Surgical management of PJI remains challenging with patients failing treatment despite the best efforts. An important question is whether these later failures reflect reinfection or the persistence of infection. Proponents of reinfection believe hosts are vulnerable to developing infection and new organisms emerge. The alternative hypothesis is that later failure is a result of an organism that was present in the joint but was not picked up by initial culture or was not a pathogen initially but became so under antibiotic pressure. This multicenter study explores the above dilemma. Utilizing next-generation sequencing (NGS), we hypothesize that failures after two stage exchange arthroplasty can be caused by an organism that was present at the time of initial surgery but not isolated by culture. This prospective study involving 15 institutions collected samples from 635 revision total hip (n=310) and knee (n=325) arthroplasties. Synovial fluid, tissue and swabs were obtained intraoperatively for NGS analysis. Patients were classified per 2018 Consensus definition of PJI. Treatment failure was defined as reoperation for infection that yielded positive cultures, during minimum 1-year follow-up. Concordance of the infecting pathogen cultured at failure with NGS analysis at initial revision was determined.Introduction
Methods
Recent studies of novel healthcare episode payment models, such as the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative, have demonstrated pathways for improving value. However, these models may not provide appropriate payments for patients with significant medical comorbidities or complications. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for exceeding our institution's target payment, the so-called “bundle busters.” After receiving an exemption from the Institutional Review Board, we queried our institutional data warehouse for all patients (n=412) that underwent total joint arthroplasty (TJA) of the hip (n=192), knee (n=207), or ankle (n=13), and qualified for our institution's bundled payments model during the study time period (July 2015 – May 2017). Patients with medical conditions that were not well controlled or were potentially optimizable were all sent for preoperative medical optimization prior to surgery. For each 90-day episode, patient characteristics, medical comorbidities, perioperative data, and payments from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) were obtained. Episodes where Medicare payments exceeded the target payment were considered “busters”. The busters were older, and had higher comorbidity scores (all, p<0.01). Variables were summarized using descriptive statistics and risk ratios were calculated using a modified Poisson regression analysis.Introduction
Methods
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the young patient has been associated with higher rates of revision and perioperative complications. For clinicians and patients alike, there remains a desire to better characterize the durability of THA in young patients. We reviewed secondary data from our institutional database for all patients who underwent primary THA from January 2000 to May 2015. Patients were identified using ICD-9 procedure code 81.51. Our primary interest was the survival of implants in patients 30 years of age or younger (n=167) while using a contemporaneous cohort of patients age 60 and older as a control (n=1359). Failure was defined as revision THA for any reason. Cox regression with robust standard errors was used to calculate hazard ratios. A population-averaged Poisson regression analysis was used to compare complication rates. The rate of all-cause revision THA was 2.4 times greater (95% CI 1.10 – 5.37, p=0.028) in young patients (7%, 12/167) undergoing primary or conversion to THA compared to their elderly counterparts (3.7%, 50/1,359). Survival at 10 years was 89% (95% CI 82 – 94) in the young cohort and 96% (94 – 97) in the elderly cohort. The primary reasons for revision in young that patients compared to their elderly counterparts included metal-on-metal implants (IRR 8.12, 95% CI 2.04 – 32.38, p=0.003). These data demonstrate that patients 30 years of age and younger substantially benefit from THA but should be warned of higher risk of subsequent revision.
