Perry, Kevin I.

Background: Lymphedema is a chronic disease characterized by fluid buildup and swelling that can lead to skin and soft-tissue fibrosis and recurring soft-tissue infections. Literature with regard to the increased risk of complications following a surgical procedure in patients with lymphedema is emerging, but the impact of lymphedema in the setting of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to review outcomes following primary THA performed in patients with lymphedema compared with a matched cohort without lymphedema. Methods: Using our institutional total joint registry and medical records, we identified 83 patients (57 were female and 26 were male) who underwent THA with ipsilateral lymphedema. For comparison, these patients were matched 1:6 (based on sex, age, date of the surgical procedure, and body mass index [BMI]) to a group of 498 patients without lymphedema who underwent primary THA for osteoarthritis. Subsequently, postoperative complications and implant survivorship were evaluated for each group. The mean follow-up for each group was 6 years. Survivorship was compared between cohorts using Kaplan-Meier methodology and included both survivorship free of infection and survivorship free of reoperation or revision. Univariate Cox regression analysis was utilized to assess the association between patient factors for the time to event outcomes noted above. Results: In patients with a history of lymphedema, there was an increased risk of complications (hazard ratio [HR], 1.97; p < 0.01), including reoperation for any cause (HR, 3.16; p < 0.01) and postoperative infection (HR, 4.48; p < 0.01). The 5-year infection-free survival rate was 90.3% for patients with lymphedema compared with 97.7% for patients without lymphedema (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Patients with lymphedema are at increased risk for complications, including reoperation and infection, following primary THA. These data emphasize the importance of appropriate preoperative counseling in this population and should encourage efforts to identify methods to improve outcomes, including further investigation of the effects of preoperative optimization of lymphedema prior to THA and methods for improved perioperative management. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Free flap coverage in the setting of a total knee arthroplasty is rare. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the outcome of patients who underwent a free flap to assist with soft-tissue coverage following a complex total knee arthroplasty. Methods: The authors used their institutional total joint registry to retrospectively review patients undergoing a free soft-tissue flap in the setting of complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. Among 29,069 primary and 6433 revision total knee arthroplasties from 1994 to 2017, eight (0.02 percent) required a free flap for wound coverage. This included three primary total knee arthroplasties (0.01 percent) for posttraumatic arthritis and five revision total knee arthroplasties (0.07 percent) in the setting of infection. Median follow-up was 4 years. Results: Free flaps included vertical rectus abdominis (n = 3), anterior lateral thigh (n = 2), latissimus (n = 2), and transverse rectus abdominis (n = 1). There were no total flap losses; however, one patient required additional skin grafting. Reoperation occurred in six patients, of which four were revisions of the total knee arthroplasty for infection (n = 2) and tibial component loosening (n = 2). One patient ultimately underwent transfemoral amputation for persistent infection. Following reconstruction, there was improvement in the median Knee Society Score (49 versus 82; p = 0.03) and total range of motion between preoperative and postoperative assessments (70 degrees versus 85 degrees; p = 0.14). Conclusion: Free flap coverage in the setting of total knee arthroplasty was associated with a high rate of reoperation; however, the limb was able to be preserved in the majority of patients, with a reasonable functional outcome. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

AimsThe prevalence of ipsilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is rising in concert with life expectancy, putting more patients at risk for interprosthetic femur fractures (IPFFs). Our study aimed to assess treatment methodologies, implant survivorship, and IPFF clinical outcomes.MethodsA total of 76 patients treated for an IPFF from February 1985 to April 2018 were reviewed. Prior to fracture, at the hip/knee sites respectively, 46 femora had primary/primary, 21 had revision/primary, three had primary/revision, and six had revision/revision components. Mean age and BMI were 74 years (33 to 99) and 30 kg/m2(21 to 46), respectively. Mean follow-up after fracture treatment was seven years (2 to 24).ResultsOverall, 59 fractures were classified as Vancouver C (Unified Classification System (UCS) D), 17 were Vancouver B (UCS B). In total, 57 patients (75%) were treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF); three developed nonunion, three developed periprosthetic joint infection, and two developed aseptic loosening. In all, 18 patients (24%) underwent revision arthroplasty including 13 revision THAs, four distal femoral arthroplasties (DFAs), and one revision TKA: of these, one patient developed aseptic loosening and two developed nonunion. Survivorship free from any reoperation was 82% (95% confidence interval (CI) 66.9% to 90.6%) and 77% (95% CI 49.4% to 90.7%) in the ORIF and revision groups at two years, respectively. ORIF patients who went on to union tended to have stemmed knee components and greater mean interprosthetic distance (IPD = 189 mm (SD 73.6) vs 163 mm (SD 36.7); p = 0.546) than nonunited fractures. Patients who went on to nonunion in the revision arthroplasty group had higher medullary diameter: cortical width ratio (2.5 (SD 1.7) vs 1.3 (SD 0.3); p = 0.008) and lower IPD (36 mm (SD 30.6) vs 214 mm (SD 32.1); p < 0.001). At latest follow-up, 95% of patients (n = 72) were ambulatory.ConclusionInterprosthetic femur fractures are technically and biologically challenging cases. Individualized approaches to internal fixation versus revision arthroplasty led to an 81% (95% CI 68.3% to 88.6%) survivorship free from reoperation at two years with 95% of patients ambulatory. Continued improvements in management are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7 Supple B):122–128.

Aims The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of α defensin (AD) lateral flow assay (LFA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in comparison to conventional synovial white blood cell (WBC) count and polymorphonuclear neutrophil percentage (PMN%) analysis. Methods Patients undergoing joint aspiration for evaluation of pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) were considered for inclusion. Synovial fluids from 99 patients (25 THA and 74 TKA) were analyzed by WBC count and PMN% analysis, AD LFA, and AD ELISA. WBC and PMN% cutoffs of ≥ 1,700 cells/mm3 and ≥ 65% for TKA and ≥ 3,000 cells/mm3 and ≥ 80% for THA were used, respectively. A panel of three physicians, all with expertise in orthopaedic infections and who were blinded to the results of AD tests, independently reviewed patient data to diagnose subjects as with or without PJI. Consensus PJI classification was used as the reference standard to evaluate test performances. Results were compared using McNemar’s test and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis. Results Expert consensus classified 18 arthroplasies as having failed due to PJI and 81 due to aseptic failure. Using these classifications, the calculated sensitivity and specificity of AD LFA was 83.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 58.6 to 96.4) and 93.8% (95% CI 86.2 to 98.0), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of AD ELISA was 83.3% (95% CI 58.6 to 96.4) and 96.3% (95% CI 89.6 to 99.2), respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between sensitivity (p = 1.000) or specificity (p = 0.157) of the two AD assays. AUC for AD LFA was 0.891. In comparison, AUC for synovial WBC count, PMN%, and the combination of the two values was 0.821 (sensitivity p = 1.000, specificity p < 0.001), 0.886 (sensitivity p = 0.317, specificity p = 0.011), and 0.926 (sensitivity p = 0.317, specificity p = 0.317), respectively. Conclusion The diagnostic accuracy of synovial AD for PJI diagnosis is comparable and not statistically superior to that of synovial WBC count plus PMN% combined. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1119–1126.

Background: The optimal strategy to address osseous deficiencies of the patella during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. One possible solution is a cemented biconvex patellar component used such that the non-articular convexity both improves fixation and makes up for bone loss. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of the use of biconvex patellar components in a large series of revision TKAs. Methods: From 1996 to 2014, 262 revision TKAs were performed at a single institution using a biconvex patellar component. Implant survivorship, clinical and radiographic results, and complications were assessed. The mean patient age at the TKA revision was 69 years, and 53% of the patients were female. The mean follow-up was 7 years. Results: The 10-year survivorship free of revision of the biconvex patellar component due to aseptic loosening was 96%. The 10-year survivorship free of any revision of the biconvex patellar component was 87%. The 10-year survivorship free of any rerevision and free of any reoperation was 75% and 70%, respectively. The mean Knee Society Score (KSS) improved from 45.4 before the index revision to 67.7 after it. The mean residual composite thickness seen on the most recent radiographs was 18.1 mm. In addition to the complications leading to revision, the most common complications were periprosthetic patellar fracture (6%), of which 3 required revision; superficial wound infection (6%) requiring antibiotic therapy only or irrigation and debridement; and arthrofibrosis (3%). Conclusions: In this cohort of 262 revision TKAs, biconvex patellar components used to treat marked patellar bone loss demonstrated excellent durability with a 10-year survivorship free of patellar rerevision due to aseptic loosening of 96%. The biconvex patellar components were reliable as evidenced by substantial improvements in clinical outcomes scores and a low risk of complications. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Debate remains regarding the utility of mechanical axis alignment as a predictor of durability after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Our study aimed to assess the effects of coronal alignment on implant durability, clinical outcomes, and radiographic results with a single fixed-bearing TKA design. All patients undergoing primary cemented TKA of a single design (Stryker Triathlon) from 2005–2007 with >10 years of follow-up and available pre-operative and post-operative hip–knee–ankle radiographs were included (n = 89). Radiographs were measured to determine coronal alignment and assessed for loosening. Mean preoperative mechanical axis alignment was −6° ± 6.7° (varus, range, −16°–23°), while mean post-operative alignment was −1° ± 2.7° (varus, range, −3°–15°). The aligned group was defined as knees with a post-operative mechanical axis of 0° ± 3° (n = 73) and the outlier group as those outside this range (n = 16). No patients underwent revision. Ten-year survivorship free from any reoperation was 99% and 100% in the aligned and outlier groups, respectively (p = 0.64). Knee Society scores improved significantly in both groups (p < 0.001) and did not differ at final follow-up (p = 0.15). No knees demonstrated radiographic evidence of loosening. Post-operative mechanical axis alignment within 3° of neutral was not associated with improved implant durability, clinical outcomes, or radiographic results at 10 years following primary TKA.

Background: Extended trochanteric osteotomies (ETOs) provide wide femoral and acetabular exposure, give direct access to the femoral medullary canal, and facilitate implant removal and new implant placement during selected revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Previous studies are limited by modest patient numbers and limited length of follow-up. The goals of the current study were to assess the union rate, complications, and outcomes of contemporary ETOs performed during revision THAs. Methods: From 2003 to 2013, 612 ETOs were performed during revision THAs at 1 institution using 2 techniques: Paprosky (laterally based osteotomy; n = 367) and Wagner (anteriorly based osteotomy; n = 245). The indications for the revision procedures were aseptic loosening (65%), periprosthetic joint infection (18%), periprosthetic fracture (6%), femoral implant fracture (5%), and other (6%). The mean patient age was 69 years, and 57% of the patients were male. The mean number of previous THAs was 1.6. The median duration of follow-up was 5 years (range, 2 to 13 years). Results: The mean Harris hip scores increased from 57 preoperatively to 77 at the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Radiographic and clinical union was achieved in 98% of the patients at a mean of 6 months (range, 1 to 24 months). The mean migration of the proximal trochanteric osteotomy fragment prior to union was 3 mm (range, 0 to 29 mm). ETO fragment migration of >1 cm occurred in 7% (37) of the 501 hips that had radiographic analysis. Nine hips (2%) had nonunion of the ETO. Intraoperative fracture of the ETO diaphyseal fragment occurred in 22 hips (4%), postoperative fracture of the ETO diaphyseal fragment occurred in 3 hips (0.5%), and postoperative fracture of the greater trochanter occurred in 41 hips (7%). Survivorship at 10 years 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 was 97%, 91%, and 82%, respectively. Conclusions: This large series of ETOs shows that the union rate is high and clinically important trochanteric migration is infrequent. The most common complications are fracture of the osteotomy fragment intraoperatively or postoperatively. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Treatment of severe patellar bone loss during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is difficult. Patellar bone-grafting is a simple procedure that can improve patient outcomes following revision TKA. Description: The patient is prepared and draped in the usual sterile fashion. The previous longitudinal knee incision is utilized for exposure. Scar tissue is excised from the medial gutter. However, tissue in the lateral gutter is largely maintained. An assessment of the surrounding quadriceps and patellar scar tissue ensues. This tissue can be utilized to create an envelope for holding the bone graft in place. If insufficient tissue is present, fascia from the iliotibial band or vastus medialis, allograft fascia, or synthetics can be used. A careful assessment of component fixation and rotation is critical to the success of patellar bone-grafting. Component revision for aseptic loosening or malrotation should be performed in the usual fashion. During component revision, it is recommended to preserve any additional bone as autograft for the patellar bone-grafting procedure. Common sites of autograft harvest include the femoral box cut and proximal tibial resection. The patella is then addressed by carefully removing the previous implant to avoid additional bone loss. This step is performed with a combination of an oscillating saw, osteotomes, and high-speed burr. The retropatellar bone is then prepared by debriding excess soft tissue, cysts, or cement. A high-speed burr is then utilized to produce a punctate bleeding surface for bone-graft incorporation. The harvested tissue is closed around the perimeter of the patella with use of interrupted nonabsorbable sutures, leaving a window to pack in the bone graft. The bone graft (allograft and autograft) is morselized and place through the window. The optimal patellar thickness is variable. After packing the bone graft through the soft-tissue window, the thickness is measured with a caliper. It is recommended to acquire a thickness of >20 mm because bone-graft resorption and remodeling occur with knee range of motion. The remaining soft-tissue window is closed with use of nonabsorbable sutures. The knee is cycled through a range of motion to ensure optimal patellofemoral tracking. If necessary, a lateral release or medial soft-tissue advancement can be performed to ensure patellofemoral tracking is adequate. Finally, the wound is irrigated and closed in layers. Alternatives: Nonsurgical: Surgical: Gull-wing osteotomy Patellar resurfacing with biconvex patella Bulk allograft reconstruction Partial or complete patellectomy Patelloplasty Interpositional arthroplasty Tantalum metal-backed reconstruction Rationale: There is a myriad of surgical options for severe patellar bone loss following TKA. Patellar bone-grafting is simple, reproducible, and relatively cost-effective 1,2 , and avoids the need for the amount of bone for reconstruction that may be required for metal-backed or biconvex patellar implants 3,4 . The procedure allows for the restoration of the quadriceps lever arm, which may not be restored with other techniques, such as gull-wing osteotomy or patellectomy 5 . Patellar bone-grafting avoids the cost and risks of disease transmission associated with allograft reconstruction 6 . Finally, the procedure provides excellent long-term survivorship and patient-reported outcomes. Expected Outcomes: Following this procedure, patients should experience a reduction in knee pain and improved patient-reported outcomes 2,6 , with a prior study showing that the percentage of patients reporting anterior knee pain decreased from 51% to 27% following patellar bone-grafting. Patients also demonstrated an improvement in knee range of motion, with a mean increase in knee flexion of 7 o and knee extension of 2 o1 . Complications related to this procedure are minimal. Bone stock restoration can be utilized for patellar resurfacing in the future 1 . Radiographically, patellar bone resorption, loss of patellar height, and patellar remodeling do occur; however, despite these radiographic changes, Knee Society scores increased from 50 to 85 at the time of the latest follow-up. Important Tips:

Background: Spinal anesthesia provides several benefits for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but historically comes at the cost of slow and unpredictable return of lower-extremity motor function related to the use of long-acting local anesthetics. In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial we sought to determine if an alternative local anesthetic, mepivacaine, would allow more consistent return of motor function compared with low-dose bupivacaine spinal anesthesia during primary THA and TKA. Methods: This trial was conducted at a single academic institution. Prior to trial initiation an internal pilot study determined that 154 patients were required to achieve 80% power. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion with use of advanced computerized stratification based on procedure, age group, sex, and body mass index. Following the surgical procedure, motor function was assessed every 15 minutes in the nonoperative lower extremity according to the Bromage scale and discontinued once Bromage 0 was achieved (spontaneous movement at hip, knee, and ankle). Results: Return of lower-extremity function was more predictable in patients who received mepivacaine than in those who received low-dose bupivacaine. Among patients who received mepivacaine, 1% achieved motor function return beyond 5 hours compared with 11% of patients who received bupivacaine (p = 0.013). The mean time to return of lower-extremity motor function was 26 minutes quicker in patients who received mepivacaine (185 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 174 to 196 minutes) compared with low-dose bupivacaine (210 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 193 to 228 minutes) (p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in safety outcomes including pain scores, time to participation in physical therapy, incidence of orthostatic hypotension, urinary retention, or transient neurologic symptoms in patients receiving mepivacaine compared with low-dose bupivacaine. Conclusions: In patients undergoing primary THA and TKA, spinal anesthesia with mepivacaine allowed more consistent return of lower-extremity motor function compared with low-dose bupivacaine, without a concomitant increase in complications potentially associated with spinal anesthetics. This is particularly of value in an era of short-stay and outpatient surgical procedures. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

AbstractThere is interest in novel synovial fluid biomarkers for the detection of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Here, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of 23 simple or sophisticated synovial fluid biomarkers for periprosthetic hip or knee infection detection. One hundred seven subjects were studied, 57 of whom had aseptic failure (AF) and 50 PJI. The following synovial fluid biomarkers were tested using spectrophotometric assays, immunoassays, lateral flow tests, or test strips: leukocyte count, monocyte percentage, lymphocyte percentage, neutrophil percentage, C‐reactive protein (CRP), glucose, lactate, granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor, interferon‐γ, interleukin‐1β (IL‐1β), IL‐2, IL‐4, IL‐5, IL‐6, IL‐8, IL‐10, IL‐12p70, IL‐13, IL‐17A, IL‐23, tumor necrosis factor‐α, α‐defensin, and leukocyte esterase. The best‐performing synovial fluid biomarkers to differentiate PJI from AF—that is, those with highest area under the curve compared to all other biomarkers—were leukocyte count, percent neutrophils and percent monocytes, CRP, and α‐defensin (P < .0001).