Acute Total Hip Arthroplasty Following Acetabular Fracture is Associated With a High Risk of Revision, Dislocation, and Periprosthetic Fracture.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes between acute, subacute, and delayed arthroplasty for acetabular fractures occurring within 1 week, from 1 week to 6 months, or more than 6 months before the index total hip arthroplasty (THA), versus THA without a history of acetabular fracture as a control. METHODS: We analyzed the records of patients undergoing primary THA who were enrolled in a national database for at least 2 years before and after the index procedure. Patients who had an initial diagnostic code for acetabular fracture occurring less than 1 week, from 1 week to 6 months, or at least more than 6 months before the THA were classified as acute THA (aTHA), subacute THA (saTHA), or delayed THA (dTHA), respectively. The control group was patients undergoing THA who did not have a history of acetabular fracture. There were 430,349 control primary THAs, 462 aTHAs, 675 saTHAs, and 1,162 dTHAs. RESULTS: After adjusting for age, sex, region, and comorbidities, patients who had an aTHA and saTHA experienced statistically significant increased odds of revision, dislocation, and periprosthetic fracture compared to primary THA without a history of acetabular fracture. Similarly, dTHA was associated with increased odds of revision, dislocation, and periprosthetic fractures compared to primary THA. In the multivariate analysis, aTHA had statistically significant higher rates of dislocation when compared to dTHA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had a history of acetabular fractures undergoing aTHA, saTHA, or dTHA have significantly increased rates of revision, periprosthetic fracture, and dislocation compared to primary THA in those who did not have a history of acetabular fractures.

Oral Prednisone Use Following Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Does Not Increase Infections, but can be Associated With Higher Risk for Medical and Surgical Complications.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative use of oral prednisone to augment the effect of multimodal pain regimens after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has increased in popularity. However, data on the risks of its utilization, especially as it relates to infection, have been lacking. We tested the null hypothesis that perioperative prednisone use is not associated with the incidence of surgical and medical complications after TKA. METHODS: Using a national administrative claims database, we identified 949,555 patients undergoing primary TKA. We excluded patients who filled oral prednisone prescriptions within 90 days prior to surgery or between 90 and 364 days after surgery. Patients who had acute prednisone use were defined as those who filled prednisone prescriptions only within 30 days after surgery. Outcomes consisted of surgical and medical complications after TKA. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between acute prednisone use and complications, adjusting for age, sex, region, insurance plan, and Elixhauser comorbidities. RESULTS: Patients in the acute prednisone cohort had greater adjusted odds of subsequent manipulation under anesthesia (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.23 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.09 to 1.38]; P < .001) and lysis of adhesions (adjusted OR = 1.58 [95% CI: 1.02 to 2.33]; P = .03) compared to patients who did not have acute prednisone use. Patients who had acute prednisone use also had greater adjusted odds of acute kidney injury (adjusted OR = 1.47 [95% CI: 1.25 to 1.71]; P < .001) and pneumonia (adjusted OR = 4.04 [95% CI: 3.53 to 4.59]; P < .001). There was no increased incidence of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Prednisone use shortly following TKA may be associated with a higher incidence of certain surgical and medical complications, but without increased risk for infection. However, given these risks, the optimal patient profile for postoperative prednisone use remains to be defined.

High Energy Midfoot Fracture-Dislocations: Does Staged Treatment with External Fixation Help?

This study analyzes the outcomes of patients treated for high energy midfoot injuries with temporary stabilization (TS) prior to definitive operative fixation compared to a control group (C) treated initially with splint only. Three Level 1 trauma centers reduced and temporized high energy Lisfranc injuries. A matched control group was compared with the intervention group. Clinical parameters, complications and need for additional surgery were evaluated. There were 15 patients in group C and 29 patients with temporary stabilization (TS). Both the TS and C groups demonstrated no significant difference in the number of additional operations, infection rate, incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), nonunion and need for orthotics postoperatively (p > 0.05). Staged treatment of high energy Lisfranc injuries in the TS group led to a delay in definitive fixation or arthrodesis while having a similar minimal complication rate relative to the controls. This is a Level III, Retrospective Case Control Study. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 29(3):154-158, 2020).

An Experienced Surgeon Can Meet or Exceed Robotic Accuracy in Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Reports in the literature indicate that implant placement is more accurate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA); however, these studies have not always accounted for surgeon experience. The purpose of the present study was to compare the accuracy of tibial component alignment in UKA between an experienced high-volume surgeon and the published data on robotic-assisted surgery. METHODS: The radiographs made before and after 128 consecutive medial UKAs performed manually by a single surgeon using a cemented fixed-bearing implant were reviewed. Native tibial and tibial implant slope and varus alignment of the tibial implant were measured on preoperative and postoperative lateral and anteroposterior radiographs, respectively. The percentages of knees in which the postoperative measurements were within preoperative targets and the root mean square (RMS) error rates between the planned and achieved targets were compared with published robotic-assisted-UKA data. RESULTS: In the present study, the proportion of manual UKAs in which the tibial component alignment was within the preoperative target was 66% (85 of 128), which exceeded published values in a study comparing robotic (58%) with manual (41%) UKA. The RMS error for tibial component alignment in the present study (1.48°) was less than published RMS error rates for robotic UKAs (range, 1.8° to 5°). Fifty-eight percent (74) of the 128 study UKAs were within the surgeon's preoperative goal for tibial slope, which was closer to the published value of 80% for robotic UKAs than is the published rate of 22% for manual UKAs. The RMS error for tibial slope in the study UKAs (1.50°) was smaller than the published RMS error rates for tibial slope in robotic UKAs (range, 1.6° to 1.9°). CONCLUSIONS: Accurate implant alignment is important in UKA. In this study, an experienced surgeon achieved or exceeded robotic accuracy of tibial implant alignment in UKA. However, the relationship between implant position and patient outcomes is unknown, and a consensus on ideal surgical targets for optimal implant survivorship has yet to be established. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.