The Relationship Between the Timing of Knee Osteoarthritis Diagnoses and Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) for meniscus tears in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Some insurance payers will not authorize APM in patients with knee OA. The purpose of this study was to assess the timing of knee OA diagnoses in patients undergoing APM. METHODS: A large commercial national claims data set containing deidentified information from October 2016 to December 2020 was used to identify patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Data were analyzed to determine whether patients in this group had a diagnosis of knee OA within 12 months before surgery and for the presence of a new diagnosis of knee OA at 3, 6, and 12 months after APM. RESULTS: Five lakhs thousand nine hundred twenty-two patients with a mean age of 54.0 ± 8.52 years, with the majority female (52.0%), were included. A total of 197,871 patients underwent APM without a diagnosis of knee OA at the time of the procedure. Of these patients, 109,427 (55.3%) had a previous diagnosis of knee OA within 12 months preceding surgery, and 24,536 (12.4%), 15,596 (7.9%), and 13,301 (6.7%) patients were diagnosed with knee OA at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite evidence against APM in patients with knee OA, more than half of the patients (55.3%) had a previous diagnosis of OA within 12 months of surgery and 27.0% received a new diagnosis of knee OA within one year of surgery. A notable number of patients had a diagnosis of knee OA either before or shortly after APM.

Current and Future Applications of Fluorescence Guidance in Orthopaedic Surgery.

Fluorescence-guided surgery (FGS) is an evolving field that seeks to identify important anatomic structures or physiologic phenomena with helpful relevance to the execution of surgical procedures. Fluorescence labeling occurs generally via the administration of fluorescent reporters that may be molecularly targeted, enzyme-activated, or untargeted, vascular probes. Fluorescence guidance has substantially changed care strategies in numerous surgical fields; however, investigation and adoption in orthopaedic surgery have lagged. FGS shows the potential for improving patient care in orthopaedics via several applications including disease diagnosis, perfusion-based tissue healing capacity assessment, infection/tumor eradication, and anatomic structure identification. This review highlights current and future applications of fluorescence guidance in orthopaedics and identifies key challenges to translation and potential solutions.

Does Time to Reimplantation After Explant for Prosthetic Joint Infection Influence the Likelihood of Successful Outcomes at 2 Years?

BACKGROUND: Consensus recommendations are lacking regarding appropriate timing of reimplantation following 2-stage resection arthroplasty for prosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We investigated whether the time from resection arthroplasty to reimplantation was associated with treatment outcome at 2 years. METHODS: Retrospective cohort review was conducted for 101 patients undergoing resection arthroplasty with an antibiotic spacer for PJI at a single tertiary academic referral institution. Time from explantation and spacer placement to reimplantation was categorized into 3 groups: <12, 12-18, and >18 weeks. Baseline patient and treatment course characteristics across these groups were obtained. Multivariate binary logistic regression was used to characterize association between treatment failure and time to reimplantation, controlling for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and prior revision surgery. RESULTS: Time to reimplantation (TTR) >18 weeks demonstrated statistically significant increased odds of treatment failure, after controlling for ASA score and prior revision surgery (odds ratio 7.00, confidence interval 2.14-25.42, P = .002). After excluding patients requiring second spacer or Girdlestone prior to replant, this increased odds of failure remained (odds ratio 4.12, confidence interval 1.18-15.37, P = .029). TTR groups were similar with respect to demographics, except for ASA (2.96 for time to reimplantation >18 weeks vs 2.55 for time to reimplantation <12 weeks; P = .011). Patients with TTR >18 weeks were more likely to have an unplanned readmission during the spacer period (48%, 19%, and 6% for time to reimplantation >18, 12-18, and 0-12 weeks, respectively; P < .002). CONCLUSION: Although decision regarding TTR is largely patient specific, surgeons should be aware that TTR >18 weeks may be associated with higher rates of treatment failure at 2 years.