Citations

Aims To describe the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and reoperation in patients who have an acute, traumatic wound dehiscence following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods From January 2002 to December 2018, 16,134 primary TKAs were performed at a single institution. A total of 26 patients (0.1%) had a traumatic wound dehiscence within the first 30 days. Mean age was 68 years (44 to 87), 38% (n = 10) were female, and mean BMI was 34 kg/m2 (23 to 48). Median time to dehiscence was 13 days (interquartile range (IQR) 4 to 15). The dehiscence resulted from a fall in 22 patients and sudden flexion after staple removal in four. The arthrotomy was also disrupted in 58% (n = 15), including a complete extensor mechanism disruption in four knees. An irrigation and debridement with component retention (IDCR) was performed within 48 hours in 19 of 26 knees and two-thirds were discharged on antibiotic therapy. The mean follow-up was six years (2 to 15). The association of wound dehiscence and the risk of developing a PJI was analyzed. Results Patients who sustained a traumatic wound dehiscence had a 6.5-fold increase in the risk of PJI (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6 to 26.2; p = 0.008). With the small number of PJIs, no variables were found to be significant risk factors. However, there were no PJIs in any of the patients who were treated with IDCR and a course of antibiotics. Three knees required reoperation including one two-stage exchange for PJI, one repeat IDCR for PJI, and one revision for aseptic loosening of the tibial component. Conclusion Despite having a traumatic wound dehiscence, the risk of PJI was low, but much higher than experienced in all other TKAs during the same period. We recommend urgent IDCR and a course of postoperative antibiotics to decrease the risk of PJI. A traumatic wound dehiscence increases risk of PJI by 6.5-fold. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):191–195.

Background: Most North American surgeons predominantly use uncemented stems in primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and reserve cemented stems for selected older patients and those with poor bone quality. However, data on this “selective use” strategy for cemented stems in the population at risk for periprosthetic fracture and implant loosening are limited. The purpose of this study was to describe implant survivorship, complications, and radiographic results of a specific collarless, polished, tapered cemented stem (Exeter; Stryker) used selectively in a predominantly elderly population undergoing primary THA. Methods: We identified 386 patients who underwent a total of 423 primary THAs with selectively utilized Exeter stems for the treatment of osteoarthritis between 2006 and 2017. In the same time period, 11,010 primary THAs were performed with uncemented stems and 961 with non-Exeter cemented stems. The mean patient age was 77 years, 71% were female, and the mean body mass index was 29 kg/m 2 . Competing risk analysis accounting for death was utilized to determine cumulative incidences of revision and reoperation. The mean follow-up was 5 years (range, 2 to 12 years). Results: The 10-year cumulative incidence of any femoral component revision in this patient cohort was 4%, with 10 stems revised at the time of the latest follow-up. There were no intraoperative femoral fractures. The indications for revision were postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (n = 6), dislocation (n = 3), and infection (n = 1). There were no revisions for femoral loosening. The 10-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was 10%. The 10-year cumulative incidence of Vancouver B periprosthetic femoral fracture was 2%. Radiographically, there were no cases of aseptic loosening or osteolysis. There was a significant improvement in median Harris hip score, from 53 preoperatively to 92 at a mean follow-up of 5 years (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The strategy of selectively utilizing a collarless, polished, tapered cemented stem produced a low (4%) cumulative incidence of stem revision at 10 years postoperatively and resulted in no cases of aseptic loosening. The use of the Exeter stem did not eliminate postoperative femoral fractures in this predominantly elderly, female patient population. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Hip dysplasia is a common source of hip pain and a known cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip. Purpose: To (1) define the population-based incidence of hip dysplasia diagnosis in young patients presenting with hip pain in a large geographically defined cohort, (2) analyze trends regarding presentation and diagnosis of hip dysplasia, and (3) report the rate and type of surgical interventions used to treat this population. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A geographic epidemiological database was queried to identify patients aged 14 to 50 years with hip pain between the years 2000 and 2016. Patient medical records were analyzed, and demographic, imaging, clinical, and treatment history were recorded. Incidence trends were examined by use of linear regression with confidence intervals for age and calendar year. Results: Overall, 1893 patients were included. Of these, 156 patients (196 hips) had a diagnosis of hip dysplasia. The incidence of hip dysplasia diagnosis in patients who reported hip pain was 12.7 per 100,000 person-years. Patients with dysplasia had a mean age of 26.7 ± 9.8 years, while the highest age-adjusted incidence occurred at age 14 to 18 years in both male and female patients. Female patients had double the age-adjusted incidence of male patients (cases per 100,000 person-years: 16.8 [95% CI, 13.9-19.7] vs 8.7 [95% CI, 6.6-10.8]; P < .01). Of the patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging, 77% had imaging consistent with labral pathology. Patients were treated with physical therapy (67%), intra-articular steroid injection (29%), hip arthroscopy (10%), and periacetabular osteotomy (9%). The use of hip arthroscopy significantly increased over time ( P < .01), whereas the use of steroid injection and periacetabular osteotomy did not ( P < .28 and P < .08, respectively). Conclusion: The incidence of hip dysplasia diagnosis in patients presenting with hip pain was 12.7 per 100,000 person-years. Female patients had twice the age-adjusted incidence of male patients, and the highest age-adjusted incidence occurred in the age range of 14 to 18 years in both sexes. The use of hip arthroscopy to treat patients with hip dysplasia significantly increased over time.

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.

Abstract Background: There are many treatment options for patients who have osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) and management strategies vary widely both among and within individual countries. Although many researchers have attempted to elucidate the optimal strategies for managing this disease, the lack of large-scale randomized control trials and the lack of agreement on disease staging have curtailed the development of clear-cut guidelines.Methods: The Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) group sought to address three questions for the management of patients who have ONFH: (1) What imaging studies are most sensitive and specific for the diagnostic evaluation of patients who have ONFH?; (2)What is the best treatment strategy for preventing disease progression in patients who have pre-collapse lesions?; and (3) What is the best treatment strategy for patients who have post-collapse disease? The PICO (Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) format was used to formulate the search strategy for each research question. A systematic review will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. ARCO participants have been allocated to three groups, each representing one of the PICO questions. After qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data extracted from studies pertaining to each of the three research questions, a set of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines will be proposed for the management of patients who have ONFH. Discussion: It is not always clear which treatment method is optimal for the management of ONFH. Thus, many surgeons have developed and performed various procedures based on various patient-specific factors. As there is no consensus on the optimal treatment for various stages of disease, it was clear that developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines would provide more structure and uniformity to management of these patients. Therefore, the results of this systematic review will lead to the development guidelines that may improve patient-care strategies and result in better outcomes for patients who have ONFH.Systematic Review Registration: Registration with PROSPERO has been submitted and is pending.

Case: Debonding of the tibial component of total knee arthroplasty is a known complication that is typically treated with revision surgery, most commonly revision to a metal-backed tibial component with or without stems. Here, we present 3 cases of tibial component debonding revised to all-polyethylene tibial components with a cement-in-cement technique. Conclusion: In instances of tibial component debonding, if specific criteria are met, revising to an all-polyethylene tibia with retention of the primary cement mantle is an alternative to revision surgery with cement extraction and implantation of a modular metal-backed tibia.

Background: Surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) continues to evolve and is most commonly approached with either hip arthroscopy (HA) or surgical dislocation (SD) of the hip. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of similar patients undergoing surgical treatment of FAI with either HA or SD. Methods: A prospective multicenter cohort study of patients undergoing primary surgical treatment of FAI was performed. Follow-up at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 4.3 years) was available for 621 hips (81.7%), including 399 procedures with HA and 222 procedures with SD. Propensity scores were calculated and reflect the likelihood of surgical treatment with HA versus SD for a given set of covariates. Propensity scores allowed 1:1 matching to identify similar patients at baseline. After propensity matching, 128 matched pairs of patients who underwent HA and 128 matched pairs of those who underwent SD were included in the study. The primary outcome was the postoperative modified Harris hip score (mHHS); secondary outcomes included the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) physical and mental subscores, as well as the rate of persistent symptoms, revision surgery, and total hip arthroplasty (THA). Results: After propensity matching, the 2 groups exhibited similar distributions of all of the covariates that were included in the model. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The final mHHS was not significantly different between the 2 matched groups (81.3 for the HA group versus 80.2 for the SD group, p = 0.67). Likewise, the HOOS pain subscale was similar at the time of final follow-up (77.6 versus 80.5, respectively, p = 0.32). No difference between the HA group and the SD group was identified in the rate of THA (0% and 3.1%, respectively, p = 0.41) and revision surgery (7.8% and 10.9%, respectively, p = 0.35); overall rates of persistent symptoms were 21.9% for the HA group and 24.4% for the SD group (p = 0.55). Conclusions: In a propensity-matched analysis of patients who were treated with either approach, patients undergoing HA or SD demonstrated similar outcomes at a mean of 4 years postoperatively. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) remains the gold-standard treatment for acetabular dysplasia in skeletally mature patients with preserved cartilage. The purpose of this multicenter cohort study was to delineate the long-term radiographic natural history of the dysplastic hip following PAO based on the final position of the acetabular fragment. Methods: We evaluated patients who underwent PAO performed by 4 hip preservation surgeons to treat acetabular dysplasia with or without concomitant retroversion from 1996 to 2012 at 3 academic institutions. There were 288 patients with a mean clinical and radiographic follow-up of 9 years (range, 5 to 21 years). Postoperative radiographs made at the first clinical visit were used to determine if the acetabular fragment fell into a safe zone according to the absence of retroversion, a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) of 25° to 40°, an anterior center-edge angle (ACEA) of 25° to 40°, and a Tönnis angle of 0° to 10°. Every available subsequent radiograph was assessed for degenerative changes by the Tönnis classification (grades 0 to 3). The time to progression was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards regression and multistate modeling. Results: Only the absence of retroversion was independently associated with a decreased risk of progressing at least 1 Tönnis grade during follow-up: hazard ratio (HR), 0.60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38 to 0.94; p = 0.025). Achieving the ACEA safe zone yielded the greatest time increase for remaining in Tönnis grade 0 or 1 (43 years for having an ACEA in the safe zone compared with 28 years for not having an ACEA in the safe zone), followed by the absence of retroversion (34 years for the absence of retroversion compared with 24 years for the presence of retroversion). However, attaining the Tönnis angle or LCEA safe zones did not delay progression. The achievement of additional safe zones generally increased the length of time that patients spent in Tönnis grade 0 or 1: 25 years for 0 safe zones, 36 years for 1 safe zone, 29 years for 2 safe zones, 37 years for 3 safe zones, and 44 years for 4 safe zones. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the importance of achieving appropriate acetabular reorientation to enhance the longevity of the native hip following PAO. Although the LCEA and the Tönnis angle are the most common metrics used to assess appropriate acetabular correction, this study shows that adequately addressing retroversion and the ACEA has a greater impact on improving the natural history. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a viable option for patients with symptomatic knee arthritis isolated to 1 compartment. Previous articles have suggested that mobile-bearing UKA should not be performed in patients without bone-on-bone arthritis. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and survivorship of mobile-bearing UKA in patients with severe osteoarthritis with bone-on-bone contact and patients with severe osteoarthritis but without bone-on-bone contact. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a single surgeon’s experience with medial compartment mobile-bearing UKA in 219 patients (271 knees) who underwent the procedure between 2007 and 2015. Anteroposterior and posteroanterior radiographs were reviewed, and arthritis was graded using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grading system. Only patients with grade D (severe arthritis) were studied. Of the patients who had grade-D arthritis, there were 81 patients (94 knees) with bone-on-bone arthritis and 82 patients (91 knees) without bone-on-bone contact. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Knee Society pain and function scores. Survivorship free of revision in these 2 groups was determined using Kaplan-Meier curves at 8 years. Results: There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of age (p = 0.91), sex (p = 0.21), or body mass index (p = 0.63). At the time of the final follow-up, there was no significant difference in Knee Society pain scores (p = 0.59) or Knee Society function scores (p = 0.9) between the 2 groups. There were 5 revisions in the group with bone-on-bone contact and 2 revisions in the group without bone-on-bone contact. The survivorship free of revision at 8 years was 95% for the group with bone-on-bone contact and 98% for the group without bone-on-bone contact (p = 0.45). Conclusions: Patients with severe knee arthritis (IKDC grade D) without bone-on-bone contact had similar outcomes of mobile-bearing UKA compared with patients with bone-on-bone contact. UKA is a safe and reliable option in patients with severe osteoarthritis who do not have bone-on-bone contact on preoperative radiographs and it should therefore not be considered a contraindication for mobile-bearing UKA as long as the patient’s symptoms are severe enough to warrant surgical intervention. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.