Spangehl, Mark J.

Background: Debridement and implant retention (DAIR) has variable success as a treatment for acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), with generally poor outcomes reported in the literature 1 . Because of the unacceptably high failure rate of DAIR, we implemented a 2-stage debridement protocol that includes the use of high-dose antibiotic beads between stages for the treatment of acute PJI. In 2 previous studies, with an average follow-up of 3.5 years in each study, we reported overall infection-control rates of 87% and 90% 2,3 . Description: Following exposure of the joint, cultures are obtained, and all modular components are removed, scrubbed, and soaked in an antiseptic solution. A thorough irrigation and debridement with complete synovectomy is performed, followed by temporary reinsertion of the original modular parts. High-dose antibiotic cement beads are inserted into the joint, and the joint is closed. Approximately 5 to 6 days later, a second debridement is performed, the beads are removed, and the new modular, sterile components are implanted. The patient is placed on a course of intravenous and, later, oral antibiotics, in addition to a standard postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Alternatives: Long-term suppressive antibiotic therapy. One-stage DAIR. One-stage exchange arthroplasty. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty. Resection arthroplasty. Amputation. Rationale: The treatment of acute PJI has historically consisted of a single irrigation and debridement, with exchange of modular parts and retention of the components, followed by intravenous antibiotic therapy. Despite having lower rates of patient morbidity compared with a 2-stage exchange arthroplasty, this more traditional procedure also has a higher rate of failure, with reported rates as high as 60% to 84% 4–12 . The utility of component retention continues to be a topic of debate 13 . Alternatives to component retention include both 1- and 2-stage exchange procedures. Although these modalities offer potentially higher rates of infection control, they are associated with substantial patient morbidity, particularly in patients with well-fixed implants 14–16 . Furthermore, exchange procedures may result in substantial iatrogenic bone loss, which can be problematic in revision total joint arthroplasty procedures, in which bone stock may already be limited. The double-DAIR protocol offers infection-control rates that are comparable with those of component-exchange procedures, but with the lower patient morbidity associated with component-retention procedures. Furthermore, the double-DAIR procedure provides the added benefit of retaining important bone stock. Expected Outcomes: The success rate for the double-DAIR procedure has been reproducible, with infection-control rates of 87% and 90% reported in 2 studies from a single cohort at our institution 2,3 . These rates represent a substantial improvement compared with a single irrigation and debridement 1 , and are on par with those reported for 2-stage exchange arthroplasty procedures 17–21 . The infection-control rates of the double-DAIR procedure did not significantly vary depending on whether infection occurred following a total knee or total hip arthroplasty. However, not surprisingly, patients who underwent debridement following a revision procedure had a lower rate of success (77.1% successful infection control) compared with patients debrided following a primary procedure (93.8% successful infection control). We could not demonstrate an association with organism and success or failure of treatment. Although not significant, there was a trend toward an association between the time from symptom onset to initial treatment and infection control (p = 0.07) 2 . Patients with successful infection control underwent the initial debridement an average of 6.2 days after symptom onset, compared with 10.7 days in patients in whom treatment had failed. Several other studies have demonstrated that successful infection control is associated with earlier initial irrigation and debridement 22–27 . We strongly support that, in the setting of confirmed acute PJI, prompt initiation of treatment optimizes the chances for successful infection control. Important Tips: Thorough debridement is key to successful infection control of infection. Antibiotic-loaded bone cement has repeatedly been demonstrated to be safe, and we recommend its use 28–31 . Extended oral antibiotics following debridement with component retention can increase infection-free survivorship 32 .

Introduction: Cementless fixation is the standard for acetabular fixation in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). There are various surface finishes thought to improve osteointegration, although literature regarding the long-term survival of some of these surfaces is limited. Regardless of design, primary stability is essential to allow for osteointegration. Previous studies have suggested an increased rate of radiolucency and compromised short-term functional outcomes using the Tritanium primary acetabular component (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ). The purpose of this study was to compare the primary Tritanium acetabular component to another contemporary acetabular component as a control group with an established clinical record. Methods: 444 consecutive, primary THAs performed by a single surgeon from 2008 to 2012 were reviewed. Patients were included if they had a minimum 1-year follow-up. Implant survivorship and modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHS) were recorded for all patients at final follow-up. Radiographs were evaluated by 2 surgeons at 6 weeks, 1 year, and the most recent follow-up for evidence of radiolucency and migration. Components were considered to have evidence of radiographic lucency if they had radiolucency in 2 or more DeLee zones. Results: 198 patients met criteria for inclusion (96 Pinnacle, 102 Tritanium). Average follow-up was 28 (12–72) months. At final follow-up 6.2% of the Pinnacle cups and 29.4% of the Tritanium cups had radiographic evidence of loosening ( p < 0.01). The average mHHS for the Tritanium group was 83.1, and 88.4 for the Pinnacle group ( p < 0.01). Radiographic evidence of loosening also correlated with a lower mHHS: 75.5 versus 86.4 ( p < 0.01). In patients that received Tritanium cups without screw fixation 44.6% showed radiographic evidence of loosening versus 8% that received screw fixation ( p < 0.01). In total, 6 patients in the Tritanium group required revision for aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. Conclusions: The 30% rate of radiographic loosening in the Tritanium group was significantly higher than the Pinnacle group and correlated with an inferior clinical outcome. Interestingly the use of screw augmentation was protective against radiographic evidence of loosening. This suggests that the Tritanium component may be prone to fibrous in-growth because of inadequate primary stability.

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and perioperative antibiotics are commonly administered to try to mitigate the chance of infection. Intraosseous regional administration (IORA) of prophylactic antibiotics during TKA is a method of antibiotic delivery that has been shown to achieve markedly higher tissue concentrations at much lower doses. Other advantages include ease of administration, ability to time the antibiotic delivery with the surgical start time for maximal effectiveness, and less systemic side effects. The concept is similar to a Bier block, except that IORA involves the use of antibiotics instead of local anesthetic to perfuse the limb and is given via intraosseous rather than intravenous access. Description: After standard patient preparation and draping, the tourniquet is inflated and an intraosseous needle is inserted into the proximal medial face of the tibia, just medial and slightly above the level of the tubercle. A large syringe containing the desired antibiotic (typically 500 mg vancomycin suspended in normal saline solution) is connected to the needle and the solution is administered over 1 to 2 minutes. The intraosseous needle can then be removed and the surgical procedure proceeds as it normally would per surgeon preference and technique. Alternatives: Systemic administration of intravenous antibiotics, vancomycin powder, and antibiotic-impregnated cement are alternative options that can be utilized during TKA. Rationale: IORA has several distinct advantages over other methods of antibiotic delivery, including the ability to (1) deliver antibiotic directly to the surgical bed and avoid systemic delivery, (2) precisely time and quickly administer antibiotics to achieve highest concentrations at the start of and throughout the surgical procedure, and (3) avoid several common and potentially serious side effects, especially those associated with antibiotics such as vancomycin. Expected Outcomes: This technique for antibiotic delivery achieves markedly higher tissue concentrations compared with systemic administration, without prolonged preoperative infusion times. Intraosseous delivery optimizes timing and reduces the risk of systemic side effects while simultaneously providing equal or enhanced antibiotic prophylaxis in TKA. This delivery mechanism is especially useful in patients who are at high risk for infection and in the revision TKA setting. Further, there is little to no additional risk and the use of this method does not substantially prolong operative time. Important Tips: The proximal aspect of the tibia is the optimal injection site because the cortex is thinner in this region, making needle insertion easier. Additionally, the metaphyseal bone allows faster flow rates for the infusion. We have found that insertions made slightly more proximally are easier and have faster flow rates. Of note, although the antibiotic is infused into the tibia, as seen in the attached technique video, intraosseous administration achieves rapid uptake into the vascular tree. Therefore, all tissues distal to the tourniquet, including the femur and patella, will receive this optimal dose as well. We prefer the use of a power driver (EZ-IO; Teleflex); however, manual needles (Cook Medical) can also be utilized. Longer needles are available if needed for obese patients. Flow rates are variable and the infusion typically takes 1 to 2 minutes to complete. If the flow rate is slow, twisting and withdrawing the needle slightly (2 to 4 mm) may increase the rate. This contrasts with the 1 to 2-hour intravenous infusion time required when vancomycin is administered systemically. In our experience, intraosseous injection is still successful in the case of a previous high tibial osteotomy, although the flow rate may be slower. In complex revision cases with compromised proximal tibial bone, the medial malleolus is an alternative site for intraosseous administration. Choice of antibiotic: as vancomycin is difficult to adequately administer intravenously, it is ideally suited for IORA. We have studied and utilized a 500-mg dose of vancomycin suspended in a solution of 140 mL of normal saline solution (prepared by our pharmacy). Of note, we have not found rapid infusion of intraosseous vancomycin to cause red-man syndrome as it would with rapid systemic infusion. This is because of the lower dose of 500 mg and the use of the tourniquet, which keeps the antibiotic in the local tissues about the knee without allowing systemic exposure. All patients, regardless of weight or the size of their limb, receive the dose of 500 mg of vancomycin. As cefazolin does not have the same difficulties with intravenous administration, we continue to use standard intravenous prophylaxis with an appropriate weight-based dose of cefazolin prior to incision. Indications for IORA of vancomycin include clinical scenarios in which vancomycin would be administered intravenously. These indications include revision TKA, obesity (body mass index >40 kg/m 2 ), diabetes, beta-lactam allergy, known colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) , patients coming from institutions with a high prevalence of MRSA , previous ligamentous surgical procedure or osteotomies, and current or recent smokers. IORA can be utilized even in the primary TKA setting if the patient is considered high-risk as defined by the criteria above. We also use IORA during reimplantation following 2-stage exchange for PJI and in patients undergoing irrigation and debridement for acute PJI when the organism has been identified preoperatively.

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of a whole food plant-based diet (WFPBD) to improve day of surgery fasting blood glucose (FBG) among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Patients and Methods. Ten patients with T2D scheduled for a total hip or total knee replacement were recruited. For 3 weeks preceding their surgeries, subjects were asked to consume an entirely WFPBD. Frozen WFPBD meals were professionally prepared and delivered to each participant for the 3 weeks prior to surgery. FBG was reassessed on the morning of surgery and compared with preintervention values. Compliance with the diet was assessed. Results. Mean age of subjects and reported duration of diabetes was 65 and 8 years, respectively, average hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) was 6.6%, and 6 were women. Mean FBG decreased from 127 to 116 mg/dL ( P = .2). Five of the subjects experienced improvement in glycemic control, with an average decline of 11 mg/dL. Conclusion. A WFPBD is a potentially effective intervention to improve glycemic control among patients with T2D during the period leading up to surgery. Future controlled trials on a larger sample of patients to assess the impact of a WFPBD on glycemic control and surgical outcomes are warranted.

AbstractTourniquet use in total knee arthroplasty has become a controversial topic. There are several benefits of its use including improved visualization, decreased blood loss, shorter operative times, and improved antibiotic delivery. Conversely, there are several significant downsides associated with tourniquet use including postoperative pain, neuromuscular injuries, wound complications, reperfusion injury, increased risk of thrombosis, patellar tracking issues, delayed rehabilitation including decreased postoperative range of motion, and its negative effect on patients with vascular disease. However, objectively, the literature does not definitively push us toward or away from the use of a tourniquet. Furthermore, several alternatives have been developed to help mitigate some of the adverse effects associated with its use. This article summarizes the evidence for and against tourniquet use and provides an evidence-based approach to help guide surgeons in their own practice.

Background: The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) attempts to define the patient’s experience of treatment outcomes. Efforts at calculating the MCID have yielded multiple and inconsistent MCID values. The purposes of this review were to describe the usage of the MCID in the most recent orthopaedic literature, to explain the limitations of its current uses, and to clarify the underpinnings of the MCID calculation, so as to help practitioners to understand and utilize the MCID and to guide future efforts to calculate the MCID. In Part I of this review, we sampled the orthopaedic literature in relation to the upper extremity. In this part, Part II, of the review, we will focus on the lower-extremity literature. Methods: A review was conducted of the 2014 to 2016 MCID-related publications in The Journal of Arthroplasty, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Foot & Ankle International, Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, and Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery. Only clinical science articles utilizing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were included in the analysis. A keyword search was then performed to identify articles that used the MCID. Articles were then further categorized into upper-extremity and lower-extremity publications. The MCID utilization in the selected articles was characterized and was recorded. Results: The MCID was referenced in 129 (7.5%) of 1,709 clinical science articles that utilized PROMs: 79 (61.2%) of the 129 articles were related to the lower extremity; of these, 11 (13.9%) independently calculated the MCID values and 68 (86.1%) used previously published MCID values as a gauge of their own results. The MCID values were calculated or were considered for 31 PROMs, of which 24 were specific to the lower extremity. Eleven different methods were used to calculate the MCID. The MCID had a wide range of values for the same questionnaires, for instance, 5.8 to 31.3 points for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Conclusions: There are more than twice as many PROMs for the lower extremity (24) than for the upper extremity (11), confirming that the determination of useful MCID values is, in part, hampered by the proliferation of PROMs in the field of orthopaedics. The difference between significance and clinical importance needs to be further clarified. For instance, the common use of determining sample size with the MCID and comparing group means with the MCID implies that a significant result will also be clinically important. Further, the study of the MCID would benefit from consensus agreement on relevant terminology and the appropriate usage of the MCID determining equations. Clinical Relevance: MCID is increasingly used as a measure of patients’ improvement. However, MCID does not yet adequately capture the clinical importance of patients’ improvement.

Background: The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) attempts to define the patient’s experience of treatment outcomes. Efforts at calculating the MCID have yielded multiple and inconsistent MCID values. The purposes of this review were to describe the usage of the MCID in the most recent orthopaedic literature, to explain the limitations of its current uses, and to clarify the underpinnings of MCID calculation. Subsequently, we hope that the information presented here will help practitioners to better understand the MCID and to serve as a guide for future efforts to calculate the MCID. The first part of this review focuses on the upper-extremity orthopaedic literature. Part II will focus on the lower-extremity orthopaedic literature. Methods: A review was conducted of the 2014 to 2016 publications in The Journal of Arthroplasty, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Foot & Ankle International, Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma, Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, and Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery . Only clinical science articles utilizing patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores were included in the analysis. A keyword search was then performed to identify articles that calculated or referenced the MCID. Articles were then further categorized into upper-extremity and lower-extremity publications. MCID utilization in the selected articles was subsequently characterized and recorded. Results: The MCID was referenced in 129 (7.5%) of 1,709 clinical science articles that utilized PROMs: 52 (40.3%) of 129 were related to the upper extremity, 5 (9.6%) of 52 independently calculated MCID values, and 47 (90.4%) of 52 used previously published MCID values as a gauge of their own results. MCID values were considered or calculated for 16 PROMs; 12 of these were specific to the upper extremity. Six different methods were used to calculate the MCID. Calculated MCIDs had a wide range of values for the same PROM (e.g., 8 to 36 points for Constant-Murley scores and 6.4 to 17 points for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] scores). Conclusions: Determining useful MCID values remains elusive and is compounded by the proliferation of PROMs in the field of orthopaedics. The fundamentals of MCID calculation methods should be critically evaluated. If necessary, these methods should be corrected or abandoned. Furthermore, the type of change intended to be measured should be clarified: beneficial, detrimental, or small or large changes. There should also be assurance that the calculation method actually measures the intended change. Finally, the measurement error should consistently be reported. Clinical Relevance: The MCID is increasingly used as a measure of patients’ improvement. However, the MCID does not yet adequately capture the clinical importance of patients’ improvement.