Spangehl, Mark J.

AbstractIntroductionThe optimal alignment technique for total knee replacement (TKR) remains controversial. We previously reported six-month and two-year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing kinematically (KA) versus mechanically (MA) aligned TKR. In the present study, we report 12-year results from this trial.MethodsThe original cohort included 88 TKRs (44 KA using Shape Match patient-specific guides and 44 MA using conventional instrumentation), performed from 2008 to 2009. After IRB approval, the health record of the original 88 patients were queried. Revisions, re-operations, and complications were recorded. The non-deceased patients were contacted via phone. Reoperation and complications were documented via the patient's history. Further, a battery of patient-reported outcome measures (including patient satisfaction, WOMAC, Oxford, KOOS Jr, Forgotten Joint Score, and M-SANE) were obtained.ResultsOf the original 88 patients in the study, 15 patients had a least one reoperation (17%). Patella problems were the most common cause of reoperation accounting for 5/8 reoperations in the KA group versus 3/7 in the MA group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two alignment methods in terms of major and minor complications or reoperations. At the 12-year follow-up, 26 patients died leaving 62 patients for follow-up. Of these, 48 patients (77%) were successfully contacted. The kinematically aligned total knees self-reported better satisfaction (96% versus 82%), but no difference in other patient-reported outcome measures compared to mechanically aligned TKRs.ConclusionKA TKR demonstrates excellent mid to long-term results compared to MA TKR with similar reoperations, complications, and patient-reported outcome measures.

Purpose To evaluate the rates of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) injury in patients who underwent a direct anterior approach (DAA) total hip arthroplasty (THA) with and without previous hip arthroscopy. Methods We retrospectively investigated consecutive DAA THAs performed by a single surgeon. These cases were grouped into patients with and without a history of previous ipsilateral hip arthroscopy. LFCN sensation was assessed during the initial follow‐up (6 weeks) and 1‐year (or most recent) follow‐up visits. The incidence and character of LFCN injury was compared between the 2 groups. Results In total, 166 patients underwent a DAA THA with no previous hip arthroscopy, and 13 had a history of previous arthroscopy. Of the 179 total patients who underwent THA, 77 experienced some form of LFCN injury at initial follow‐up (43%). The rate of injury for the cohort with no previous arthroscopy was 39% (n = 65/166) on initial follow‐up, whereas the rate of injury for the cohort with a history of previous ipsilateral arthroscopy was 92% (n =12/13) on initial follow‐up ( P < .001). In addition, although the difference was not significant, 28% (n = 46/166) of the group without history of previous arthroscopy and 69% (n = 9/13) of the group with a history of previous arthroscopy had continued symptoms of LFCN injury at most recent follow‐up. Conclusions In this study, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy before an ipsilateral DAA THA were at increased risk of LFCN injury compared with patients who underwent a DAA THA without a previous hip arthroscopy. At final follow‐up of patients with initial LFCN injury, symptoms resolved in 29% (n = 19/65) of patients with no previous hip arthroscopy and 25% (n = 3/12) of patients with previous hip arthroscopy. Level of Evidence Level III, case–control study.

Abstract Background The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is intended to detect a change in a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) large enough for a patient to appreciate. Their growing use in orthopaedic research stems from the necessity to identify a metric, other than the p value, to better assess the effect size of an outcome. Yet, given that MCIDs are population-specific and that there are multiple calculation methods, there is concern about inconsistencies. Given the increasing use of MCIDs in total hip arthroplasty (THA) research, a systematic review of calculated MCID values and their respective ranges, as well as an assessment of their applications, is important to guide and encourage their use as a critical measure of effect size in THA outcomes research. Questions/purposes We systematically reviewed MCID calculations and reporting in current THA research to answer the following: (1) What are the most-reported PROM MCIDs in THA, and what is their range of values? (2) What proportion of studies report anchor-based versus distribution-based MCID values? (3) What are the most common methods by which anchor-based MCID values are derived? (4) What are the most common derivation methods for distribution-based MCID values? (5) How do the reported medians and corresponding ranges compare between calculation methods for each PROM? Methods The EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were systematically reviewed from inception through March 2022 for THA studies reporting an MCID value for any PROMs. Two independent authors reviewed articles for inclusion. All articles calculating new PROM MCID scores after primary THA were included for data extraction and analysis. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each article. In total, 30 articles were included. There were 45 unique PROMs for which 242 MCIDs were reported. These studies had a total of 1,000,874 patients with a median age of 64 years and median BMI of 28.7 kg/m 2 . Women made up 55% of patients in the total study population, and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range 0 to 77 months). The overall risk of bias was assessed as moderate using the modified Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria for comparative studies (the mean score for comparative papers in this review was 18 of 24, with higher scores representing better study quality) and noncomparative studies (for these, the mean score was 10 of a possible 16 points, with higher scores representing higher study quality). Calculated values were classified as anchor-based, distribution-based, or not reported. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each study. Anchor-based and distribution-based MCIDs were compared for each unique PROM using a Wilcoxon rank sum test, given the non-normal distribution of values. Results The Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (HOOS) Pain and Quality of Life subscore MCIDs were the most frequently reported, comprising 12% (29 of 242), 8% (20 of 242), and 8% (20 of 242), respectively. The EuroQol VAS (EQ-VAS) was the next-most frequently reported (7% [17 of 242]) followed by the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) (7% [16 of 242]). The median anchor-based value for the OHS was 9 (IQR 8 to 11), while the median distribution-based value was 6 (IQR 5 to 6). The median anchor-based MCID values for HOOS Pain and Quality of Life were 33 (IQR 28 to 35) and 25 (14 to 27), respectively; the median distribution-based values were 10 (IQR 9 to 10) and 13 (IQR 10 to 14), respectively. Thirty percent (nine of 30) of studies used an anchor-based method to calculate a new MCID, while 40% (12 of 30) used a distribution-based technique. Thirty percent of studies (nine of 30) calculated MCID values using both methods. For studies reporting an anchor-based calculation method, a question assessing pain relief, satisfaction, or quality of life on a five-point Likert scale was the most commonly used anchor (30% [eight of 27]), followed by a receiver operating characteristic curve estimation (22% [six of 27]). For studies using distribution-based calculations, the most common method was one-half the standard deviation of the difference between preoperative and postoperative PROM scores (46% [12 of 26]). Most reported median MCID values (nine of 14) did not differ by calculation method for each unique PROM (p > 0.05). The OHS, HOOS JR, and HOOS Function, Symptoms, and Activities of Daily Living subscores all varied by calculation method, because each anchor-based value was larger than its respective distribution-based value. Conclusion We found that MCIDs do not vary very much by calculation method across most outcome measurement tools. Additionally, there are consistencies in MCID calculation methods, because most authors used an anchor question with a Likert scale for the anchor-based approach or used one-half the standard deviation of preoperative and postoperative PROM score differences for the distribution-based approach. For some of the most frequently reported MCIDs, however, anchor-based values tend to be larger than distribution-based values for their respective PROMs. Clinical Relevance We recommend using a 9-point increase as the MCID for the OHS, consistent with the median reported anchor-based value derived from several high-quality studies with large patient groups that used anchor-based approaches for MCID calculations, which we believe are most appropriate for most applications in clinical research. Likewise, we recommend using the anchor-based 33-point and 25-point MCIDs for the HOOS Pain and Quality of Life subscores, respectively. We encourage using anchor-based MCID values of WOMAC Pain, Function, and Stiffness subscores, which were 29, 26, and 30, respectively.

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used to assess the impact of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on patients. However, mere statistical comparison of PROMs is not sufficient to assess the value of TKA to the patient, especially given the risk profile of arthroplasty. Evaluation of treatment effect sizes is important to support the use of an intervention; this is often quantified with the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). MCIDs are unique to specific PROMs, as they vary by calculation methodology and study population. Therefore, a systematic review of calculated MCID values, their respective ranges, and assessment of their applications is important to guide and encourage their use as a critical measure of effect size in TKA outcomes research. Questions/purposes In this systematic review of MCID calculations and reporting in primary TKA, we asked: (1) What are the most frequently reported PROM MCIDs and their reported ranges in TKA? (2) What proportion of studies report distribution- versus anchor-based MCID values? (3) What are the most common methods by which these MCID values are derived for anchor-based values? (4) What are the most common derivation methods for distribution-based values? (5) How do the reported medians and corresponding interquartile ranges (IQR) compare between calculation methods for each PROM? Methods Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases from inception through March 2022 for TKA articles reporting an MCID value for any PROMs. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility, including any article that calculated new MCID values for PROMs after primary TKA, and extracted these data for analysis. Overall, 576 articles were identified, 38 of which were included in the final analysis. These studies had a total of 710,128 patients with a median age of 67.7 years and median BMI of 30.9 kg/m 2 . Women made up more than 50% of patients in most studies, and the median follow-up period was 17 months (range 0.25 to 72 months). The overall risk of bias was assessed as moderate using the Jadad criteria for one randomized controlled trial (3 of 5 ideal global score) and the modified Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies criteria for comparative studies (mean 17.2 ± 1.8) and noncomparative studies (mean 9.6 ± 1.3). There were 49 unique PROMs for which 233 MCIDs were reported. Calculated values were classified as anchor-based, distribution-based, or not reported. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each study. Anchor-based and distribution-based MCIDs were compared for each unique PROM using a Wilcoxon rank sum test given non-normal distribution of values. Results The WOMAC Function and Pain subscores were the most frequently reported MCID value, comprising 9% (22 of 233) and 9% (22 of 233), respectively. The composite Oxford Knee Score (OKS) was the next most frequently reported (9% [21 of 233]), followed by the WOMAC composite score (6% [13 of 233]). The median anchor-based values for WOMAC Function and Pain subscores were 23 (IQR 16 to 33) and 25 (IQR 14 to 31), while the median distribution-based values were 11 (IQR 10.8 to 11) and 22 (IQR 17 to 23), respectively. The median anchor-based MCID value for the OKS was 6 (IQR 4 to 7), while the distribution-based value was 7 (IQR 5 to 10). Thirty-nine percent (15 of 38) used an anchor-based method to calculate a new MCID, while 32% (12 of 38) used a distribution-based technique. Twenty-nine percent of studies (11 of 38) calculated MCID values using both methods. For studies reporting an anchor-based calculation method, a question assessing patient satisfaction, pain relief, or quality of life along a five-point Likert scale was the most commonly used anchor (40% [16 of 40]), followed by a receiver operating characteristic curve estimation (25% [10 of 40]). For studies using distribution-based calculations, all articles used a measure of study population variance in their derivation of the MCID, with the most common method reported as one-half the standard deviation of the difference between preoperative and postoperative PROM scores (45% [14 of 31]). Most reported median MCID values (15 of 19) did not differ by calculation method for each unique PROM (p > 0.05) apart from the WOMAC Function component score and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Pain and Activities of Daily Living subscores. Conclusion Despite variability of MCIDs for each PROM, there is consistency in the methodology by which MCID values have been derived in published studies. Additionally, there is a consensus about MCID values regardless of calculation method across most of the PROMs we evaluated. Clinical Relevance Given their importance to treatment selection and patient safety, authors and journals should report MCID values with greater consistency. We recommend using a 7-point increase as the MCID for the OKS, consistent with the median reported anchor-based value derived from several high-quality studies with large patient groups that used anchor-based approaches for MCID calculation, which we believe are most appropriate for most applications in clinical research. Likewise, we recommend using a 10-point to 15-point increase for the MCID of composite WOMAC, as the median value was 12 (IQR 10 to 17) with no difference between calculation methods. We recommend use of median reported values for WOMAC function and pain subscores: 21 (IQR 15 to 33) and 23 (IQR 13 to 29), respectively.

Introduction: Away rotations have become a critical factor for a successful orthopaedic surgery residency match. Away rotations significantly improve an applicant's chance of matching into an orthopaedic residency. Away rotations were limited during the 2020 to 2021 academic year because of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the 2021 to 2022 academic year, the American Association of Medical Colleges coalition recommended students only complete 1 rotation outside their home institution, whereas the American Orthopaedic Association Council of Residency Directors argued that multiple rotations should be allowed. We sought to quantify the impact of these restrictions on orthopaedic surgery applicants during the 2020 to 2021 residency application cycle. Methods: An online survey was sent to all applicants applying to the authors' home orthopaedic surgery program. The survey asked respondents to indicate how many away rotations they completed and how many they planned to complete but were unable to complete in the 2020 to 2021 application cycle. Historical match data were obtained from the National Resident Matching Program's publicly accessible Main Residency Match Data and Reports . Results: Survey responses were collected from 650 of 812 applicants (80%) to our program. Over a third of respondents (38.1%) reported completing 3 subinternship rotations during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle. Nearly a quarter of respondents (24.0%) reported completing 4 rotations. Most applicants (50.9%) were unable to complete 5 previously planned rotations because of pandemic-related restrictions, and 25.2% reported an inability to complete 4 rotations. Fewer applicants reported canceling 3 rotations (9.2%), 2 rotations (6.8%), or 1 (7.8%) rotation. Conclusions: Away rotations have been a traditional component of the orthopaedic surgery application process. Restrictions on away rotations in the 2020 to 2021 residency application cycle had affected the number of rotations that applicants were able to complete. However, despite those restrictions, over a third of applicants were able to complete at least 3 rotations. This suggests that the away rotation experience is variable for students and may be multifactorial; however, our study did not investigate the reasons for this. Accordingly, limiting away rotations may support an inequitable environment for medical students applying to orthopaedic surgery, and creating a consensus definition among medical schools, program directors, and orthopaedic chairs of away rotations, their duration, and the maximum number allowed would enhance fairness and reduce inconsistencies.

Background: Social media and online resources have been used in graduate medical education for years. In addition to an official residency program website, many orthopaedic surgery programs have an established social media presence to interact, educate, and engage with prospective applicants. The role of social media in orthopaedic surgery has significantly expanded in recent years. Despite its increasing use, the specific impact of social media on orthopaedic surgery residency applicants remains unknown. Methods: Applicants to the home institution's orthopaedic surgery residency program were sent an optional online survey during the 2020 to 2021 application cycle. No incentive was provided in exchange for participation. Results: Of 812 orthopaedic surgery applicants, 650 (80%) completed the survey. Program-based social media is widely accessed by applicants. Instagram is used by most applicants (61.9%), and nearly a third (28.7%) rely on it as their main resource when researching prospective residency programs. The majority (66.9%) agreed that social media can be successfully used to inform and interact with applicants. Most of the applicants (60.6%) also reported that social media had a positive impact on their perception of the associated program. Only 5.7% of respondents indicated that social media had a negative influence. The most effective uses of social media seem to be in allowing a program to display its culture and transparency. Conclusion: Social media plays a substantial role in the orthopaedic surgery residency application process, and its use continues to grow. Programs can use it to effectively engage with and inform prospective applicants. The impact of social media is positive on most of the applicants. Instagram is the preferred social media platform used by applicants, and nearly one-third rely on it as their main resource when researching programs. Investing time and resources into a social media presence seems to be a worthwhile pursuit for orthopaedic surgery programs as an important piece to a well-rounded recruitment effort of modern orthopaedic surgery applicants.

» There are limited data that directly compare the efficacy of antiseptic irrigation solutions used for the prevention and treatment of periprosthetic joint infections in orthopaedic procedures; there is a notable lack of prospective data. » For prevention of periprosthetic joint infections, the strongest evidence supports the use of low-pressure povidone-iodine. » For the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections, delivering multiple solutions sequentially may be beneficial.