Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is traditionally used to treat periprosthetic hip infection. Nevertheless, particularly in high-risk patients, there has been increased attention towards alternatives such as 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty which takes place in one surgery. Therefore, we sought to compare (1) operative time, length-of-stay (LOS), transfusions, (2) causative organism identification and polymicrobial infection rates, (3) re-revision rates and re-revision reasons, (4) mortality, and determine (5) independent predictors of re-revision. Retrospective chart review of 71 patients who underwent either 1.5- (n=38) or 2-stage (n=33) exchange hip arthroplasty at a single institution (03/2019-05/2023). Demographics, surgical, inpatient, and infection characteristics were noted. Main outcomes evaluated were re-revision rates, re-revision reasons, mortality, and cause of death. Independent predictors of re-revision were assessed utilizing logistic regression. Mean follow: 675 days (range, 23–1,715). Demographics were not significantly different except for a higher proportion of 1.5-stage patients classified as American-Society-of-Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 3 or 4 (84.2 vs. 48.5%, p=0.002). Length of follow-up was significantly longer in the 2-stage group (924.4 vs. 458 days, p<0.001) as well as operative time (506 vs. 271 minutes, p<0.001). In the 1.5-stage group, there was a higher proportion of polymicrobial infections (23.7 vs. 3.0%, p=0.016), re-revision rates (28.9 vs. 9.1%, p=0.042) and periprosthetic infections as a cause of revision (90.9 vs. 0%, p=0.007). Mortality rates were not significantly different, and no patient died for causes related to infection. Type of surgery (1.5-stage vs. 2-stage) was the only independent predictor of re-revision (odds-ratio 4.0, 95% confidence-interval 1.02–16.16, p=0.046). Our data suggests that patients who undergo 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty have a significantly higher re-revision rate (mostly due to infection) when compared to 2-stage patients. We acknowledge potential benefits of the 1.5-stage strategy, especially in high-risk patients since it involves single surgery. However, higher re-revision rates must be considered when counseling patients.
Large bone defects resulting from osteolysis, fractures, osteomyelitis, or metastases pose significant challenges in acetabular reconstruction for total hip arthroplasty. This study aimed to evaluate the survival and radiological outcomes of an acetabular reconstruction technique in patients at high risk of reconstruction failure (i.e. periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), poor bone stock, immunosuppressed patients), referred to as Hip Reconstruction In Situ with Screws and Cement (HiRISC). This involves a polyethylene liner embedded in cement-filled bone defects reinforced with screws and/or plates for enhanced fixation. A retrospective chart review of 59 consecutive acetabular reconstructions was performed by four surgeons in a single institution from 18 October 2018 to 5 January 2023. Cases were classified based on the Paprosky classification, excluding type 1 cases (n = 26) and including types 2 or 3 for analysis (n = 33). Radiological loosening was evaluated by an orthopaedic surgeon who was not the operating surgeon, by comparing the immediate postoperative radiographs with the ones at latest follow-up. Mean follow-up was 557 days (SD 441; 31 to 1,707).Aims
Methods
Osteolysis, fractures, and bone destruction caused by osteomyelitis or metastasis can cause large bone defects and present major challenges during acetabular reconstruction in total hip arthroplasty. We sought to evaluate the survivorship and radiographic outcomes of an acetabular reconstruction consisting of a polyethylene liner (semi-constrained) embedded in cement filling bone defect(s) reinforced with screws and/or plates for enhanced fixation (HiRISC). Retrospective chart review of 59 consecutive acetabular reconstructions as described above performed by 4 surgeons in a single institution (10/18/2018-1/5/2023) was performed. After radiographs and operative reports were reviewed, cases were classified following the Paprosky classification for acetabular defects. Paprosky type 1 cases (n=26) were excluded, while types 2/3 (n=33) were included for analysis. Radiographic loosening was evaluated up to latest follow-up. Mean follow-up was: 487 days (range, 20–1,539 days). Out of 33 cases, 2 (6.1%) cases were oncological (metastatic disease) and 22 (66.7%) had deep infection diagnosis (i.e., periprosthetic joint infection [PJI] or septic arthritis). In total, 7 (21.2%) reconstructions were performed on native acetabula (3 septic, 4 aseptic). At a mean follow-up of 1.3 years, 5 (15.2%) constructs were revised: 4 due to uncontrolled infection (spacer exchange) and 1 for instability. On follow-up radiographs, only 1 non-revised construct showed increased radiolucencies, but no obvious loosening. When compared to patients with non-revised constructs, those who underwent revision (n=5) were significantly younger (mean 73.8 vs. 60.6 years, p=0.040) and had higher body mass index (24.1 vs. 31.0 Kg/m2, p=0.045), respectively. Sex, race, ethnicity, American-Society-of-Anesthesiologist classification, infection diagnosis status (septic/aseptic), and mean follow-up (449.3 vs. 695.6 days, respectively, p=0.189) were not significantly different between both groups. HiRISC construct may be a viable short-term alternative to more expensive implants to treat large acetabular defects, particularly in the setting of PJI. Longer follow up is needed to establish long term survivorship.
The current study aimed to compare robotic arm-assisted (RA-THA), computer-assisted (CA-THA), and manual (M-THA) total hip arthroplasty regarding in-hospital metrics including length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, in-hospital complications, and cost of RA-THA versus M-THA and CA-THA versus M-THA, as well as trends in use and uptake over a ten-year period, and future projections of uptake and use of RA-THA and CA-THA. The National Inpatient Sample was queried for primary THAs (2008 to 2017) which were categorized into RA-THA, CA-THA, and M-THA. Past and projected use, demographic characteristics distribution, income, type of insurance, location, and healthcare setting were compared among the three cohorts. In-hospital complications, LOS, discharge disposition, and in-hospital costs were compared between propensity score-matched cohorts of M-THA versus RA-THA and M-THA versus CA-THA to adjust for baseline characteristics and comorbidities.Aims
Methods
The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult. All current diagnostic tests have problems with accuracy and interpretation of results. Many new tests have been proposed, but there is no consensus on the place of many of these in the diagnostic pathway. Previous attempts to develop a definition of PJI have not been universally accepted and there remains no reference standard definition. This paper reports the outcome of a project developed by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), and supported by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) and the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for Implant-Associated Infections (ESGIAI). It comprised a comprehensive review of the literature, open discussion with Society members and conference delegates, and an expert panel assessment of the results to produce the final guidance.Aims
Methods
The purpose of this study was to develop a personalized outcome prediction tool, to be used with knee arthroplasty patients, that predicts outcomes (lengths of stay (LOS), 90 day readmission, and one-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on an individual basis and allows for dynamic modifiable risk factors. Data were prospectively collected on all patients who underwent total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a between July 2015 and June 2018. Cohort 1 (n = 5,958) was utilized to develop models for LOS and 90 day readmission. Cohort 2 (n = 2,391, surgery date 2015 to 2017) was utilized to develop models for one-year improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score, KOOS function score, and KOOS quality of life (QOL) score. Model accuracies within the imputed data set were assessed through cross-validation with root mean square errors (RMSEs) and mean absolute errors (MAEs) for the LOS and PROMs models, and the index of prediction accuracy (IPA), and area under the curve (AUC) for the readmission models. Model accuracies in new patient data sets were assessed with AUC.Aims
Methods
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. A prospective cohort of 3,449 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed between 2015 and 2018 were analyzed. The following one-year PROMs were evaluated: hip injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) pain, HOOS Physical Function Shortform (PS), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity, Veterans Rand-12 Physical Component Score (VR-12 PCS), and VR-12 Mental Component Score (VR-12 MCS). Positive predictive values for failure to improve and the number of patients denied surgery in order to avoid a failed improvement were calculated for each PROM at different BMI cut-offs.Aims
Methods
Perioperative hospital adverse events are an issue that every surgeon endeavors to avoid and minimize as much as possible. Even “minor events” such as fever or tachycardia may lead to significant costs due to workup tests, inter-consultations, and/or increased hospital stay. The objective of this study was compare perioperative outcomes (hospital length of stay [LOS], discharge disposition), rates of in-hospital adverse events and transfusion, and postoperative readmission and reoperation rates for simultaneous and staged bilateral direct anterior total hip arthroplasty (DA-THA) patients. A retrospective chart review was conducted on a consecutive series of 411 primary bilateral DA-THAs performed between 2010 and 2016 at a single institution by two fellowship trained surgeons. These were categorized as: (1) simultaneous (same anesthesia, n=122) and (2) staged (different hospitalizations, n=289). The mean time between staged surgeries was 468 days (± 414 days). Baseline patient demographics as well as hospital LOS, discharge disposition (home vs. other), hospital adverse events (i.e., nausea, vomiting, tachycardia, fever, confusion, pulmonary embolism, etc.), blood transfusions, and unplanned hospital readmissions and reoperations within 90 days were collected. Groups were compared using independent –tests, Fisher's exact test, and Pearson Chi-Square.Introduction
Methods
This study compared multiple sclerosis (MS) patients who underwent
primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with a matched cohort. Specifically,
we evaluated: 1) implant survivorship; 2) functional outcomes (modified
Harris Hip Scores (mHHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome
Score, Joint Replacement (HOOS JR), and modified Multiple Sclerosis
Impact Scale (mMSIS) scores (with the MS cohort also evaluated based
on the disease phenotype)); 3) physical therapy duration and return
to function; 4) radiographic outcomes; and 5) complications. We reviewed our institution’s database to identify MS patients
who underwent THA between January 2008 and June 2016. A total of
34 MS patients (41 hips) were matched in a 1:2 ratio to a cohort
of THA patients who did not have MS, based on age, body mass index
(BMI), and Charlson/Deyo score. Patient records were reviewed for complications,
and their functional outcomes and radiographs were reviewed at their
most recent follow-up.Aims
Patients and Methods
The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is difficult and requires a battery of tests and clinical findings. The purpose of this review is to summarize all current evidence for common and new serum biomarkers utilized in the diagnosis of PJI. We searched two literature databases, using terms that encompass all hip and knee arthroplasty procedures, as well as PJI and statistical terms reflecting diagnostic parameters. The findings are summarized as a narrative review.Objectives
Methods
