Oxford medial uni compartmental knee replacement is a common and widely accepted procedure that relies on accurate positioning and alignment of the implants for optimal outcome and longevity. Posterior slope of the tibial base plate has been shown to be an important factor affecting long term survivorship. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether navigation increased the accuracy of Oxford knee replacements using the posterior slope of the tibial component as an index measure. The posterior slope of tibial trays from 58 sequential Oxford medial unicondylar knee replacements over a two year period was checked on standard lateral x-rays against the recommended range. There were 12 cases in the navigated and 46 in the conventional group across six Orthopaedic firms. The mean posterior slope for navigated and conventional implantations was 4.75 and 3.3 degrees respectively with the difference not being statistically significant. However, when considering the data for low volume surgeons, the mean posterior slope with and without navigation was 4.75 and 1.83 degrees respectively which was significant with a p value of 0.017. Navigation was also found to significantly decrease the chance of implanting the knee with the posterior slope outside the acceptable range (p=0.024). In both analyses the navigated cohort had a narrower data spread and fewer outliers compared to the conventional group. No other factors were found to significantly correlate with the posterior slope. The study suggests that navigation might help low volume surgeons in increasing the accuracy and decreasing the incidence of extreme variations from the desirable range of implant positioning for unicompartmental knee replacements

Aims

Preoperative diagnosis is important for revision surgery after prosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of our study was to determine whether reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), which is used to detect bacterial ribosomal RNA (rRNA) preoperatively, can reveal PJI in low volumes of aspirated fluid.

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161. Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161. Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique

Aims. Hospital case volume is shown to be associated with postoperative outcomes in various types of surgery. However, conflicting results of volume-outcome relationship have been reported in hip fracture surgery. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the association between hospital case volume and postoperative outcomes in patients who had hip fracture surgery. We hypothesized that higher case volume would be associated with lower risk of in-hospital and one-year mortality after hip fracture surgery. Methods. Data for all patients who underwent surgery for hip fracture from January 2008 to December 2016 were extracted from the Korean National Healthcare Insurance Service database. According to mean annual case volume of surgery for hip fracture, hospitals were classified into very low (< 30 cases/year), low (30 to 50 cases/year), intermediate (50 to 100 cases/year), high (100 to 150 cases/year), or very high (> 150 cases/year) groups. The association between hospital case volume and in-hospital mortality or one-year mortality was assessed using the logistic regression model to adjust for age, sex, type of fracture, type of anaesthesia, transfusion, comorbidities, and year of surgery. Results. Between January 2008 and December 2016, 269,535 patients underwent hip fracture surgery in 1,567 hospitals in Korea. Compared to hospitals with very high volume, in-hospital mortality rates were significantly higher in those with high volume (odds ratio (OR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval ((CI) 1.02 to 1.17, p = 0.011), low volume (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.32, p < 0.001), and very low volume (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.34, p < 0.001). Similarly, hospitals with lower case volume showed higher one-year mortality rates compared to hospitals with very high case volume (low volume group, OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.19, p < 0.001; very low volume group, OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.14, p < 0.001). Conclusion. Higher hospital case volume of hip fracture surgery was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and one-year mortality in a dose-response fashion. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1384–1391

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has a higher risk of revision than total knee arthroplasty, particularly for low volume surgeons. The recent introduction of robotic-arm assisted systems has allowed for increased accuracy, however new systems typically have learning curves. The objective of this study was to determine the learning curve of a robotic-arm assisted system for UKA. Methods A total of 152 consecutive robotic-arm assisted primary medial UKA were performed by five surgeons between 2017 and 2021. Operative times, implant positioning, reoperations and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS; Oxford Knee Score, EuroQol-5D, and Forgotten Joint Score) were recorded. There was a learning curve of 11 cases with the system that was associated with increased operative time (13 minutes, p<0.01) and improved insert sizing over time (p=0.03). There was no difference in implant survival (98.2%) between learning and proficiency phases (p = 0.15), and no difference in survivorship between ‘high’ and ‘low’ usage surgeons (p = 0.23) at 36 months. There were no differences in PROMS related to the learning curve. This suggested that the learning curve did not lead to early adverse effects in this patient cohort. The introduction of a robotic-arm assisted UKA system led to learning curves for operative time and implant sizing, but there was no effect on patient outcomes at early follow- up. The short learning curve was independent of UKA usage and indicated that robotic-arm assisted UKA may be particularly useful for low-usage surgeons

Deep infection is a devastating complication of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to determine if there was a relationship between surgeon volume and the incidence of revision for infection after primary TKA. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2020 for primary TKA for osteoarthritis that were revised for infection. Surgeon volume was defined by the number of primary TKA procedures performed by the surgeon in the year the primary TKA was performed and grouped as <25, 25-49, 50-74, 75-99, >100 primary TKA procedures per year. Kaplan Meir estimates for cumulative percent revision (CPR) and Cox Proportional Hazard Ratios were performed to compare rates of revision for infection by surgeon volume, with sub-analyses for patella and polyethylene use, age <65 years and male gender. 5295 of 602,919 primary TKA for osteoarthritis were revised for infection. High volume surgeons (>100 TKA/year) had a significantly lower rate of revision for infection with a CPR at 1 and 17 years of 0.4% (95% CI 0.3, 0.4) and 1.5% (95% CI 1.2, 2.0), respectively, compared with 0.6% (95% CI 0.5, 0.7) and 2.1% (95% CI 1.8, 2.3), respectively, for low volume surgeons (<25 TKR/year). Differences between the high-volume group and the remaining groups remained when sub-analysis for age, gender, ASA, BMI, patella resurfacing and the use of cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE). High volume surgeons have lower rates of revision for infection in primary TKA

Introduction. Previous studies have demonstrated that higher volume hospitals have better outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), in current literature there are no reports investigating the effect of surgeon volume. The purpose of this study is to investigate if patients of high-volume revision surgeons have better outcomes following rTKA as compared to patients of low volume surgeons. Methods. This retrospective observational analysis examined the rTKA database at a large urban academic medical center for aseptic, unilateral rTKA between January 2016 and March 2019 with at least 1-year of follow-up. Surgeon operative volume during the same time period was evaluated. Surgeons who performed at least 18 aseptic rTKA per year were considered high volume (HV), whereas surgeons who performed fewer than 18 aseptic rTKA per year were considered low volume (LV). Demographics, surgical factors, and post-operative outcomes were collected and compared between the two cohorts. A post-hoc power analysis was conducted for full revisions (1-ß=0.909, α=0.05). Results. 307 cases were identified: 177 performed by LV surgeons and 130 performed by HV surgeons. The only demographic difference was a greater proportion of non-smokers in the LV cohort (59.4% vs. 50.0%; p=0.031). Patients of HV surgeons were more likely to receive a full revision (64.6% vs. 47.5%; p<0.001). For all revisions, HV surgeons had shorter surgical times by about 17 minutes (p=0.010). For the 168 full revisions (84 HV, 84 LV), patients of HV surgeons had shorter hospital stays (2.92±1.62 vs. 3.57±2.69 days; p=0.048), shorter surgical times (131.42±33.86 vs. 171.65±49.88 minutes; p<0.001), lower re-revision rates (7.1% vs. 19.0%; p=0.038), and fewer re-revisions (0.07±0.26 vs. 0.29±0.74 re-revisions; p=0.018). Conclusions. Patients of HV revision surgeons have better outcomes following full rTKA. These findings support the development of revision teams within arthroplasty centers of excellence to offer patients the best possible outcomes following rTKA

INTRODUCTION. The advent of CT based 3D preoperative planning software for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) provides surgeons with more data than ever before to prepare for a case. Interestingly, as the usage of such software has increased, further questions have appeared over the optimal way to plan and place a glenoid implant for RTSA. In this study, a survey of shoulder specialists from the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) was conducted to examine thought patterns in current RTSA implant selection and placement. METHODS. 172 ASES members completed an 18-question survey on their thought process for how they select and place a RTSA glenoid implant. Data was collected using a custom online Survey Monkey survey. Surgeon answers were split into two cohorts based on number of arthroplasties performed per year: between 0–75 was considered low volume (LV), and between 75–200+ was considered high volume (HV). Data was analyzed for each cohort to examine differences in thought patterns, implant selection, and implant placement. RESULTS. 70 surgeons were grouped into the LV cohort, and 102 surgeons were grouped into the HV cohort. 46.1% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported using a preoperative planning software for the majority of cases, 48% reported seldom use, and 5.9% reported no use. In the LV cohort, 41.4% reported use for the majority of cases, 24.3% reported seldom use, and 34.3% reported no use (Figure 1). When questioned on what percentage of RTSA cases do surgeons use augmented glenoid implants, 26.7% in the HV cohort responded never using augments vs. 32.4% in the LV cohort, 32.7% responded using augments <15% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 30.9% in the LV cohort, 26.7% responded using augments between 15–45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 27.9% in the LV cohort, and 13.8% responded using augments >45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 8.8% in the LV cohort (Figure 2). When asked what the maximum allowable superior inclination for a RTSA glenoid implant is, surgeons answered 10° 20.6% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 30% in the LV cohort, 5° 18.6% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 25.7% in the LV cohort, 0° 38.2% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 25.7% in the LV cohort, and no fixed degree 22.5% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 18.6% in the LV cohort (Figure 3). CONCLUSION. The results of this study show that even within a group of highly trained surgeons, there are widely varying opinions on how to plan the optimal RTSA case. Variation between high and low volume surgeons reveals even greater differences, suggesting that experience affects thought pattern. Despite these differences, there is no way to prove the optimal implant selection and placement without consistent data collection and long-term clinical outcomes. Machine learning on large preoperative planning databases combined with clinical outcomes data may provide further clarity on optimal implant placement and selection. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Hospital and surgeon volume is inversely associated with perioperative mortality, dislocation and infection rates following total hip replacement (THR). This study evaluated the relationship between hospital/surgeon volume on early failures requiring revision in a sample of 6826 Medicare beneficiaries in 1995–1996. The primary outcome for the analysis was the time between the primary THR and the first revision. After adjustment for sociodemographic/clinical variables, patients of low volume surgeons in centers with a caseload less than one hundred THR/year were twice as likely to be revised compared with patients in high volume centers by high volume surgeons. The purpose of this study was to determine whether hospital/surgeon volume is associated with early failures requiring revision. Patients of low volume surgeons have considerably higher rates of early failure, especially within the first year following surgery. This study highlights the importance of including surgeon volume among factors that influence referrals for elective THR. We analyzed claims data of 6826 Medicare beneficiaries, who underwent elective primary THR in 1995–1996 in OH, PA and CO. Hospitals were stratified into, low (< 12 THR/year), medium (12–100 THR/year) and high (> 100 THR/year) volume groups. Low volume surgeons performed fewer than twelve primary THR/ yr. Associations between rates of revisions/surgeon volume were determined by risk ratios after adjusting for hospital volume, patient age, poverty status, gender and comorbidities. We examined whether the effect of surgeon volume on revision rates differed across yearly time intervals. Of patients who had primary THR in 1995–96, two hundred and seventy-one (4%) had at least one revision by the end of 1999, one hundred and twenty-six (46%) of those occurring within the first year after the surgery. Cumulative rates of revision ranged from 2.3% for primary THR in high volume centers performed by high volume surgeons to 5.9% for patients who had primary THR performed by low volume surgeons in low volume centers. Further analysis revealed that the effect of surgeon volume was striking in the first year after the surgery (RR: 2.34; 95%CI: 1.47– 3.78) and was not evident in the subsequent years (RR: 1.08; 95%CI: 0.73–1.58)

Introduction. Treatment of spinal metastatic disease has evolved with the advent of advanced interventional, surgical and radiation techniques. Spinal Oligometastatic disease is a low volume disease state where en bloc resection of the tumour, based on oncological principles, can achieve maximum local control (MLC). Hybrid therapy incorporating Separation surgery (>2mm clearance of the thecal sac) and Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) offer an alternative approach to achieving MLC. Hybrid therapy is also a viable option in patients eligible for SBRT who have failed conventional radiation therapy. En-bloc surgery may be a suitable option for those patients who are ineligible for or have failed SBRT. A multidisciplinary approach is particularly important in the decision-making process for these patients. Metal free instrumentation is aiding the optimization of these surgeries. The authors present a supra-regional centre's experience in managing spinal oligometastases. Methods. Retrospective review of oligometastatic spinal disease at a supra-regional centre between 2017 and 2021. Demographics, operative course, complications and Instrument type are examined. Results. Demographics: 24 patients with mean age 53.8y (range 12–77), 44% (40y–59y), 40% (60y–69y); 51% Male. Histology: Breast, Renal and Sarcoma accounted for 16.7% each; Thyroid, Prostate and Chordoma accounted for 8.3% each. Primary disease 7%, Synchronous 15%, Metachronous 78%. Instrumentation: Carbon-fibre (85%), TiAl (11%), Non-Instrumented (3%). Separation Surgery (70%), En-bloc resection/Tomita surgery (30%); SABR/Proton Beam Planned: 70%. Average length of hospital stays 19.1 days; twenty patients required intensive care admission for an average 2.7 days. 30 Day Mortality 8.3% (n=2: COVID-19 during admission and ventriculitis post discharge), 1y Mortality – 16.7%, 3y Mortality – 25%; Synchronous Mortality 75% (n=3) at 3 years. 30 Day infection rate 3%; 1y infection rate 7%. 1 Non-instrumented case developed proximal junctional failure post proton beam therapy and required a vascularised fibular strut graft. 2-year Revision for Local Recurrence 5% (Revision at 23 months). Conclusion. There are very few case series of oligometastatic spinal disease due to the relatively new concept of adjuvant SABR and its limited availability. Solid tumours pre-dominated the histology in our series with metachronous disease being the most commonly operated disease state. 92% of cases were eligible for SABR. The majority (85%) of cases were performed with Carbon-fibre instrumentation and has been shown to be safe with no mechanical failures in this series. Infection rates are in keeping with patients requiring radical radiotherapy with 3% early and 7% late. 30-day mortality was 8.3%, 1y=16.7% and 25% at last follow up. Mortality, as expected, is highest within the synchronous disease group and should be operated on sparingly. With the current management strategy, there was no local recurrence at 1 year and excellent local recurrence rate at 2 years (5%). Although radical en bloc surgery carries significant morbidity, it should be considered in selective cases to achieve MLC. All Oligometastatic cases deserve extra consideration and specialist MDT as not all are suitable for SABR. Multimodal Hybrid therapy, incorporating less invasive surgical techniques and SABR, represents a paradigm shift in achieving MLC in oligometastatic spinal disease

Background. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with concomitant meniscal injury occurs frequently. Meniscal repair is associated with improved long-term outcomes compared to resection but is also associated with a higher reoperation rate. Knowledge of the risk factors for repair failure may be important in optimizing patient outcomes. Purpose. This study aimed to identify the patient and surgical risk factors for meniscal repair failure, defined as a subsequent meniscectomy, following concurrent primary ACL reconstruction. Methods. Data recorded by the New Zealand ACL Registry and the Accident Compensation Corporation, the New Zealand Government's sole funder of ACL reconstructions and any subsequent surgery, was reviewed. Meniscal repairs performed with concurrent primary ACL reconstruction was included. Root repairs were excluded. Univariate and multivariate survival analysis was performed to identify the patient and surgical risk factors for meniscal repair failure. Results. Between 2014 and 2020, a total of 3,024 meniscal repairs were performed during concurrent primary ACL reconstruction (medial repair = 1,814 and lateral repair = 1,210). The overall failure rate was 6.6% (n = 201) at a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, with a failure occurring in 7.8% of medial meniscal repairs (142 out of 1,814) and 4.9% of lateral meniscal repairs (59 out of 1,210). The risk of medial failure was higher in patients with a hamstring tendon autograft (adjusted HR = 2.20, p = 0.001), patients aged 21–30 years (adjusted HR = 1.60, p = 0.037) and in those with cartilage injury in the medial compartment (adjusted HR = 1.75, p = 0.002). The risk of lateral failure was higher in patients aged ≤ 20 years (adjusted HR = 2.79, p = 0.021) and when the procedure was performed by a surgeon with an annual ACL reconstruction case volume of less than 30 (adjusted HR = 1.84, p = 0.026). Conclusion. When performing meniscal repair during a primary ACL reconstruction, the use of a hamstring tendon autograft, younger age and the presence of concomitant cartilage injury in the medial compartment increases the risk of medial meniscal repair failure, whereas younger age and low surgeon volume increases the risk of lateral meniscal repair failure

Introduction. Satisfaction and survival rates after total knee arthroplasty were high according to literatures. However, around 8% of revision surgeries were still noted and almost half of them were early failures, which were most seen in 2 years after primary surgery. This study aimed to find out the factors lead to early failures after total knee arthroplasty. Materials and Methods. Data were collected based on the National Health Insurance Research Data Base of Taiwan from 1996 to 2010. Primary total knee arthroplasty surgeries were included. Revisional total knee arthroplasty, removal of total knee implant and arthrotomy surgeries registered after primary total knee surgeries are seen as failures. Results. 1. Overall prevalence. Total failure rate is 3.67% (4820 in 131441) and 44.46% of them are early failures in two years after primary surgery (2143 in 4820). 2. Characters of patient. Higher early failure rates were found in patients who accepted primary surgery under 56 years old, compared to 56∼64 years old and <65 years old groups (>65years/old compared to <56years/old, HR:0.51 [95% CI 0.44–0.58]; 56–64 years/old compared to <56years old, HR:0.61 [95% CI 0.52–0.72]). Male patients were found to have higher early failure rates compared to female group (compared to female, HR:1.55, [95% CI 1.41–1.69]). 3. Character of disease. Diagnosis of Osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis would have no difference in failure rates, but gouty arthritis and other reasons would lead to higher early failure rates (compared to osteoarthritis, HR:1.94, [95% CI 1.55- 2.42]). 4. Influences of comorbidity. Diabetes Mellitus would lead to higher early failure rate (compared to non-DM, HR:1.28, [95% CI 1.13–1.46]). No significant differences were found in Renal disease and higher Charlson Comorbidity Index. 5. Character of Health Care Provider. 41.50% surgeries were performed in Medical Centers(>500 beds), 27.20% in Metropolitan Hospitals(>250 beds) and 31.20% in Local Community Hospitals(>20 beds). Surgeries performed in Metropolitan and Local Community Hospitals would have higher early failure rates (Local compared to center H, HR:1.42 [95% CI 1.28 −1.57]; Metropolitan compared to center H, HR:1.23 [95% CI 1.11 −1.37]). 83.40% surgeries were performed by high volume surgeons. High volume surgeons would have lower early failure rates (compared to low volume, HR:0.62, [95% CI 0.52–0.75]). 87.20% surgeries were performed in high volume hospitals. High volume hospitals would have lower early failure rates (compared to low volume, HR:0.51, [95% CI 0.41- 0.63]). Conclusion and Discussion. Early failure rate (<2 years after primary surgery) in Taiwan is compatible to global data. Younger patients accepted total knee arthroplasty would have more failures, which might be a result of higher activity demand. Reasons other than osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis such as gouty arthritis, hemophilia, post-traumatic arthritis and osteonecrosis can complicate the surgery and lead to higher failure rates. Patients with diabetes mellitus would have more infection risks and therefore lead to higher failures. High volume surgeons, high volume hospitals and even non-local hospitals could provide better trainings and facilities to patients, which can therefore lead to lower failures

A primary goal of shoulder arthroplasty is to place the components in anatomic version. However, traditional instrumentation does not accommodate glenoid wear patterns. Therefore, many investigators have attempted to use computer modeling or CT-based algorithms to create custom targeting guides to achieve this goal. There are some recent studies investigating the use of custom guides. Iannotti et al. published in JBJS-American in 2012 on the use of patient specific instrumentation. There were 31 patients included in the study. The authors found that the planning software and patient specific instrumentation were helpful overall, but particularly of benefit in patients with retroversion in excess of 16 degrees. In this group of patients, the mean deviation was 10 degrees in the standard surgical group and 1.2 degrees in the patient specific instrumentation group. Throckmorton presented a study at the AAOS in 2014 on 70 cadaveric shoulders. There was one high volume surgeon (>100 shoulder arthroplasties a year), two middle volume surgeons (20–50 shoulder arthroplasties a year), and two low volume surgeons (less than 20 shoulder arthroplasties per year). Overall, the custom guide was significantly more accurate than standard instrumentation. The custom guides were found to be especially more accurate among specimens with associated glenoid wear. There were no strong trends to indicate consistent differences between high, medium, and low volume surgeons. The authors concluded that custom guides have narrower standard deviation and fewer significant errors than standard instrumentation. Custom guides continue to evolve for use in shoulder arthroplasty including some guides that allow the surgeon to decide intra-operatively between anatomic shoulder arthroplasty and reverse arthroplasty. Additional studies will be necessary to further define the role of patient specific instrumentation in practice

There are a variety of patient and surgical factors shown to increase post-operative complication risk for a total hip arthroplasty (THA). While many studies have linked patient and surgical factors to unsuccessful outcomes post total hip arthroplasty (THA), no study has attempted to correlate the infiuence of these factors to the positioning of the acetabular cup. The purpose of this study was to determine if a correlation exists between patient and surgical factors and the anatomical position of the acetabular component. Data for 2063 patients from 2004–2008 who underwent a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), revision THA, or Birmingham Hip Resurfacing procedure was compiled. The post- op anteroposterior pelvis (AP) and the cross table lateral digital radiographs for each patient were measured to determine cup inclination and version. Acceptable angle ranges were defined as 30–45° for abduction, and 5–25° for version. Correlations between variables and cup abduction and version angles were determined with SPSS™ statistical software. There were 1954(95%) qualifying patients. There were 1218(62%) acetabular cups that fell within the 30–45° optimal abduction range, and 1576(87%) cups in the 5–25° optimal version range. There were 921(47%) patients that had both inclination and version angles that fell within the optimal range. Regression analysis showed that surgical approach (p> 0.001), high/low volume surgeon (p< 0.001), and obesity (BMI > 30, p=0.01) were independent predictors for abduction and version combined analysis. Both surgical approach (p< 0.001) and BMI (p=0.018) were independent predictors in the individual analysis of both abduction and version. High/low volume surgeon was significant for the independent analysis of abduction (p=0.013). In the combined analysis, low volume surgeons showed a 2 fold increase (95% C.I. 1.5–2.8) in risk for cup malpositioning compared to high volume surgeons. The MIS surgical approach showed a 6 fold increase (95% C.I. 3.5–10.7) in risk for cup malpositioning compared to the posterolateral approach. Obesity (BMI> 30) showed a 1.3 fold increase (95% C.I. 1.1–1.7) in risk for cup malpositioning compared to all other body mass index groups. Posterolateral surgical approach was superior to MIS surgical approaches for independent and combined abduction and version analysis. High volume surgeons had greater accuracy for cup positioning, specifically for achieving optimal cup abduction angle. Compared to all other body mass index categories, patients that were obese (BMI> 30) displayed a greater risk for cup malpositioning for independent and combined abduction and version analysis. Further statistical analyses on patient and surgical variables and their infiuence on cup position at a lower volume medical center would provide a valuable data comparison

Aims. Patient-specific instrumentation has been shown to increase a surgeon’s precision and accuracy in placing the glenoid component in shoulder arthroplasty. There is, however, little available information about the use of patient-specific planning (PSP) tools for this operation. It is not known how these tools alter the decision-making patterns of shoulder surgeons. The aim of this study was to investigate whether PSP, when compared with the use of plain radiographs or select static CT images, influences the understanding of glenoid pathology and surgical planning. Methods. A case-based survey presented surgeons with a patient’s history, physical examination, and, sequentially, radiographs, select static CT images, and PSP with a 3D imaging program. For each imaging modality, the surgeons were asked to identify the Walch classification of the glenoid and to propose the surgical treatment. The participating surgeons were grouped according to the annual volume of shoulder arthroplasties that they undertook, and responses were compared with the recommendations of two experts. Results. A total of 59 surgeons completed the survey. For all surgeons, the use of the PSP significantly increased agreement with the experts in glenoid classification (x. 2. = 8.54; p = 0.014) and surgical planning (x. 2. = 37.91; p < 0.001). The additional information provided by the PSP also showed a significantly higher impact on surgical decision-making for surgeons who undertake fewer than ten shoulder arthroplasties annually (p = 0.017). Conclusions. The information provided by PSP has the greatest impact on the surgical decision-making of low volume surgeons (those who perform fewer than ten shoulder arthroplasties annually), and PSP brings all surgeons in to closer agreement with the recommendations of experts for glenoid classification and surgical planning. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):365–370

INTRODUCTION. 3D preoperative planning software for anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA and RTSA) provides additional insight for surgeons regarding implant selection and placement. Interestingly, the advent of such software has brought previously unconsidered questions to light on the optimal way to plan a case. In this study, a survey of shoulder specialists from the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) was conducted to examine thought patterns in current glenoid implant selection and placement. METHODS. 172 ASES members completed an 18-question survey on their thought process for how they select and place a glenoid implant for both ATSA and RTSA procedures. Data was collected using a custom online Survey Monkey survey. Surgeon answers were split into three cohorts based on their responses to usage of 3D preoperative planning software: high users, seldom users, and non-users. Data was analyzed for each cohort to examine differences in thought patterns, implant selection, and implant placement. RESULTS. 76 surgeons were grouped into the high user cohort, 66 into the seldom user cohort, and 30 into the non-user cohort. 61.9% of high users and 74.1% of seldom users performed >75 shoulder arthroplasties per year, whereas only 19.9% of non-users performed >75 arthroplasties per year (Figure 1). When questioned on glenoid implant type selection (augmented vs. non-augmented components), 80.3% of high users reported augment usage for both ATSA and RTSA, with using augments >45% of the time in 18.4% of ATSA cases and in 22.3% of RTSA cases. For seldom users, 80.3% reported augment usage in ATSA cases, and 70.3% in RTSA cases. Seldom users reported augment usage >45% of the time in 4.5% of ATSA cases and in 1.6% of RTSA cases. For non-preoperative planning users, 53.3% reported using augments in ATSA cases, and 48.3% for RTSA cases. Non-users used augmented glenoid components >45% of the time in 6.6% of ATSA cases and in 6.8% of RTSA cases. For resultant implant superior inclination in RTSA, 40.8% of high users aim for 0° of inclination, followed by 31.8% for seldom users and 16.7% of non-users (Figure 2). CONCLUSION. The results of this study show that 3D preoperative planning software has an influence on the decision making process when planning a shoulder arthroplasty. High volume shoulder arthroplasty surgeons report higher preoperative planning software usage than low volume surgeons, suggesting the utility of such software. Augmented glenoid component usage for both ATSA and RTSA is also higher for surgeons that use preoperative planning software, which either suggests the utility of augmented glenoid components, or that the use of such software creates the perceived need for augmented glenoid components. Lastly, surgeons who preoperatively plan tend to orient their glenoid components differently, which could suggest either a better understanding of the anatomy through the use of the software, or an influence on mindset regarding implant orientation resulting from software usage. This highlights an area for future work that could correlate clinical outcome data to implant selection and placement to prove what is the optimal plan for a given patient. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

INTRODUCTION. 3D preoperative planning software for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) provides surgeons with increased ability to visualize complex joint relationships and deformities. Interestingly, the advent of such software has seemed to create less of a consensus on the optimal way to plan an ATSA rather than more. In this study, a survey of shoulder specialists from the American Shoulder and Elbow Society (ASES) was conducted to examine thought patterns in current ATSA implant selection and placement. METHODS. 172 ASES members completed an 18-question survey on their thought process for how they select and place an ATSA glenoid implant. Data was collected using a custom online Survey Monkey survey. Surgeon answers were split into two cohorts based on number of arthroplasties performed per year: between 0–75 was considered low volume (LV), and between 75–200+ was considered high volume (HV). Data was analyzed for each cohort to examine differences in thought patterns, implant selection, and implant placement. RESULTS. 70 surgeons were grouped into the LV cohort, and 102 surgeons were grouped into the HV cohort. 46.1% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported using a preoperative planning software for the majority of cases vs. 41.4% in the LV cohort, 48% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported seldom use vs. 24.3% in the LV cohort, and 5.9% of surgeons in the HV cohort reported no use vs. 34.3% in the LV cohort (Figure 1). When questioned on what percentage of ATSA cases do surgeons use augmented glenoid implants, 20.6% in the HV cohort responded never using augments vs. 30% in the LV cohort, 39.2% responded using augments <15% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 34.3% in the LV cohort, 26.5% responded using augments between 15–45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 28.6% in the LV cohort, and 13.7% responded using augments >45% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 7.2% in the LV cohort (Figure 2). When asked what the maximum allowable residual retroversion for an ATSA glenoid implant is, surgeons answered 0–5° 6.9% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 4.3% in the LV cohort, 6–9° 35.6% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 50% in the LV cohort, 10–12° 34.7% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 32.9% in the LV cohort, 13–15° 10.9% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 8.6% in the LV cohort, and lastly >16° 11.9% of the time in the HV cohort vs. 4.3% in the LV cohort (Figure 3). CONCLUSION. Research suggests ATSA glenoid implants may be less forgiving of malalignment than reverse shoulder glenoid implants, but the contrasting survey results in this study reveal that a consensus in optimal placement has yet to be reached. Interestingly, even though HV use more augmented glenoid components than LV surgeons, HV surgeons are more accepting of residual glenoid component retroversion than LV surgeons. Despite these differences, there is no way to prove the optimal implant selection and placement without long-term clinical outcomes. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Purpose. Our hypothesis was that closed tibia fractures treated with intramedullary nails are impacted by surgeon and center volumes. Method. Data from 813 patients with closed tibia fractures were obtained from the SPRINT study. Using multiple regression, we examined the effect of center and surgeon volume (categorized as high, moderate, or low), and geographic differences by country (Canada, USA, and the Netherlands) on health-related quality-of-life and revision surgeries to gain union at one year. Our measures of quality-of-life were the Short-Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36 PCS) and the Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment (SMFA). Results. Patients treated by moderate volume surgeons had a reduced risk of reoperation versus patients treated by low volume surgeons (odds ratio =0.54, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.89, p=0.02). No effects of surgeon volume were seen for the other outcomes. Patients treated at moderate volume centers had poorer quality of life at one year than patients treated at low volume centers, based on the SMFA Bother score (difference = 7.33, 95% CI = 2.65 to 12.01). This effect was not seen with the other outcomes. Patients with isolated fractures have better quality-of-life at one year, based on all three measures, p<0.001. Older patients have poorer SMFA scores at one year than younger patients, p<0.001. There were no significant differences by country. Conclusion. The traditional volume versus outcome relationship for closed tibial fractures within intramedullary nailing does not hold. Further analyses in other areas of orthopaedic trauma surgery are advisable

BACKGROUND. High-volume surgeons and hospital systems have been shown to deliver higher value care in several studies. However, no evidence-based volume thresholds for cost currently exist in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The objective of this study was to establish clinically meaningful volume thresholds based on cost for surgeons and hospitals performing THA. A secondary objective was to analyze the relative market share of THAs among the newly defined surgeon and hospital volume strata. METHODS. Using 136,501 patients from the New York State Department of Health's SPARCS database undergoing total hip arthroplasty, we used stratum-specific likelihood ratio (SSLR) analysis of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to generate volume thresholds predictive of increased costs for both surgeons and hospitals. Additionally, we examined the relative proportion of annual THA cases performed by each of these surgeon and hospital volume strata we had established. RESULTS. SSLR analysis of cost by annual surgeon THA volume produced stratifications at: 0–73 (low), 74–123 (medium), and 124 or more (high) (Figure 1). Analysis by annual hospital THA volume produced stratifications at: 0–121 (low), 122–309 (medium), and 310 or more (high) (Figure 2). Hospital costs decreased significantly (P < .05) in progressively higher volume stratifications. The largest proportion of THA cases are performed at high-volume hospitals (48.6%); however, low-volume surgeons perform the greatest share of these cases (44.6%) (Figure 3). CONCLUSIONS. Our study establishes economies of scale in total hip arthroplasty by demonstrating a direct relationship between volume and cost reduction. High volume hospitals are performing the greatest proportion of total hip arthroplasties; however, low volume, surgeons perform the largest share of these cases, which highlights a potential area for enhanced value in the care of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty