Bingham, Joshua S.

Aims Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) is theoretically more accurate for component positioning than TKA performed with mechanical instruments (M-TKA). Furthermore, the ability to incorporate soft-tissue laxity data into the plan prior to bone resection should reduce variability between the planned polyethylene thickness and the final implanted polyethylene. The purpose of this study was to compare accuracy to plan for component positioning and precision, as demonstrated by deviation from plan for polyethylene insert thickness in measured-resection RA-TKA versus M-TKA. Methods A total of 220 consecutive primary TKAs between May 2016 and November 2018, performed by a single surgeon, were reviewed. Planned coronal plane component alignment and overall limb alignment were all 0° to the mechanical axis; tibial posterior slope was 2°; and polyethylene thickness was 9 mm. For RA-TKA, individual component position was adjusted to assist gap-balancing but planned coronal plane alignment for the femoral and tibial components and overall limb alignment remained 0 ± 3°; planned tibial posterior slope was 1.5°. Mean deviations from plan for each parameter were compared between groups for positioning and size and outliers were assessed. Results In all, 103 M-TKAs and 96 RA-TKAs were included. In RA-TKA versus M-TKA, respectively: mean femoral positioning (0.9° (SD 1.2°) vs 1.7° (SD 1.1°)), mean tibial positioning (0.3° (SD 0.9°) vs 1.3° (SD 1.0°)), mean posterior tibial slope (-0.3° (SD 1.3°) vs 1.7° (SD 1.1°)), and mean mechanical axis limb alignment (1.0° (SD 1.7°) vs 2.7° (SD 1.9°)) all deviated significantly less from the plan (all p < 0.001); significantly fewer knees required a distal femoral recut (10 (10%) vs 22 (22%), p = 0.033); and deviation from planned polyethylene thickness was significantly less (1.4 mm (SD 1.6) vs 2.7 mm (SD 2.2), p < 0.001). Conclusion RA-TKA is significantly more accurate and precise in planning both component positioning and final polyethylene insert thickness. Future studies should investigate whether this increased accuracy and precision has an impact on clinical outcomes. The greater accuracy and reproducibility of RA-TKA may be important as precise new goals for component positioning are developed and can be further individualized to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):74–80.

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.

Purpose To determine the 50 most frequently cited studies in the orthopaedic shoulder arthroscopy literature and to conduct a bibliometric analysis of these studies. Methods The Clarivate Analytics Web of Knowledge database was used to gather data and metrics using Boolean queries to capture all possible iterations of shoulder arthroscopy research. The search list was sorted so that articles were organized in descending order based on the number of citations and included or excluded based on relevance to shoulder arthroscopy. The information extracted for each article included author name, publication year, country of origin, journal name, article type, and the level of evidence. Results For these 50 studies, the total number of citations was calculated to be 13,910, with an average of 278.2 citations per paper. The most‐cited article was cited 1134 times, whereas the second‐ and third‐most cited articles were cited 920 and 745 times, respectively. All 50 articles were published in English and came from 7 different orthopaedic journals. The United States was responsible for most of the included articles (31), followed by France (9) and Japan (3). Conclusions The majority of the most‐cited articles in shoulder arthroscopy are case series and descriptive studies originating from the United States. In addition, more than one half of the top 50 most‐cited studies were published after 2004, which suggests that article age may be less important in the accumulation of citations for a rapidly growing field like shoulder arthroscopy. Clinical Relevance The top 50 most‐cited studies list will provide researchers, medical students, residents, and fellows with a foundational list of the most important and influential academic contributions to shoulder arthroscopy.

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 To analyze and objectively measure the trends in inflation‐adjusted Medicare reimbursement rates for the 20 most commonly performed orthopaedic arthroscopic surgical procedures from 2000 to 2019. Methods The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website was used to find the top 20 most commonly performed arthroscopic procedures using the Public Use File data file for calendar year 2017. By use of the Physician Fee Schedule Look‐Up Tool, national reimbursement averages were calculated from 2000‐2019 and data were analyzed. Averages were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. Current Procedural Terminology codes that did not exist in 2000 were unable to be analyzed in this study. Results When adjusted for inflation, Medicare reimbursement for the 20 most commonly performed arthroscopic procedures from 2000‐2019 has decreased substantially (–29.81%). The mean Medicare reimbursement to physicians was $906 in 2000 and $632 in 2019. During this same period, the annual change in the adjusted mean reimbursement rate for all included arthroscopic procedures was –1.8% whereas the average compound annual growth rate was –1.9%. Conclusions This study shows that when adjusted for inflation, Medicare reimbursement to physicians has decreased by nearly 30% during the past 20 years for the most common arthroscopic procedures. Clinical Relevance This analysis will give orthopaedic surgeons and hospital administrators a better understanding of the financial trends surrounding one of the fastest‐growing techniques in surgery. Additionally, these financial‐trend data will be increasingly important as the population in the United States continues to age and new payment models are introduced.

Abstract A variety of options exist for management of patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). Most studies to date have focused on clinical outcomes; however, there are currently no data on comparative cost of these techniques. The purpose of this study was to evaluate in-hospital costs between patients managed with periacetabular osteotomy, hip arthroscopy or a combination for DDH. One hundred and nine patients were included: 35 PAO + HA, 32 PAO and 42 HA. There were no significant differences in the demographic parameters. Operative times were significantly different between groups with a mean of 52 min for PAO, 100 min for HA and 155 min for PAO + HA, (P &lt; 0.001). Total direct medical costs were calculated and adjusted to nationally representative unit costs in 2017 inflation-adjusted dollars. Total in-hospital costs were significantly different between each of the three treatment groups. PAO + HA was the most expensive with a median of $21 852, followed by PAO with a median of $15 124, followed by HA with a median of $11 582 (P &lt; 0.001). There was a significant difference between outpatient median costs of $11 385 compared with $24 320 for inpatients (P &lt; 0.001). Procedures with greater complexity were more expensive. However, a change from outpatient to inpatient status with HA moved that group from the least expensive to similar to PAO and PAO + HA. These data provide an important complement to clinical outcomes reports as surgeons and policymakers aim to provide optimal value.

AbstractThe periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is an extensive surgical procedure associated with potential risk to the adjacent neurovascular structures. A steep learning curve exists, with surgeon experience an important factor in outcome. Little detail exists of the osteotomies themselves, and how to make them safe and reproducible. This article describes our PAO technique with emphasis on specific safety steps. When performing the posterior column cut, migration of the osteotome beyond the lateral pelvis may lead to damage of the sciatic nerve. The safety features detailed include novel measurement of the posterior column width and the use of specific-width osteotomes to complete this osteotomy. To plan the cut, several computerized tomography-based measurements are taken starting just above the greater sciatic notch and continuing down to the inferior part of the acetabulum. The angle of this cut is determined by acetabular morphology and the width of the posterior column. These posterior column width measurements will determine the width of the osteotomes used to perform the cut with little risk that an osteotome will penetrate too far on the lateral side of the pelvis. To ensure the lateral cortex has been cut completely proximally, an osteotome with pre-measured depths may be used from a medial to a direct lateral trajectory. The senior author has been performing this modified approach since 2010 (n = 530 PAOs) and has witnessed no vascular injuries and no nerve injuries aside from minor lateral femoral cutaneous nerve issues. Utilization of these techniques has prevented any major nerve injury without the need for intraoperative electromyography.

Background: Total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) with cementless fixation have been studied in multiple series with varying success. The aim of this study was to prepare a systematic review of the literature to evaluate clinical outcomes and revtpdelision rates of patients undergoing contemporary cementless TKA. Methods: A search of PubMed and MEDLINE was conducted for English-language articles published between 2005 and 2018 to identify studies examining survivorship and clinical outcomes of cementless TKAs. Studies that reported clinical and/or radiographic outcomes were included. Data collected included the number of TKAs, implant utilized, primary diagnosis, mean age and follow-up, implant survivorship, complications, revisions, and clinical outcome scores. All hybrid constructs and revision TKAs were excluded. Poisson regression analysis was used to determine the revision incidence rates per 1,000 person-years. Results: Forty-three studies with 10,447 TKAs met inclusion criteria, of which 8,187 were primary cementless TKAs. The mean follow-up was 7 years. The revision incidence per 1,000 person-years was 4.8 for all cementless designs. The complication rate for all cementless TKAs was 6%, with deep venous thrombosis being the most common complication. The mean postoperative Knee Society Score and Functional Score were 92 and 83, respectively. Conclusions: While newer-generation cementless designs have shown improved survivorship and clinical outcomes compared with earlier-generation cementless designs, the literature for cementless designs remains limited when compared with cemented designs. Further studies are needed to determine if cementless TKA can achieve the same benefits that have been realized with cementless total hip arthroplasty. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Objectives: In the field of orthopaedics, it has been evident that Medicare reimbursement rates have been relatively stagnant. Although, objective measures of how these financial trends have changed over the past couple of decades has been limited. If orthopaedic practitioners and hospital administrators wish to make progress and advance the degree of satisfactory reimbursement they can expect, a more thorough understanding of these trends is warranted. In this study, the field of orthopaedic shoulder, elbow, and upper arm surgery is being analyzed specifically. The objective of this analysis was to assess the monetary trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for the 10 most commonly utilized shoulder surgical procedures and the 10 most commonly utilized elbow and upper arm surgical procedures from 2000 to 2019. Methods: For this analysis, the current procedural terminology (CPT) code ranges that corresponded to “Surgical Procedures of the Shoulder” and “Surgical Procedures of the Humerus (Upper Arm) and Elbow” were determined. The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Suppliers PUF CY 2017 document was then utilized to objectively determine the 10 most common CPT codes fororthopaedic shoulder surgical procedures and orthopaedic elbow and upper arm surgical procedures. The reimbursement data for each of these procedures was then compiled from The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. All monetary data points were adjusted for inflation to 2019 US dollars utilizing changes to the United States consumer price index. The average annual and the total percentage change in reimbursement were based on the adjusted trends for the 10 included shoulder procedures and the 10 included elbow and upper arm procedures. Results: After adjustment for inflation, the average reimbursement for the top 10 orthopaedic shoulder surgery procedures decreased by 25.8% from 2000 to 2019. The greatest mean decrease was observed in the “Repair of ruptured musculotendinous cuff (e.g. rotator cuff) open; chronic (23412)” CPT code (-40.1%). No adjusted reimbursement rates were noted to be positive throughout the study period for surgical shoulder procedures. The procedure with the smallest mean decrease was the “Closed treatment of proximal humeral (surgical or anatomical neck) fracture; without manipulation (23600)” CPT code (-5.4%). From 2000 to 2019, the adjusted reimbursement rate for all included shoulder procedures decreased by an average of 1.6% per year. For the top 10 orthopaedic elbow and upper arm surgical procedures, the average reimbursement decreased by 19.5% from 2000 to 2019. The greatest mean decrease was observed in the “Osteoplasty,humerus (e.g., shortening or lengthening) (24420)” CPT code (-32.1%). The procedure with the only positive mean difference was “Closed treatment of humeral shaft fracture; without manipulation (24500)” CPT code (0.34%). From 2000 to 2019, the adjusted reimbursement rate for all included elbow and upper arm procedures decreased by an average of 1.2% per year. Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the orthopaedic shoulder and elbow subspecialtyand its trends in Medicare reimbursement rates. When monetary data is corrected for inflation, Medicare reimbursement rates have shown a steady decline from 2000 to 2019. The 10 most common procedures of or relating to the shoulder have decreased by an average of 25.8% while the 10 most common procedures of or relating to the elbow or upper arm have decreased by an average of 19.5%. Additionally, only one procedure showed a positive increase in reimbursement rate (Closed treatment of humeral shaft fracture; without manipulation (24500)). If access to high quality and sustainable surgicalorthopaedic care is to persist in the United States, increased awareness of these trends is important for stakeholders to take note of.