Yao, Jie J

Background: Our understanding of the risk factors for and effectiveness of prophylactic measures against shoulder periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) continues to evolve. This study’s objective was to study patient characteristics, procedural characteristics, and various infection prophylactic measures and their effects on the risk of shoulder PJI after primary arthroplasty. Methods: Nine hundred and ninety-eight patients in a longitudinally maintained, single-institution shoulder arthroplasty database who had at least 2 years of clinical follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patient and procedural characteristics were collected. Perioperative variables, including the use of intraoperative antibiotics, topical antibiotics, antibiotic-containing irrigation solution, and a postoperative drain, were collected. Patients who developed shoulder PJI were compared with those without shoulder PJI to identify any association with patient or procedural characteristics. Results: Of the 998 patients, 20 (2.0%) met the criteria for shoulder PJI. Cutibacterium was identified as the causative organism in 19 (95%) of 20 culture-positive reoperations. On univariate analysis, patients in the PJI group were more likely to be younger (p < 0.001), to be male (p = 0.014), to have commercial insurance (p = 0.003), to use alcohol (p = 0.048), and to have had a ream-and-run or hemiarthroplasty procedure (p = 0.005). On multivariable analysis, older age was independently associated with a lower risk of PJI (odds ratio [OR] per year = 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 0.99; p = 0.014). Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (OR, 10.32; 95% CI, 0.92 to 116.33; p = 0.059) and hemiarthroplasty (OR, 8.59; 95% CI, 0.86.30 to 85.50; p = 0.067) trended toward a higher risk of PJI. Conclusions: Younger patients and patients undergoing procedures other than anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty are at higher risk for shoulder PJI. The majority of culture-positive reoperations were a result of Cutibacterium species. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Ream-and-run arthroplasty can improve pain and function in patients with glenohumeral arthritis while avoiding the complications and activity restrictions associated with a prosthetic glenoid component. However, stiffness is a known complication after ream-and-run arthroplasty and can lead to repeat procedures such as a manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) or open surgical revision. The objective of this study was to determine risk factors associated with repeat procedures indicated for postoperative stiffness after ream-and-run arthroplasty. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of our shoulder arthroplasty database to identify patients who underwent ream-and-run arthroplasty and determined which patients underwent subsequent repeat procedures (MUA and/or open revision) indicated for postoperative stiffness. The minimum follow-up was 2 years. We collected baseline demographic information and preoperative and 2-year patient-reported outcome scores and analyzed preoperative radiographs. Univariate and multivariate analyses determined the factors significantly associated with repeat procedures to treat postoperative stiffness. Results: There were 340 patients who underwent ream-and-run arthroplasty. The mean Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores for all patients improved from 5.0 ± 2.4 preoperatively to 10.2 ± 2.6 postoperatively (p < 0.001). Twenty-six patients (7.6%) underwent open revision for stiffness. An additional 35 patients (10.3%) underwent MUA. Univariate analysis found younger age (p = 0.001), female sex (p = 0.034), lower American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (p = 0.045), posterior decentering on preoperative radiographs (p = 0.010), and less passive forward elevation at the time of discharge after ream-and-run arthroplasty (p < 0.001) to be significant risk factors for repeat procedures. Multivariate analysis found younger age (p = 0.040), ASA class 1 compared with class 3 (p = 0.020), and less passive forward elevation at discharge (p < 0.001) to be independent risk factors for repeat procedures. Of the patients who underwent open revision for stiffness, 69.2% had multiple positive cultures for Cutibacterium. Conclusions: Younger age, ASA class 1 compared with class 3, and less passive forward elevation in the immediate postoperative period were independent risk factors for repeat procedures to treat postoperative stiffness after ream-and-run arthroplasty. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are associated with substantial morbidity. A better understanding of the costs of PJI treatment can inform prevention, treatment, and reimbursement strategies. The purpose of the present study was to describe direct inpatient medical costs associated with the treatment of hip and knee PJI. Methods: At a single tertiary care institution, 176 hips and 266 knees that underwent 2-stage revisions for the treatment of PJI from 2009 to 2015 were compared with 1,611 hips and 1,276 knees that underwent revisions for aseptic indications. In addition, 84 hips and 137 knees that underwent irrigation and debridement (I&D) with partial component exchange were compared with 39 hips and 138 knees that underwent partial component exchange for aseptic indications. Line-item details of services billed during hospitalization were retrieved, and standardized direct medical costs were calculated in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars. Results: The mean direct medical cost of 2-stage revision THA performed for the treatment of PJI was significantly higher than that of aseptic revision THA ($58,369 compared with $22,846, p < 0.001). Similarly, the cost of 2-stage revision TKA performed for the treatment of PJI was significantly higher than that of aseptic revision TKA ($56,900 compared with $24,630, p < 0.001). Even when the total costs of aseptic revisions were doubled for a representative comparison with 2-stage procedures, the costs of PJI procedures were 15% to 28% higher than those of the doubled costs of aseptic revisions (p < 0.001). The mean direct medical cost of I&D procedures for PJI was about twofold higher than of partial component exchange for aseptic indications. Conclusions: The direct medical costs of operative treatment of PJI following THA and TKA are twofold higher than the costs of similar aseptic revisions. The high economic burden of PJI warrants efforts to reduce the incidence of PJI. Reimbursement schemes should account for the high costs of treating PJI in order to ensure sustainable patient care. Level of Evidence: Economic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.