Abdel, Matthew P.

Objective This collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons developed an evidence‐based guideline for the perioperative management of antirheumatic drug therapy for adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA) including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) undergoing elective total hip (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods A panel of rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons specializing in hip and knee arthroplasty, and methodologists was convened to construct the key clinical questions to be answered in the guideline. A multi‐step systematic literature review was then conducted, from which evidence was synthesized for continuing versus withholding antirheumatic drug therapy and for optimal glucocorticoid management in the perioperative period. A Patient Panel was convened to determine patient values and preferences, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using a group consensus process through a convened Voting Panel of rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons. The strength of the recommendation reflects the degree of certainty that benefits outweigh harms of the intervention, or vice versa, considering the quality of available evidence and the variability in patient values and preferences. Results The guideline addresses the perioperative use of antirheumatic drug therapy including traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in adults with RA, SpA, JIA, or SLE who are undergoing elective THA or TKA. It provides recommendations regarding when to continue, when to withhold, and when to restart these medications, and the optimal perioperative dosing of glucocorticoids. The guideline includes 7 recommendations, all of which are conditional and based on low‐ or moderate‐quality evidence. Conclusion This guideline should help decision‐making by clinicians and patients regarding perioperative antirheumatic medication management at the time of elective THA or TKA. These conditional recommendations reflect the paucity of high‐quality direct randomized controlled trial data.

ObjectiveThis collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons developed an evidence‐based guideline for the perioperative management of antirheumatic drug therapy for adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA) including ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) undergoing elective total hip (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsA panel of rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons specializing in hip and knee arthroplasty, and methodologists was convened to construct the key clinical questions to be answered in the guideline. A multi‐step systematic literature review was then conducted, from which evidence was synthesized for continuing versus withholding antirheumatic drug therapy and for optimal glucocorticoid management in the perioperative period. A Patient Panel was convened to determine patient values and preferences, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using a group consensus process through a convened Voting Panel of rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons. The strength of the recommendation reflects the degree of certainty that benefits outweigh harms of the intervention, or vice versa, considering the quality of available evidence and the variability in patient values and preferences.ResultsThe guideline addresses the perioperative use of antirheumatic drug therapy including traditional disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in adults with RA, SpA, JIA, or SLE who are undergoing elective THA or TKA. It provides recommendations regarding when to continue, when to withhold, and when to restart these medications, and the optimal perioperative dosing of glucocorticoids. The guideline includes 7 recommendations, all of which are conditional and based on low‐ or moderate‐quality evidence.ConclusionThis guideline should help decision‐making by clinicians and patients regarding perioperative antirheumatic medication management at the time of elective THA or TKA. These conditional recommendations reflect the paucity of high‐quality direct randomized controlled trial data.

Background: Modular fluted tapered stems have become the most commonly employed category of femoral component in revision hip arthroplasty in North America as a result of favorable early results and simplicity of use. Despite wide adoption, the majority of published data are limited to relatively small series with modest follow-up. The goal of the current study was to determine the success rate and factors associated with success, failure, and complications of the use of modular fluted tapered stems in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in a large patient cohort. Methods: We identified 519 aseptic femoral revisions during which a modular fluted tapered stem was utilized. Clinical outcomes, Kaplan-Meier survivorship, radiographic outcomes, and complications were assessed. The mean age at revision arthroplasty was 70 years, the mean body mass index (BMI) was 29 kg/m 2 , and the mean duration of follow-up was 4.5 years (range, 2 to 14 years). Results: The mean Harris hip score (HHS) improved significantly from 51 points preoperatively to 76 points at 2 years (p < 0.001). This improvement was maintained at the last follow-up evaluation (mean HHS = 75 points). At the time of the most recent follow-up, 16 femoral revisions had been performed: 6 because of aseptic loosening, 4 because of infection, 3 because of instability, 2 because of periprosthetic fracture, and 1 because of stem fracture. The 10-year survivorship was 96% with revision for any reason as the end point and 90% with any reoperation as the end point. Of the patients who were alive and had not undergone revision at the time of final follow-up, 12 had stem subsidence but all but 1 of these stems had stabilized after subsiding. Postoperative complications were noted in 12% of the cases. Repeat revision due to femoral component loosening was not correlated with the preoperative bone-loss category or patient demographic factors. Conclusions: In this large series, femoral revision with a modular fluted tapered stem provided a high rate of osseointegration and sustained improvement in clinical scores at the time of the last follow-up. There was also a high rate of successful implant fixation across all categories of preoperative bone loss and an acceptable rate of complications. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aims The number of revision total knee arthroplasties (TKA) that are performed is expected to increase. However, previous reports of the causes of failure after TKA are limited in that they report the causes at specific institutions, which are often dependent on referral patterns. Our aim was to report the most common indications for re-operations and revisions in a large series of posterior-stabilised TKAs undertaken at a single institution, excluding referrals from elsewhere, which may bias the causes of failure. Patients and Methods A total of 5098 TKAs which were undertaken between 2000 and 2012 were included in the study. Re-operations, revisions with modular component exchange, and revisions with non-modular component replacement or removal were identified from the medical records. The mean follow-up was five years (two to 12). Results The Kaplan-Meier ten-year survival without a re-operation, modular component revision and non-modular component revision was 95.7%, 99.3% and 95.3%, respectively. The most common indications for a re-operation were: post-operative stiffness (58%), delayed wound healing (21%), and patellar clunk (11%). The indications for isolated modular component revision were acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (64%) and instability (36%). The most common indications for non-modular component revision were chronic PJI (52%), aseptic loosening (17%), periprosthetic fracture (10%), and instability (10%). Conclusion Post-operative stiffness remains the most common indication for re-operation after TKA. Infection is the most common indication for modular and non-modular component revision. Aseptic loosening was not an uncommon cause of failure, however, it was much less common than in national registry and non-registry data. Focusing on posterior-stabilised TKAs initially performed at our institution allowed for an accurate assessment of the causes of failure in a contemporary specialty practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:647–52.

ABSTRACT Whole-genome amplification (WGA) is a useful tool for amplification of very small quantities of DNA for many uses, including metagenomic shotgun sequencing for infection diagnosis. Depending on the application, background DNA from WGA kits can be problematic. Three WGA kits were tested for their utility in a metagenomics approach to identify the pathogens in sonicate fluid comprised of biofilms and other materials dislodged from the surfaces of explanted prosthetic joints using sonication. The Illustra V2 Genomiphi, Illustra single cell Genomiphi, and Qiagen REPLI-g single cell kits were used to test identical sonicate fluid samples. Variations in the number of background reads, the genera identified in the background, and the number of reads from known pathogens known to be present in the samples were observed between kits. These results were then compared to those obtained with a library preparation without prior WGA using an NEBNext Ultra II paired-end kit, which requires a very small amount of input DNA. This approach also resulted in the presence of contaminant bacterial DNA and yielded fewer reads from the known pathogens. These findings highlight the impact that WGA kit selection can have on metagenomic analysis of low-biomass samples and the importance of the careful selection and consideration of the implications of using these tools.

Objectives Sustained intra-articular delivery of pharmacological agents is an attractive modality but requires use of a safe carrier that would not induce cartilage damage or fibrosis. Collagen scaffolds are widely available and could be used intra-articularly, but no investigation has looked at the safety of collagen scaffolds within synovial joints. The aim of this study was to determine the safety of collagen scaffold implantation in a validated in vivo animal model of knee arthrofibrosis. Materials and Methods A total of 96 rabbits were randomly and equally assigned to four different groups: arthrotomy alone; arthrotomy and collagen scaffold placement; contracture surgery; and contracture surgery and collagen scaffold placement. Animals were killed in equal numbers at 72 hours, two weeks, eight weeks, and 24 weeks. Joint contracture was measured, and cartilage and synovial samples underwent histological analysis. Results Animals that underwent arthrotomy had equivalent joint contractures regardless of scaffold implantation (-13.9° versus -10.9°, equivalence limit 15°). Animals that underwent surgery to induce contracture did not demonstrate equivalent joint contractures with (41.8°) or without (53.9°) collagen scaffold implantation. Chondral damage occurred in similar rates with (11 of 48) and without (nine of 48) scaffold implantation. No significant difference in synovitis was noted between groups. Absorption of the collagen scaffold occurred within eight weeks in all animals Conclusion Our data suggest that intra-articular implantation of a collagen sponge does not induce synovitis or cartilage damage. Implantation in a native joint does not seem to induce contracture. Implantation of the collagen sponge in a rabbit knee model of contracture may decrease the severity of the contracture. Cite this article: J. A. Walker, T. J. Ewald, E. Lewallen, A. Van Wijnen, A. D. Hanssen, B. F. Morrey, M. E. Morrey, M. P. Abdel, J. Sanchez-Sotelo. Intra-articular implantation of collagen scaffold carriers is safe in both native and arthrofibrotic rabbit knee joints. Bone Joint Res 2016;6:162–171. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.63.BJR-2016-0193.

AimsLoss or absence of proximal femoral bone in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains a significant challenge. While the main indication for the use of proximal femoral replacements (PFRs) is in the treatment of malignant disease, they have a valuable role in revision THA for loosening, fracture and infection in patients with bone loss. Our aim was to determine the clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, and complications of PFRs used in revision THA for indications other than malignancy.Patients and MethodsA retrospective review of 44 patients who underwent revision THA using a PFR between 2000 and 2013 was undertaken. Their mean age was 79 years (53 to 97); 31 (70%) were women. The bone loss was classified as Paprosky IIIB or IV in all patients. The mean follow-up was six years (2 to 12), at which time 22 patients had died and five were lost to follow-up.ResultsThe mean Harris Hip Score improved from 42.8 (25.9 to 82.9) pre-operatively to 68.5 (21.0 to 87.7) post-operatively (p = 0.0009). A total of two PFRs had been revised, one for periprosthetic infection eight years post-operatively and one for aseptic loosening six years post-operatively. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of any revision or removal of an implant was 86% at five years and 66% years at ten years. A total of 12 patients (27%) had a complication including six with a dislocation.ConclusionPFRs provide a useful salvage option for patients, particularly the elderly with massive proximal femoral bone loss who require revision THA, with significant clinical improvement. While the survivorship of the implant is good at five years, dislocation continues to be the most common complication. The judicious use of larger femoral heads, dual-mobility constructs, or constrained liners may help to minimise the risk of dislocation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:325–9.

Abstract Background Multimodal analgesia is standard practice for total knee arthroplasty; however, the role of regional techniques in improved perioperative outcomes remains unknown. The authors hypothesized that peripheral nerve blockade would result in lower pain scores and opioid consumption than two competing periarticular injection solutions. Methods This three-arm, nonblinded trial randomized 165 adults undergoing unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty to receive (1) femoral catheter plus sciatic nerve blocks, (2) ropivacaine-based periarticular injection, or (3) liposomal bupivacaine-based periarticular injection. Primary outcome was maximal pain during postoperative day 1 (0 to 10, numerical pain rating scale) in intention-to-treat analysis. Additional outcomes included pain scores and opioid consumption for postoperative days 0 to 2 and 3 months. Results One hundred fifty-seven study patients received peripheral nerve block (n = 50), ropivacaine (n = 55), or liposomal bupivacaine (n = 52) and reported median maximal pain scores on postoperative day 1 of 3, 4, and 4.5 and on postoperative day 0 of 1, 4, and 5, respectively (average pain scores for postoperative day 0: 0.6, 1.7, and 2.4 and postoperative day 1: 2.5, 3.5, and 3.7). Postoperative day 1 median maximal pain scores were significantly lower for peripheral nerve blockade compared to liposomal bupivacaine-based periarticular injection ( P = 0.016; Hodges–Lehmann median difference [95% CI] = −1 [−2 to 0]). After postanesthesia care unit discharge, postoperative day 0 median maximal and average pain scores were significantly lower for peripheral nerve block compared to both periarticular injections (ropivacaine: maximal −2 [−3 to −1]; P < 0.001; average −0.8 [−1.3 to −0.2]; P = 0.003; and liposomal bupivacaine: maximal −3 [−4 to −2]; P < 0.001; average −1.4 [−2.0 to −0.8]; P < 0.001). Conclusions Ropivacaine-based periarticular injections provide pain control comparable on postoperative days 1 and 2 to a femoral catheter and single-injection sciatic nerve block. This study did not demonstrate an advantage of liposomal bupivacaine over ropivacaine in periarticular injections for total knee arthroplasty.