Petis, Stephen M.

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 efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have been well established. However, there have been limited data for revision TKAs. The primary aim was to assess the impact of intravenous TXA on transfusion rates and symptomatic venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) in a large revision TKA cohort with or without intravenous TXA utilization. Methods: A retrospective review of revision TKAs performed from 2005 to 2014 was performed, identifying 2,951 procedures (2,219 patients), in which TXA was utilized in 1,144 procedures (39%). The mean age was 65 years with 52% female patients in the TXA revision group and 67 years with 52% female patients in the non-TXA revision group. Transfusion rates and symptomatic VTEs were the primary outcomes assessed. Comparisons were performed between cohorts, utilizing a unique propensity model to mitigate bias, on the basis of TXA use and subsequently for aseptic or septic revision etiology. Results: Significant reductions in transfusion rates with use of TXA were identified in revision TKAs overall (13% compared with 39%; p < 0.001 [adjusted relative risk, 1.7]), including revisions for both aseptic etiology (6% with TXA compared with 28% without TXA; p < 0.001) and septic etiology (31% with TXA compared with 54% without TXA; p < 0.001). The risk of a postoperative symptomatic VTE was not significantly different (adjusted p = 0.63) with use of TXA at 11 events (1.0%) compared with 24 events (1.3%) in the non-TXA group). Conclusions: Intravenous TXA significantly reduced transfusion rates in revision TKAs by approximately twofold, including cohorts revised for aseptic and septic etiologies. There was a very low rate of VTEs (1.2%) with no significant difference in the number of VTEs between groups after adjusting risk utilizing propensity modeling. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: There is no consensus on managing severe patellar bone loss after total knee arthroplasty. We previously described an initial series involving a novel technique of patellar bone-grafting with a short follow-up. The purpose of this study was to determine long-term survivorship and the radiographic and clinical results of patellar bone-grafting during revision total knee arthroplasty in a larger series with an extended follow-up. Methods: We identified 90 patients from a single institution who underwent 93 patellar bone-grafting procedures for severe patellar bone loss from 1997 to 2014. The mean age of the patients was 70 years, and 46% of patients were female. Forty-five knees (48%) underwent first-time revisions, and 19 knees (20%) had undergone a failed attempt at patellar resurfacings. Intraoperative patellar caliper thickness increased from a mean of 7 to 25 mm after patellar bone-grafting (p < 0.01). Radiographic review determined changes in patellar height, tracking, and remodeling. Knee Society scores (KSSs) were calculated. The mean follow-up was 8 years (range, 2 to 18 years). Kaplan-Meier methods determined survivorship free of any revision and any reoperation. Cox proportional hazards analysis determined predictive factors for failure. Results: Survivorship free of patellar revision was 96% at 10 years. Survivorship free of any revision was 84% at 10 years. Survivorship free of any reoperation was 78% at 10 years. Increasing patient age was the only protective factor against further patellar revision (hazard ratio, 0.95; p < 0.01). When comparing initial radiographs with final radiographs, patellar height decreased from 22 to 19 mm (p < 0.01), 80% compared with 59% of patellae articulated centrally in the trochlea (p = 0.01), and 32% compared with 77% had remodeling over the lateral femoral condyle (p < 0.01). Anterior knee pain decreased from 51% to 27% postoperatively (p = 0.01). The mean knee flexion improved from 101° to 108° (p = 0.03). The mean KSS improved from 50 to 85 points (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Reliable long-term clinical results can be expected with patellar bone-grafting for severe patellar bone loss during revision total knee arthroplasty. Pain, range of motion, and other reported outcomes improve despite radiographic changes to patellar height, tracking, and remodeling. This technique is a durable and reliable option when standard patellar resurfacing is not possible. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Polyethylene (PE) liner and femoral head exchange is commonly used to treat periprosthetic osteolysis associated with PE wear after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of our study was to determine long-term implant survivorship, risk factors for mechanical failure, clinical outcomes, and complications following PE liner and head exchange. Methods: We identified 116 hips in 110 patients treated with PE liner and head exchange from 1993 to 2004. There were 64 women (58%) in the series, the mean age at revision surgery was 58 years, and the mean follow-up was 11 years (range, 2 to 23 years). Radiographic review determined the location and size of osteolytic defects before the revision surgery. Implant survivorship was determined using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Cox regression analysis was used to determine factors that were predictive of failure. Results: Implant survivorship free of repeat revision for any cause was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 86% to 96%) at 5 years, 81% (95% CI = 74% to 90%) at 10 years, and 69% (95% CI = 55% to 84%) at 15 years. Reasons for repeat revision included aseptic acetabular loosening in 5 hips (4%) and subsequent wear of conventional PE with osteolysis in 5 hips (4%). No patient who underwent revision with highly cross-linked PE subsequently had a repeat revision due to wear. The absolute risk of acetabular component loosening was 23% for patients with osteolysis in 3 zones, 40% for those with osteolysis involving more than half the cup circumference, and 21% for those with osteolytic defects of >600 mm 2 . The mean Harris hip score improved from 77 before the PE liner and head exchange to 87 after it (p < 0.001). The most common complication was dislocation, which occurred in 19 hips (16%). Conclusions: PE liner and head exchange provides acceptable long-term implant survivorship with good clinical outcomes. Complications are not uncommon, and steps should be taken to mitigate hip instability. Acetabular revision may be considered when in situ components have a poor track record or are malpositioned, or when preoperative radiographs demonstrate large osteolytic defects threatening cup fixation. Use of highly cross-linked PE at revision was protective against subsequent PE wear and osteolysis, although this did not reach significance. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: For patients undergoing 2-stage exchange for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty, the long-term risk of reinfection and mechanical failure and long-term clinical outcomes are not well known. The purpose of our study was to determine the long-term clinical results of 2-stage exchange for PJI following total knee arthroplasty. Methods: We identified 245 knees that had undergone total knee arthroplasty and were subsequently treated with 2-stage exchange due to infection during the period of 1991 to 2006; the cohort had no prior treatment for PJI. Major, or 4 of 6 minor, Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) diagnostic criteria were fulfilled by 179 (73%) of the knees. The cumulative incidence of reinfection and of aseptic revision, accounting for the competing risk of death, were calculated. Risk factors for reinfection were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Knee Society Score (KSS) values were calculated. The mean age at spacer insertion was 68 years; 50% of the patients were female. The mean follow-up was 14 years (range, 2 to 25 years) following reimplantation. Results: The cumulative incidence of reinfection was 4% at 1 year, 14% at 5 years, 16% at 10 years, and 17% at 15 years. Factors that were predictive of reinfection included a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 3.1; p < 0.01), previous revision surgery (HR, 2.8; p < 0.01), and a McPherson host grade of C (HR, 2.5; p = 0.04). The cumulative incidence of aseptic revision for loosening was 2% at 5 years, 5% at 10 years, and 7% at 15 years. Femoral (HR, 5.0; p = 0.04) and tibial (HR, 6.7; p < 0.01) bone-grafting at reimplantation were predictive of aseptic failure. The most common complications were wound-healing issues, requiring reoperation in 12 (5%) of the knees. The rate of death at 2 years following reimplantation was 11%. The mean KSS improved from 45 at PJI diagnosis to 76 at 10 years following reimplantation (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Long-term reinfection rates following 2-stage exchange for PJI after total knee arthroplasty were similar to those of shorter-term reports and were maintained out to 15 years. Mechanical failure rates were low if bone loss was addressed at the time of reimplantation. Improvements in clinical outcomes were maintained at long-term follow-up. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Limited data exist that show the long-term risks of reinfection and mechanical failure with a contemporary 2-stage exchange protocol for periprosthetic joint infection following total hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term reinfection and mechanical failure rates of 2-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty. Methods: We identified 164 hips (162 patients) with infection after total hip arthroplasty between 1991 and 2006 treated with a 2-stage exchange protocol with no prior treatment for periprosthetic joint infection. With regard to Musculoskeletal Infection Society diagnostic criteria, at least 1 major criterion or 4 of 6 minor criteria were fulfilled in 129 hips (79%). The cumulative incidence with a competing risk of death was calculated for reinfection, aseptic revisions, and all-cause revisions. The risk factors for reinfection were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Harris hip scores were calculated. The mean age at the time of spacer insertion was 68 years, and 35% of the patients were female. Excluding the patients with <2 years of follow-up, the mean follow-up was 12 years (range, 2 to 21 years). Results: The cumulative incidence of recurrence of infection was 10% at 1 year, 14% at 5 years, and 15% at 10 and 15 years. Seventeen patients (11%) used chronic antibiotic suppression (>6 months), with 7 (41%) of these having recurrent infection at the time of the latest follow-up. Use of chronic antibiotic suppression was the only predictive factor for reinfection (hazard ratio, 4.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.9 to 10.9]; p = 0.001). The cumulative incidence of aseptic femoral and acetabular revisions was 2.6% at 5 years and 3.3% at 10 and 15 years. The cumulative incidence of all-cause revisions was 15% at 5 years and 16% at 10 and 15 years. Dislocation was the most common complication, with 28 dislocations occurring in 20 patients (12%). The mean Harris hip score improved from 52 points prior to spacer insertion to 70 points at 15 years after reimplantation (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The rate of recurrence of infection of 15% for up to 15 years after total hip arthroplasty was similar to previous shorter-term reports of 2-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection. Surgeons should anticipate mitigating instability after reimplantation. Implant survivorship free of aseptic loosening and clinical outcomes were preserved for the long term. The role of chronic antibiotic suppression in the long-term treatment of periprosthetic joint infection requires further investigation. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Case: An 85-year-old man with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) through a direct anterior approach. Postoperatively, persistent blood loss and worsening abdominal and back pain prompted computed tomography, which identified an L1 hyperextension fracture-dislocation. The patient underwent staged posterior and anterior instrumented fusion. At the 5-year follow-up, he had persistent dorsal column dysfunction. Conclusion: Fracture-dislocation of the ankylosed spine is a rare complication following THA. We recommend lateral decubitus positioning, pelvic and back support, careful limb manipulation, and an in situ femoral neck osteotomy to avoid excessive loads on the stiff spine during THA.