Surgical treatment of Hip PJI by resection of the infected implants and tissue and placement of a “spacer” which elutes antibiotic via antibiotic loaded cement is an accepted treatment option. There is some controversy over whether this “spacer” should be articulating or static. Proponents of the articulating option argue that there is improved function and maintenance of the soft tissue envelop. Critics have suggested that additional biomaterials may compromise eradication of infection. This study compares our results of the 2 treatment options.

A review of our institutional PJI database between 2016 and 2021 identified 87 patients who were treated with resection arthroplasty for unilateral total hip PJI. The cohort was analyzed for demographics and type for surgery, as well as medical comorbidities, survivorship, and treatment success.

44 patients were female, the mean age of all patients was 62. 44 patients were treated with Articulating apacers, and 43 patients treated with static spacers. There was no significant difference between ASA or Elixhauser score, and no significant difference between mortality or treatment failure.

This study did not show any difference between the patients who receive static spacers, from those who received articulating spacers, and deomstrated similar treatment success rates. From this data there does not appear to be any difference in success rates between those patients that were treated with static spacers and those that were treated with articulating spacers.

Aims

Use of molecular sequencing methods in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis and organism identification have gained popularity. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a potentially powerful tool that is now commercially available. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of NGS, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), conventional culture, the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, and the recently proposed criteria by Parvizi et al in the diagnosis of PJI.

Introduction

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is faced with a challenge of decreasing the cost of care for total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but must make efforts to prevent patient selection bias in the process. Currently, no appropriate modifier codes exist for primary TKA based on case complexity. We sought to determine differences in perioperative parameters for patients with “complex” primary TKA with the hypothesis that they would require increased cost of care, prolonged care times, and have worse postoperative outcome metrics.

Introduction

Bundled reimbursement models for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have resulted in an effort to decrease the cost of care. However, these models may incentivize bias in patient selection to avoid excess cost of care. We sought to determine the impact of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model at a single center.