Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) centers are garnering the attention of different arthroplasty surgeons and practices alike. Nonetheless, their value has yet to be proven. Therefore, we evaluated weather PJI centers produce comparable outcomes to the national average of THA PJIs on a national cohort. We performed a retrospective review of patient data available on PearlDiver from 2015 – 2021. PJI THA cases were identified through ICD-10 and CPT codes. Patients treated by 6 fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeons from a PJI center were matched based on age, gender, Charlson Comorbidity Index and Elixhauser comorbidity index at a 1:1 ratio to patients from the national cohort. Compared outcomes included LOS, ED visits, number of patients readmitted, total readmissions. Sample sized did not allow the evaluation of amputation, fusion or explantation. Normality was tested through the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. And comparisons were made with Students t-tests and Chi Square testing. A total of 33,001 THA PJIs and were identified. A total of 77 patients were identified as treated by the PJI center cohort and successfully matched. No differences were noted in regard to age, gender distribution, CCI or ECI (p=1, 1, 1 and 0.9958 respectively). Significant differences were noted in mean LOS (p<0.43), number of patients requiring readmissions (p=0.001) and total number of readmission events (p<0.001). No difference was noted on ED visits. Our study demonstrates that a PJI for THA cases may be beneficial for the national growing trend of arthroplasty volume. Future data, that allows comparison of patient's specific data will allow for further validation of PJI centers and how these can play a role in helping the national PJI growing problem

Introduction. Patients with FNF may be treated by either total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). Utilizing American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) data, we aimed to evaluate outcomes in FNF treatment. Methods. Medicare patients with FNF treated with HA or THA reported to the AJRR database from 2012–2019 and CMS claims data from 2012–2017 were analyzed in this retrospective cohort study. “Early” was defined as less than 90 days from index procedure. A logistic regression model, including index arthroplasty, age, sex, stem fixation method, hospital size. 1. , hospital teaching affiliation. 1. , and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), was utilized to determine associations between index procedure and revision rates. Results. Of 75,333 FNF procedures analyzed, 82.2% had HA. 8.4% had cemented fixation. 36.9% had cementless fixation. Fixation was unknown for 41,225 (54.7%) patients. 90-day readmissions rates were 1.3% for both cohorts. Both the early revision rate (0.9% HA vs. 1.3% THA, p<0.0001) as well as the overall revision rate (1.5% HA vs. 2.3% THA, p<0.0001) were higher in the THA cohort. The three most common reasons for any revision were instability (26%), infection (21%), and periprosthetic fracture (15%). Higher rates of any revision were associated with cementless fixation (OR=1.37, 95% CI 1.20–1.57) and increased age (OR=0.96, 95% CI 0.96–0.97). THA and increased age were risk factors for early and any revision for instability. Cementless fixation, female sex, and decreased age were associated with lower revision rates for infection. Conclusion. The most common surgical treatment for FNF reported to the AJRR was cementless stem fixation and hemiarthroplasty. The higher revision rates for FNF treatment with THA warrant further investigation. The use of cemented femoral fixation in this patient population may be under-utilized. These data provide a benchmark of US practice for reference and comparison to other practices throughout US and the world

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.

We studied a consecutive series of 285 uncemented total hip replacements in 260 patients using the Taperloc femoral component and the T-Tap acetabular component. The outcome of every hip was determined in both living and deceased patients. A complete clinical and radiological follow-up was obtained for 209 hips in 188 living patients, followed for a mean of 14.5 years (10 to 18.9). They were divided into two groups, obese and non-obese, as determined by their body mass index. There were 100 total hip replacements in 89 patients in the obese cohort (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m²), and 109 in 99 non-obese (body mass index < 30 kg/m²) patients. A subgroup analysis of 31 patients of normal weight (body mass index 20 kg/m² to 25 kg/m²) (33 hips) and 26 morbidly obese patients (body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m²) (30 hips) was also carried out.

In the obese group five femoral components (5%) were revised and one (1%) was loose by radiological criteria. Femoral cortical osteolysis was seen in eight hips (8%). The acetabular component was revised in 57 hips (57%) and a further 17 (17%) were loose. The mean Harris hip score improved from 52 (30 to 66) pre-operatively to 89 (49 to 100) at final follow-up. Peri-operative complications occurred in seven patients (7%).

In the non-obese group six (6%) femoral components were revised and one (1%) was loose. Femoral cortical osteolysis occurred in six hips (6%). The acetabular component was revised in 72 hips (66%) and a further 18 (17%) were loose. The mean Harris hip score increased from 53 (25 to 73) prior to surgery to 89 (53 to 100) at the time of each patient’s final follow-up radiograph.

No statistically significant difference was identified between the obese and non-obese patients with regards to clinical and radiological outcome or complications. The subgroup analysis of patients of normal weight and those who were morbidly obese showed no statistically significant difference in the rate of revision of either component.

Our findings suggest there is no evidence to support withholding total hip replacement from obese patients with arthritic hips on the grounds that their outcome will be less satisfactory than those who are not obese.