Citations

Background: Distal femoral replacement (DFR) is a salvage option for complex primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Although excellent immediate fixation and weight-bearing are achieved, there is a paucity of data on long-term outcomes of TKA with DFR. The purpose of the present study was to determine implant survivorship, clinical outcomes, and radiographic results of TKAs with contemporary DFR components in a large series. Methods: We identified 144 consecutive TKAs performed with DFR for non-oncologic indications from 2000 to 2015 at a single academic institution. Indications for the index DFR included 66 (46%) for native (n = 11) or periprosthetic (n = 55) femoral fracture, 40 (28%) for staged treatment of periprosthetic joint infection, 28 (19%) for aseptic TKA loosening, and 10 (7%) for other indications. Porous metal cones were used to augment femoral fixation in 28 patients (19%) and tibial fixation in 38 patients (26%). Outcomes included cumulative incidence of revision and reoperation (utilizing a competing risk model), Knee Society scores, and radiographic results. The mean age at the time of index DFR was 72 years, and 65% of patients were female. The mean follow-up was 5 years (range, 2 to 13 years) for the 111 patients who did not undergo revision, had not died, and were not lost to follow-up. Results: The 10-year cumulative incidences of revision for aseptic loosening, all-cause revision, and any reoperation were 17.0%, 27.5%, and 46.3%, respectively. There was an increased risk of reoperation in patients who underwent index DFR for aseptic TKA loosening (hazard ratio [HR], 2.30; p = 0.026) or periprosthetic joint infection (HR, 2.18; p = 0.022) compared with periprosthetic or native femoral fractures. However, there was no difference in risk of revision for aseptic loosening or all-cause revision based on the original operative indication. The mean Knee Society score increased from 45 preoperatively to 71 at the time of the latest follow-up (p < 0.001). Radiographic loosening was observed in 8 unrevised DFRs (7%). There were 7 above-the-knee amputations performed at the time of the final follow-up, all for intractable periprosthetic joint infection. Conclusions: TKAs with contemporary DFR had high 10-year cumulative incidences of both revision and reoperation, underscoring the salvage nature of this procedure as a final reconstructive option. Most patients experienced substantial clinical improvements with this end-stage revision procedure. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Update This article was updated on December 6, 2019, because of a previous error. On page 1936, in Table VII, “Performance of the Bearing Surface Algorithm,” the row that had read “Bearing surface predicted by algorithm” now reads “Bearing surface predicted by algorithm*.” An erratum has been published: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 Jan 2;102(1):e4. Update This article was updated on March 31, 2020, because of a previous error. On page 1934, in Table IV (“THA Bearing Surface-Related Keywords in Operative Notes”), the row that had read “Femoral stem; stem; HFx-stem; femoral component; femoral component/stem; permanent prosthesis; stem fem cemented” now reads “Femoral head; ball; delta head; delta ceramic head; ion treated; BIOLOX delta; ceramic head; ceramic femoral head; ceramic offset head; ceramic (size) head; alumina ceramic head; alumina prosthetic head; alumna ceramic head; BIOLOX ceramic head; BIOLOX delta head; BIOLOX femoral head; BIOLOX delta ceramic head.” An erratum has been published: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2020 May 6;102(9):e43. Background: Manual chart review is labor-intensive and requires specialized knowledge possessed by highly trained medical professionals. Natural language processing (NLP) tools are distinctive in their ability to extract critical information from raw text in electronic health records (EHRs). As a proof of concept for the potential application of this technology, we examined the ability of NLP to correctly identify common elements described by surgeons in operative notes for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods: We evaluated primary THAs that had been performed at a single academic institution from 2000 to 2015. A training sample of operative reports was randomly selected to develop prototype NLP algorithms, and additional operative reports were randomly selected as the test sample. Three separate algorithms were created with rules aimed at capturing (1) the operative approach, (2) the fixation method, and (3) the bearing surface category. The algorithms were applied to operative notes to evaluate the language used by 29 different surgeons at our center and were applied to EHR data from outside facilities to determine external validity. Accuracy statistics were calculated with use of manual chart review as the gold standard. Results: The operative approach algorithm demonstrated an accuracy of 99.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.1% to 99.9%). The fixation technique algorithm demonstrated an accuracy of 90.7% (95% CI, 86.8% to 93.8%). The bearing surface algorithm demonstrated an accuracy of 95.8% (95% CI, 92.7% to 97.8%). Additionally, the NLP algorithms applied to operative reports from other institutions yielded comparable performance, demonstrating external validity. Conclusions: NLP-enabled algorithms are a promising alternative to the current gold standard of manual chart review for identifying common data elements from orthopaedic operative notes. The present study provides a proof of concept for use of NLP techniques in clinical research studies and registry-development endeavors to reliably extract data of interest in an expeditious and cost-effective manner.

Background: Osteonecrosis of the hip is the underlying etiology for 3% to 12% of total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Compared with patients who undergo THA because of osteoarthritis, those who do so because of osteonecrosis typically are younger, have a greater number of underlying diagnoses, and have inferior clinical outcomes and implant survivorship. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term implant survivorship (median follow-up, 10 years), functional outcomes, and radiographic results of contemporary THAs with a highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) liner between patients with osteonecrosis and those with osteoarthritis. Methods: All patients who underwent primary THA with an HXLPE liner from 1999 to 2007 were identified from our institutional total joint registry. Patients with a primary diagnosis of osteonecrosis were matched 1:1, on the basis of age, sex, and body mass index (BMI), to patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. This resulted in 461 hips in 413 patients with osteonecrosis matched to 461 hips in 427 patients with osteoarthritis (mean age, 59 years; 47% female; and mean BMI, 29 kg/m 2 ). Long-term implant survivorship, patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic findings were compared. In addition, a subgroup analysis of the osteonecrosis group was performed to see whether certain underlying etiologies portended poor outcomes. The median follow-up was 10 years. Results: The 15-year cumulative rates of revision were 6.6% and 4.5% in the osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.8, p = 0.09). The 15-year cumulative rates of any reoperation were 10.5% and 6.4% in the osteonecrosis and osteoarthritis groups, respectively (HR = 2.2, p = 0.008). There were no radiographic signs of component loosening or osteolysis in the entire cohort. Despite a lower median preoperative Harris hip score (HHS) for patients with osteonecrosis, both groups had marked improvements in their scores, which were similar at all time points after surgery. The cumulative rate of reoperations at 15 years was 0% for hips with radiation-induced osteonecrosis, 6.3% for those with alcohol-induced osteonecrosis, 9.0% for those with posttraumatic osteonecrosis, 12.1% for those with steroid-induced osteonecrosis, and 25% for those with idiopathic osteonecrosis. Conclusions: Contemporary THA with an HXLPE liner offers excellent long-term implant survivorship and functional outcomes for patients with osteonecrosis; however, the risk of a reoperation is higher when compared with patients with osteoarthritis. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The in vitro activities of rifampin, rifabutin, rifapentine, and rifaximin were tested against 200 periprosthetic joint infection (PJI)-associated staphylococci. Seven rifampin-resistant isolates had MICs of ≥4 μg/ml. Three isolates had rifampin MICs of 0.25 to 1 μg/ml and harbored an Asp471Gly RpoB variant, suggesting that the CLSI rifampin-susceptible staphylococcal breakpoint of ≤1 μg/ml may be too high.

ABSTRACTArthrofibrosis is a common complication following total knee arthroplasty caused by pathologic fibroblast activation and excessive collagen deposition around a synovial joint leading to debilitating loss of motion. Treatment options are limited because the pathologic mechanisms remain to be characterized. Dysregulation of the inflammatory cascade may lead to communication between myofibroblasts and immune cells triggering tissue metaplasia, and excessive collagen deposition described clinically as arthrofibrosis. We explored the novel use of celecoxib (selective cyclooxygenase‐2 [COX‐2] inhibitor) to disrupt the downstream effects of the post‐traumatic inflammatory cascade and inhibit scar tissue formation in a validated rabbit model of arthrofibrosis combined with new parameters for quantifying the stiffness of the posterior capsule. Biomechanical and molecular analyses, of contracted rabbit knee posterior capsule tissue after COX‐2 inhibition revealed increased maximal passive extension and down‐regulation of collagen messenger RNA compared with controls. Histopathologic examination suggested a trend of decreased quantities of dense fibrous connective tissue with COX‐2 inhibition. These data may suggest that inhibiting the inflammatory cascade could potentially reduce pathologic myofibroblast activation, thereby reducing scar tissue formation and increasing the range of motion in arthrofibrotic joints. Implementing a multi‐modal pharmacologic approach may simultaneously target numerous cellular components contributing to the complex process of arthrofibrogenesis. © 2019 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 37:2609–2620, 2019

Background: Stiffness is a common reason for suboptimal clinical outcomes after primary total knee arthroplasty (pTKA). There is a lack of consensus regarding its definition, which is often conflated with its histopathologic subcategory—i.e., arthrofibrosis. There is value in refining the definition of acquired idiopathic stiffness in an effort to select for patients with arthrofibrosis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to establish a consensus definition of acquired idiopathic stiffness, determine its prevalence after pTKA, and identify potential risk factors for its development. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus databases were searched from 2002 to 2017. Studies that included patients with stiffness after pTKA were screened with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria to isolate the subset of patients with acquired idiopathic stiffness unrelated to known extrinsic or surgical causes. Three authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and collected data. Outcomes of interest were then analyzed according to age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Results: In the 35 included studies (48,873 pTKAs), the mean patient age was 66 years. In 63% of the studies, stiffness was defined as a range of motion of <90° or a flexion contracture of >5° at 6 to 12 weeks postoperatively. The prevalence of acquired idiopathic stiffness after pTKA was 4%, and this did not differ according to age (4%, I 2 = 95%, among patients <65 years old and 5%, I 2 = 96%, among those ≥65 years old; p = 0.238). The prevalence of acquired idiopathic stiffness was significantly lower in males (1%, I 2 = 85%) than females (3%, I 2 = 95%) (p < 0.0001) as well as in patients with a BMI of <30 kg/m 2 (2%, I 2 = 94%) compared with those with a BMI of ≥30 kg/m 2 (5%, I 2 = 97%) (p = 0.027). Conclusions: Contemporary literature supports the following definition for acquired idiopathic stiffness: a range of motion of <90° persisting for >12 weeks after pTKA in patients in the absence of complicating factors including preexisting stiffness. The mean prevalence of acquired idiopathic stiffness after pTKA was 4%; females and obese patients were at increased risk. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aims There is little information regarding the risk of a patient developing prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) when the patient has previously experienced PJI of a TKA or total hip arthroplasty (THA) in another joint. The goal of this study was to compare the risk of PJI of primary TKA in this patient population against matched controls. Patients and Methods We retrospectively reviewed 95 patients (102 primary TKAs) treated between 2000 and 2014 with a history of PJI in another TKA or THA. A total of 50 patients (53%) were female. Mean age was 69 years (45 to 88) with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 36 kg/m 2 (22 to 59). In total, 27% of patients were on chronic antibiotic suppression. Mean follow-up was six years (2 to 16). We 1:3 matched these (for age, sex, BMI, and surgical year) to 306 primary TKAs performed in 306 patients with a THA or TKA of another joint without a subsequent PJI. Competing risk with death was used for statistical analysis. Multivariate analysis was followed to evaluate risk factors for PJI in the study cohort. Results The cumulative incidence of PJI in the study cohort (6.1%) was significantly higher than the matched cohort (2.6%) at ten years (hazard ratio (HR) 3.3; 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 8.97; p = 0.02). Host grade in the study group was not a significant risk factor for PJI. Patients on chronic suppression had a higher rate of PJI (HR 15; p = 0.002), with six of the seven patients developing PJI in the study group being on chronic suppression. The new infecting microorganism was the same as the previous in only two of seven patients. Conclusion In this matched cohort study, patients undergoing a clean primary TKA with a history of TKA or THA PJI in another joint had a three-fold higher risk of PJI compared with matched controls with ten-year cumulative incidence of 6.1%. The risk of PJI was 15-fold higher in patients on chronic antibiotic suppression; further investigation into reasons for this and mitigation strategies are recommended. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):91–97

Aims The aims of this study were to characterize antibiotic choices for perioperative total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) prophylaxis, assess antibiotic allergy testing efficacy, and determine rates of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) based on perioperative antibiotic regimen. Patients and Methods We evaluated all patients undergoing primary TKA or THA at a single academic institution between January 2004 and May 2017, yielding 29 695 arthroplasties (22 705 patients), with 3411 arthroplasties in 2576 patients (11.5%) having undergone preoperative allergy testing. A series of institutional databases were combined to identify allergy consultation outcomes, perioperative antibiotic regimen, and infection-free survivorship until final follow-up. Results Among 2576 allergy-tested patients, 2493 patients (97%) were cleared to use cephalosporins. For the entire cohort, 28 174 arthroplasties (94.9%) received cefazolin and 1521 (5.1%) received non-cefazolin antibiotics. Infection-free survivorship was significantly higher among arthroplasties receiving cefazolin compared with non-cefazolin antibiotics, with 0.06% higher survival free of infection at one month, 0.56% at two months, 0.61% at one year, and 1.19% at ten years (p < 0.001). Overall, the risk of PJI was 32% lower in patients treated with cefazolin after adjusting for the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, joint arthroplasty (TKA or THA), and body mass index (BMI; p < 0.001). The number needed to treat with cefazolin to prevent one PJI was 164 patients at one year and 84 patients at ten years. Therefore, potentially 6098 PJIs could be prevented by one year and 11 905 by ten years in a cohort of 1 000 000 primary TKA and THA patients. Conclusion PJI rates are significantly higher when non-cefazolin antibiotics are used for perioperative TKA and THA prophylaxis, highlighting the positive impact of preoperative antibiotic allergy testing to increase cefazolin usage. Given the low rate of true penicillin allergy positivity, and the readily modifiable risk factor that antibiotic choice provides, we recommend perioperative testing and clearance for all patients presenting with penicillin and cephalosporin allergies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):9–15.

Background: Revision total hip arthroplasty (revision THA) occurs for a wide variety of indications and in the United States it is coded under Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs) 466, 467, and 468, which do not account for revision etiology, a potentially substantial driver of cost. This study investigates revision THA costs and 30-day complications by indication, both locally and nationally. Methods: Hospitalization costs and complication rates for 1,422 aseptic revision THAs performed at a high-volume center between 2009 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Additionally, charges for 28,133 revision THAs in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) were converted to costs using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project cost-to-charge ratios, and 30-day complication rates for 3,224 revision THAs were obtained with use of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP). Costs and complications were compared between revision THAs performed for fracture, wear/loosening, and dislocation/instability with use of simultaneous and pairwise comparisons and a multivariable model accounting for American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, age, and sex. Results: Local hospitalization costs for fracture (median, $25,672) were significantly higher than those for wear/loosening ($20,228; p < 0.001) or dislocation/instability ($17,911; p < 0.001), with differences remaining significant even after adjusting for patient comorbidities (p < 0.001). NIS costs for fracture (median, $27,596) were higher than those for other aseptic indications (wear/loosening: $21,176, p < 0.001; dislocation/instability: $16,891, p< 0.001). Local 30-day orthopaedic complication rates for fracture (20.7%) were higher those than for dislocation/instability (9.0%; p = 0.007) and similar to those for wear/loosening (17.6%; p = 0.434). Nationally, combined medical and surgical complication rates for fracture (71.3% of patients with ≥1 complication) were significantly higher than those for wear/loosening (35.2%; p < 0.001) or dislocation/instability (35.1%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Hospitalization costs for revision THA for fracture were 33% to 48% higher than for all other aseptic revision THAs, both locally and nationally. This increased cost persisted even after multivariable comorbidity adjustment, the current DRG basis for stratifying revision THA reimbursement. Additionally, 30-day complication rates suggest that increased resource utilization for fracture patients continues even after discharge. Indication-specific coding and reimbursement systems are necessary to maintain sustainable access to revision THA for all patients. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Polyethylene (PE) liner and femoral head exchange is commonly used to treat periprosthetic osteolysis associated with PE wear after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of our study was to determine long-term implant survivorship, risk factors for mechanical failure, clinical outcomes, and complications following PE liner and head exchange. Methods: We identified 116 hips in 110 patients treated with PE liner and head exchange from 1993 to 2004. There were 64 women (58%) in the series, the mean age at revision surgery was 58 years, and the mean follow-up was 11 years (range, 2 to 23 years). Radiographic review determined the location and size of osteolytic defects before the revision surgery. Implant survivorship was determined using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Cox regression analysis was used to determine factors that were predictive of failure. Results: Implant survivorship free of repeat revision for any cause was 91% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 86% to 96%) at 5 years, 81% (95% CI = 74% to 90%) at 10 years, and 69% (95% CI = 55% to 84%) at 15 years. Reasons for repeat revision included aseptic acetabular loosening in 5 hips (4%) and subsequent wear of conventional PE with osteolysis in 5 hips (4%). No patient who underwent revision with highly cross-linked PE subsequently had a repeat revision due to wear. The absolute risk of acetabular component loosening was 23% for patients with osteolysis in 3 zones, 40% for those with osteolysis involving more than half the cup circumference, and 21% for those with osteolytic defects of >600 mm 2 . The mean Harris hip score improved from 77 before the PE liner and head exchange to 87 after it (p < 0.001). The most common complication was dislocation, which occurred in 19 hips (16%). Conclusions: PE liner and head exchange provides acceptable long-term implant survivorship with good clinical outcomes. Complications are not uncommon, and steps should be taken to mitigate hip instability. Acetabular revision may be considered when in situ components have a poor track record or are malpositioned, or when preoperative radiographs demonstrate large osteolytic defects threatening cup fixation. Use of highly cross-linked PE at revision was protective against subsequent PE wear and osteolysis, although this did not reach significance. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.