Bingham, Joshua S.

Background: Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are living longer and, consequently, more of them require elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) to restore mobility and improve quality of life. Because these patients are chronically immunosuppressed and often burdened by multiple comorbidities, their peri-operative risk profile may differ substantially from that of the general THA population. This study aimed to evaluate risk factors associated with acute medical and surgical complications, implant survivorship, and overall mortality in patients with a history of SOT who underwent THA. Methods: A total of 173 THA procedures were reviewed in patients with previous SOT. Among them, 64 had undergone liver transplantation (LT), 83 had received renal transplants (RT), and 26 had experienced more than one type of organ transplant (MT). Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was employed to estimate median survival. Complications were examined using univariate analysis through mixed-effects logistic regression, while Cox regression was utilized to assess mortality risk. The median follow-up period extended to 99 months. Results: The proportion of patients experiencing at least one acute medical event was 27% in the LT group, 33% in the RT group, and 38% in the MT group, with no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.5). American Society of Anesthesiologists Class (ASA) 4 (Odds Ratio (OR) = 28; p = 0.006) and treatment with bisphosphonates (OR = 2.25; p = 0.03) were associated with higher risk of acute medical complications. Increased age at the time of SOT was linked to a reduced likelihood of surgical complications (OR = 0.94, p = 0.008), as was older age at the time of undergoing THA (OR = 0.92, p = 0.001). The observed rates of reoperation and implant revision were 3% and 1%, respectively. The estimated patient survivorship rates at 1, 5, and 10 years were 98.6, 82, and 58.4%, respectively. Older age at SOT (Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.06, p < 0.001), at THA (HR = 1.08, p < 0.001), ASA 4 at THA (HR = 7.57, p = 0.02), and atrial fibrillation (AFib) (HR = 3.13, p = 0.02) were associated with higher mortality. Conclusions: ASA 4 and bisphosphonates were associated with a higher risk of acute medical complications, whereas older age was associated with lower surgical complications. Additionally, older age, ASA 4, and AFib were associated with higher mortality.

Background: Although it is well established that the type of organism can be a risk factor for failure in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), no study to date has examined the impact of the number of positive cultures on treatment outcomes in patients undergoing 2-stage exchange. The purpose of this multicenter study was to determine the prognostic utility of multiple positive cultures at resection as a predictor of failure following reimplantation. Methods: This retrospective multicenter study identified 437 patients with chronic knee PJI who had undergone 2-stage exchange arthroplasty with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up following reimplantation. PJI was defined with use of the 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Patients with culture-negative PJI were excluded (n = 138). Treatment failure was defined as either any reoperation for infection or PJI-related mortality. Multivariable regression controlling for risk factors for failure after a 2-stage arthroplasty was performed to determine whether ≥2 positive intraoperative cultures at resection can predict outcomes following reimplantation when compared with a single positive culture. Results: Two hundred and ninety-nine patients were included. At a mean follow-up of 6.2 ± 2.6 years, 48 patients (16.1%) experienced failure. Patients who had a failure were more likely to have had a longer interstage interval (p = 0.038) and were also more likely to have had ≥2 positive cultures at the time of resection arthroplasty (95.8% versus 75.3%; p = 0.001). On regression analysis, ≥2 positive cultures at resection was the only variable that was identified as a risk factor for failure following reimplantation in both the univariate (odds ratio [OR], 7.55 [95% CI, 2.24 to 47.0]; p = 0.006) and multivariable models (OR, 8.12 [95% CI, 2.31 to 51.9]; p = 0.005). Conclusions: This is the first study to examine the impact of the number of positive cultures on outcomes in patients with PJI. We found that the presence of ≥2 positive cultures at resection was an indicator of a poor prognosis and resulted in a greater than eightfold increase in the risk of treatment failure in patients undergoing a 2-stage exchange. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: The direct anterior approach (DAA) is a popular approach for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, the contemporary outcomes for DAA THA need further elucidation. Therefore, we aimed to describe implant survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes after DAA THA. Methods: From our multi-institutional total joint registry, 3,184 patients who had undergone 3,698 primary DAA THA between 2010 and 2019 were identified. The identified patients had a mean age of 65 years and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 29 kg/m 2 , and 53% of patients were female. The indications for revision and reoperation and the incidence of complications were collected and analyzed. Potential risk factors, including age, sex, BMI, and high-volume compared with low-volume operating surgeons, were examined. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier survivorship with Cox regression analyses were performed. Results: At 10 years following primary DAA THA, the cohort had 96% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95% to 98%) survivorship free of any revision and 94% (95% CI, 92% to 96%) survivorship free of any reoperation. The leading indications for revision were periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 24; 5-year cumulative incidence, 0.93% [95% CI, 0.6% to 1.5%]), periprosthetic fracture (n = 20; 5-year cumulative incidence, 0.62% [95% CI, 0.4% to 1.0%]), and aseptic loosening (n = 14; 11 femoral, 3 acetabular; 5-year cumulative incidence, 0.84% [95% CI, 0.5% to 1.5%]). A BMI of ≥40 kg/m 2 was found to be significantly associated with PJI (hazard ratio [HR], 6.4; p < 0.001), reoperation (HR, 3.5; p < 0.001), and nonoperative complications (HR, 2.3; p = 0.018). Survivorship free of recurrent instability was 99.6% (95% CI, 99.4% to 99.8%) at 5 and 10 years, and the cumulative incidence of revision for instability was 0.14% at 5 years. Conclusions: In one of the largest published series to date, survivorship following DAA THA was satisfactory at early to intermediate follow-up. The leading indications for revision were PJI, periprosthetic fracture, and aseptic loosening. Instability after DAA THA was uncommon and infrequently led to revision. As a note of caution, a BMI of ≥40 kg/m 2 was identified as a risk factor for adverse outcome after DAA THA. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Abstract Introduction: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasingly used in less severe cases of hip osteoarthritis (OA).This paper aimed to determine 1) The prevalence of different degrees of OA before THA, 2) The association of pre-operative OA severity with the severity of baseline symptoms and 3) The association of pre-operative OA severity with outcomes post-THA. Methods: A retrospective study of a prospective database of all THAs at two tertiary academic centers between 2020 and 2021 was conducted. There were 803 patients in the database, with 109 being excluded due to incomplete data. There were 694 patients included, and the mean age and body mass index were 64.50±12.80 years and 28.45±5.90 kg/m2, respectively. Most patients were women (n=361; 52.0%). Radiographic analysis was performed to assess the degree of hip OA with the Tönnis grade (0 – 3; no OA – complete degradation). Patients had pre-operative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of hip function via the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and their overall well-being via the EQ-5D-5L, with follow-up and post-operative PROMs 12 months after surgery. Data analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM, Armonk, NY). Results: There were no differences in pre-operative OHS between Tönnis groups (18±6.26, n=14 in Tönnis 1, 21.19±8.27, n=260 in Tönnis 2 and 18.18±7.09, n=420 in Tönnis 3, p=0.14) After one year, the increase in OHS was 18.03±11.95, 18.32±10.96, and 24.32±9.98, respectively for Tönnis 1,2, and 3 (p<0.001). Thus, the percentage meeting the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) was 57.1%, 60.8% and 72.6%. One year EQ-5D-5L was also highest in Tönnis 3 (47.5 ± 4.03, 79.6 ± 13.25 and 82.12 ± 11.67, p<0.001). Conclusion: The highest-grade OA before THA was correlated with the greatest improvements in hip function and quality of life. This study demonstrates that a conservative approach and re-education should be attempted in patients who have an absence of advanced radiographic OA.

Background: Value is defined as the ratio of patient outcomes to the cost of care. One method to assess value is through patient-level value analysis (PLVA). To our knowledge, this tool has not previously been implemented in the setting of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purposes of this study were to perform PLVA for a 1-year episode of care among patients undergoing primary THA and to identify characteristics that affect value in a metropolitan health-care system. Methods: The patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure database of the institution was queried for all primary THAs from 2018 to 2019. The PRO measure that was utilized was the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR). Cost was evaluated with use of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for a 1-year episode of care (consisting of the day of surgery, inpatient stay, discharge facility, postoperative appointments, and physical therapy). The primary outcome was the 1-year value quotient, or the ratio of the 1-year change in HOOS-JR to the cost of the episode of care (V HOOS ). The value quotient was compared among all included patients and evaluated for variables that may affect the overall value of the episode of care. Results: In total, 480 patients were included in the analysis. The mean improvement in the HOOS-JR was +34.9 ± 16.1 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 33.5, 36.3). The mean cost was $13,835 ± $3,471 (95% CI: $13,524, $14,146). The largest contributor to cost was implants (39.0%), followed by post-recovery care (i.e., inpatient stay and specialized nursing facilities; 24.1%). Change in the HOOS-JR was poorly correlated with the cost of care (r = −0.06; p = 0.19). THAs performed at an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) with discharge to home demonstrated higher value (V HOOS = 0.42) than THAs performed at a hospital with discharge to a rehabilitation facility (V HOOS = 0.15; analysis of variance F-test, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Our study found that PROs did not correlate with costs in the setting of primary THA. Implants were the largest cost driver. Surgical setting (an ASC versus a hospital) and discharge destination influenced value as well. PLVA is a value measurement tool that can be utilized to optimize components of the care delivery pathway. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Abstract ➤ The COVID-19 pandemic created a persistent surgical backlog in elective orthopedic surgeries. ➤ Artificial intelligence (AI) uses computer algorithms to solve problems and has potential as a powerful tool in health care. ➤ AI can help improve current and future orthopedic backlogs through enhancing surgical schedules, optimizing preoperative planning, and predicting postsurgical outcomes. ➤ AI may help manage existing waitlists and increase efficiency in orthopedic workflows.

OBJECTIVES: This study seeks to evaluate the variability of Medicaid reimbursement and compare it with Medicare reimbursement using the 20 most commonly billed orthopaedic trauma Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes nationwide. The authors anticipate significant variability between states and hypothesize that Medicaid payment will be significantly less than Medicare payment. METHODS: The top 20 most common orthopaedic trauma surgery procedural codes were identified from a previous analysis performed by Haglin et al. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule was used to determine reimbursement rates from Medicare, and state Medicaid fee schedules were used to determine reimbursement rates for Medicaid. State Medicaid rates were compared with their corresponding Medicare rates to determine a dollar difference. In addition, the dollar difference for each CPT code was divided by its respective physician relative value unit. This was used to acknowledge the possible variability in the complexity of orthopaedic procedures and the related physician effort. The Medicare Wage Index was used to adjust Medicaid rates based on the cost of living for the state as well. Coefficients of variation were calculated to represent overall variability in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates. RESULTS: The mean reimbursement rates for Medicaid were lower for all 20 procedures compared with Medicare. On average, Medicaid reimbursed 16.0% less than Medicare and 29.6% less when adjusting for cost of living. MCD reimbursed at a higher rate than MCR for all procedures in only 9 states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota) while 38 states reimbursed at a lower rate than MCR, on average. The coefficient of variation ranged from 0.24 to 0.34 for the Medicaid unadjusted group and from 0.35 to 0.46 for the Medicare Wage Index–adjusted group. By contrast, the Medicare group was consistent at 0.06 for all 20 procedures. The average dollar difference across the 20 CPT codes for Medicaid reimbursement compared with Medicare reimbursement ranged from −$76.89 to −$225.17, and the dollar difference per relative value unit ranged from −$5.96 to −$15.16. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a high amount of variation between state Medicaid reimbursement rates and average rates that were significantly lower than Medicare reimbursement rates for the top 20 most used orthopaedic trauma CPT codes as identified by Haglin et al. The discrepancy in reimbursement was increased when Medicaid rates were adjusted for state cost of living. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

ABSTRACT Introduction: Medical conferences are an integral aspect of medical education as they allow attendees to stay up to date with recent advancements in medicine, to develop presentation and communication skills, and to network and establish connections with professionals in their field of interest. But, when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was declared in March 2020, face-to-face medical conferences were suspended, and conference organizers began shifting their meetings to virtual platforms. These new virtual conferences afforded medical residents and fellows the unique opportunity to attend conferences from the comfort of their own home or workplace; however, the virtual meeting platforms did not provide attendees with the same networking experiences as in-person conferences. Since the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency, medical conferences are now faced with the question of whether they should remain virtual, shift back to in-person meetings, or develop a hybrid model of both options. Thus, the purpose of this study was to analyze medical resident and fellow sentiments and preferences by comparing virtual and in-person conference formats. Methods: A voluntary electronic survey was distributed to medical residents and fellows across the United States through their program coordinators and directors. Results: The main findings of this study suggest that medical residents and fellows largely prefer in-person conferences (85%) as compared to a virtual format because of the networking opportunities afforded to them along with the development of camaraderie with their peers. The findings in this study suggest that the largest benefit in attending a virtual conference is the flexibility to attend from any location (79% important or very important), which offered convenience, flexibility, and comfort to participants (n = 100). Conclusion: These results support our hypothesis that despite the convenience and portability afforded by attending conferences virtually, medical residents and fellows still ultimately prefer to attend conferences in person. Overall, the findings in this study are of relevance to conference organizers in understanding the driving forces behind attendance and should be considered in determining meeting format.

Background: While previously used in other specialties, the preference signaling program (PSP) was implemented in the 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic surgery residency application process for the first time. The PSP allowed for 30 signaling tokens to be sent by applicants to programs of their choice to indicate particular interest in a program. It remains unknown how the PSP affects applicants and programs in the orthopaedic surgery residency match. Thus, this study's purpose was to assess the utility of preference signaling within the orthopaedic surgery residency application process in its inaugural year of use. Methods: An anonymous electronic survey was emailed to all orthopaedic surgery residency applicants who applied to the authors' institution during the 2022 to 2023 application cycle. The survey was sent after match lists were submitted and closed before the release of match results. The survey collected information regarding applicant demographics, preference signaling habits, and attitude toward preference signaling. Results: The survey was completed by 101 applicants. Applicants applied to a mean of 90 programs (range: 10-197) and received an average of 12 interview invitations (range: 0-39). Applicants almost uniformly used all 30 signals, with nearly two-thirds signaling their home programs (65%, 49/76), and nearly all applicants sending signals to programs at which they performed away rotations (95.7%, 88/92). Applicants received a mean of 9 invitations from programs they signaled, compared with 2 invitations from programs they did not signal. Applicants were significantly more likely to receive an interview invite at a program they signaled than one they did not (p < 0.01). Overall, 57% of applicants (57/101) found the PSP to be helpful, whereas 28% (28/101) found it to be unhelpful, and 16% (16/101) had a neutral opinion. Conclusions: This study reports that the PSP in the 2022 to 2023 orthopaedic surgery match was an effective method of expressing interest in a program because applicants were significantly more likely to receive interview invites to signaled programs. More than half of respondents felt PSP to be helpful; however, the effect on application numbers is still unclear. Level of Evidence: III

Abstract Background Pharmacogenomics is an emerging and affordable tool that may improve postoperative pain control. One challenge to successful pain control is the large interindividual variability among analgesics in their efficacy and adverse drug events. Whether preoperative pharmacogenomic testing is worthwhile for patients undergoing TKA is unclear. Questions/purposes (1) Are the results of preoperative pharmacogenetic testing associated with lower postoperative pain scores as measured by the Overall Benefit of Analgesic Score (OBAS)? (2) Do the results of preoperative pharmacogenomic testing lead to less total opioids given? (3) Do the results of preoperative pharmacogenomic testing lead to changes in opioid prescribing patterns? Methods Participants of this randomized trial were enrolled from September 2018 through December 2021 if they were aged 18 to 80 years and were undergoing primary TKA under general anesthesia. Patients were excluded if they had chronic kidney disease, a history of chronic pain or narcotic use before surgery, or if they were undergoing robotic surgery. Preoperatively, patients completed pharmacogenomic testing (RightMed, OneOME) and a questionnaire and were randomly assigned to the experimental group or control group. Of 99 patients screened, 23 were excluded, one before randomization; 11 allocated patients in each group did not receive their allocated interventions for reasons such as surgery canceled, patients ultimately undergoing spinal anesthesia, and change in surgery plan. Another four patients in each group were excluded from the analysis because they were missing an OBAS report. This left 30 patients for analysis in the control group and 38 patients in the experimental group. The control and experimental groups were similar in age, gender, and race. Pharmacogenomic test results for patients in the experimental group were reviewed before surgery by a pharmacist, who recommended perioperative medications to the clinical team. A pharmacist also assessed for clinically relevant drug-gene interactions and recommended drug and dose selection according to guidelines from the Clinical Pharmacogenomics Implementation Consortium for each patient enrolled in the study. Patients were unaware of their pharmacogenomic results. Pharmacogenomic test results for patients in the control group were not reviewed before surgery; instead, standard perioperative medications were administered in adherence to our institutional care pathways. The OBAS (maximum 28 points) was the primary outcome measure, recorded 24 hours postoperatively. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the mean OBAS between groups. Secondary measures were the mean 24-hour pain score, total morphine milligram equivalent, and frequency of opioid use. Postoperatively, patients were assessed for pain with a VAS (range 0 to 10). Opioid use was recorded preoperatively, intraoperatively, in the postanesthesia care unit, and 24 hours after discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Changes in perioperative opioid use based on pharmacogenomic testing were recorded, as were changes in prescription patterns for postoperative pain control. Preoperative characteristics were also compared between patients with and without various phenotypes ascertained from pharmacogenomic test results. Results The mean OBAS did not differ between groups (mean ± SD 4.7 ± 3.7 in the control group versus 4.2 ± 2.8 in the experimental group, mean difference 0.5 [95% CI -1.1 to 2.1]; p = 0.55). Total opioids given did not differ between groups or at any single perioperative timepoint (preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative). We found no difference in opioid prescribing pattern. After adjusting for multiple comparisons, no difference was observed between the treatment and control groups in tramadol use (41% versus 71%, proportion difference 0.29 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.53]; nominal p = 0.02; adjusted p > 0.99). Conclusion Routine use of pharmacogenomic testing for patients undergoing TKA did not lead to better pain control or decreased opioid consumption. Future studies might focus on at-risk populations, such as patients with chronic pain or those undergoing complex, painful surgical procedures, to test whether pharmacogenomic results might be beneficial in certain circumstances. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.