Aims. Thresholds for operative eligibility based on body mass index (BMI) alone may restrict patient access to the benefits of arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between BMI and improvements in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and to determine how many patients would have been denied improvements in PROMs if BMI cut-offs were to be implemented. Methods. A prospective cohort of 3,449 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed between 2015 and 2018 were analyzed. The following one-year PROMs were evaluated: hip injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) pain, HOOS Physical Function Shortform (PS), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity, Veterans Rand-12 Physical Component Score (VR-12 PCS), and VR-12 Mental Component Score (VR-12 MCS). Positive predictive values for failure to improve and the number of patients denied surgery in order to avoid a failed improvement were calculated for each PROM at different BMI cut-offs. Results. There was a trend to improved outcomes in terms of pain and function improvements with higher BMI. Patients with BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. had median (Q1, Q3) HOOS pain improvements of 58 points (interquartile range (IQR) 41 to 70) and those with BMI 35 to 40 kg/m. 2. had median improvements of 55 (IQR 40 to 68). With a BMI cut-off of 30 kg/m. 2. , 21 patients would have been denied a meaningful improvement in HOOS pain score in order to avoid one failed improvement. At a 35 kg/m. 2. cut-off, 18 patients would be denied improvement, at a 40 kg/m. 2. cut-off 21 patients would be denied improvement, and at a 45 kg/m. 2. cut-off 21 patients would be denied improvement. Similar findings were observed for HOOS-PS, UCLA, and VR-12 scores. Conclusion. Patients with
Spinal anaesthesia has seen increased use in contemporary primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). However, controversy exists about the benefits of spinal in comparison to general anaesthesia in primary TKAs. This study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay (LOS), and complications associated with spinal versus general anaesthesia in primary TKAs from a single, high-volume academic centre. We retrospectively identified 17,690 primary TKAs (13,297 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our institutional total joint registry, where 52% had general anaesthesia and 48% had spinal anaesthesia. Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts with a mean age of 68 years (SD 10), 58% female (n = 7,669), and mean BMI of 32 kg/m2 (SD 7). Pain was evaluated using oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) and numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) data. Complications including 30- and 90-day readmissions were studied. Data were analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted model based on propensity score that included many patient and surgical factors. Mean follow-up was seven years (2 to 18).Aims
Methods
This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data. This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA.Aims
Methods
Instability is a common indication for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, even after the initial revision, some patients continue to have recurrent dislocation. The aim of this study was to assess the risk for recurrent dislocation after revision THA for instability. Between 2009 and 2019, 163 patients underwent revision THA for instability at Stanford University Medical Center. Of these, 33 (20.2%) required re-revision due to recurrent dislocation. Cox proportional hazard models, with death and re-revision surgery for periprosthetic infection as competing events, were used to analyze the risk factors, including the size and alignment of the components. Paired Aims
Methods
The goal of the current systematic review was to assess the impact of implant placement accuracy on outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases in order to assess the impact of the patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) and implant placement accuracy on outcomes following TKA. Studies assessing the impact of implant alignment, rotation, size, overhang, or condylar offset were included. Study quality was assessed, evidence was graded (one-star: no evidence, two-star: limited evidence, three-star: moderate evidence, four-star: strong evidence), and recommendations were made based on the available evidence.Aims
Methods
Currently, periprosthetic fractures are excluded from the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) definition of atypical femoral fracture (AFFs). This study aims to report on a series of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) that otherwise meet the criteria for AFFs. Secondary aims were to identify predictors of periprosthetic atypical femoral fractures (PAFFs) and quantify the complications of treatment. This was a retrospective case control study of consecutive patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures between 2007 and 2017. Two observers identified 16 PAFF cases (mean age 73.9 years (44 to 88), 14 female patients) and 17 typical periprosthetic fractures in patients on bisphosphonate therapy as controls (mean age 80.7 years (60 to 86, 13 female patients). Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of PAFF. Management and complications were recorded.Aims
Patients and Methods
Of growing concern in arthroplasty is the emergence of atypical infections, particularly For this non-randomized non-blinded study, 101 adult patients scheduled for hip or knee surgery were recruited. For each, four 3 mm dermal punch biopsies were collected after administration of anaesthesia, but prior to antibiotics. Prebiopsy skin preparation consisted of a standardized preoperative 2% chlorhexidine skin cleansing protocol and an additional 70% isopropyl alcohol mechanical skin scrub immediately prior to biopsy collection. Two skin samples 10 cm apart were collected from a location approximating a standard direct anterior skin incision, and two samples 10 cm apart were collected from a lateral skin incision (suitable for posterior, direct-lateral, or anterolateral approaches). Samples were cultured for two weeks using a protocol optimized for Aims
Methods
Our aim was to determine whether, based on the current literature,
bariatric surgery prior to total hip (THA) or total knee arthroplasty
(TKA) reduces the complication rates and improves the outcome following
arthroplasty in obese patients. A systematic literature search was undertaken of published and
unpublished databases on the 5 November 2015. All papers reporting
studies comparing obese patients who had undergone bariatric surgery
prior to arthroplasty, or not, were included. Each study was assessed
using the Downs and Black appraisal tool. A meta-analysis of risk ratios
(RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) was performed to determine
the incidence of complications including wound infection, deep vein
thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), revision surgery and
mortality.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to compare the operating
time, length of stay (LOS), adverse events and rate of re-admission
for elderly patients with a fracture of the hip treated using either
general or spinal anaesthesia. Patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent
surgery for a fracture of the hip between 2010 and 2012 were identified
from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality
Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Of the 9842 patients who
met the inclusion criteria, 7253 (73.7%) were treated with general
anaesthesia and 2589 (26.3%) with spinal anaesthesia. On propensity-adjusted
multivariate analysis, general anaesthesia was associated with slightly increased
operating time (+5 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) +4 to +6,
p <
0.001) and post-operative time in the operating room (+5
minutes, 95% CI +2 to +8, p <
0.001) compared with spinal anaesthesia.
General anaesthesia was associated with a shorter LOS (hazard ratio
(HR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.34, p <
0.001). Any adverse event
(odds ratio (OR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32, p <
0.001), thromboembolic
events (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.89, p = 0.003), any minor adverse
event (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32, p <
0.001), and blood transfusion
(OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49, p <
0.001) were associated with
general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with decreased
rates of urinary tract infection (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87,
p <
0.001). There was no clear overall advantage of one type
of anaesthesia over the other, and surgeons should be aware of the
specific risks and benefits associated with each type. Cite this article:
