Taunton, Michael J

Background: The optimal strategy to address osseous deficiencies of the patella during revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. One possible solution is a cemented biconvex patellar component used such that the non-articular convexity both improves fixation and makes up for bone loss. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of the use of biconvex patellar components in a large series of revision TKAs. Methods: From 1996 to 2014, 262 revision TKAs were performed at a single institution using a biconvex patellar component. Implant survivorship, clinical and radiographic results, and complications were assessed. The mean patient age at the TKA revision was 69 years, and 53% of the patients were female. The mean follow-up was 7 years. Results: The 10-year survivorship free of revision of the biconvex patellar component due to aseptic loosening was 96%. The 10-year survivorship free of any revision of the biconvex patellar component was 87%. The 10-year survivorship free of any rerevision and free of any reoperation was 75% and 70%, respectively. The mean Knee Society Score (KSS) improved from 45.4 before the index revision to 67.7 after it. The mean residual composite thickness seen on the most recent radiographs was 18.1 mm. In addition to the complications leading to revision, the most common complications were periprosthetic patellar fracture (6%), of which 3 required revision; superficial wound infection (6%) requiring antibiotic therapy only or irrigation and debridement; and arthrofibrosis (3%). Conclusions: In this cohort of 262 revision TKAs, biconvex patellar components used to treat marked patellar bone loss demonstrated excellent durability with a 10-year survivorship free of patellar rerevision due to aseptic loosening of 96%. The biconvex patellar components were reliable as evidenced by substantial improvements in clinical outcomes scores and a low risk of complications. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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: Spinal anesthesia provides several benefits for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but historically comes at the cost of slow and unpredictable return of lower-extremity motor function related to the use of long-acting local anesthetics. In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial we sought to determine if an alternative local anesthetic, mepivacaine, would allow more consistent return of motor function compared with low-dose bupivacaine spinal anesthesia during primary THA and TKA. Methods: This trial was conducted at a single academic institution. Prior to trial initiation an internal pilot study determined that 154 patients were required to achieve 80% power. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion with use of advanced computerized stratification based on procedure, age group, sex, and body mass index. Following the surgical procedure, motor function was assessed every 15 minutes in the nonoperative lower extremity according to the Bromage scale and discontinued once Bromage 0 was achieved (spontaneous movement at hip, knee, and ankle). Results: Return of lower-extremity function was more predictable in patients who received mepivacaine than in those who received low-dose bupivacaine. Among patients who received mepivacaine, 1% achieved motor function return beyond 5 hours compared with 11% of patients who received bupivacaine (p = 0.013). The mean time to return of lower-extremity motor function was 26 minutes quicker in patients who received mepivacaine (185 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 174 to 196 minutes) compared with low-dose bupivacaine (210 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 193 to 228 minutes) (p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in safety outcomes including pain scores, time to participation in physical therapy, incidence of orthostatic hypotension, urinary retention, or transient neurologic symptoms in patients receiving mepivacaine compared with low-dose bupivacaine. Conclusions: In patients undergoing primary THA and TKA, spinal anesthesia with mepivacaine allowed more consistent return of lower-extremity motor function compared with low-dose bupivacaine, without a concomitant increase in complications potentially associated with spinal anesthetics. This is particularly of value in an era of short-stay and outpatient surgical procedures. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

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: Povidone-iodine (PI) irrigation is often used prior to wound closure in total joint arthroplasty, but there are limited reports evaluating its efficacy in decreasing joint infections. The goal of this study was to compare the rate of any reoperation for infection (both superficial and deep) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) among patients who did and did not receive PI irrigation prior to wound closure. Methods: Using our institution’s total joint registry, we identified 5,534 primary THA and 6,204 primary TKA procedures performed from 2013 to 2017. Cases were grouped on the basis of whether or not the wound was irrigated with 1 L of 0.25% PI prior to closure. PI irrigation was used in 1,322 (24%) of the THA cases and in 2,410 (39%) of the TKA cases. The rates of reoperation for infection at 3 months and 1 year were compared between the 2 groups. The same comparisons were then performed using propensity scores to account for differences in baseline characteristics. Results: The rate of reoperation for infection as assessed at 3 months following THA was similar between those who received dilute PI irrigation (0.9%) and who did not (0.7%) (p = 0.7). At 1 year, the rate of reoperation for infection was similar between those who received dilute PI irrigation (0.7%) and those who did not (0.9%) (p = 0.6). After using the propensity score, there was no difference between the groups in the risk of septic reoperations. For TKA, the rate of reoperation as assessed at 3 months was similar between those who received dilute PI irrigation (0.8%) and those who did not (0.3%) (p = 0.06). At 1 year, there was a greater rate of reoperations for infection among those who received dilute PI irrigation (1.2%) compared with those who did not (0.6%) (p = 0.03). However, there was no difference in the risk of septic reoperations between the groups after using the propensity score. Conclusions: Despite enthusiasm for and progressive adoption of the use of dilute PI irrigation at our institution, there was not a significant reduction in the risk of reoperation for infection as assessed at 3 months and 1 year following primary THA and TKA. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aims Concurrent hip and spine pathologies can alter the biomechanics of spinopelvic mobility in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study examines how differences in pelvic orientation of patients with spine fusions can increase the risk of dislocation risk after THA. Patients and Methods We identified 84 patients (97 THAs) between 1998 and 2015 who had undergone spinal fusion prior to primary THA. Patients were stratified into three groups depending on the length of lumbar fusion and whether or not the sacrum was involved. Mean age was 71 years (40 to 87) and 54 patients (56%) were female. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 30 kg/m2 (19 to 45). Mean follow-up was six years (2 to 17). Patients were 1:2 matched to patients with primary THAs without spine fusion. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated. Results Dislocation in the fusion group was 5.2% at one year versus 1.7% in controls but this did not reach statistical significance (HR 1.9; p = 0.33). Compared with controls, there was no significant difference in rate of dislocation in patients without a sacral fusion. When the sacrum was involved, the rate of dislocation was significantly higher than in controls (HR 4.5; p = 0.03), with a trend to more dislocations in longer lumbosacral fusions. Patient demographics and surgical characteristics of THA (i.e. surgical approach and femoral head diameter) did not significantly impact risk of dislocation (p > 0.05). Significant radiological differences were measured in mean anterior pelvic tilt between the one-level lumbar fusion group (22°), the multiple-level fusion group (27°), and the sacral fusion group (32°; p < 0.01). Ten-year survival was 93% in the fusion group and 95% in controls (HR 1.2; p = 0.8). Conclusion Lumbosacral spinal fusions prior to THA increase the risk of dislocation within the first six months. Fusions involving the sacrum with multiple levels of lumbar involvement notably increased the risk of postoperative dislocation compared with a control group and other lumbar fusions. Surgeons should take care with component positioning and may consider higher stability implants in this high-risk cohort.

Update This article was updated on February 6, 2019, because of a previous error. On page 105, in the subsection titled “Outcomes and Design” the sentence that had read “Furthermore, in a retrospective review, Houdek et al. 48 , at a mean follow-up of 8 years, demonstrated improved survivorship of 9,999 metal-backed compared with 1,645 all-polyethylene tibial components, over all age groups and most BMI categories” now reads “Furthermore, in a retrospective review, Houdek et al. 48 , at a mean follow-up of 8 years, demonstrated inferior survivorship of 9,999 metal-backed compared with 1,645 all-polyethylene tibial components, over all age groups and most BMI categories.” An erratum has been published: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Mar 20;101(6):e26.