Despite recent literature questioning their use, vancomycin and clindamycin often substitute cefazolin as the preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), especially in the setting of documented allergy to penicillin. Topical povidone-iodine lavage and vancomycin powder (VIP) are adjuncts that may further broaden antimicrobial coverage, and have shown some promise in recent investigations. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to compare the risk of acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary TKA patients who received cefazolin and VIP to those who received a non-cephalosporin alternative and VIP. This was a retrospective cohort study of 11,550 primary TKAs performed at an orthopaedic hospital between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was PJI occurring within 90 days of surgery. Patients were stratified into two groups (cefazolin vs non-cephalosporin) based on their preoperative antibiotic. All patients also received the VIP protocol at wound closure. Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to control for potential confounders and identify the odds ratio of PJI.Aims
Methods
The COVID-19 pandemic led to a swift adoption of telehealth in orthopedic surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyze patient and surgeon satisfaction with a rapid expansion of telehealth use during COVID-19 pandemic within the division of adult reconstructive surgery at a major urban academic hospital. 334 hip and knee arthroplasty patients who completed a telemedicine visit from March 30th, 2020 through April 30th, 2020 were sent a 14-question survey. Eight adult reconstructive surgeons who used telemedicine were sent a separate 14-question survey at the end of the study period. Factors influencing patient satisfaction were determined using univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression modeling.Introduction
Methods
Previous reports have investigated the correlation between time to revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) and reason for revision, but little is known regarding the impact of timing on outcomes following rTHA. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of time to rTHA on both indication and outcomes of rTHA. This retrospective observational study reviewed patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTHA at an academic orthopedic specialty hospital between January 2016 and April 2019 with at least 1-year of follow-up. Patients were early revisions if they were revised within 2 years of primary THA (pTHA) or late revisions if revised after greater than 2 years. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and post-operative outcomes were compared between the groups. Post-hoc power analysis was performed (1-β=0.991).Introduction
Methods
