Hanssen, Arlen D.

Background and Objectives: Patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery experience significant postoperative pain. Failure to provide adequate analgesia may impede early physical therapy and rehabilitation, which are important factors for maintaining joint range of motion and facilitating hospital dismissal. We examined the effect of a pre-emptive, multimodal, perioperative analgesic regimen emphasizing peripheral nerve block in patients undergoing total hip (THA) and total knee (TKA) arthroplasty. Perioperative outcomes and major postoperative complications were evaluated. Methods: One hundred consecutive patients undergoing primary or revision THA or TKA using the Mayo Clinic Total Joint Regional Anesthesia (TJRA) protocol were retrospectively reviewed. The TJRA protocol is a pre-emptive, multimodal, perioperative analgesic regimen emphasizing peripheral nerve block that was jointly developed by the Departments of Anesthesiology and Orthopedic Surgery. Identified patients were matched 1:1 with historical controls undergoing identical surgical procedures with traditional anesthetic techniques. Matching criteria included patient age, gender, surgeon, date of surgery, and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status. Patient demographics, preoperative joint range of motion, and anesthetic management were recorded for each patient. The primary study outcome was hospital length of stay. Secondary outcome variables included time to ambulation, joint range of motion, and discharge eligibility. Postoperative verbal analog pain scores (VAS), opioid requirements, side effects, and perioperative complications were also documented. Results: One hundred patients underwent THA or TKA using the newly implemented Mayo Clinic TJRA protocol. Matched controls (n = 100) received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with subsequent conversion to oral analgesics for postoperative pain management. TJRA patients had significantly shorter hospital lengths of stay (3.8 days v 5.0 days; P < .001), achieved discharge eligibility significantly sooner (1.7 ± 1.9 days earlier; P < .0001), and had improved joint range of motion (90° v 85°; P = .008) when compared with matched controls. TJRA patients had significantly improved postoperative analgesia, including lower VAS pain scores (postoperative day 0 through postoperative day 3; P < .001), and lower opioid requirements (postoperative day 0 to postoperative day 2; P = .04). Adverse outcomes such as postoperative urinary retention (50% v 31%; P < .001), and ileus formation (7% v 1%; P = .01) occurred more frequently among control patients. Conclusions: Patients undergoing THA or TKA using a comprehensive, pre-emptive, multimodal analgesic regimen emphasizing peripheral nerve block may have significantly improved perioperative outcomes, and fewer adverse events, when compared with patients receiving traditional intravenous opioids during the initial postoperative period. Improved perioperative outcomes include a shortened hospital length of stay, and a significant reduction in postoperative urinary retention and ileus formation.

Marlex mesh reconstruction of the extensor mechanism following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has demonstrated excellent early results. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate longer-term results of Marlex mesh reconstruction of the extensor mechanism in 93 TKAs. Seventy-seven reconstructions were aseptic, and 16 were performed as part of a 2-stage exchange for the treatment of infection. Mean follow-up was 8 years. Twenty-eighty patients experienced mesh failure. Seventeen failures were treated with mesh revision (8 for patellar tendon rupture, 7 for quadriceps tendon rupture, and 2 for symptomatic lengthening). The 10-year cumulative incidence of mesh revision for mesh failure was 20%. Extensor lag improved by a mean of 28°, with a mean extensor lag of 9° at most recent follow-up. At a mean follow-up of 8 years, Marlex mesh reconstruction was a durable and reliable technique to treat both aseptic and septic ruptures of the extensor mechanism. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aims We have previously reported the mid-term outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for flexion instability. At a mean of four years, there were no re-revisions for instability. The aim of this study was to report the implant survivorship and clinical and radiological outcomes of the same cohort of of patients at a mean follow-up of ten years. Methods The original publication included 60 revision TKAs in 60 patients which were undertaken between 2000 and 2010. The mean age of the patients at the time of revision TKA was 65 years, and 33 (55%) were female. Since that time, 21 patients died, leaving 39 patients (65%) available for analysis. The cumulative incidence of any re-revision with death as a competing risk was calculated. Knee Society Scores (KSSs) were also recorded, and updated radiographs were reviewed. Results The cumulative incidence of any re-revision was 13% at a mean of ten years. At the most recent-follow-up, eight TKAs had been re-revised: three for recurrent flexion instability (two fully revised to varus-valgus constrained implants (VVCs), and one posterior-stabilized (PS) implant converted to VVC, one for global instability (PS to VVC), two for aseptic loosening of the femoral component, and two for periprosthetic joint infection). The ten-year cumulative incidence of any re-revision for instability was 7%. The median KSS improved significantly from 45 (interquartile range (IQR) 40 to 50) preoperatively to 70 (IQR 45 to 80) at a mean follow-up of ten years (p = 0.031). Radiologically, two patients, who had not undergone revision, had evidence of loosening (one tibial and one patellar). The remaining components were well fixed. Conclusion We found fair functional outcomes and implant survivorship at a mean of ten years after revision TKA for flexion instability with a PS implant. Recurrent instability and aseptic loosening were the most common indications for re-revision. Components with increased constraint, such as a VVC or hinged, should be used in these patients in order to reduce the risk of recurrent instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1126–1131.

Aims Septic arthritis of the hip often leads to irreversible osteoarthritis (OA) and the requirement for total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to report the mid-term risk of any infection, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), aseptic revision, and reoperation in patients with a past history of septic arthritis who underwent THA, compared with a control group of patients who underwent THA for OA. Methods We retrospectively identified 256 THAs in 244 patients following septic arthritis of the native hip, which were undertaken between 1969 and 2016 at a single institution. Each case was matched 1:1, based on age, sex, BMI, and year of surgery, to a primary THA performed for OA. The mean age and BMI were 58 years (35 to 84) and 31 kg/m2 (18 to 48), respectively, and 100 (39%) were female. The mean follow-up was 11 years (2 to 39). Results The ten-year survival free of any infection was 91% and 99% in the septic arthritis and OA groups, respectively (hazard ratio (HR) = 13; p < 0.001). The survival free of PJI at ten years was 93% and 99% in the septic arthritis and OA groups, respectively (HR = 10; p = 0.002). There was a significantly higher rate of any infection at ten years when THA was undertaken within five years of the diagnosis of septic arthritis compared with those in whom THA was undertaken > five years after this diagnosis was made (14% vs 5%, respectively; HR = 3.1; p = 0.009), but there was no significant difference in ten-year survival free of aseptic revision (HR = 1.14; p = 0.485). The mean Harris Hip Scores at two and five years postoperatively were significantly lower in the septic arthritis group compared with the OA group (p = 0.001 for both). Conclusion There was a ten-fold increased risk of PJI in patients with a history of septic arthritis who underwent THA compared with those who underwent THA for OA with a ten-year cumulative incidence of 7%. The risk of any infection had a strong downward trend as the time interval between the diagnosis of septic arthritis and THA increased, highlighted by a 3.1-fold higher risk when THAs were performed within five years of the diagnosis being made. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):227–234.

Aims Varus-valgus constrained (VVC) devices are typically used in revision settings, often with stems to mitigate the risk of aseptic loosening. However, in at least one system, the VVC insert is compatible with the primary posterior-stabilized (PS) femoral component, which may be an option in complex primary situations. We sought to determine the implant survivorship, radiological and clinical outcomes, and complications when this VVC insert was coupled with a PS femur without stems in complex primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). Methods Through our institution’s total joint registry, we identified 113 primary TKAs (103 patients) performed between 2007 and 2017 in which a VVC insert was coupled with a standard cemented PS femur without stems. Mean age was 68 years (SD 10), mean BMI was 32 kg/m2 (SD 7), and 59 patients (50%) were male. Mean follow-up was four years (2 to 10). Results The five-year survivorship free from aseptic loosening was 100%. The five-year survivorship free from any revision was 99%, with the only revision performed for infection. The five-year survivorship free from reoperation was 93%. The most common reoperation was treatment for infection (n = 4; 4%), followed by manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA; n = 2; 2%). Survivorship free from any complication at five years was 90%, with superficial wound infection as the most frequent (n = 4; 4%). At most recent follow-up, two TKAs had non-progressive radiolucent lines about both the tibial and femoral components. Knee Society Scores improved from 53 preoperatively to 88 at latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Conclusion For complex primary TKA in occasional situations, coupling a VVC insert with a standard PS femur without stems proved reliable and durable at five years. Longer-term follow-up is required before recommending this technique more broadly. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):921–925.

Background: Septic arthritis of the native knee often results in irreversible joint damage leading to the need for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The purpose of the present study was to examine the intermediate-term risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), aseptic revision, and reoperation following primary TKA in patients with a history of septic arthritis of the native knee as compared with primary TKA performed for the treatment of osteoarthritis. Methods: We retrospectively identified 215 primary TKAs performed from 1971 to 2016 at a single institution in patients with a history of septic arthritis of the native knee. Each case was matched 1:1 based on age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and surgical year to a TKA for osteoarthritis. The mean age and BMI were 63 years and 30 kg/m 2 , respectively. The mean duration of follow-up was 9 years. Results: Survivorships free of PJI at 10 years were 90% and 99% for the septic arthritis and osteoarthritis groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 6.1; p < 0.01). Ten-year survivorships free of any aseptic revisions were 83% and 93% (HR = 2.5; p < 0.01), and survivorships free of any reoperation were 61% and 84% (HR = 2.9; p < 0.01) for the septic arthritis and osteoarthritis groups, respectively. In addition, as time from the diagnosis of native knee septic arthritis to TKA increased, the relative risk of subsequent infection decreased. Preoperative and 2-year postoperative Knee Society scores were similar between the groups (p = 0.16 and p = 0.19, respectively). Conclusions: There was a 6.1-fold increased risk of PJI in patients undergoing TKA with a history of native knee septic arthritis when compared with controls undergoing TKA for the treatment of osteoarthritis, with a cumulative incidence of 9% at 10 years. Subgroup analysis of the septic arthritis cohort revealed a higher risk of any infection in patients who underwent TKA within the first 5 to 7 years after the diagnosis of septic arthritis as compared with those with a greater duration. Moreover, the 10-year rates of survival free of aseptic revision, any revision, and any reoperation were significantly worse in the native knee septic arthritis cohort. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

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: 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: The cementation of a new liner into a well-fixed acetabular component is common during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for many indications, but most commonly for lack of a modern, compatible, highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) liner. However, little is known about the intermediate-term to long-term durability of this strategy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implant survivorship, risk of complications, clinical outcomes, and radiographic results of cementing a new HXLPE liner into a well-fixed acetabular component. Methods: We retrospectively identified 323 revision THAs in which a nonconstrained HXLPE liner was cemented into a well-fixed acetabular component. The mean age at the time of the revision THA was 63 years, and 50% of patients were female. The most common indications for revision THA were polyethylene wear and osteolysis (48%), aseptic femoral loosening (35%), and hip instability (8%). The mean follow-up was 9 years. Results: Polyethylene liner failure occurred in 11 cases (3%). In all cases, the cemented liner dissociated from the acetabular component. At 10 years, the survivorship free from any revision was 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75% to 84%) and the survivorship free from any reoperation was 77% (95% CI, 72% to 82%). The most common reason for re-revision was dislocation (45% of reoperations). A dislocation occurred in 17% of cases. Hips that underwent revision for instability were significantly more likely to dislocate compared with hips that underwent revision for liner wear (hazard ratio [HR], 2.3 [95% CI, 1.2 to 4.5]; p = 0.02). Elevated rim or face-changing liners were significantly more likely to dissociate than flat liners (HR, 9.0 [95% CI, 1.2 to 70.6]; p = 0.04). Conclusions: Cementation of a nonconstrained HXLPE liner into a well-fixed acetabular component during revision THA provided durable fixation with only a small number of failures at the cement interface (3%). Instability after this procedure remains a concern, but this is multifactorial in nature. These data support the continued use of this technique, when necessary, during revision THA. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.