Hannon, Charles P.

Background: Many surgeons use body mass index (BMI) cutoffs when offering total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, little is known about who loses weight before THA, and if weight loss improves outcomes. This study determined how many patients lost weight before primary THA, identified predictors of preoperative weight loss, and evaluated whether preoperative weight loss was associated with improved outcomes. Methods: Among 53,038 primary THAs that were performed between 2002 and 2019, we identified 2,463 patients who had a BMI of ≥30 kg/m 2 (measured 1 to 24 months before surgery) and had their weight measured at the time of surgery. The mean age was 66 years; 47% were women. The mean BMI was 35 kg/m 2 . Nonparametric models evaluated potential associations with weight loss. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the impact of preoperative weight change on hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, operative time, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), complications, revision, and reoperation. The mean follow-up was 5 years. Results: Overall, 17% of the patients gained >5 pounds (2.27 kg), 38% maintained their weight, 16% lost 5 to <10 pounds (4.54 kg), 17% lost 10 to <20 pounds (9.07 kg), and 12% lost ≥20 pounds before THA. Only 28% of patients with a preoperative BMI of ≥40 kg/m 2 achieved a BMI of <40 kg/m 2 by the time of surgery; those who did required a mean of 1.3 years to lose the weight. In multivariable analyses, there were no significant improvements in operative time, length of stay, and discharge disposition, or survivorship free of PJI, complication, revision, or reoperation for any weight-loss category when compared with those who maintained their weight. Conclusions: Only 12% of patients lost ≥20 pounds, and only 28% of patients with a BMI of ≥40 kg/m 2 achieved a BMI of <40 kg/m 2 before primary THA. There was no decrease in complications, revisions, or reoperations for any preoperative weight-loss category when compared with those who maintained their weight. While weight loss benefits overall health, the results of this study call into question whether preoperative weight loss alone is enough to reduce postoperative complications for most patients. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: We previously reported the 5-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implant. This study evaluates BHR survivorship as well as radiographic and clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up. Methods: A total of 224 patients with contemporary indications, including 179 patients from the original study, were included in this analysis. Survivorship was calculated. Metal ion levels and radiographs were updated. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared with those for matched patients who had undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA). The mean follow-up was 14 years. Results: Survivorship free from any revision and from aseptic revision was 96.0% and 97.4% at 15 years, respectively. Two patients had undergone revision since the original study. The median serum cobalt and chromium levels were 1.4 and 1.5 ppb, respectively. The PROs were similar to those for the THA cohort. Equal proportions of patients remained active; however, the BHR group trended toward more remaining highly active (p = 0.12). Conclusions: Although activity was similar to THA at long-term follow-up, the BHR implant remains an excellent option for the treatment of osteoarthritis in younger male patients. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: The relative advantages and disadvantages of 2-stage versus 1-stage management of infection following total hip arthroplasty (THA) are the current subject of intense debate. To understand the merits of each approach, detailed information on the short and, importantly, longer-term outcomes of each must be known. The purpose of the present study was to assess the long-term results of 2-stage exchange arthroplasty following THA in one of the largest series to date. Methods: We identified 331 periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) that had been treated with a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty between 1993 and 2021 at a single institution. Patients were excluded if they had had prior treatment for infection. The mean age at the time of reimplantation was 66 years, 38% of the patients were female, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 30 kg/m 2 . The diagnosis of PJI was based on the 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. A competing-risk model accounting for death was utilized. The mean duration of follow-up was 8 years. Results: The cumulative incidence of reinfection was 7% at 1 year and 11% at 5 and 10 years. Factors predictive of reinfection included BMI ≥30 kg/m 2 (hazard ratio [HR] = 2; p = 0.049) and the need for a spacer exchange (HR = 3.2; p = 0.006). The cumulative incidence of any revision was 13% at 5 and 10 years. The cumulative incidence of aseptic revision was 3% at 1 year, 7% at 5 years, and 8% at 10 years. Dislocation occurred in 33 hips (11% at 10 years); 15 (45%) required revision. Factors predictive of dislocation were female sex (HR = 2; p = 0.047) and BMI <30 kg/m 2 (HR = 3; p = 0.02). The mean Harris hip score (HHS) improved from 54 to 75 at 10 years. Conclusions: In this series of 331 two-stage exchange arthroplasties that were performed for the treatment of infection, we found a low rate of aseptic revision (8%) and a low rate of reinfection (11%) at 10 years. These long-term mechanical and infection data must be kept in mind when considering a paradigm shift to 1-stage exchanges. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

AbstractHistorically, cementless patellar implants were fraught with issues of fixation and polyethylene wear. However, contemporary cementless patellar implants incorporate modern technologies for implant design and offer the potential for improved biological fixation and longevity. As such, an evaluation of the performance of modern cementless patellae is needed. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary cementless patellar implants used during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with a particular focus on aseptic loosening of the patellar component. A systematic review of the literature was performed from January 2000 to February 22, 2024. We included all peer-reviewed studies that reported the number of revisions in patients who had cementless patellae placed in 2000 or later during primary TKA. Reviews and case reports were excluded. Out of 639 studies, 13 were included with a total of 3,005 cementless patellae analyzed. The mean patient age was 64 years and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 31 kg/m2. Meta-analyses were performed to calculate the pooled revision rate per person-year of revision for aseptic loosening of the patellar component and revision for any patellar failure. Upon analysis of 13 studies involving a total of 3,005 cementless patellae, the revision rate for aseptic loosening of the patella was 0.2 per 1,000 person-years and the revision rate for any patellar failure was 1 per 1,000 person-years. Contemporary cementless patellar implants showed an overall revision rate of 1 per 1,000 person-years, demonstrating excellent longevity. The high survivorship, together with a low rate of loosening, show the utility and effectiveness of these implants. Given the nature of biologic fixation, these results are promising for long-term implant stability but additional follow-up is warranted.

» Perioperative corticosteroids are strongly recommended for reducing the incidence and severity of postoperative nausea and vomiting following elective total hip or total knee arthroplasty. » Corticosteroids may reduce postoperative pain and opioid requirements. Similarly, corticosteroids appear to have a neutral-to-positive effect on length of stay, venous thromboembolism, mobility, delirium, acute kidney injury, and bone cement implantation syndrome (i.e., decreased length of stay). » Perioperative corticosteroids may induce hyperglycemia among both diabetic and nondiabetic patients; however, there is no strong evidence indicating that these transient corticosteroid-induced glycemic derangements may increase the risk of postoperative infectious complications. » The dosage and frequency of perioperative corticosteroid administration play a critical role in optimizing postoperative outcomes, with higher doses showing promise in reducing opioid consumption, postoperative pain, and length of stay. » The optimal dosage and frequency of corticosteroids remain unclear; however, the perioperative administration of 8 to 16 mg dexamethasone, or equivalent steroid, appears reasonable and safe in most cases.

We previously reported the five to ten-year results of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) implant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survivorship, radiographic results, and clinical outcomes of the BHR at long-term follow-up.We retrospectively reviewed 250 patients from the original cohort of 324 BHRs performed from 2006 to 2013 who met contemporary BHR indications. Of these, 4 patients died and 4 withdrew. From the 242 patients, 224 patients (93%) were available for analysis. Modified Harris hip score (mHHS) and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scores were collected and compared to a matched total hip arthroplasty (THA) cohort. Mean follow-up was 14 years.Survivorship free of aseptic revision was 97.4% and survivorship free of any revision was 96.0% at 15 years. Revisions included 3 periprosthetic joint infections, 2 for elevated metal ions and symptomatic pseudotumor, 2 for aseptic femoral loosening, and 1 for unexplained pain. The mean mHHS was 93 in BHR patients at final follow-up, similar to the THA cohort (p=0.44). The UCLA score was significantly higher for BHR patients (p=0.02), however there were equal proportions of patients who remained highly active (UCLA 9 or 10) in both groups, 60.5% and 52.2% (p=0.45) for BHR and THA respectively. Metal ion levels at long term follow-up were low (mean serum cobalt 1.8±1.5 ppb and mean serum chromium 2.2±2.0 ppb).BHR demonstrated excellent survivorship in males less than 60 years of age at time of surgery. Clinical outcomes and activity levels were similar to THA patients. Failures related to the metal-on-metal bearing were rare and metal levels were low at long-term follow-up.Level of evidence: IIIKeywords: survivorship; hip arthroplasty; activity; metal-on-metalSurface Replacement Arthroplasty demonstrates low revision rates and similar activity level compared to total hip arthroplasty at long-term follow-up.

ObjectiveTo develop evidence‐based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient‐important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA).MethodsWe developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations.ResultsThe panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality.ConclusionThis guideline provides evidence‐based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient‐important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

ObjectiveTo develop evidence‐based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient‐important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA).MethodsWe developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations.ResultsThe panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality.ConclusionThis guideline provides evidence‐based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate‐to‐severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient‐important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

Background: As the number of primary total hip arthroplasty procedures performed each year continues to rise, so too do the number of complications, including periprosthetic femoral fracture 1–9 . Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femoral fractures are difficult to treat because they require the surgeon to simultaneously manage a femoral fracture and gain new implant fixation. Fluted tapered stems have advanced the treatment of periprosthetic femoral fractures by providing immediate axial and rotational implant fixation distal to the fracture 10–18 . Modular fluted tapered stems provide the added practical advantage of allowing length and anteversion adjustment after implantation of the distal fixation portion of the stem. Description: In this technique, a modified extended trochanteric osteotomy incorporating the fracture is utilized to gain access to the loose femoral implant and femoral diaphyseal canal. The femoral diaphyseal canal is then sequentially reamed in 1-mm increments. A fluted tapered stem with the appropriate length, diameter, and axial and rotational stability is inserted into the canal. A proximal body is then chosen that establishes the appropriate leg length, femoral offset, and version. The final proximal body is engaged into the fluted tapered stem. Finally, the fracture is fixed around the implant with a combination of cables or wires. Alternatives: Historically, implants such as extensively porous coated stems were utilized to treat Vancouver B2 or B 3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Unfortunately, these implants were associated with high rates of failure and revision 7,9 . Rationale: The introduction of a fluted tapered stem provided a more reliable implant that achieves immediate axial and rotational stability. In addition, utilizing a fluted tapered stem allowed for a more soft-tissue-preserving approach to these complex injuries, in turn allowing the fracture to be reduced around the implant proximally with cerclage cables and or wires. Modular fluted tapered stems provide the additional advantage of allowing the surgeon to modify leg length, offset, and femoral version, independently of the fluted tapered stem. As a result of these unique advantages, these stems were introduced several years ago for the treatment of Vancouver B 2 or B 3 periprosthetic femoral fractures. Expected Outcomes: Contemporary series have demonstrated that the use of a modular fluted tapered stem leads to improved implant survivorship and clinical outcomes with lower complication rates for Vancouver B2 and B 3 periprosthetic femoral fractures 1,10–12,14–19 . Important Tips: Template both the fluted tapered stem and proximal body preoperatively. The proximal body should be templated at the ideal hip center of rotation that appropriately restores leg lengths and offset. Template the fluted tapered stem so that it provides appropriate isthmic fit and bypasses the most distal extent of the fracture by at least 2 cortical diameters. Utilize a modified extended trochanteric osteotomy for your exposure in order to facilitate visualization of the fracture and to provide direct access to the femoral canal. Place a prophylactic cable prior to preparing the femur for the implant in order to help prevent iatrogenic fracture. Place a trial stem and obtain intraoperative anteroposterior and lateral radiographs in order to assess the position of the implants and the risk of anterior cortical perforation. When placing the final implants, be sure the fluted tapered stem has both axial and rotational stability. Reduce and fix the fracture after the final implants are placed and the hip is reduced. Acronyms and Abbreviations: AP = anteroposterior MFT = modular fluted tapered (stem) ETO = extended trochanteric osteotomy THA = total hip arthroplasty CT = computed tomography PJI = periprosthetic joint infection

Background: Removal of well-fixed femoral components during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be difficult and time-consuming 1 , leading to numerous complications, such as femoral perforation, bone loss, and fracture. Extended trochanteric osteotomies (ETOs), which provide wide exposure and direct access to the femoral canal under controlled conditions, have become a popular method to circumvent these challenges. ETOs were popularized by Wagner (i.e., the anterior-based osteotomy), and later modified by Paprosky (i.e., the lateral-based osteotomy) 2 . Description: The decision to utilize the laterally based Paprosky ETO versus the anteriorly based Wagner ETO is primarily based on surgeon preference, the location and type of in situ implants, and the osseous anatomy. Typically, a laterally based ETO is most facile in conjunction with a posterior approach and an anteriorly based ETO is most commonly paired with a lateral or anterolateral approach. Attention must be paid to maintaining vascularity to the osteotomy fragment, including minimizing stripping of the vastus lateralis from the osteotomy fragment and maintaining abductor attachments to the osteotomy fragment. When utilizing a laterally based ETO, the posterior border of the vastus lateralis must be carefully elevated to provide exposure for performance of the osteotomy. When an anteriorly based osteotomy is performed, the surgeon may instead extend the abductor tenotomy proximally with use of a longitudinal split of the vastus lateralis distally, which helps to keep the anterior and posterior sleeves of soft tissue in continuity. In either approach, dissection of the vastus lateralis involves managing several large vascular perforators. We prefer performing careful blunt dissection to identify the perforators and prophylactically controlling them, with ligation of large vessels and electrocautery of smaller vessels. Vascular clips are also available in case difficult-to-control bleeding is encountered. In general, an oscillating saw (with preference for a thin blade) is utilized to complete the posterior longitudinal limb of the ETO, extending approximately 12 to 16 cm distally from the tip of the greater trochanter. Although a 12 to 16-cm zone is required to maintain maximum vascularity to the osteotomized fragment, the osteotomy length must ultimately be determined by (1) the length of the femoral component to be removed; (2) the presence of distal bone ingrowth, ongrowth, or cement; and (3) the presence of distal hardware or stemmed knee components. A smaller oscillating saw is then utilized to complete the transverse limb at the previously identified distal extent. A high-speed pencil-tip burr is utilized to complete the corners of the osteotomy in a rounded configuration, and a combination of saws and pencil-tip burrs is utilized to create partial proximal and distal anterior longitudinal limbs of the osteotomy to the extent allowed by the soft-tissue attachments. The anterior longitudinal limb may be further weakened in a controlled fashion with use of serial drill holes. The anterior longitudinal limb then undergoes controlled fracture by placement of 2 to 4 broad straight osteotomes in the posterior longitudinal limb. These osteotomes are carefully levered anteriorly in unison with a gentle, steady force. After the ETO is completed, intramedullary prostheses, hardware, and cement are removed; the acetabulum is addressed as needed; and a final femoral stem is implanted, if appropriate. After completion of the osteotomy, the osteotomized fragment must be retracted gently, with care taken to avoid a fracture and maintain vascularity. To this end, debridement of the endosteum of the osteotomized fragment, including any cement removal, should be avoided until the end of the procedure, when the osteotomy is ready to be closed. Our preferred method for closure is to place 1 prophylactic cable 1 cm distal to the osteotomy, 1 to 2 cables along the diaphyseal segment of the osteotomy, and 1 Luque wire above the less trochanter. A Luque wire is our specific choice for the location above the lesser trochanter because it sits in the effective joint space; however, the use of Luque wires distal to the lesser trochanter is also acceptable. A strut allograft or locking plate can be utilized to reinforce the osteotomy in rare cases or to bridge interprosthetic stress risers. Trochanteric implants are typically avoided because of the low rate of clinically relevant trochanteric migration with this closure technique and because of the high rate of symptomatic implants with trochanteric claws or plates. Alternatives: An alternative osteotomy of similar exposure is the transfemoral osteotomy. Additionally, a variety of non-extended trochanteric osteotomies, such as trochanteric slide osteotomies, offer more limited exposure. Rationale: Femoral surgical exposure for revision THA can be aided by performing transfemoral osteotomies, but these provide less precise control of the separate proximal femoral osteotomized segment(s), and healing and fixation can be less reliable. Less invasive osteotomies such as non-extended trochanteric osteotomies typically do not provide adequate exposure in challenging cases for which ETO is being considered. Expected Outcomes: ETOs have high union rates, and notable trochanteric migration is infrequent. The most common complications are fracture of the osteotomy fragment intraoperatively or postoperatively. Radiographic and clinical union is achieved in 98% of patients. The mean proximal trochanteric osteotomy fragment migration prior to union is 3 mm. ETO fragment migration of >1 cm occurs in just 7% of hips. Postoperative greater trochanter fractures occur in 9% of hips. The 10-year survivorship free of revision for aseptic femoral loosening, free of femoral or acetabular component removal or revision for any reason, and free of reoperation for any reason is 97%, 91%, and 82%, respectively 3 . Important Tips: Attention should be paid to patient anatomy, deformity, surgical approach, and implant type when choosing to perform a laterally based Paprosky or anteriorly based Wagner ETO. Appropriate length of the posterior longitudinal limb of the ETO is approximately 12 to 16 cm distally from the tip of the greater trochanter. Attention must be paid to maintaining vascularity to the osteotomy fragment, including minimizing stripping of the vastus lateralis from the osteotomy fragment and maintaining abductor attachments to the osteotomy fragment. A high-speed pencil-tip burr should be utilized to complete the corners of the osteotomy in a rounded configuration in order to avoid stress risers. The anterior longitudinal limb is completed by controlled fracture of the remaining intervening segment in order to maintain vastus lateralis attachments and vascular supply to the osteotomy fragment. The ETO is closed with use of cerclage cables and/or double-stranded Luque wires, typically utilizing a total of 3 to 4 in order to obtain secure fixation without compromising local biology. Acronyms and Abbreviations: MFT = modular fluted tapered