Austin, Matthew S.

Background Robotic-assisted TKA may allow for more reproducible balancing and implant positioning. However, few RCTs have directly compared modern robotic-assisted TKA to conventional TKA. Questions/purposes (1) Do patients undergoing robotic-assisted TKA perform better on the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test and Stair Climb test (SCT) than patients undergoing conventional TKA at 1 and 6 months after surgery? (2) Do patients undergoing robotic-assisted TKA demonstrate better patient-reported outcomes, including Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), EQ-5D, and VAS scores, than patients undergoing conventional TKA at 1 and 6 months after surgery? (3) Do patients undergoing robotic-assisted TKA demonstrate better radiographic alignment and position than patients undergoing conventional TKA? Methods In this double-blind RCT, 60 patients were randomized to robotic-assisted TKA (n = 30) or conventional TKA (n = 30) without the use of a tensioning device. All care was otherwise standardized, using mechanical alignment guides. The primary outcome measures were the TUG and SCT tests; results were collected by a blinded observer at 6 months postoperatively. These time points were chosen based on the maximal early improvement in patient-reported outcomes and bimodal distribution of the TUG and SCT tests, worsening in the immediate postoperative period, and improving within the first 6 months. Secondary outcome measures were KOOS, EQ-5D, and VAS scores; radiographic measurements; and operative time. Standard bivariate statistical analysis was conducted. The mean ± SD age of the cohort was 66 ± 7 years, with no differences between groups (p = 0.21). Ninety-three percent (28 of 30) of patients in the robotic-assisted group were White versus 97% (29 of 30) in the conventional TKA group (p > 0.99). Women made up 57% (17) of the robotic-assisted cohort and 60% (18) of the conventional TKA cohort. No differences were noted between the robotic-assisted and conventional TKA groups in BMI, Charlson comorbidity index, or American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. Results Patients undergoing robotic-assisted TKA did not perform better than those who underwent conventional TKA on the TUG (11 versus 11 seconds; p = 0.88) or SCT (15 versus 15 seconds; p = 0.93) tests. Patients undergoing robotic-assisted TKA did not demonstrate better mean ± SD scores on the KOOS pain subscale than patients undergoing conventional TKA (86 ± 14 versus 80 ± 17; p = 0.15). Patients undergoing robotic-assisted TKA did not demonstrate better radiographic alignment and position than patients undergoing conventional TKA based on hip-knee-ankle angle (178° versus 178°; p = 0.89). No differences between the two groups were noted at the 1-month follow-up in TUG and SCT test results. Conclusion In this study, patients who underwent robotically assisted TKA did no better in terms of function, patient-reported outcomes, or radiographic measures than did patients who underwent conventional TKA. Until or unless future studies demonstrate benefits of robotically assisted TKA that are large enough for patients to perceive, we recommend against its use. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.

Aim Cefazolin, a first generation cephalosporin, is the standard of care for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in hip and knee arthroplasty patients. Research has shown that prosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates are significantly higher when non-cefazolin antibiotics are used for perioperative TKA and THA prophylaxis. Cefazolin contains an R1 side chain that has not shown cross reactivity with other cephalosporins. Despite these data, the declaration of a cephalosporin allergy causes uncertainty regarding the optimal antibiotic choice in these patients. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety of administering perioperative cefazolin in patients with a cephalosporin allergy undergoing joint arthroplasty. Methods We identified all patients (n=1267) with a documented cephalosporin allergy who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasty at a high volume academic medical center from 2016-2024. We compared patients who received perioperative cefazolin despite the presence of a cephalosporin allergy (n=481) to patients who received alternative antibiotic prophylaxis (n=786). The primary outcome measure was the incidence of IgE mediated allergic reactions within the first 72 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included 90-day complication rates including PJI, C. difficile infection, adverse events and readmission. Results The incidence of allergic reaction in cephalosporin allergic patients who received cefazolin was 0.0% (0/481) compared to 0.51% (4/786) in patients who received alternative antibiotics prophylaxis (p=0.12). There were no significant differences in the incidences of PJI (0.23% vs. 0.30%; p=0.83), C. difficile infection (0.0% vs. 0.0%) or readmission (3.95% vs. 4.34%; p=0.75) within 90 days. There was one adverse event related to cefazolin administration which was urethral irritation and was self-limited. There were three adverse events related to alternative antibiotic prophylaxis including cutaneous manifestations, GI distress and headache in a patient with idiopathic intracranial hypertension. All four allergic reactions in the alternative antibiotic prophylaxis cohort required supportive treatment with IV corticosteroids, fluids and antihistamines. Conclusion In this cohort of hip and knee arthroplasty patients, cefazolin administration in the setting of a cephalosporin allergy resulted in a 0.0% incidence of IgE mediated allergic reactions. These data and the fact that cefazolin's unique R1 side chain is not shared by any other cephalosporins suggests that cefazolin can safely be administered to most patients with a documented cephalosporin allergy.

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.