Occupational Hazards to the Joint Replacement Surgeon: How Can Technology Help Prevent Injury?

Occupational hazards pose varying threats to the joint replacement surgeon. Musculoskeletal pain due to the repetitive nature of performing joint arthroplasty is felt daily by most surgeons. The purpose of this paper is to offer a basic introduction and demonstrate the many ways technology utilized during total joint arthroplasty can help mitigate common occupational hazards for the arthroplasty surgeon. This paper guides readers through the evolution and drivers behind technology in joint arthroplasty, describes several technologies currently available, and discusses how certain aspects of this technology may work to improve surgeon and patient outcomes. We review how advanced technologies in arthroplasty may reduce physical and mental demand, improve reproducibility, and decrease complications. The decision to utilize advanced technology in joint arthroplasty is ultimately made on an individual level after careful consideration of available literature.

Clinical outcomes and return to dance after total hip arthroplasty or hip resurfacing in professional dancers.

Aims: Professional dancers represent a unique patient population in the setting of hip arthroplasty, given the high degree of hip strength and mobility required by their profession. We sought to determine the clinical outcomes and ability to return to professional dance after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). Methods: Active professional dancers who underwent primary THA or HRA at a single institution with minimum one-year follow-up were included in the study. Primary outcomes included the rate of return to professional dance, three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR), and Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS)), and postoperative complications. Results: A total of 49 hips in 39 patients (mean age 56 years (SD 13); 80% female (n = 39)) were included. Mean follow-up was 4.9 years (SD 5.1). Of these 49 hips, 37 THAs and 12 HRAs were performed. In all, 96% of hips returned to professional dance activities postoperatively. With regard to PROMs, there were statistically significant improvements in mHHS, HOOS-JR, and LEAS from baseline to ≥ one year postoperatively. There were complications in 7/49 hips postoperatively (14%), five of which required revision surgery (10%). There were no revisions for instability after the index procedure. Two complications (5.4%) occurred in hips that underwent THA compared with five (42%) after HRA (p = 0.007), though the difference by procedure was not significantly different when including only contemporary implant designs (p = 0.334). Conclusion: Active professional dancers experienced significant improvements in functional outcome scores after THA or HRA, with a 96% rate of return to professional dance. However, the revision rate at short- to mid-term follow-up highlights the challenges of performing hip arthroplasty in this demanding patient population. Further investigation is required to determine the results of THA versus HRA using contemporary implant designs in these patients.

The Hip-spine Assessment of a Novel Surgical Planning Software Provides Acetabular Component Targets That Are Reliable and in Agreement With Current Clinical Recommendations.

Background: Spinopelvic immobility has been reported to increase dislocation risk following total hip arthroplasty. Surgically placing acetabular components in a functional orientation has been shown to mitigate risk. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of novel surgical planning software to generate clinically recommended cup targets. Methods: Hip-spine assessments were performed retrospectively on 40 patients. Five reviewers, including 3 arthroplasty-trained surgical fellows and 2 clinical research scientists performed the assessments. Hip-spine assessments consisted of measuring anterior pelvic plane tilt, sacral slope, pelvic incidence, and lumbar lordosis on standing anteroposterior pelvis and lateral standing and seated hip-spine images. Generated cup targets and a control group (40°/20° relative to the anterior pelvic plane) were compared to clinically recommended cup targets. Agreement was defined as a cup position within the recommended range or within 3° of a specific target (eg, 40° inclination) when no range was provided. Intraclass correlation coefficients were used to assess interrater and intrarater reliability, and McNemar's chi-square test was used to measure success relative to the control group. Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.88 for delta sacral slope and 0.92 for pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis mismatch. For patients with spinopelvic risk factors, the generated targets matched the clinical recommendations in 81% of patients compared to only 16% in the control group. Conclusions: Excellent interrater and intrarater reliability was achieved using the novel surgical planning software. The resultant target values agreed with clinical recommendations to a greater extent than the control group.