RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) adverse events among patients who have dental diagnoses remain unclear. We sought to determine if dental caries or dental implant placements increased (1) 90-day medical complications, (2) 90-day readmissions, and (3) 2-year implant-related complications, including periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) after THA. METHODS: A nationwide database for primary THAs from 2010 to 2021 was queried to compare 3 patient cohorts. Patients who had a history of dental implants or caries within 12 months prior to THA (n = 1,179) or 12 months after THA (n = 1,218) were case-matched to patients who did not have dental history (n = 6,090) by age and comorbidities. Outcomes included 90-day complications, 90-day readmissions, and 2-year implant-related complications. Logistic regression models computed the odds ratios (ORs) of complications and readmissions. P values less than .006 were significant. RESULTS: Patients who had dental caries or implant placement 12 months before or after THA experienced 1.6-fold greater odds of 90-day medical complications compared to case-matched patients. Readmissions within 90 days increased for patients who had a dental history before (11.7% versus 8.3%; OR: 1.49, P < .0001) and after (14.2% versus 8.3%; OR: 1.84, P < .0001) THA compared to case-matched patients. A dental caries diagnosis or dental implant placement within 12 months following THA increased 2-year implant complications compared to case-matched patients (15.2% versus 9.3%; OR: 1.69, P < .0001), including PJIs (5.3% versus 2.8%; OR: 1.98, P < .0001), dislocations (4.4% versus 2.7%; OR: 1.63, P = .002), and THA revisions (3.9% versus 2.5%; OR: 1.61, P = .005). CONCLUSIONS: Dental diagnoses within 12 months of THA are associated with increased medical complications. Dental diagnoses occurring 12 months after THA are associated with greater implant-related complications, including PJIs. Delaying invasive dental procedures for 12 months after THA may be advisable.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Use of clinical and administrative databases in orthopaedic surgery research has grown substantially in recent years. It is estimated that approximately 10% of all published lower extremity arthroplasty research have been database studies. The aim of this review is to serve as a guide on how to (1) design, (2) execute, and (3) publish an orthopaedic administrative database arthroplasty project. METHODS: In part I, we discuss how to develop a research question and choose a database (when databases should/should not be used), detailing advantages/disadvantages of those most commonly used. To date, the most commonly published databases in orthopaedic research have been the National Inpatient Sample, Medicare, National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, and those provided by PearlDiver. General advantages of most database studies include accessibility, affordability compared to prospective research studies, ease of use, large sample sizes, and the ability to identify trends and aggregate outcomes of multiple health care systems/providers. RESULTS: Disadvantages of most databases include their retrospective observational nature, limitations of procedural/billing coding, relatively short follow-up, limited ability to control for confounding variables, and lack of functional/patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: Although this study is not all-encompassing, we hope it will serve as a starting point for those interested in conducting and critically reviewing lower extremity arthroplasty database studies.