric expenditure. In spine surgery, proper use of surgical loupes was the most effective in improving posture. CONCLUSION: Although the reported ranges of our main findings were wide, even on the low end of the reported ranges, work-related musculoskeletal disability among orthopaedic surgeons appears to be a substantial concern. We recommend that orthopaedic residency training programs incorporate surgical ergonomics or work injury lectures, workshops, and film review (alongside existing film review of surgical skills) into their curricula. We suggest hospitals engage in shared decision-making with surgeons through anonymous needs assessment surveys to implement wellness programs specific to surgeons' musculoskeletal needs. We urge institutions to assess surgeon ergonomics during routine quality assessment of novel surgical instruments and workflows. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Early Periprosthetic Femur Fractures After Primary Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty: High Risk of Periprosthetic Joint Infection and Subsequent Reoperation.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femur fracture (PFF) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a leading cause of early reoperation. The objective of this study was to compare rates of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and reoperation following PFFs occurring early postoperatively to those that occurred late. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 173 consecutive surgically managed PFFs following primary THA. Cases were categorized as "early" if they occurred within 90 days of THA (n = 117) or "late" if they occurred following the initial 90 days (n = 56). Mean age at time of PFF was 68 years (range, 26 to 96) and 60% were women. Mean body mass index was 29 (range, 16 to 52). Mean follow-up was 2 years (range, 0 to 13). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis estimated cumulative incidences of PJI and reoperation. RESULTS: Early PFFs had higher 2-year cumulative incidence of PJI (11% versus 0%, P < .001) and reoperation (24% versus 13%, P = .110). Following early PFF, 27 patients required reoperation (ie, 13 for PJI, 5 for instability, 2 for re-fracture, 2 for painful hardware, 2 for non-union, 1 for adverse local tissue reaction, 1 for aseptic loosening, and 1 for leg-length discrepancy). Following late PFF, 5 patients required reoperation (ie, 3 for instability, 1 for re-fracture, and 1 for non-union). CONCLUSIONS: There are greater incidences of PJIs and overall reoperations following early PFFs compared to late PFFs after THA. In addition to focusing efforts on prevention of early PFFs, surgeons should consider antiseptic interventions to mitigate the increased risk of PJI after treatment of early PFF.

Total Hip Arthroplasty After Proximal Femoral Nailing: Preoperative Preparation and Intraoperative Surgical Techniques.

The combination of an aging population and increased utilization of total hip arthroplasty (THA) is leading to a higher incidence of conversion THA, defined as conversion from previous hip fracture surgery to THA. Conversion THA is a more technically challenging, time-consuming, and costly procedure compared to primary THA and frequently involve more medically complex patients. Thus, the aim of this review is to provide a rubric for surgeons to use when preparing for a conversion THA. We have assessed the compatibility of commonly available extraction devices with popular femoral nails. Furthermore, we review technical pearls for conversion THA including equipment planning, operative setup, intraoperative imaging, extraction sequencing, and troubleshooting commonly encountered obstacles.

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.

Defining a successful total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of metrics of clinically important changes.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the methodology used to evaluate clinically significant postoperative outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is variable. The review aimed to survey studies with identified PROM-based metrics of clinical efficacy and the assessment procedures after TKA. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was queried from 2008-2020. Inclusion criteria were: full texts, English language, primary TKA with minimum one-year follow-up, use of metrics for assessing clinical outcomes with PROMs, and primary derivations of metrics. The following PROM-based metrics were identified: minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimum detectable change (MDC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB). Study design, PROM value data, and methods of derivation for metrics were recorded. RESULTS: We identified 18 studies (including 46,173 patients) that met the inclusion criteria. Across these studies, 10 different PROMs were employed, and MCID was derived in 15 studies (83%). The MCID was calculated using anchor-based techniques in nine studies (50%) and distribution techniques in eight studies (44%). PASS values were presented in two studies (11%) and SCB in one study (6%) using an anchor-based method; MDC was derived in four studies (22%) using the distribution method. CONCLUSION: There is variability in the TKA literature with respect to the definition and derivation of measurements of clinically significant outcomes. Standardization of these values may have implications for optimal case selection and PROM-based quality measurement, ultimately improving patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Hemostatic Agents in Orthopedic Surgery.

Controlling blood loss is a crucial aspect of orthopedic surgery. Hemostatic agents can be used intraoperatively in combination with antifibrinolytics as part of an overall strategy to limit blood loss. Several new hemostatic agents have recently come to the market designed specifically for vascular surgery but have found uses in other surgical fields, including orthopedics. This article reviews the mechanisms of action and best uses of various mechanical hemostats, active hemostats, flowable hemostats, and fibrin sealants for achieving hemostasis in orthopedic surgery. Mechanical and active hemostats have been reported to successfully decrease blood loss from cancellous bone, capillaries, and venules. Flowable hemostats are generally favorable for use in small spaces where the swelling capabilities of mechanical and active hemostats can be detrimental to surrounding structures. Sealants are best used for closing defects in tissues.

Outcomes After Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty From a Specific, Now-Recalled Implant System.

BACKGROUND: A specific total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implant system was recently recalled for high incidence of early polymeric wear and osteolysis. We analyzed the early outcomes of aseptic revision with these implants. METHODS: We identified 202 aseptic revision TKAs of this implant system performed at a single institution between 2010 and 2020. Revision indications included aseptic loosening (n = 120), instability (n = 55), and polymeric wear/osteolysis (n = 27). Components were revised in 145 cases (72%) and isolated polyethylene insert exchange occurred in 57 cases (28%). Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards analyses were used to determine survivorship free from all-cause rerevision and rerevision risk factors. RESULTS: At 2 and 5 years, survivorship free from all-cause rerevision was 89 and 76% in the polyethylene exchange cohort versus 92 and 84% in the component revision cohort (P = .5). At 2 and 5 years, survivorship in revision with components from the same manufacturer was 89 and 80% compared to 95 and 86% in revision with components from a different manufacturer (P = .2). Among re-revisions (n = 30), cones (37%), sleeves (7%), hinge/distal femoral replacement implants were frequently used (13%). Men had increased risk for rerevision (hazard ratio = 2.3, P = .04). CONCLUSION: In this series of aseptic revision TKAs performed on a now-recalled implant system, survivorship free from rerevision was lower than expected when components from the same manufacturer were utilized, but comparable to contemporary reports when both the components were revised with an alternative implant system. Metaphyseal fixation with cones and sleeves as well as highly constrained implants was frequently utilized at time of rerevision TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.