Aims. Weightbearing instructions after musculoskeletal injury or orthopaedic surgery are a key aspect of the rehabilitation pathway and prescription. The terminology used to describe the weightbearing status of the patient is variable; many different terms are used, and there is recognition and evidence that the lack of standardized terminology contributes to confusion in practice. Methods. A consensus exercise was conducted involving all the major stakeholders in the patient journey for those with musculoskeletal injury. The consensus exercise primary aim was to seek agreement on a standardized set of terminology for weightbearing instructions. Results. A pre-meeting questionnaire was conducted. The one-day consensus meeting, including patient representatives, identified three agreed terms only to be used in defining the weightbearing status of the patient: 1) non-weightbearing; 2) limited weightbearing; and 3) unrestricted weightbearing. Conclusion. This study represents the first and only exercise in standardizing rehabilitation terminology in orthopaedics, as agreed by all major stakeholders in the patient pathway and the patients themselves. The standardization of language allows for higher-quality and more accurate research to be conducted, and is one small part of the bigger picture in increasing the mobility of patients after orthopaedic injury or surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):1016–1020

Classification systems for the reporting of surgical complications have been developed and adapted for many surgical subspecialties. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the variability and frequency of reporting terms used to describe complications in ankle fracture fixation. We hypothesized that the terminology used would be highly variable and inconsistent, corroborating previous results that have suggested a need for standardized reporting terminology in orthopaedics. Ankle fracture outcome studies meeting predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected for analysis by two independent observers. Terms used to define adverse events were identified and recorded. If a difference occurred between the two observers, a third observer was enlisted. Results of both observers were compared. All terms were then compiled and assessed for variability and frequency of use throughout the studies involved. Reporting terminology was subsequently grouped into 10 categories. In the 48 studies analyzed, 301 unique terms were utilized to describe adverse events. Of these terms, 74.4% (224/301) were found in a single study each. Only one term, “infection”, was present in 50% of studies, and only 19 of 301 terms (6.3%) were used in at least 10% of papers. The category that was most frequently reported was infection, with 89.6% of studies reporting on this type of adverse event using 25 distinct terms. Other categories were “wound healing complications” (72.9% of papers, 38 terms), “bone/joint complications” (66.7% of papers, 35 terms), “hardware/implant complications” (56.3% of papers, 47 terms), “revision” (56.3% of papers, 35 terms), “cartilage/soft tissue injuries” (45.8% of papers, 31 terms), “reduction/alignment issues” (45.8% of papers, 29 terms),“medical complications” (43.8% of papers, 32 terms), “pain” (29.2% of papers, 16 terms) and “other complications” (20.8% of papers, 13 terms). There was a 78.6% interobserver agreement in the identification of adverse terms across the 48 studies included. The reporting terminology utilized to describe adverse events in ankle fracture fixation was found to be highly variable and inconsistent. This variability prevents accurate reporting of adverse events and makes the analysis of potential outcomes difficult. The development of standardized reporting terminology in orthopaedics would be instrumental in addressing these challenges and allow for more accurate and consistent outcomes reporting

Aims. There has been a recent resurgence in interest in combined partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) as an alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The varied terminology used to describe these procedures leads to confusion and ambiguity in communication between surgeons, allied health professionals, and patients. A standardized classification system is required for patient safety, accurate clinical record-keeping, clear communication, correct coding for appropriate remuneration, and joint registry data collection. Materials and Methods. An advanced PubMed search was conducted, using medical subject headings (MeSH) to identify terms and abbreviations used to describe knee arthroplasty procedures. The search related to TKA, unicompartmental (UKA), patellofemoral (PFA), and combined PKA procedures. Surveys were conducted of orthopaedic surgeons, trainees, and biomechanical engineers, who were asked which of the descriptive terms and abbreviations identified from the literature search they found most intuitive and appropriate to describe each procedure. The results were used to determine a popular consensus. Results. Survey participants preferred “bi-unicondylar arthroplasty” (Bi-UKA) to describe ipsilateral medial and lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty; “medial bi-compartmental arthroplasty” (BCA-M) to describe ipsilateral medial unicompartmental arthroplasty with patellofemoral arthroplasty; “lateral bi-compartmental arthroplasty” (BCA-L) to describe ipsilateral lateral unicompartmental arthroplasty with patellofemoral arthroplasty; and tri-compartmental arthroplasty (TCA) to describe ipsilateral patellofemoral and medial and lateral unicompartmental arthroplasties. “Combined partial knee arthroplasty” (CPKA) was the favoured umbrella term. Conclusion. We recommend bi-unicondylar arthroplasty (Bi-UKA), medial bicompartmental arthroplasty (BCA-M), lateral bicompartmental arthroplasty (BCA-L), and tricompartmental arthroplasty (TCA) as the preferred terms to classify CPKA procedures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:922–928

The June 2023 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup. 360. looks at: Proximal humerus fractures: what does the literature say now?; Infection risk of steroid injections and subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty; Surgical versus non-surgical management of humeral shaft fractures; Core outcome set needed for elbow arthroplasty; Minimally invasive approaches to locating radial nerve in the posterior humeral approach; Predictors of bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability; Does the addition of motor control or strengthening exercises improve rotator cuff-related shoulder pain?; Terminology and diagnostic criteria used in patients with subacromial pain syndrome

There remains confusion in the literature with regard to the spinopelvic relationship, and its contribution to ideal acetabular component position. Critical assessment of the literature has been limited by use of conflicting terminology and definitions of new concepts that further confuse the topic. In 2017, the concept of a Hip-Spine Workgroup was created with the first meeting held at the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Annual Meeting in 2018. The goal of this workgroup was to first help standardize terminology across the literature so that as a topic, multiple groups could produce literature that is immediately understandable and applicable. This consensus review from the Hip-Spine Workgroup aims to simplify the spinopelvic relationship, offer hip surgeons a concise summary of available literature, and select common terminology approved by both hip surgeons and spine surgeons for future research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:808–816

There is increasing popularity in the use of artificial intelligence and machine-learning techniques to provide diagnostic and prognostic models for various aspects of Trauma & Orthopaedic surgery. However, correct interpretation of these models is difficult for those without specific knowledge of computing or health data science methodology. Lack of current reporting standards leads to the potential for significant heterogeneity in the design and quality of published studies. We provide an overview of machine-learning techniques for the lay individual, including key terminology and best practice reporting guidelines. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1754–1758

Aims. The purpose of this study was to determine the association between prior sleeve gastrectomy in patients undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty, and 90-day complications, incidence of revision arthroplasty, and patient-reported outcome scores at final follow-up. Methods. This is a retrospective, single-centre analysis. Patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasty with a prior sleeve gastrectomy were eligible for inclusion (n = 80 patients). A morbidly obese control group was established from the same institutional registry using a 1:2 match, for cases:controls with arthroplasty based on propensity score using age, sex, pre-sleeve gastrectomy BMI, Current Procedural Terminology code to identify anatomical location, and presurgical haemoglobin A1C. Outcomes included 90-day complications, incidence of revision arthroplasty, and patient-reported outcome scores at final follow-up. Multivariable logistic regressions evaluated associations of underlying preoperative demographic and treatment characteristics with outcomes. Results. Complications within 90 days of surgery were increased in the sleeve gastrectomy group relative to the obese control group after controlling for underlying preoperative demographic characteristics (odds ratio (OR) 4.00 (95% CI 1.14 to 13.9); p = 0.030). Postoperative revisions were similar in the sleeve gastrectomy group relative to the obese control group after controlling for underlying preoperative demographic characteristics (OR 17.8 (95% CI 0.64 to 494.3); p = 0.090). Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) depression decreased by a greater amount from pre- to postoperative in the obese controls relative to the sleeve gastrectomy group (OR 4.04 (95% CI 0.06 to 8.02); p = 0.047). PROMIS pain interference and physical function change from pre- to postoperative was not associated with sleeve gastrectomy status. Conclusion. We found a higher rate of complications at 90 days in patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy prior to primary hip or knee arthroplasty relative to a matched, obese control population. Prosthetic revision rates were similar between the two groups, while improvements in PROMIS depression scores were larger in the obese cohort. This study suggests that sleeve gastrectomy to achieve preoperative weight loss prior to arthroplasty surgery may not mitigate early complication risks in obese patient populations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):935–941

Purpose of study. Cauda Equina Syndrome (CES) is a surgical emergency. With Physiotherapists increasingly taking on first-contact and spinal triage roles, screening for CES must be as thorough and effective as possible. This study explores whether Physiotherapists are asking the correct questions, in the correct way and investigates their experiences when screening for this serious condition. Background. Thirty physiotherapists working in a community musculoskeletal service were purposively invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Data was transcribed and thematically analysed. Methods and Results. All participants routinely asked bladder, bowel function and saddle anaesthesia screening questions although only 9 routinely asked about sexual function. Whether questions are asked in the correct way has never been studied. Sufficient depth of questioning was achieved by 63% of participants, 76% used lay terminology and 73% used explicit language. Only 43% framed the questions before asking them and only 16% combined all four dimensions. Whilst most participants (n = 25) felt comfortable asking general CES questions, 50% reported feeling uncomfortable when asking about sexual function. Issues around; gender, culture and language were also highlighted. Conclusion. Four main themes emerged from this study; i) Physiotherapists ask the right questions but frequently omit sexual function questions, ii) mostly, Physiotherapists ask CES questions in a way that patients understand however, there needs to be improvement in framing the context of the questions, iii) Physiotherapists generally feel comfortable with CES screening but there is some awkwardness surrounding discussion of sexual function and iv) Physiotherapists perceive there to be barriers to effective CES screening caused by culture and language. Conflicts of interest: No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding: No funding obtained. Previously presented poster at BritSpine 2021 and VPUK 2021

Abstract. Objective. There is no specific framework for the clinical management of sports related brachial plexus injuries. Necessarily, rehabilitation is based on injury presentation and clinical diagnostics but it is unclear what the underlying evidence base to inform rehabilitative management. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We applied the PEO criteria to inform our search strategy to find articles that reported the rehabilitative management of brachial plexus injuries sustained while playing contact sports. An electronic search of Medline, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science from inception to 3rd November 2022 was conducted. MESH terms and Boolean operators were employed. We applied an English language restriction but no other filters. Manual searches of Google Scholar and citation searching of included manuscripts were also completed. All study types were considered for inclusion provided they were published as peer-reviewed primary research articles and contained relevant information. Two investigators independently carried out the searches, screened by title, abstract and full text. Two researchers independently extracted the data from included articles. Data was cross-checked by a third researcher to ensure consistency. To assess internal validity and risk of bias, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools were utilised. Results. The search generated 88 articles. Following removal of duplicates, 43 papers were evaluated against the eligibility criteria. Nine were eligible for full text review, with the majority of exclusions being expert opinion articles. Eight case reports were included. One article reported three individuals, resulting in data for ten athletes. The mean age was 19.8 years (±4.09). Injuries occurred in five American football players, two wrestlers, two rugby players, and a basketball player. No two studies applied the same diagnostic terminology and the severity of injury varied widely. Burning pain and altered sensation was the most commonly reported symptom, alongside motor weakness in the upper limb. Clinical presentation and management differed by injury pattern. Traction injuries caused biceps motor weakness and atrophy of the deltoid region, whereas compression injuries led to rotator cuff weakness. In all cases treatment was separated into acute and rehabilitative management phases, however the time frames related to these differed. Acute interventions varied but essentially entailed soft tissue inflammation management. Rehabilitation approaches variously included strengthening of shoulder complex and cervical musculature. Return-to-play criteria was opaque. The methodological quality of the case reports was acceptable. Four met all nine of the JBI evaluation criteria, and a further three met at least 75% of items. Conclusion(s). There is a distinct lack of evidence supporting rehabilitation management of sports related brachial plexus injury. Through systematic review we found only eight reports, representing ten individual case studies. No trials, cohort studies, or even retrospective registry-based studies are available to inform clinical management, which, necessarily, is driven by expert opinion and application of basic rehabilitation principles. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

A statement of the purposes of the study and background:. Merely publishing clinical guidelines is insufficient to ensure their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to clarify the decision-making processes that result in the delivery of particular treatments to patients with low back pain (LBP) in primary care and to examine clinicians' perspectives on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines for managing LBP in primary care. A summary of the methods used and the results:. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 53 purposively-sampled clinicians from south-west England. Participants were: 16 General Practitioners (GPs), 10 chiropractors, 8 acupuncturists, 8 physiotherapists, 7 osteopaths, and 4 nurses. Thematic analysis showed that official guidelines comprised just one of many inputs to clinical decision-making. Clinicians drew on personal experience and inter-professional networks and were constrained by organisational factors when deciding which treatment to prescribe, refer for, or deliver to an individual patient with LBP. Some found the guideline terminology - “non-specific LBP” - unfamiliar and of limited relevance to practice. They were frustrated by disparities between recommendations in the guidelines and the real-world situation of short consultation times, difficult-to-access specialist services and sparse commissioning of guideline-recommended treatments. A conclusion:. The NICE guidelines for managing LBP in primary care are one, relatively peripheral, influence on clinical decision-making among GPs, chiropractors, acupuncturists, physiotherapists, osteopaths, and nurses. When revised, these guidelines could be made more clinically relevant by: ensuring guideline terminology reflects clinical practice terminology; dispelling the image of guidelines as rigid and prohibiting patient-centred care; providing opportunities for clinicians to engage in experiential learning about guideline-recommended therapies; and commissioning guideline-recommended treatments for NHS patients

Aims. The aim of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) Meniscal Consensus Project was to develop an evidence-based treatment guideline for patients with meniscal lesions of the knee. Materials and Methods. A formal consensus process was undertaken applying nominal group, Delphi, and appropriateness methods. Consensus was first reached on the terminology relating to the definition, investigation, and classification of meniscal lesions. A series of simulated clinical scenarios was then created and the appropriateness of arthroscopic meniscal surgery or nonoperative treatment in each scenario was rated by the group. The process was informed throughout by the latest published, and previously unpublished, clinical and epidemiological evidence. Scenarios were then grouped together based upon the similarity of clinical features and ratings to form the guideline for treatment. Feedback on the draft guideline was sought from the entire membership of BASK before final revisions and approval by the consensus group. Results. A total of 45 simulated clinical scenarios were refined to five common clinical presentations and six corresponding treatment recommendations. The final guideline stratifies patients based upon a new, standardized classification of symptoms, signs, radiological findings, duration of symptoms, and previous treatment. Conclusion. The 2018 BASK Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery Treatment Guidance will facilitate the consistent identification and treatment of patients with meniscal lesions. It is hoped that this guidance will be adopted nationally by surgeons and help inform healthcare commissioning guidance. Validation in clinical practice is now required and several areas of uncertainty in relation to treatment should be a priority for future high-quality prospective studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:652–659

Deep gluteal syndrome is an increasingly recognized disease entity, caused by compression of the sciatic or pudendal nerve due to non-discogenic pelvic lesions. It includes the piriformis syndrome, the gemelli-obturator internus syndrome, the ischiofemoral impingement syndrome, and the proximal hamstring syndrome. The concept of the deep gluteal syndrome extends our understanding of posterior hip pain due to nerve entrapment beyond the traditional model of the piriformis syndrome. Nevertheless, there has been terminological confusion and the deep gluteal syndrome has often been undiagnosed or mistaken for other conditions. Careful history-taking, a physical examination including provocation tests, an electrodiagnostic study, and imaging are necessary for an accurate diagnosis. After excluding spinal lesions, MRI scans of the pelvis are helpful in diagnosing deep gluteal syndrome and identifying pathological conditions entrapping the nerves. It can be conservatively treated with multidisciplinary treatment including rest, the avoidance of provoking activities, medication, injections, and physiotherapy. Endoscopic or open surgical decompression is recommended in patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms after conservative treatment or in those who may have masses compressing the sciatic nerve. Many physicians remain unfamiliar with this syndrome and there is a lack of relevant literature. This comprehensive review aims to provide the latest information about the epidemiology, aetiology, pathology, clinical features, diagnosis, and treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):556–567

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in 30-day outcomes between patients undergoing revision for an infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared with an aseptic revision THA. Patients and Methods. This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, between 2012 and 2017, using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for patients undergoing a revision THA (27134, 27137, 27138). International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision/Tenth Revision (ICD-9-CM, ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes for infection of an implant or device were used to identify patients undergoing an infected revision THA. CPT-27132 coupled with ICD-9-CM/ICD-10-CM codes for infection were used to identify patients undergoing a two-stage revision. A total of 13 556 patients were included; 1606 (11.8%) underwent a revision THA due to infection and there were 11 951 (88.2%) aseptic revisions. Results. Patients undergoing an infected revision had a significantly greater length of stay of more than three days (p < 0.001), higher odds of any 30-day complication (p < 0.001), readmission within 30 days (p < 0.001), 30-day reoperations (p < 0.001), and discharge to a destination other than the patient’s home (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The findings suggest the need for enhanced risk adjustment based on the indication of revision THA prior to setting prices in bundled payment models of total joint arthroplasty. This risk adjustment should be used to reduce the chance of financial disincentives in clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:547–551

Aims. Advances in surgical technique and implant design may influence the incidence and mechanism of failure resulting in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The purpose of the current study was to characterize aetiologies requiring rTHA, and to determine whether temporal changes existed in these aetiologies over a ten-year period. Methods. All rTHAs performed at a single institution from 2009 to 2019 were identified. Demographic information and mode of implant failure was obtained for all patients. Data for rTHA were stratified into two time periods to assess for temporal changes: 2009 to 2013, and 2014 to 2019. Operative reports, radiological imaging, and current procedural terminology (CPT) codes were cross-checked to ensure the accurate classification of revision aetiology for each patient. Results. In all, 2,924 patients with a mean age of 64.6 years (17 to 96) were identified. There were 1,563 (53.5%) female patients, and the majority of patients were Caucasian (n = 2,362, 80.8%). The three most frequent rTHA aetiologies were infection (27.2%), aseptic loosening (25.2%), and wear (15.2%). The frequency of rTHA for adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR) was significantly greater from 2014 to 2019 (4.7% vs 10.0%; p < 0.001), while the frequency of aseptic loosening was significantly greater from 2009 to 2013 (28.6% vs 21.9%; p < 0.001). Conclusion. Periprosthetic joint infection was the most common cause for rTHA in the current cohort of patients. Complications associated with ALTR necessitating rTHA was more frequent between 2014 to 2019, while aseptic loosening necessitating rTHA was significantly more frequent between 2009 to 2013. Optimizing protocols for prevention and management of infection and ALTR after THA may help to avoid additional financial burden to institutions and healthcare systems. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;2(1):16–21

Thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) arthritis is a common and disabling condition that can be treated with an operative procedure. Before operative measures, patients typically undergo conservative treatment utilizing methods such as physical therapy and injections. This study aims to determine what clinical modalities are being used for preoperative evaluation and nonoperative therapy and the associated cost prior to operative intervention. We queried Truven Market Scan, a large insurance provider database to identify patients undergoing CMC arthroplasty from 2010 to 2017. Patients were identified by common Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for CMC arthroplasty. All associated CPT codes listed for each patient during the 1 year period prior to operative intervention were collected and filtered to only include those codes associated with the ICD-9/10 diagnosis codes relating to CMC arthritis. The codes were then categorized as office visits, x-ray, injections, physical therapy, medical devices, and preoperative labs. The frequency and associated cost for each category was determined. There were 44,676 patients who underwent CMC arthroplasty during the study period. A total of $26,319,848.36 was charged during the preoperative period, for an average of $589.13 per patient. The highest contributing category to overall cost was office visits (42.1%), followed by injections (13.5%), and then physical therapy (11.1%). The most common diagnostic modality was x-ray, which was performed in 74.7% of patients and made up 11.0% of total charges. Only 49% of patients received at least one injection during the preoperative period and the average number of injections per patient was 1.72. Patients who were employed full time were more likely to receive two or more injections prior to surgery compared to patients who had retired (47% of full-time workers; 34% of retirees). The modalities used for the preoperative evaluation and conservative treatment of CMC arthritis and the associated cost are important to understand in order to determine the most successful and cost-effective treatment plan for patients. Surprisingly, despite the established evidence supporting clinical benefits, many patients do not undergo corticosteroid injections. With office visits being the largest contributor to overall costs, further inquiry into the necessity of multiple visits and efforts to combine visits, can help to reduce cost. Also, with the advent of telemedicine it may be possible to reduce visit cost by utilizing virtual medicine. Determining the best use of telemedicine and its effectiveness are areas for future investigation

Aims. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity as a treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs), especially in physiologically younger patients. While THA for osteoarthritis (OA) has demonstrated low complication rates and increased quality of life, results of THA for acute FNF are not as clear. Currently, a THA performed for FNF is included in an institutional arthroplasty bundle without adequate risk adjustment, potentially placing centres participating in fracture care at financial disadvantage. The purpose of this study is to report on perioperative complication rates after THA for FNF compared with elective THA performed for OA of the hip. Patients and Methods. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database between 2008 and 2016 was queried. Patients were identified using the THA Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code and divided into groups by diagnosis: OA in one and FNF in another. Univariate statistics were performed. Continuous variables were compared between groups using Student’s t-test, and the chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables. Multivariate and propensity-matched logistic regression analyses were performed to control for risk factors of interest. Results. Analyses included 139 635 patients undergoing THA. OA was the indication in 135 013 cases and FNF in 4622 cases. After propensity matching, mortality within 30 days (1.8% vs 0.3%; p < 0.001) and major morbidity (24.2% vs 19%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher among FNF patients. Re-operation (3.7% vs 2.7%; p = 0.014) and re-admission (7.3% vs 5.5%; p = 0.002) were significantly higher among FNF patients. Hip fracture patients had significantly longer operative time and length of stay (LOS), and were significantly less likely to be discharged to their home. Multivariate analyses gave similar results. Conclusion. This large database study showed a higher risk of postoperative complications including mortality, major morbidity, re-operation, re-admission, prolonged operative time, increased LOS, and decreased likelihood of discharge home in patients undergoing THA for FNF compared with OA. While THA is a good option for FNF patients, there are increased costs and financial risks to centres with a joint arthroplasty bundle programme participating in fracture care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(6 Supple B):84–90

Aim. The use of piperacillin/tazobactam with vancomycin as empirical antimicrobial therapy (EAT) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI), leading to propose cefepim as an alternative since 2017 in our reference center. The present study compared microbiological efficacy and tolerance of these two EAT strategies. Method. All patients with PJI empirically treated by vancomycin-cefepim (n=90) were prospectively enrolled in an observational study, and compared with vancomycin-piperacillin/tazobactam-treated historical controls (n=117), regarding: i) the proportion efficacious empirical regimen (i.e., at least one of the two molecules active against the identified organism(s) based on in vitro susceptibility testing); and ii) the incidence of empirical therapy-related adverse events (AE), classified according to the Common terminology criteria for AE (CTCAE). Results. Among the 146 (67.3%) documented infections, the EAT was considered as efficacious in 99 (99.0%) and 66 (98.5%) in the piperacillin-tazobactam and cefepim-treated patients, respectively (p=0.109). The rate of adverse events, and in particular AKI, was significantly higher in the vancomycin-piperacillin/tazobactam (n=38 [32.5%] and 32 [27.6%]) compared to the vancomycin-cefepim (n=13 [14.4%] and 5 [5.7%]) group (p=0.003 and <0.001, respectively). Of note, sex, age, and the proportion of patients receiving other nephrotoxics were similar among piperacillin/tazobactam- and cefepim-treated patients. However, in comparison with patients receiving cefepim, a higher modified Charlson's comorbitidy index (4 [IQR, 3–5] versus 2 [IQR, 2–4], p<0.001) has to be acknowledged, mainly related to a higher prevalence of baseline chronic renal injury (n=62, 53.4% versus n=34, 38.6%; p=0.035). Conclusions. The empirical use of vancomycin-cefepim in PJI was as efficient as vancomycin-piperacillin/tazobactam, and was associated with a significantly lower incidence of AKI

Recent studies have described safe outcomes for short-stays in the hospital after total shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to identify pre-operative and operative risk factors for hospital admissions exceeding 24 hours. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried from 2006 to 2016 for the current procedural terminology (CPT) billing code related to total shoulder arthroplasty. Patients were then grouped as either having a length of stay (LOS) equal to or less than 24 hours or greater than 24 hours. Patients admitted to the hospital prior to the day of surgery were excluded. Patient demographics, co-morbidities, and operative time were then analyzed as risk factors for a hospital stay exceeding 24 hours. Pre-operative co-morbidities included body mass index (BMI), diabetes, smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF), hypertension, dialysis, chronic steroid or immunosuppressant use, bleeding disorders, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Classification. Univariate and multivariate analyses were then performed to identify risk factors associated with 30-day readmission. 14,339 patients met inclusion criteria and 6,507 (45.3%) had a hospital LOS less than or equal to 24 hours. The mean length of hospitalization was 1.95 ± 1.88 days, the average age was 69 ± 9.7 years old, and 56.9% of the patients were female. Following a risk adjusted multivariate analysis, increasing age (odds ratio [OR], 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.03), ASA classification (OR, 1.50, 95% CI, 1.41–1.60), diabetes (OR, 1.69, 95% CI, 1.43–1.99), COPD (OR, 1.35, 95% CI, 1.16–1.57), CHF (OR, 2.67, 95% CI, 1.34–5.33), dialysis (OR, 2.47, 95% CI, 1.28, 4.77), history of a bleeding disorder (OR, 1.50, 95% CI, 1.20–1.88), or increasing operative time (OR, 1.01, 95% CI, 1.01–1.01) were identified as independent risk factors for hospital lengths of stay exceeding 24 hours. Male gender was identified as a protective factor for prolonged hospitalization (OR, 0.50, 95% CI, 0.46–0.53). This study identifies patient demographics, co-morbidities, and operative-relative risk factors that are associated with increased risk for a prolonged hospitalization following total shoulder arthroplasty. Female gender, increasing age, ASA classification, operative time, or a history of diabetes, COPD, CHF, or history of a bleeding disorder are risk factors hospitalizations exceeding 24 hours