Hospital-Wide Adherence to Postsurgical Opioid Prescribing Guidelines: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Lowering opioid prescription doses and quantity decreases the risk of chronic opioid usage. A tool was inserted into the brief operative note for the surgeon to assess the severity of pain associated with the procedure. We studied surgeon adherence to current opioid-prescribing recommendations. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study with 5486 patients were included in the study population. Each patient's prescription was scored yes or no for adherence on total morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) and days prescribed with the selection in the brief operative note. The entire study population was tested for an increase from the null-hypothesis "benchmark" value of 75% using a one-sided exact binomial test of a single proportion with P < 0.05. This procedure was repeated for subgroups, with P < 0.01. RESULTS: Adherence to guidelines was higher than the 75% benchmark for "total MMEs prescribed" (79.5%; P < 0.001), but lower for "number of days prescribed" (63.5%; P > 0.999). Surgeries with severe predicted pain showed the highest adherence toward total MMEs prescribed at 87.1%, followed by moderate (80.5%) and mild (74.5%). Severe cases also showed the highest adherence in number of days prescribed (92.4%). Adherence to total MMEs prescribed was highest among attending physicians (88.1%) and lowest among residents/fellows (76.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to current guidelines was 79.5% for MMEs prescribed but only 63.5% for days prescribed. Compliance with guidelines was better for severe procedures than mild or moderate. Differences were seen across surgical departments. While an improvement from previous reports, further improvement is needed to reduce the number of days of opioids prescribed and increase compliance with recommended guidelines.

Robotic-assisted TKA is Not Associated With Decreased Odds of Early Revision: An Analysis of the American Joint Replacement Registry.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted TKA continues to see wider clinical use, despite limited knowledge of its impact on patient satisfaction and implant survival. Most studies to date have presented small cohorts and came from single-surgeon or single-center experiences. Therefore, a population-level comparison of revision rates between robotic-assisted and conventional TKA in the registry setting may help arthroplasty surgeons better define whether robotic assistance provides a meaningful advantage compared with the conventional technique. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) After controlling for confounding variables, such as surgeon, location of surgery, and patient comorbidity profile, were robotic-assisted TKAs less likely than conventional TKAs to result in revision for any reason at 2 years? (2) After again controlling for confounding variables, were robotic-assisted TKAs less likely to result in any specific reasons for revision than the conventional technique at 2 years? METHODS: The American Joint Replacement Registry was used to identify patients 65 years or older who underwent TKA between January 2017 and March 2020 with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Patients were limited to age 65 yeas or older to link TKAs to Medicare claims data. Two retrospective cohorts were created: robotic-assisted TKA and conventional TKA. Patient demographic variables included in the analysis were age, gender, BMI, and race. Additional characteristics included the Charlson comorbidity index, anesthesia type, year of the index procedure, and length of stay. A total of 10% (14,216 of 142,550) of TKAs performed during this study period used robotics. Patients with robotic-assisted TKA and those with conventional TKA were similar regarding age (73 ± 6 years versus 73 ± 6 years; p = 0.31) and gender (62% [8736 of 14,126] versus 62% [79,399 of 128,334] women; p = 0.34). A multivariable, mixed-effects logistic regression model was created to analyze the odds of all-cause revision as a factor of robot use, and a logistic regression model was created to investigate specific revision diagnoses. RESULTS: After controlling for potentially confounding variables, such as surgeon, location of surgery, and Charlson comorbidity index, we found no difference between the robotic-assisted and conventional TKAs in terms of the odds of revision at 2 years (OR of robotic-assisted versus conventional TKA 1.0 [95% CI 0.8 to 1.3]; p = 0.92). The reasons for revision of robotic-assisted TKA did not differ from those of conventional TKA, except for an increased odds of instability (OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.0 to 2.4]; p = 0.04) and pain (OR 2.1 [95% CI 1.4 to 3.0]; p < 0.001) in the robotic-assisted cohort. CONCLUSION: In light of these findings, surgeons should not assume that robotic assistance in TKA will lead to improved early implant survival. Our findings do not support an improvement over conventional TKA with robotic assistance with regards to common causes of early revisions such malalignment, malposition, stiffness, pain, and instability, and in some cases, suggest there is a benefit to conventional TKA. Differences in the mid-term and long-term revision risk with conventional versus robotic-assisted TKA remain unknown. Appropriate informed consent around the use of robotic assistance should not imply decreased early revision risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The Use of General Anesthesia in Revision Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that spinal anesthesia gives superior outcomes for primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, there is a lack of available data regarding contemporary general anesthesia (GA) approaches for revision TJA utilized at high-volume joint arthroplasty centers. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a series of 850 consecutive revision TJAs (405 revision total hip arthroplasties and 445 revision total knee arthroplasties) performed over 4 years at a single institution that uses a contemporary GA protocol and reported on the lengths of stay, early recovery rates, perioperative complications, and readmissions. RESULTS: Of the revision arthroplasty patients, 74.4% (632 of 850) were discharged on postoperative day 1 and 68.5% (582 of 850) of subjects were able to participate in physical therapy on the day of surgery. Only 6 patients (0.7%) required an intensive care unit stay postoperatively. The 90-day readmission rate over this time was 11.3% (n = 96), while the reoperation rate was 9.4% (n = 80). CONCLUSIONS: While neuraxial anesthesia is commonly preferred when performing revision TJA, we have demonstrated favorable safety and efficiency metrics utilizing GA in conjunction with contemporary enhanced recovery pathways. Our data support the notion that modern GA techniques can be successfully used in revision TJA.

Do Quality Measures or Hospital Characteristics Predict Readmission Penalties for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Quality rating systems exist to grade the value of care provided by hospitals, but the extent to which these rating systems correlate with patient outcomes is unclear. The association of quality rating systems and hospital characteristics with excess readmission penalties for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was studied. METHODS: The fiscal year 2022 Inpatient Prospective Payment System final rule was used to identify 2,286 hospitals subject to the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program. Overall, 6 hospital quality rating systems and 5 hospital characteristics were obtained. These factors were analyzed to determine the effect on hospital penalties for THA and TKA excess readmissions. RESULTS: Hospitals that achieved a higher Medicare Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating demonstrated a significantly lower likelihood of receiving THA and TKA readmission penalties (Cramer's V = 0.236 and Rp = -0.233; P < .001 for both). Hospitals ranked among the US News & World Report's top 50 best hospitals for orthopaedics were significantly less likely to be penalized (V = 0.042; P = .043). The remaining 4 quality rating systems were not associated with readmission penalties. Penalization was more likely for hospitals with fewer THA and TKA discharges (Rp = -0.142; P < .001), medium-sized institutions (100 to 499 beds; V = 0.075; P = .002), teaching hospitals (V = 0.049; P = .019), and safety net hospitals (V = 0.043; P = .039). Penalization was less likely for West and Midwest hospitals (V = 0.112; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A higher Overall Hospital Quality Star Rating and recognition among the US News & World Report's top 50 orthopaedic hospitals were associated with a reduced likelihood of THA and TKA readmission penalties. The other 4 widely accepted quality rating systems did not correlate with readmission penalties. Teaching and safety net hospitals may be biased toward higher readmission rates.

Suppressive Antibiotic Therapy After Debridement, Antibiotics, and Implant Retention is Well-Tolerated Without Inducing Resistance: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Suppressive antibiotic therapy (SAT) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) maximizes reoperation-free survival. We evaluated SAT after DAIR of acutely infected primary TJA regarding: 1) adverse drug reaction (ADR)/intolerance; 2) reoperation for infection; and 3) antibiotic resistance. METHODS: Patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) DAIR for acute periprosthetic joint infection at two academic medical centers from 2015 to 2020 were identified (n = 115). Data were collected on patient demographics, infecting organisms, antibiotics, ADR/intolerances, reoperations, and antibiotic resistances. Median SAT duration was 11 months. Stepwise multivariate logistic regressions were used to identify covariates significantly associated with outcomes of interest. RESULTS: There were 11.1 and 16.3% of TKA and THA DAIR patients, respectively, who had ADR/intolerance to SAT. Patients prescribed trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (P = .0014) or combination antibiotic therapy (P = .0169) after TKA DAIR had increased risk of ADR/intolerance. There was no difference in reoperation-free survival between TKA (83.3%) and THA (65.1%) DAIR (P = .5900) at mean 2.8-year follow-up. Risk of reoperation for infection was higher among TKA Staphylococcus aureus infections (P = .0004) and lower with increased SAT duration (P < .0450). The optimal duration of SAT was nearly 2 years. No cases of antibiotic resistance developed due to SAT. CONCLUSIONS: Consider SAT after TJA DAIR due to improved reoperation-free survival and favorable safety profile. Prolonged SAT did not induce antibiotic resistance. Use trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole with caution because of the increased likelihood of ADR/intolerance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III.

Does the type of lower extremity fracture affect long-term opioid usage? A meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION:  Patients recovering from musculoskeletal trauma have a heightened risk of opioid dependence and misuse, as these medications are typically required for pain management. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to examine the association between fracture type and chronic opioid use following fracture fixation in patients who sustain lower extremity trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed using PubMed and Web of Science to identify articles reporting chronic opioid use in patients recovering from surgery for lower extremity fractures. 732 articles were identified using keyword and MeSH search functions, and 9 met selection criteria. Studies were included in the final analysis if they reported the number of patients who remained on opioids 6 months after surgery for a specific lower extremity fracture (chronic usage). Logistic regressions and descriptive analyses were performed to determine the rate of chronic opioid use within each fracture type and if age, year, country of origin of study, or pre-admission opioid use influenced chronic opioid use following surgery. RESULTS: Bicondylar and unicondylar tibial-plateau fractures had the largest percentage of patients that become chronic opioid users (29.7-35.2%), followed by hip (27.8%), ankle (19.7%), femoral-shaft (18.5%), pilon (17.2%), tibial-shaft (13.8%), and simple ankle fractures (2.8-4.7%).Most opioid-naive samples had significantly lower rates of chronic opioid use after surgery (2-9%, 95% CI) when compared to samples that allowed pre-admission opioid use (13-50%, 95% CI). There were no significant associations between post-operative chronic opioid use and age, year, or country of origin of study. CONCLUSIONS:  Patients with lower extremity fractures have substantial risk of becoming chronic opioid users. Even the lowest rates of chronic opioid use identified in this meta-analysis are higher than those in the general population. It is important that orthopedic surgeons tailor pain-management protocols to decrease opioid usage after lower extremity trauma.

Spinal Versus General Anesthesia in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Are There Differences in Complication and Readmission Rates?

BACKGROUND: Spinal anesthesia (SP) utilization continues to expand in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, little is known regarding differences in complication rates between spinal and general anesthesia used for primary TKA. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the length of stay (LOS), operative time, and readmission and revision rates between patients who received spinal and general anesthesia during TKA. METHODS: The American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) was used to identify primary elective TKA patients from 2017 to 2020. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts, general (GN) and SP, based on the mode of anesthesia administered during the index surgery. In total, 270,251 TKAs were identified, of which 126,970 (47.0%) received general anesthesia and 143,281 (53.0%) received spinal anesthesia. Length of stay, operative time, 90-day readmission, and 90-day revisions were compared between the 2 groups. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: After accounting for confounding factors, SP was associated with a lower risk of having a LOS greater than 3 days (odds ratio [OR] 0.470, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.454-0.487, P < .0001), but a slightly higher likelihood of having a longer operative time (OR 1.075, 95% CI 1.056-1.094, P < .0001). SP was also linked to lower rates of 90-day readmission (OR 0.845, 95% CI 0.790-0.904, P < .0001) and lower risk of 90-day all-cause revision (OR 0.506, 95% CI 0.462-0.555, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: SP was associated with a lower 90-day readmission rate and a lower risk of 90-day revision. These findings support the best practice guidelines of The Joint Commission to use spinal anesthesia when possible as part of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway.

Effect of Fracture Type, Treatment, and Surgeon Training on Reoperation After Vancouver B Periprosthetic Femur Fractures.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of Vancouver B periprosthetic proximal femur fractures (PPFFs) is complex due to the overlap between arthroplasty and orthopedic trauma techniques. Our purpose was to assess the effects of fracture type, treatment difference, and surgeon training on the risk of reoperation in Vancouver B PPFF. METHODS: A collaborative research consortium of 11 centers retrospectively reviewed PPFFs from 2014 to 2019 to determine the effects of variations in surgeon expertise, fracture type, and treatment on surgical reoperation. Surgeons were classified as per fellowship training, fractures using the Vancouver classification, and treatment as open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or revision total hip arthroplasty with or without ORIF. Regression analyses were performed with reoperation as the primary outcome. RESULTS: Fracture type (Vancouver B3 versus B1: odds ratio [OR]: 5.70) was an independent risk factor for reoperation. No differences were found in reoperation rates with treatment (ORIF versus revision: OR 0.92, P = .883). Treatment by a nonarthroplasty-trained surgeon versus an arthroplasty specialist led to higher odds of reoperation in all Vancouver B fracture (OR: 2.87, P = .023); however, no significant differences were seen in the Vancouver B2 group alone (OR: 2.61, P = .139). Age was a significant risk factor for reoperation in all Vancouver B fractures (OR: 0.97, P = .004) and in the B2 fractures alone (OR: 0.96, P = .007). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that age and fracture type affect reoperation rates. Treatment type did not affect reoperation rates and the effect of surgeon training is unclear.

Surgical Approach Does Not Affect Chronic Opioid Usage After Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Three different surgical approaches (the direct anterior, antero-lateral, and posterior) are commonly used for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Due to an internervous and intermuscular approach, the direct anterior approach may result in less postoperative pain and opioid use, although all 3 approaches have similar outcomes 5 years after surgery. Perioperative opioid medication consumption poses a dose-dependent risk of long-term opioid use. We hypothesized that the direct anterior approach is associated with less opioid usage over 180 days after surgery than the antero-lateral or posterior approaches. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed including 508 patients (192 direct anterior, 207 antero-lateral, and 109 posterior approaches). Patient demographics and surgical characteristics were identified from the medical records. The state prescription database was used to determine opioid use 90 days before and 1 year after THA. Regression analyses controlling for sex, race, age, and body mass index were used to determine the effect of surgical approach on opioid use over 180 days after surgery. RESULTS: No difference was seen in the proportion of long-term opioid users based on approach (P = .78). There was no significant difference in the distribution of opioid prescriptions filled between surgical approach groups in the year after surgery (P = .35). Not taking opioids 90 days prior to surgery, regardless of approach, was associated with a 78% decrease in the odds of becoming a chronic opioid user (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Opioid use prior to surgery, rather than THA surgical approach, was associated with chronic opioid consumption following THA.

Inconsistency and Ambiguity Within the International Classification of Disease 10 Procedure Coding System for Hip Fractures.

BACKGROUND: The International Statistical Classification of Diseases (ICD), 10th Revision Procedure Coding System (PCS) was created to increase the granularity of procedural coding. These codes are entered by hospital coders from information derived from the medical record. Concern exists that this increase in complexity could lead to inaccurate data. METHODS: Medical records and ICD-10-PCS codes were reviewed for operatively treated geriatric hip fractures from January 2016 through February 2019 at a tertiary referral medical center. Definitions for each of the 7-unit figures from the 2022 American Medical Association's ICD-10-PCS official codebook were compared to the medical, operative, and implant records. RESULTS: There were 56% (135 of 241) of PCS codes that had ambiguous, partially incorrect, or frankly incorrect figures within the code. One or more inaccurate figures were noted in 72% (72 of 100) of fractures treated with arthroplasty compared to 44.7% (63 of 141) treated with fixation (P < .01). There was at least 1 frankly incorrect figure contained in 9.5% (23 of 241) of codes. Approach was coded ambiguously for 24.8% (29 of 117) of pertrochanteric fractures. Device/implant codes were partially incorrect in 34.9% (84 of 241) of all hip fracture PCS codes. Hemi and total hip arthroplasties were partially incorrect in 78.4% (58 of 74) and 30.8% (8/26) of device/implant codes, respectively. Significantly more femoral neck (69.4%, 86 of 124) than pertrochanteric fractures (41.9%, 49 of 117) had 1 or more incorrect or partially correct figures (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Despite the increased granularity of ICD-10-PCS codes, the application of this system is inconsistent and often incorrect when applied to hip fracture treatments. The definitions in the PCS system are difficult to be utilized by coders and do not reflect the operation performed.

Articulating Knee Spacers in the Treatment of Periprosthetic Joint Infection: All Polyethylene Tibia or Tibial Insert?

BACKGROUND: The best antibiotic spacer for periprosthetic knee joint infection treatment is unknown. Using a metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) component provides a functional knee and may avoid a second surgery. Our study investigated complication rates, treatment efficacies, durabilities, and costs of MoP articulating spacer constructs using either an all-polyethylene tibia (APT) or a polyethylene insert (PI). We hypothesized that while the PI would cost less, the APT spacer would have lower complication rates and higher efficacies and durabilities. METHODS: A retrospective review evaluated 126 consecutive articulating knee spacer (64 APTs and 62 PIs) cases from 2016 to 2020 was performed. Demographic information, spacer components, complication rates, infection recurrence, spacer longevity, and implant costs were analyzed. Complications were classified as follows: spacer-related; antibiotic-related; infection recurrence; or medical. Spacer longevity was measured for patients who underwent reimplantation and for those who had a retained spacer. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in overall complications (P < .48), spacer-related complications (P = 1.0), infection recurrences (P = 1.0), antibiotic-related complications (P < .24), or medical complications (P < .41). Average time to reimplantation was 19.1 weeks (4.3 to 98.3 weeks) for APT spacers and 14.4 weeks (6.7 to 39.7 weeks) for PI spacers (P = .09). There were 31% (20 of 64) of APT spacers and 30% (19 of 62) of PI spacers that remained intact for an average duration of 26.2 (2.3 to 76.1) and 17.1 weeks (1.7 to 54.7) (P = .25), respectively, for patients who lived for the duration of the study. PI spacers cost less than APT ($1,474.19 versus $2,330.47, respectively; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: APT and PI tibial components have similar results regarding complication profiles and infection recurrence. Both may be durable if spacer retention is elected, with PI constructs being less expensive.

Extensor Mechanism Disruption Remains a Challenging Problem.

BACKGROUND: Extensor mechanism disruption (EMD) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a devastating problem commonly treated with allograft or synthetic reconstruction. Understanding of reconstruction success rates and patient recorded outcomes is lacking. METHODS: Patients who have an EMD after TKA undergoing mesh or whole-extensor allograft reconstruction between 2011 and 2019, with minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed at two tertiary care centers. Functional failure was defined as extensor lag >30 degrees, amputation, or fusion, as well as revision extensor mechanism reconstruction (EMR). Survivorship was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves, and factors for success were determined with logistic regressions. RESULTS: Of fifty-six EMRs (49 patients), 50.0% (28/56) were functionally successful at 3.2 years of mean follow-up (range, 0.2 to 7.4). In situ survivorship of the reconstructions at 36 months was 75.0% (42 of 58). There were 50.0% (14 of 28) of functionally failed EMRs that retained their reconstruction at last follow-up. Mean extensor lag among successes and failures was 5.4 and 71.0° (P = .01), respectively. Mean Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement scores were 67.1 and 48.8 among successes and failures (P = .01). There were 64.0% (16 of 25) of successes and 1 of 19 failures that obtained a Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement score above the minimum patient-acceptable symptom state for TKA. Survivorship and success rates were similar between reconstruction methods (P = .86; P = .76). All-cause mortality was 8.2% (4 of 49), each with EMR failure prior to death. All-cause reoperation rate was 42.9% (24 of 56), with a 14.3% (8 of 56) rate of revision EMR and 10.7% (6 of 56) rate of above-knee-amputation or modular fusion. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter investigation of mesh or allograft EMR demonstrated modest functional success at 3.2 years. Complication and reoperation rates were high, regardless of EMR technique. Therefore, EMD after TKA remains problematic.

Online Crowdsourcing Survey of United States Population Preferences and Perceptions Regarding Outpatient Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has been shown to be both safe and cost-effective in appropriately selected patients and continues to expand substantially across the United States. Using online crowdsourcing, we aimed to assess population perceptions regarding outpatient TJA and to determine factors associated with preference for outpatient versus inpatient arthroplasty. METHODS: A closed-ended survey consisting of 39 questions was administered to members of a public platform. Study participants responded to questions regarding demographic factors and outpatient TJA. Validated assessments to capture health literacy and engagement were also used. To determine factors associated with preference for outpatient TJA, multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: In total, 900 participants completed the survey. After exclusion of surveys with incomplete data, 725 responses remained for analysis (80.6%). Over half (59.9%) of the survey participants would feel comfortable going home the same day of surgery following TJA. However, two-thirds (64.6%) would prefer to stay in the hospital following TJA. The majority (68.0%) of respondents perceive a hospital setting as the safest location for TJA. The 3 major concerns regarding outpatient TJA were cost, post-operative pain control, and post-operative complication. Among the 111 respondents (15.3%) who would prefer outpatient TJA, 45% would pay more out-of-pocket, 63.1% travel further, and 55.9% would be willing to wait longer to have their surgery performed as an outpatient. On multivariable regressions, those living in a suburban setting (adjusted odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals: 4.2 [1.3-2.7], P = .02) and >60 year old adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals: 8 [2-33.1], P = .004) were more likely to prefer outpatient TJA. CONCLUSION: Despite the rise in outpatient TJA, the majority of the public appears to prefer inpatient TJA and the minority would expect to be discharged home the same day. Our data can be used to address specific patient concerns regarding outpatient TJA and set realistic expectations for hospital systems and ambulatory facilities.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Non-database Comparative Studies on Cemented Versus Uncemented Femoral Stems in Primary Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Cemented and uncemented femoral stems have shown excellent survivorship and outcomes in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Cementless stems have become increasingly common in the United States; however, multiple large database studies have suggested that elderly patients may have fewer complications with a cemented stem. As conclusions from large databases may be limited due to variations in data collection, this study investigated femoral stem survivorship and complication rates based on cement status in non-database studies. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were utilized to identify articles for inclusion up until June 2021. Included articles directly compared outcomes and complications between patients undergoing primary THA without femoral stem cementing to those with cementing. Studies were excluded if they utilized large databases or consisted of patients with a preoperative diagnosis of trauma. RESULTS: Of the 1700 studies, 309 were selected for abstract review and nineteen for full-text review. A total of seven studies were selected. Meta-analyses indicated substantial heterogeneity between studies. There were no differences in revision rates (cementless: 5.53% vs. cemented 8.91%, P = .543), infection rates (cementless: 0.60% vs. cemented: 0.90%, P = .692), or periprosthetic fracture rates (cementless: 0.52% vs. cemented: 0.51%, P = .973) between groups. CONCLUSION: There is scarce literature comparing outcomes and complications between cemented and cementless femoral stems in primary elective THA without utilizing a database methodology. In our study, there were no differences in complications detected on meta-analyses. Given previous findings in database studies, additional high-quality cohort studies are required to determine if selected patients may benefit from a cemented femoral stem.

Prevalence of Chronic Opioid Use in the Elderly After Hip Fracture Surgery.

BACKGROUND: While interest has focused on opioid use after total hip arthroplasty, little research has investigated opioid use in elderly patients after hip fracture. We hypothesize that a substantial number of opioid-naïve elderly patients go on to chronic opioid use after hip fracture surgery. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 219 patients 65 years and older who underwent surgical fixation between January 1, 2016 and February 28, 2019 for a native hip fracture. Patients were excluded for polytrauma, periprosthetic or pathologic fractures, recent major surgery, or death within 90 days of their hip surgery. The state prescription monitoring database was used to determine opioid use. RESULTS: Overall, 58 patients (26%) were postoperative chronic opioid users. Of the initial 188 opioid-naïve patients, 43 (23%) became chronic users. Of the 31 preoperative opioid users, 15 (48%) continued as chronic users. Chronic postoperative users were more likely to be White (76% vs 91%, P = .04), younger (78 vs 82 years, P = .003), and preoperative opioid users (odds ratio 3.3, P = .007). Arthroplasty vs fixation did not affect the rate of chronic opioid use (P = .22). CONCLUSION: Chronic opioid use is surprisingly common after hip fracture repair in the elderly. Twenty-three percent of opioid-naïve hip fracture patients became chronic users after surgery. Continued vigilance is needed by orthopedic surgeons to limit the amount and duration of postoperative narcotic prescriptions and to monitor for continued use.

Social Needs of Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Many patients have unmet social needs that may affect their health care utilization and outcomes. We sought to examine a program to determine the types of social needs facing arthroplasty patients and methods used to address these needs. METHODS: We conducted a pilot, retrospective review of our integrated social needs program for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients. A 16-question needs assessment was instituted as part of our perioperative protocol between February 1, 2020, to October 1, 2020. We examined the types of social needs in 250 primary TJA patients and a resolution method. We evaluated associations between social needs and demographics and Area Deprivation Index (ADI). Outcome measures were also evaluated, including readmissions, discharge date, and outcome score changes. RESULTS: Forty-four (17.6%) patients had a social need. Social needs frequency increased in non-White patients (P ≤ .0001), non-English speakers (P = .0304), younger patients (P = .001), nonmarried patients (P = .0006), unemployed patients (P = .0189), and patients with less health literacy (P = .0215). ADI scores were positively associated with social needs at the national (P = .0006) and state levels (P = .0004). Overall, 75.9% of needs centered around utility payments, employment, prescription costs, education, and transportation. In addition, 64% of the identified needs were resolved through outside referrals. Ninety-day readmissions were significantly higher in patients with social needs (P = .0087). DISCUSSION: Overall, 17.6% of patients in our state have social needs before TJA. Factors increasing the risk of social needs include younger age, minority race, single or divorced marital status, unemployment, low health literacy, and higher ADI. The 90-day readmission rate was significantly higher in patients with social needs.

Does In-Hospital Opioid Use Affect Opioid Consumption After Total Joint Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Preoperative opioid use strongly correlates with greater postoperative opioid use and complications following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, there is a lack of information regarding the effect of opioid consumption during the hospital stay and within the operating room on postoperative opioid use. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 369 consecutive patients undergoing primary TJA at an academic center over a 9-month period. Ninety-day preoperative and postoperative opioid prescriptions were obtained from the state's drug monitoring database. In-hospital opioid consumption data was obtained from the preoperative unit, operating room, postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and hospital floor. Multivariate analysis was utilized to compare patients' total in-hospital opioid consumption with their preoperative and postoperative use, along with opioid use throughout the hospitalization. RESULTS: Total in-hospital opioid consumption was independently associated with postoperative opioid use (rs = 0.17, P = .0010). Opioids consumed on the hospital floor correlated with opioid use in the preoperative unit (rs = 0.11, P = .0338) and PACU (rs = 0.15, P = .0032). Increased preoperative opioid consumption was the greatest risk factor for excessive postoperative use (rs = 0.44, P < .0001). A greater proportion of patients <65 years of age were high posthospital opioid consumers (P = .0146) and significantly more TKA patients were in the higher use groups (P = .0006). CONCLUSION: In-hospital opioid use is independently associated with preoperative and postoperative consumption. Preoperative opioid use remains the greatest risk factor for increased opioid consumption after TJA. Multimodal approaches to decrease reliance on opioids for pain control during hospitalization may offer hope to further decrease postoperative usage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Extensive Preoperative Work Is Required for Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Determining the clinical effort associated with preparing for revision total hip and knee arthroplasty is necessary to maintain the appropriate work relative value unit rating. We have investigated the work done by the orthopedic surgical team in the days and weeks prior to revision hip and knee arthroplasty using a count of time by team members in the electronic medical record (EMR). METHODS: EMR audit logs were generated, and preoperative work (POW) was calculated for members of the surgical team for 200 sequential revision cases. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare total POW for procedure, age, gender, insurance, and health literacy; significance threshold was set at P = .05. RESULTS: POW was 97.7 minutes (standard deviation [SD] 53.1). Surgeon POW accounted for 10.5 minutes (SD 9.3), nurses for 29.9 minutes (SD 34.2), mid-level providers for 22.1 minutes (SD 17.0), and office technicians for 34.1 minutes (SD 35.2). There was no difference in total POW based on procedure (hip vs knee), age, gender, insurance type, or health literacy. CONCLUSION: Revision arthroplasty requires substantial preoperative preparation from the surgical team. Most of this is by nurses, mid-level providers, and office staff. This does not seem to be different for hip or knee revisions or by age and gender. EMR audit logs capture the bare minimum POW required to prepare a patient for revision arthroplasty.

Does Blood Flow Restriction Therapy Improve Leg Strength in Patients With a Painful Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Blood flow restriction (BFR) therapy has been proposed to help patients build strength with fewer repetitions than standard physical therapy (PT). We sought to determine if BFR would improve quadriceps and hamstring strength in patients with instability and perceived weakness >1 year after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 48 patients with painful TKAs and flexion instability as well as quadriceps and hamstring weakness who performed a 6-week PT program and received isokinetic strength measurements (ISMs). Thirty-six patients completed a standard PT program (non-BFR) and 12 patients completed a BFR regimen. ISMs were taken before and after PT to quantify quadriceps and hamstring power, torque, and work compared to the contralateral leg. Statistical analysis was conducted on pre-PT and post-PT ISMs and decisions for revision surgery. RESULTS: There were no differences in ISMs after PT between the BFR and non-BFR groups. The non-BFR group showed statistically significant strength improvements in flexion but not extension (+28.7%-32.8%, P = .0145-.255). Although no significant difference was found in the BFR group, they saw improvements in all extension strength metrics (19.4%-23.4%, P = .3315-.3901) and flexion (25.7%-29.9%, P = .1994-.2392). No difference was observed between the groups in the rates of subsequent revision TKA (8.3% vs 16.7%, P = .3362). CONCLUSION: BFR did not improve quadriceps and hamstring strength compared to PT alone in patients with instability and weakness after TKA. Over 80% of total patients chose to avoid revision TKA after completion of focused PT with or without BFR.

Inter-Rater Reliability of Clinical Testing for Laxity After Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The clinical examination for laxity has been considered a mainstay in evaluation of the painful knee arthroplasty, especially for the diagnosis of instability. More than 10 mm of anterior-posterior (AP) translation in flexion has been described as important in the diagnosis of flexion instability. The inter-observer reliability of varus/valgus and AP laxity testing has not been tested. METHODS: Ten subjects with prior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were examined by 4 fellowship-trained orthopedic knee arthroplasty surgeons. Each surgeon evaluated each subject in random order and was blinded to the results of the other surgeons. Each surgeon performed an anterior drawer test at 30 and 90 degrees of flexion and graded the instability as 0-5 mm, 5-10 mm or >10 mm. Varus-valgus testing was also graded. Motion capture was used during the examination to determine the joint position and estimate joint reaction force during the examination. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability (IRR) was poor at 30 and 90 degrees for both the subjective rater score and the measured AP laxity in flexion (k = 018-0.22). Varus-valgus testing similarly had poor reliability. Force applied by the rater also had poor IRR. CONCLUSION: Clinical testing of knee laxity after TKA has poor reliability between surgeons using motion analysis. It is unclear if this is from differences in examiner technique or from differences in pain or quadriceps function of the subjects. Instability after TKA should not be diagnosed strictly by clinical testing and should involve a complete clinical assessment of the patient.