Postoperative Communication Volume Following Total Joint Arthroplasty Can Be a Precursor for Emergency Department Visits.

Background: Unplanned calls, messages, and visits to the clinic can occur at a higher rate as newer technologies allow patients more accessibility and connectivity to clinicians. By reviewing postoperative patient phone calls and electronic portal messages, we compared the methods and frequency of communications between conventional and robotic joint arthroplasty cases. Methods: A retrospective review of total hip, total knee, and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty procedures by fellowship-trained adult reconstruction surgeons at our hospitals between 2017 and 2022 was performed. Any unplanned postoperative communication within 30 days of the postoperative period and unplanned emergency department visits were collected. Results: There were 12,300 robotic and manual consecutive primary total hip, total knee, and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty procedures performed on 10,908 patients over the study period. A total of 905 (40.4%) patients and 2012 (23.2%) patients sent an electronic text message (ETM) in the robotic and manual arthroplasty cohorts (P < .0001), respectively. Overall, 1942 (86.6%) patients in the robotic arthroplasty group and 6417 (74%) patients in the manual arthroplasty group had at least one phone call within the first month after their joint arthroplasty. Conclusions: Robotic arthroplasty patients place an increased demand on the orthopaedic surgery department in terms of unplanned patient contacts. Robotic arthroplasty patients had a significantly increased rate of unplanned postoperative ETMs and phone calls when compared to manual arthroplasty patients. An increased number of postoperative phone calls, but not ETMs, can also be indicative of an emergency department visit. These findings can be used in the perioperative setting to counsel and educate patients about expectations.

Robotic-Arm Assisted Technology's Impact on Knee Arthroplasty and Associated Healthcare Costs.

Background: The number of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) carried out globally is expected to substantially rise in the coming decades. Consequently, focus has been increasing on improving surgical techniques and minimizing expenses. Robotic arm-assisted knee arthroplasty has garnered interest to reduce surgical errors and improve precision. Objectives: Our primary aim was to compare the episode-of-care cost up to 90 days for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and TKA performed before and after the introduction of robotic arm-assisted technology. The secondary aim was to compare the volume of UKA vs TKA. Methods: This was a retrospective study design at a single healthcare system. For the cost analysis, we excluded patients with bilateral knee arthroplasty, body mass index >40, postoperative infection, or noninstitutional health plan insurance. Costs were obtained through an integrated billing system and affiliated institutional insurance company. Results: Knee arthroplasty volume increased 28% after the introduction of robotic-assisted technology. The TKA volume increased by 17%, while the UKA volume increased 190%. Post introduction, 97% of UKA cases used robotic arm-assisted technology. The cost analysis included 178 patients (manual UKA, n = 6; robotic UKA, n = 19; manual TKA, n = 58, robotic TKA, n = 85). Robotic arm-assisted TKA and UKA were less costly in terms of patient room and operating room costs but had higher imaging, recovery room, anesthesia, and supply costs. Overall, the perioperative costs were higher for robotic UKA and TKA. Postoperative costs were lower for robotic arm-assisted surgeries, and patients used less home health and home rehabilitation. Discussion: Surgeons performed higher volumes of UKA, and UKA comprised a greater percentage of total surgical volume after the introduction of this technology. The selective cost analysis indicated robotic arm-assisted technology is less expensive in several cost categories but overall more expensive by up to $550 due to higher cost categories including supplies and recovery room. Conclusions: Our findings show a change in surgeons' practice to include increased incidence and volume of UKA procedures and highlights several cost-saving categories through the use of robotic arm-assisted technology. Overall, robotic arm-assisted knee arthroplasty cost more than manual techniques at our institution. This analysis will help optimize costs in the future.

Tibial Baseplate-Cement Interface Debonding in the ATTUNE Total Knee Arthroplasty System.

Background: Acrylic bone cement is the most common method of fixation for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Several studies have described good short-term outcomes; however, there have been reports of early failures due to tibial baseplate debonding at the implant-cement interface of The ATTUNE Knee System (DePuy Synthes, West Chester, PA). We examined the causes and rates of revision in patients who underwent TKA with this system to identify factors associated with this mode of early failure. Methods: A retrospective review of electronic health records between 2013 and 2018 identified all patients undergoing TKA with the ATTUNE Knee System with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Cause of revision, patient, implant, instrumentation, cement, and surgeon variables were collected. A descriptive analysis was used to identify characteristics of surgeon (fellowship-trained, surgical volume), implant (baseplate, bearing), and cement (brand, viscosity) that were associated with aseptic loosening. Results: A total of 668 patients representing 742 knees were identified. Eighteen (2.4%) required a revision surgery. Aseptic loosening was the leading cause of revision surgery (n = 10, 55.6%). All failures due to aseptic loosening involved debonding of the tibial implant-cement interface. A multivariate analysis identified low-volume surgeons (9.0%, P < .0001) and 1 specific brand of high-viscosity cement (14.3%, P < .0001) as risk factors for aseptic loosening. Conclusions: This study represents the largest nonregistry review of the original ATTUNE Knee System. Surgeon case volume and cement viscosity were factors associated with an increased rate of early failure due to tibial baseplate implant-cement interface debonding.

Single Use Instruments for Implanting a Contemporary Total Knee Arthroplasty System Are Accurate, Efficient, and Safe.

BACKGROUND: Single use instruments (SUI) is a potential mechanism to improve efficiency and reduce cost in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). New technology requires patient safety and surgical accuracy. A multi-center study of SUI vs reusable mechanical instrumentation (RUI) for a TKA system compared implant placement accuracy and operating room (OR) efficiency. METHODS: Four surgeons implanted 88 primary TKAs, N = 44 RUI and N = 44 SUI. Accuracy was measured radiographically at 3 months. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of absolute value of mechanical axis alignment. Radiographic endpoints, OR times, and adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy-five subjects completed the study (41 SUI/34 RUI). The primary endpoint non-inferiority of SUI vs RUI was met, with no significant difference between SUI and RUI in most radiographic parameters (distal femoral varus-valgus, proximal tibial varus-valgus, tibial slope, or subjects within 3° of target); there was a slight difference in femoral component flexion angle (P = .015). SUI and RUI mean (SD) OR set-up times were 18.8 (10.03) and 26.7 (6.93) (P <.001), and surgical times (first incision to last stitch) were 64.6 (16.95) and 60.5 (19.01) (P = .295), respectively. Differences in OR clean-down and anesthesia were not significant. There were no revisions, and there was no significant difference in the number of reported adverse events. CONCLUSION: SUI resulted in similar accuracy of implant placement to RUI with decreased OR set-up time and no increase in adverse events. These results support the safety and efficacy of SUI for performing TKA. Further analysis of potential economic and technical advantages is warranted.

Prevention of Orthopaedic Implant Infection in Patients Undergoing Dental Procedures.

The Prevention of Orthopaedic Implant Infection in Patients Undergoing Dental Procedures evidence-based clinical practice guideline was codeveloped by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American Dental Association. This guideline replaces the previous AAOS Information Statement, "Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Bacteremia in Patients With Joint Replacement," published in 2009. Based on the best current evidence and a systematic review of published studies, three recommendations have been created to guide clinical practice in the prevention of orthopaedic implant infections in patients undergoing dental procedures. The first recommendation is graded as Limited; this recommendation proposes that the practitioner consider changing the long-standing practice of routinely prescribing prophylactic antibiotic for patients with orthopaedic implants who undergo dental procedures. The second, graded as Inconclusive, addresses the use of oral topical antimicrobials in the prevention of periprosthetic joint infections. The third recommendation, a Consensus statement, addresses the maintenance of good oral hygiene.