There is limited evidence in the literature suggesting that ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) THA is associated with lower risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) than other bearing combinations especially metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) and metal-on-metal (MoM). Pitto and Sedel reported hazard ratios of 1.3 – 2.1 for other bearing surfaces vs. CoC. Of interest, the PJI rate was not significantly lower in the first 6 months, when most infections occur, but only became significant in the long term. While factors such as patient age, fixation, mode, O.R. type, use of body exhaust suits, and surgeon volume were considered in the multivariate analysis, BMI, medical comorbidities, and ASA class were not. This is a major weakness that casts doubt on the conclusion, since those three factors are MAJOR risk factors for PJI AND all three factors are more likely to be unevenly distributed, much more likely present in groups other than CoC. The data was also limited by the fact that it was drawn from a retrospective review of National Registry data, The New Zealand Joint Registry. While similar findings have recently been reported from the Australian Joint Registry, the danger in attributing differences in outcomes to implants alone is possibly the single greatest danger in interpreting registry results. While device design can impact implant survival, other factors such as surgical technique, surgeon, hospital, and especially patient factors have a far greater likelihood of explaining differences in observed results. A recent report from the same New Zealand joint registry reported that obesity, ASA class, surgical approach, and trainee operations all were associated with higher PJI and all would be more likely in non-CoC THAs. Accuracy of diagnosis is also a major concern. Revision for trunnionosis is more common in non-CoC THA and is frequently misdiagnosed as PJI.

Numerous non-registry studies and reviews have compared PJI in CoC vs. other bearing and none have concluded than the incidence of PJI differed significantly.

Two critical steps in achieving optimal results and minimizing complications (dislocation, lengthening, and intraoperative fracture) are careful preoperative planning and more recently, the option of intraoperative imaging in order to optimise accurate and reproducible total hip replacement. The important issues to ascertain are relative limb length, offset and center of rotation. It is important to start the case knowing the patient's perception of their limb length. Patient perception is equally important, if not more important, than the radiographic assessment. On the acetabular side, the teardrop should be identified and the amount of reaming necessary to place the inferior margin of the acetabular component adjacent to the tear drop should be noted. Superiorly the amount of exposed metal that is expected to be seen during surgery should be measured in millimeters. Once the key issues of limb length, offset, center of rotation, and acetabular component position relative to the native acetabulum have been confirmed along with the expected sizing of the acetabular and femoral components, it is critical that the operative plan is reproduced at the time of surgery and this can best be consistently performed with the use of intraoperative imaging. Advances in digital imaging now make efficient, cost-effective assessment of hip replacement possible. Embedded software allows accurate confirmation of the preoperative plan intraoperatively when correction of potential errors is easily possible. Such technology is now mature after years of clinical use and studies have confirmed its success in avoiding outliers and achieving optimal results.

A pilot study at Washington University demonstrated that intraoperative imaging was able to eliminate outliers for acetabular inclination and anteversion. In addition, the ability to achieve accurate reproduction of femoral offset and limb length within 5mm was three times better with intraoperative imaging (P < 0.001).

In years past, the most common reason for revision following knee replacement was polyethylene wear. A more recent study indicates that polyethylene wear is relatively uncommon as a cause for total knee revision counting for only 10% or fewer of revisions. The most common reason for revision currently is aseptic loosening followed closely by instability and infection. The time to revision was surprisingly short. In a recent series only 30% of knees were greater than 5 years from surgery at the time of revision. The most common time interval was less than 2 years. This is likely because of the higher incidence of infection and instability that occurs most commonly at a relatively early time frame. Evaluation of a painful total knee should take into account these findings. All total knees that are painful within 5 years of surgery should be assumed to be infected until proven otherwise. Therefore, virtually all should be aspirated for cell count, differential, and culture. Alpha-defensin is also available in cases in which a patient may have been on antibiotics within a month or less, as well as cases in which diagnosis is a challenge for some reason. Instability can be diagnosed with physical exam focusing on mid-flexion instability which can be usually determined with the patient seated and the knee in mid-flexion, with the foot flat on the floor at which point sagittal plane laxity can be discerned. This is also frequently associated with symptoms of giving way and recurring effusions and difficulty descending stairs. A new phenomenon of tibial de-bonding has been described, which can be a challenge to diagnose. Radiographs can appear normal when loosening occurs between the implant and the cement mantle. This seems to be more common with the use of higher viscosity cement. Obviously this is technique dependent since good results have been reported with the use of high viscosity cement. Component malposition can cause stiffness and pain and relatively good results have been reported by component revision when malrotation has been confirmed with CT scan. When infection, instability and loosening are not present, extra-articular causes should be ruled out including lumbar spine, vascular compromise, complex regional pain syndromes and fibromyalgia, and peri-articular causes such as bursitis, tendonitis, tendon impingement among others. One of the most common causes of pain following total knee is unrealistic patient expectations. Performing total knee replacement in early stages of arthritis with only mild to moderate symptoms and radiographic changes has been associated with persistent pain and dissatisfaction. It may be prudent to obtain the immediate preoperative x-rays to determine if early intervention was undertaken and patients have otherwise normal appearing total knee x-rays and a negative work up. A recent study indicated that this was likely a cause or a major contributing factor to persistent pain following otherwise a well performed knee replacement. A national multicenter study of the appropriateness of indications for TKA also indicated that early intervention was a major cause of persistent pain, dissatisfaction, and failure to improve following total knee replacement.

Two critical steps in achieving optimal results and minimizing complications (dislocation, lengthening, and intra-operative fracture) are careful pre-operative planning and more recently, the option of intra-operative imaging in order to optimise accurate and reproducible total hip replacement. The important issues to ascertain are relative limb length, offset and center of rotation. It is important to start the case knowing the patient's perception of their limb length. Patient perception is equally important, if not more important, than the radiographic assessment. On the acetabular side, the teardrop should be identified and the amount of reaming necessary to place the inferior margin of the acetabular component adjacent to the tear drop should be noted. Superiorly the amount of exposed metal that is expected to be seen during surgery should be measured in millimeters. Once the key issues of limb length, offset, center of rotation, and acetabular component position relative to the native acetabulum have been confirmed along with the expected sizing of the acetabular and femoral components, it is critical that the operative plan is reproduced at the time of surgery and this can best be consistently performed with the use of intra-operative imaging. Advances in digital imaging now make efficient, cost-effective assessment of hip replacement possible. Embedded software allows accurate confirmation of the pre-operative plan intra-operatively when correction of potential errors is easily possible. Such technology is now mature after years of clinical use and studies have confirmed its success in avoiding outliers and achieving optimal results.

A pilot study at Washington University demonstrated that intra-operative imaging was able to eliminate outliers for acetabular inclination and anteversion. In addition, the ability to achieve accurate reproduction of femoral offset and limb length within 5mm was three times better with intra-operative imaging (P <0.001).

There is limited evidence in the literature suggesting that ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) THA is associated with lower risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) than other bearing combinations especially metal-on-poly (MoP) and metal-on-metal (MoM). Pitto and Sedel reported hazard ratios of 1.3 – 2.1 for other bearing surfaces versus CoC. Of interest, the PJI rate was not significantly lower in the first 6 months, when most infections occur, but only became significant in the long term. While factors such as patient age, fixation, mode, OR type, use of body exhaust suits, and surgeon volume were considered in the multivariate analysis, BMI, medical comorbidities, and ASA class were not. This is a major weakness that casts doubt on the conclusion, since those three factors are MAJOR risk factors for PJI AND all three factors are more likely to be unevenly distributed, and much more likely present in groups other than CoC. The data was also limited by the fact that it was drawn from a retrospective review of National Registry data, The New Zealand Joint Registry. While similar findings have recently been reported from the Australian Joint Registry, the danger in attributing differences in outcomes to implants alone is possibly the single greatest danger in interpreting registry results. While device design can impact implant survival, other factors such as surgical technique, surgeon, hospital, and especially patient factors have a far greater likelihood of explaining differences in observed results. A recent report from the same New Zealand joint registry reported that obesity, ASA class, surgical approach, and trainee operations all were associated with higher PJI and all would be more likely in non-CoC THAs. Accuracy of diagnosis is also a major concern. Revision for trunnionosis is more common in non-CoC THA and is frequently misdiagnosed as PJI.

Numerous non-registry studies and reviews have compared PJI in CoC vs. other bearings and none have concluded than the incidence of PJI differed significantly.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is among the most successful interventions in all of medicine and has recently been termed “The Operation of the Century”. Charnley originally stated that “Objectives must be reasonable. Neither surgeons nor engineers will ever make an artificial hip joint that will last 30 years and at some time in this period enable the patient to play football.” and he defined an appropriate patient as generally being over 65 years of age. Hip rating scales developed during this time were consistent with this approach and only required relief of pain and return to normal activities of daily living to achieve a perfect score. Since this time, however, hip arthroplasty has been applied to high numbers of younger, more active individuals and patient expectations have increased. One recent study showed that in spite of a good hip score, only 43% of patients had all of their expectations completely fulfilled following THA.

The current generation metal-metal hip surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) has been suggested as an alternative to standard THA which may offer advantages to patients including retention of more native bone, less stress shielding, less thigh pain due to absence of a stem, less limb length discrepancy, and a higher activity level. A recent technology review by the AAOS determined that currently available literature was inadequate to verify any of these suggested potential benefits. The potential complications associated with SRA have been well documented recently. The indications are narrower, the implant is more expensive, the technique is more demanding and less forgiving, and the results are both highly product and surgeon specific. Unless a clinical advantage in the level of function of SRA over THA can be demonstrated, continued enthusiasm for this technique is hard to justify.

To generate data on the level of function of younger more active arthroplasty patients, a national multicenter survey was conducted by an independent university medical interviewing center with a long track record of conducting state and federal medical surveys. All patients were under 60, high demand (pre-morbid UCLA score > 6) and had received a cementless stem with an advanced bearing surface or an SRA at one of five major total joint centers throughout the country. The detailed questionnaire quantified symptoms and function related to employment, recreation, and sexual function. Patients with SRA had a higher incidence of noises emanating from the hip than other bearing surfaces although this was transient and asymptomatic. SRA patients were much more likely to have less thigh pain than THA, less likely to limp, less likely to perceive a limb length difference, more likely to run for exercise, and more likely to run longer distances. In another study of over 400 THA and SRA patients at two major academic centers, patients completed pain drawings that revealed an equivalent incidence of groin pain between THA and SRA, but an incidence of thigh pain in THA that was three times higher than in SRA in young active patients.

While some or most of the observed advantages of SRA over THA may be attributable to some degree of selection bias, the inescapable conclusion is that SRA patients are demonstrating clinical advantages that warrants continued utilization and investigation of this procedure.

Total hip arthroplasty is among the most successful interventions in all of medicine and has recently been termed “The Operation of the Century”. Charnley originally stated that “Objectives must be reasonable. Neither surgeons nor engineers will ever make an artificial hip joint that will last 30 years and at some time in this period enable the patient to play football.” and he defined appropriate patient as generally being over 65 years of age. Hip rating scales developed during this time were consistent with this approach and only required relief of pain and return to normal activities of daily living to achieve a perfect score. Since this time, however, hip arthroplasty has been applied to high numbers of younger, more active individuals and patient expectations have increased. One recent study showed that in spite of a good hip score, only 43% of patients had all of their expectations completely fulfilled following THA.

The current generation metal-metal hip surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) has been suggested as an alternative to standard THA which may offer advantages to patients including retention of more native bone, less stress shielding, less thigh pain due to absence of a stem, less limb length discrepancy, and a higher activity level. A recent technology review by the AAOS determined that currently available literature was inadequate to verify any of these suggested potential benefits. The potential complications associated with SRA have been well documented recently. The indications are narrower, the implant is more expensive, the technique is more demanding and less forgiving, and the results are both highly product and surgeon specific. Unless a clinical advantage in the level of function of SRA over THA can be demonstrated, continued enthusiasm for this technique is hard to justify.

To generate data on the level of function of younger more active arthroplasty patients, a national multicenter survey was conducted by an independent university medical interviewing center with a long track record of conducting state and federal medical surveys. All patients were under 60, high demand (pre-morbid UCLA score > 6) and had received a cementless stem with an advanced bearing surface or an SRA at one of five major total joint centers throughout the country. The detailed questionnaire quantified symptoms and function related to employment, recreation, and sexual function. Patients with SRA had a higher incidence of noises emanating from the hip than other bearing surfaces although this was transient and asymptomatic. SRA patients were much more likely to have less thigh pain than THA, less likely to limp, less likely to perceive a limb length difference, more likely to run for exercise, and more likely to run longer distances. In another study of over 400 THA and SRA patients at two major academic centers, patients completed pain drawings that revealed an equivalent incidence of groin pain between THA and SRA, but an incidence of thigh pain in THA that was three times higher than in SRA in young active patients.

While some or most of the observed advantages of SRA over THA may be attributable to some degree of selection bias, the inescapable conclusion is that SRA patients are demonstrating clinical advantages that warrants continued utilisation and investigation of this procedure.

Two critical steps in achieving optimal results and minimizing complications (dislocation, lengthening, and intra-operative fracture) are careful pre-operative planning and more recently, the option of intra-operative imaging in order to optimise accurate and reproducible total hip replacement. The important issues to ascertain are relative limb length, offset and center of rotation. It is important to start the case knowing the patient's perception of their limb length. Patient perception is equally important, if not more important, than the radiographic assessment. On the acetabular side, the teardrop should be identified and the amount of reaming necessary to place the inferior margin of the acetabular component adjacent to the tear drop should be noted. Superiorly the amount of exposed metal that is expected to be seen during surgery should be measured in millimeters. Once the key issues of limb length, offset, center of rotation, and acetabular component position relative to the native acetabulum have been confirmed along with the expected sizing of the acetabular and femoral components, it is critical that the operative plan is reproduced at the time of surgery and this can best be consistently performed with the use of intra-operative imaging. Advances in digital imaging now make efficient, cost-effective assessment of hip replacement possible. Embedded software allows accurate confirmation of the pre-operative plan intra-operatively when correction of potential errors is easily possible. Such technology is now mature after years of clinical use and studies have confirmed its success in avoiding outliers and achieving optimal results.

The role of metal sensitivity or allergy in causing persistent symptoms or failure and need for a revision of a total joint replacement has been the topic of debate and controversy for decades. There was renewed interest in this area with the rise of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty and the advent of adverse local tissue reactions. This led to an increase in metal ion testing as well as metal sensitivity testing. With the decline of the use of metal-on-metal hip components, this is now mostly an issue in knee arthroplasty. It is well known that a substantial percentage of patients have persistent symptoms following knee replacement. What remains in question is whether allergy to metal or other materials such as PMMA may be a contributing factor. It is accepted that the incidence of positive skin patch tests is higher in symptomatic failed joint replacements. Nickel sensitivity is most common as a positive skin test with up to 15% of patients demonstrating this followed by chromium and cobalt. A recent review by Lachiewicz et al. concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine or widespread cutaneous or in vitro hypersensitivity testing before primary TKA, that there is no evidence-based rationale to recommend a routine metal allergy screening questionnaire, that there is only anecdotal support for Ni-free implants, and that local dermatitis should be treated with topical steroids. In another article, routine screening for metal allergy was not recommended, however, selective screening for history of sensitivity or unexplained pain or early loosening was suggested. Other experts have recommended a role for utilizing a commercially available alternative to components containing nickel or cobalt in patients thought to be hypersensitive. A recent study, however, concluded that there was no difference in complications, revisions, or reoperations among patients who tested positive with patch testing whether they were treated with standard components or nickel free components. Likewise, a consensus panel published results from the United Kingdom in which cobalt chrome implants were recommended regardless of the patients metal allergy status. Patient perception is important, however, and among patients who report multiple allergies of any kind, a higher percentage are likely to be dissatisfied with their knee replacement. Of more importance are those reporting a specific allergy to metal are substantially more likely to express some dissatisfaction with their components.

Metal allergy as a cause of chronic pain and/or early failure of joint replacement is rare if it exists at all. It is always a diagnosis of exclusion. Patients who think they are allergic are probably more likely to be more symptomatic following joint replacement. Whether or not to use a nickel free or hypoallergenic component in such patients remains an area of controversy.

Resurfacing the patella is performed the majority of the time in the United States and in many regions it is considered standard practice. In many countries, however, the patella is left un-resurfaced an equal amount of the time or even rarely ever resurfaced. Patella resurfacing is not a simple or benign procedure. There are numerous negative sequelae of resurfacing including loosening, fragmentation, avascular necrosis, lateral facet pain, stress fracture, acute fracture, late fracture, and restricted motion. In a study by Berend, Ritter, et al, failures of the patella component were reported 4.2% of the time at an average of only 2.6 years. A study was undertaken at Washington University in recent years to determine rather more clinical problems were observed following total knee replacement with or without patella resurfacing. Records were maintained on all problem total knees cases with well localised anterior knee pain. The referral area for this clinic is St. Louis which is among the largest American cities, with the highest percentage of total knees that are performed without patella resurfacing. During 4 years of referrals of total knee patients with anterior knee pain, 47 cases were identified of which 36 had a resurfaced patella and 11 had a non-resurfaced patella. Eight of 36 resurfaced patellae underwent surgery while only 2 of 11 non-resurfaced patellae underwent subsequent surgery. More than 3 times as many painful total knees that were referred for evaluation had already had their patella resurfaced. In spite of the fact that approximately equal number of total knees were performed in this area without patella resurfacing, far more patients presented to clinic with painful total knee in which the patella had been resurfaced. The numerous pathologies requiring a treatment following patella resurfacing included patella loosening, fragmentation of the patella, avascular necrosis patella, late stress fracture, lateral facet pain, oblique resurfacing, and too thick of a patellar composite. In a large multi-center randomised clinical trial at 5 years from the United Kingdom in over 1700 knees from 34 centers and 116 surgeons, there was no difference in the Oxford Score, SF-12, EQ-5D, or need for further surgery or complications. The authors concluded, “We see no difference in any score, if there is a difference, it is too small to be of any clinical significance”. In a prospective of randomised clinical trial performed at Tulane University over 20 years ago, no differences were observed in knee score, a functional patella questionnaire, or the incidence of anterior knee pain between resurfaced and un-resurfaced patellae at time intervals of 2–4 years, 5–7 years, or greater than 10 years. Beyond 10 years the knee scores of total knee patients with a resurfaced patella had declined significantly greater than those with a non-resurfaced patella. There are numerous advantages of not resurfacing the patella including less surgical time, less expense, a lower risk of “major” complications (especially late complications), and if symptoms develop in an un-resurfaced patella, it is an easier salvage situation with more options available. A small percentage of total knee patients will be symptomatic whether or not their patella is resurfaced. Not resurfacing the patella retains more options and has fewer complications. The major determinant of clinical result and the presence of anterior knee pain after knee replacement is surgical technique and component design not whether or not the patella is resurfaced. Patella resurfacing is occasionally necessary for patients with inflammatory arthritis, a deformed or maltracking patella, or symptoms and pathology that are virtually restricted to the patellofemoral joint. For the vast majority of patients, however, patella resurfacing is not necessary.

Tourniquet use in total knee arthroplasty is convenient for the surgeon and provides a bloodless field for expeditious surgery and a dry field for cementation, but can best be described as an orthopaedic tradition. It is logical for complex anatomy of ligament, nerve, and vessel surgery but it may not be necessary for total knee replacement. In one recent randomised trial, the absence of the tourniquet was not found to affect the quality of cement fixation. There are numerous potential downsides to the use of a tourniquet including decrease range of motion, delayed recovery, increased pain, wound complications, micro-emboli, neuropathy, and increased VTE. There are also a number of complications associated with the use of a tourniquet including arterial thrombosis, skin irritation below the tourniquet, post-operative hyperemia, blood loss, less accurate intra-operative assessment, and it complicates intravenous drug administration. Studies of range of motion have shown that when there is a difference noted, the range of motion is consistently better without tourniquet use. When a tourniquet is utilised it has been found to be advantageous to only use of tourniquet for a minimal amount of the case, typically when cementing is performed. Functional strength has also been found to be improved without the use of a tourniquet. This was attributed to muscle damage, tourniquet-induced ischemia, and compressive injury. Increased peri-operative pain has also been reported in randomised trials associated with the use of a tourniquet. Edema, swelling, and limb girth issues have also been noted to be associated with tourniquet use. Exsanguinating a limb will result in swelling approximately 10% of the original volume half due to a return of blood, and half due to reactive hyperemia. Longer tourniquet times are also associated with increased wound drainage and more wound hypoxia. Tourniquet use has also been associated with embolic phenomenon with several times greater risk of large emboli associated with tourniquet use.

A number of complications have been associated with tourniquet use including thromboembolic complications. In one study where quantitative MRI was utilised on both thighs after unilateral total knee replacement with and without a tourniquet, the tourniquet group showed more atrophy with a loss of 20% of the volume compared to the normal side in total knees performed with a tourniquet which also performed clinically worse. There is a small but substantial risk of arterial thrombosis particularly in patients that have atherosclerotic plaque. Ironically there is a risk of increased post-operative blood loss due to the post-tourniquet “blush” as the blood pressure and pain increase hours after a surgical procedure is completed. There is also difficulty in identifying and coagulating posterior and lateral geniculate vessels with the components in place. Utilizing a tourniquet also interferes with intra-operative assessment of patella tracking, range of motion, ligament stability, and gap balancing. Randomised clinical trials have concluded that there is less pain and quicker recovery without the use of a tourniquet. There have also been reports of less swelling, increased range of motion, less analgesic use and better clinical outcome when a tourniquet is not utilised. A meta-analysis of systematic reviews favored not utilizing a tourniquet due to the decrease in complication rate and the improvement in clinical results. While it is standard practice in the US to utilise a tourniquet, the strong consensus of the literature on the subject favors either not using a tourniquet or minimizing the use of a tourniquet for the period of time necessary for a very dry field for cement fixation.

Total hip replacement is among the most successful interventions in medicine and has been termed “The Operation of the Century”. Most major problems have been solved including femoral fixation, acetabular fixation, and wear. With a success rate of over 95% at 10 years in both hip and knee arthroplasty in a number of studies, the question remains as to whether the current status quo is optimal or acceptable. The literature, however, reports are from centers that represent optimised results and registry data, including the Medicare database, indicates that substantial short-term problems persist. The major issue is the variability in the performance of the procedure. The inability to consistently position components, particularly the acetabular component, results in major problems including instability and limb length discrepancy. A report by Malchau, et al. reveals that even among the best surgeons, optimal acetabular component positioning is only achieved 50% of the time. The penalty for missing the target is increased incidence of instability, increased wear rate, and diminished function due to restricted motion. Complications are related to position and a major potential explanation is the impact of patient position. Traditional imaging presents a two-dimensional rather than three-dimensional view of the patient and the patient is in a supine, non-functional position at the time that imaging is performed. Adverse events attributed to malposition, however, occur in functional positions and there is evidence that the orientation of the pelvis changes from the supine position at which imaging is performed. This topic has been studied extensively on three continents and the consensus is that the pelvis shifts on the order of 30–40 degrees from the supine to standing and sitting and furthermore, the acetabular component position changes proportionally with the rotation of the pelvis that occurs. How do we incorporate this information into imaging arthroplasty patients? This would require imaging the entire body, acquiring AP and lateral images simultaneously so that 3D imaging can be performed, performing imaging in a functional position (standing or sitting) and optimally at a lower radiation dose since these patients have repeated images and therefore a cumulative radiation dose over their lifetime. This technology was FDA approved for use in the hip and knee in 2011 and pilot studies have been performed at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis to validate the number of the hip and knee arthroplasty applications.

In conclusion, weightbearing and rotation have substantial impact on the standard measurements obtained before and after hip and knee arthroplasty. These differences in measurements between supine, sitting, and standing as well as correction for rotation may explain the lack of a stronger correlation between component position and a variety of complications that are observed such as variability in wear rates as well as instability. In knee arthroplasty, the change in mechanical axis that occurs from restoring all of patients to a neutral mechanical axis may explain some of the persistent pain and dissatisfaction that has been recently been reported at a relatively high percentage of knee arthroplasty patients. Because of the numerous potential clinical implications of three-dimensional weightbearing imaging, it is likely that the future of arthroplasty imaging will focus on functional three-dimensional imaging of the patient.

Obesity is a leading public health concern and it is increasing in prevalence over the last 20 years. Obesity prevalence has doubled in adults and tripled in adolescents. The United States is the leading country in terms of percent obesity. Most alarming is the fact that the fastest growing rates of obesity are in the highest BMI groups. The issue of obesity is a particular concern to arthroplasty surgeons since there is an association between the increasing incidence of obesity and the increasing rate of joint replacement. Also of concern is that obese patients tend to be younger and complication rates and revision rates are higher in young patients which is only compounded by the presence of obesity. The risk of virtually every major complication is substantially higher in obese patients. Of concern, however, is a recent study indicating that bariatric surgery with successful weight loss does not necessarily decrease the complication rate. Obesity is also associated with substantially higher costs. There is some evidence that obesity doesn't necessarily affect implant survival. There is also evidence that the clinical outcomes may not be substantially compromised by the presence of obesity. Based on data from studies such as this, some centers have stated that it is difficult to justify withholding surgery based on BMI alone. The data on weight loss following surgery indicates the vast majority of patients did not lose weight following joint replacement. In one study a higher proportion of patients gained weight than lost weight.

Two critical steps in achieving optimal results and minimizing complications (dislocation, lengthening, and intraoperative fracture) are careful preoperative planning and more recently, the option of intraoperative imaging in order to optimise accurate and reproducible total hip replacement. The important issues to ascertain are relative limb length, offset and center of rotation. It is important to start the case knowing the patient's perception of their limb length. Patient perception is equally important, if not more important, than the radiographic assessment. On the acetabular side, the teardrop should be identified and the amount of reaming necessary to place the inferior margin of the acetabular component adjacent to the tear drop should be noted. Superiorly the amount of exposed metal that is expected to be seen during surgery should be measured in millimeters. Once the key issues of limb length, offset, center of rotation, and acetabular component position relative to the native acetabulum have been confirmed along with the expected sizing of the acetabular and femoral components, it is critical that the operative plan is reproduced at the time of surgery and this can best be consistently performed with the use of intraoperative imaging. Advances in digital imaging now make efficient, cost-effective assessment of hip replacement possible. Embedded software allows accurate confirmation of the preoperative plan intraoperatively when correction of potential errors is easily possible. Such technology is now mature after years of clinical use and studies have confirmed its success in avoiding outliers and achieving optimal results.

Resurfacing the patella is performed the majority of the time in the US and in many regions it is considered standard practice. In many countries, however, the patella is left unresurfaced an equal amount of the time or even rarely ever resurfaced. Patella resurfacing is not a simple or benign procedure. There are numerous negative sequelae of resurfacing including loosening, fragmentation, avascular necrosis, lateral facet pain, stress fracture, acute fracture, late fracture, and restricted motion. In a study by Berend, Ritter, et al, failures of the patella component were reported 4.2% of the time at an average of only 2.6 years. A study was undertaken at Washington University in recent years to determine whether more clinical problems were observed following total knee replacement with or without patella resurfacing. Records were maintained on all problem total knees cases with well localised anterior knee pain. The referral area for this clinic is St. Louis which is among the largest American cities, with the highest percentage of total knees that are performed without patella resurfacing. During 4 years of referrals of total knee patients with anterior knee pain, 47 cases were identified of which 36 had a resurfaced patella and 11 had a non-resurfaced patella. Eight of 36 resurfaced patellae underwent surgery while only 2 of 11 non-resurfaced patellae underwent subsequent surgery. More than 3 times as many painful total knees that were referred for evaluation had already had their patella resurfaced. In spite of the fact that approximately equal number of total knees were performed in this area without patella resurfacing, far more patients presented to clinic with painful total knee in which the patella had been resurfaced. The numerous pathologies requiring a treatment following patella resurfacing included patella loosening, fragmentation of the patella, avascular necrosis patella, late stress fracture, lateral facet pain, oblique resurfacing, and too thick of a patellar composite. In a large multi-center randomised clinical trial at 5 years from the United Kingdom in over 1700 knees from 34 centers and 116 surgeons, there was no difference in the Oxford Score, SF-12, EQ-5D, or need for further surgery or complications. The authors concluded, “We see no difference in any score, if there is a difference, it is too small to be of any clinical significance”. In a prospective randomised clinical trial performed at Tulane University over 20 years ago, no differences were observed in knee score, a functional patella questionnaire, or the incidence of anterior knee pain between resurfaced and unresurfaced patellae at time intervals of 2–4 years, 5–7 years, or greater than 10 years. Beyond 10 years the knee scores of total knee patients with a resurfaced patella had declined significantly greater than those with a non-resurfaced patella. There are numerous advantages of not resurfacing the patella including less surgical time, less expense, a lower risk of “major” complications (especially late complications), and if symptoms develop in an unresurfaced patella, it is an easier salvage situation with more options available. A small percentage of total knee patients will be symptomatic whether or not their patella is resurfaced. Not resurfacing the patella retains more options and has fewer complications. The major determinant of clinical result and the presence of anterior knee pain after knee replacement is surgical technique and component design not whether or not the patella is resurfaced. Patella resurfacing is occasionally necessary for patients with inflammatory arthritis, a deformed or maltracking patella, or symptoms and pathology that are virtually restricted to the patellofemoral joint. For the vast majority of patients, however, patella resurfacing is not necessary.

Tourniquet use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is convenient for the surgeon and provides a bloodless field for expeditious surgery and a dry field for cementation, but can best be described as an orthopaedic tradition. It is logical for complex anatomy of ligament, nerve, and vessel surgery but it may not be necessary for TKA. In one recent randomised trial, the absence of the tourniquet was not found to affect the quality of cement fixation. There are numerous potential downsides to the use of a tourniquet including decrease range of motion, delayed recovery, increased pain, wound complications, micro-emboli, neuropathy, and increased VTE. There are also a number of complications associated with the use of a tourniquet including arterial thrombosis, skin irritation below the tourniquet, post-operative hyperemia, blood loss, less accurate intra-operative assessment, and it complicates intravenous drug administration. Studies of range of motion have shown that when there is a difference noted, the range of motion is consistently better without tourniquet use. When a tourniquet is utilised it has been found to be advantageous to only use the tourniquet for a minimal amount of the case, typically when cementing is performed. Functional strength has also been found to be improved without the use of a tourniquet. In a recent randomised trial, tourniquet use was associated with decreased quad strength at 3 weeks that persisted at 3 months. This was attributed to muscle damage, tourniquet-induced ischemia, and compressive injury. Increased peri-operative pain has also been reported in randomised trials associated with the use of a tourniquet. Edema, swelling, and limb girth issues have also been noted to be associated with tourniquet use. Exsanguinating a limb will result in swelling approximately 10% of the original volume half due to a return of blood, and half due to reactive hyperemia. Longer tourniquet times are also associated with increased wound drainage and more wound hypoxia as measured by transcutaneous oxygen levels. Tourniquet use has also been associated with embolic phenomenon with several times greater risk of large emboli. In one study where quantitative MRI was utilised on both thighs after unilateral total knee replacement with and without a tourniquet, the tourniquet group showed more atrophy with a loss of 20% of the volume compared to the normal side in total knees performed with a tourniquet which also performed clinically worse. There is a small but substantial risk of arterial thrombosis particularly in patients that have atherosclerotic plaque. Ironically there is a risk of increased post-operative blood loss due to the post-tourniquet “blush” as the blood pressure and pain increase hours after a surgical procedure is completed. There is also difficulty in identifying and coagulating posterior and lateral geniculate vessels with the components in place. Utilizing a tourniquet also interferes with intra-operative assessment of patella tracking, range of motion, ligament stability, and gap balancing. Randomised clinical trials have concluded that there is less pain and quicker recovery without the use of a tourniquet. There have also been reports of less swelling, increased range of motion, less analgesic use and better clinical outcome when a tourniquet is not utilised. A meta-analysis of systematic reviews favored not utilizing a tourniquet due to the decrease in complication rate and the improvement in clinical results. While it is standard practice in the US to utilise a tourniquet, the strong consensus of the literature on the subject favors either not using a tourniquet or minimizing the use of a tourniquet for the period of time necessary for a very dry field for cement fixation.

In his classic monograph entitled Low Friction Arthroplasty of the Hip, which was published in 1979, John Charnley dedicated a chapter to thromboembolic complications. The overall incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) was approximately 8% and the incidence of death from PE approximately 1%. Surveys of orthopaedic surgeons who undertake total joint replacement conducted by The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS), 30 years later, showed that there was still no consensus as to the best form of prophylaxis with a wide variation of methods being used.

In the past 3 years, for the first time there is uniformity in the recommendations of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). Both groups have reached an agreement that the rate of DVT formation is not the ideal endpoint to use when assessing the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis after joint replacement, as had been done in previous drug trials. Most of these DVTs are asymptomatic and of questionable clinical significance. At least one recent study brings into question the association between the rate of DVT formation and that of subsequent symptomatic events. Both groups also focus on minimizing iatrogenic bleeding complications, which can lead to compromised clinical results, including limited movement and pain in the case of knee replacement and increased risk of infection in both knee and hip replacement. To further complete the uniformity of approach in the United States, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers the Surgical Care Improvement Program (SCIP) that monitors hospital compliance with VTE prophylaxis of hospitalised patients, has also changed their policy. Beginning January 2014, either aspirin or a compression device has been considered as acceptable measures for THR, TKR and hip fracture. The remarkable success reported from many centers with the use of aspirin and/or the use of a mobile compression device in patients without major risk factors, such as a prior history of symptomatic VTE, clearly indicate that aggressive pharmacoprophylaxis is not necessary for the vast majority of patients who undergo joint replacement.

BACKGROUND

Patella resurfacing in TKA remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcome in TKA in patients undergoing bilateral TKAs with one patella resurfaced and the other patella nonresurfaced.

Venous thromboembolic events, either deep vein thromboses or pulmonary emboli, are important complications in patients undergoing knee or hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a mobile compression device (ActiveCare+S.F.T.®; Medical Compression Systems, Inc., Or Akiva, Israel) with or without aspirin compared with current pharmacology protocols for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients undergoing elective primary unilateral lower extremity joint arthroplasty.

A multicenter registry was established to capture the rate of symptomatic venous thromboemboli following primary lower extremity joint arthroplasty in 3,060 patients from ten sites including knee arthroplasty (1,551) or hip arthroplasty (1,509). All patients were 18 years of age or older with no known history of venous thromboembolism, coagulation disorder, or solid tumor. Use of the compression device began peri-operatively and continued for a minimum of ten days. Patients with symptoms of deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism underwent duplex ultrasonography and/or spiral computed tomography. All patients were evaluated at three months post-operatively to document any evidence of deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism.

Of 3,060 patients, twenty-eight (0.92%) had venous thromboembolism (20 distal deep venous thromboses, 3 proximal deep venous thromboses, and 5 pulmonary emboli). One death occurred with no autopsy performed. Symptomatic venous thromboembolic rates observed in lower extremity joint arthroplasty patients using the mobile compression device were non-inferior (not worse than) at a margin of 1.0% to rates reported for pharmacological prophylaxis, including warfarin, enoxaparin, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran except in the knee arthroplasty group where the mobile compression device fell short of rivaroxaban by 0.06%.

Use of the mobile compression device with or without aspirin for patients undergoing lower extremity joint arthroplasty provide a non-inferior risk for developing venous thromboembolism compared with current pharmacological protocols reported in the literature.

Total hip arthroplasty is among the most successful interventions in all of medicine and has recently been termed “The Operation of the Century”. Charnley originally stated that “Objectives must be reasonable. Neither surgeons nor engineers will ever make an artificial hip joint that will last 30 years and at some time in this period enable the patient to play football.” and he defined the appropriate patient as generally being over 65 years of age. Hip rating scales developed during this time were consistent with this approach and only required relief of pain and return to normal activities of daily living to achieve a perfect score. Since this time, however, hip arthroplasty has been applied to high numbers of younger, more active individuals and patient expectations have increased. One recent study showed that in spite of a good hip score, only 43% of patients had all of their expectations completely fulfilled following THA.

The current generation metal-metal hip surface replacement arthroplasty (SRA) has been suggested as an alternative to standard THA which may offer advantages to patients including retention of more native bone, less stress shielding, less thigh pain due to absence of a stem, less limb length discrepancy, and a higher activity level. A recent technology review by the AAOS determined that currently available literature was inadequate to verify any of these suggested potential benefits. The potential complications associated with SRA have been well documented recently. The indications are narrower, the implant is more expensive, the technique is more demanding and less forgiving, and the results are both highly product and surgeon specific. Unless a clinical advantage in the level of function of SRA over THA can be demonstrated, continued enthusiasm for this technique is hard to justify.

To generate data on the level of function of younger more active arthroplasty patients, a national multicenter survey was conducted by an independent university medical interviewing center with a long track record of conducting state and federal medical surveys. All patients were under 60, high demand (pre-morbid UCLA score > 6) and had received a cementless stem with an advanced bearing surface or an SRA at one of five major total joint centers throughout the country. The detailed questionnaire quantified symptoms and function related to employment, recreation, and sexual function. Patients with SRA had a higher incidence of noises emanating from the hip than other bearing surfaces although this was transient and asymptomatic. SRA patients were much more likely to have less thigh pain than THA, less likely to limp, less likely to perceive a limb length difference, more likely to run for exercise, and more likely to run longer distances. In another study of over 400 THA and SRA patients at two major academic centers, patients completed pain drawings that revealed an equivalent incidence of groin pain between THA and SRA, but an incidence of thigh pain in THA that was three times higher than in SRA in young active patients.

While some or most of the observed advantages of SRA over THA may be attributable to some degree of selection bias, the inescapable conclusion is that SRA patients are demonstrating clinical advantages that warrants continued utilization and investigation of this procedure.