Tourniquet use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains a subject of considerable debate. A recent study questioned the need for tourniquets based on associated risks. However, the study omitted analysis of crucial tourniquet-related parameters which have been demonstrated in numerous studies to be associated with safe tourniquet use and reduction of adverse events. The current utilization and preferences of tourniquet use in Canada remain unknown. Our primary aim was to determine the current practices, patterns of use, and opinions of tourniquet use in TKA among members of the Canadian Arthroplasty Society (CAS). Additionally, we sought to determine the need for updated best practice guidelines to inform optimal tourniquet use and to identify areas requiring further research.

A self-administered survey was emailed to members of the CAS in October 2021(six-week period). The response rate was 57% (91/161). Skip logic branching was used to administer a maximum of 59 questions related to tourniquet use, beliefs, and practices. All respondents were staff surgeons and 88% were arthroplasty fellowship trained. Sixty-five percent have been in practice for ≥11 years and only 16% for 50 TKA/year, 59% have an academic practice, and >67% prefer cemented TKA.

Sixty-six percent currently use tourniquets, 25% no longer do but previously did, and 9% never used tourniquets. For those not using tourniquets, the most common reasons are potential harm/risks and publications/conferences. Among current users, 48% use in all cases and an additional 37% use in 76-99% of cases. The top reason for use was improved visualization/bloodless field (88%), followed by performing a cemented TKA, used in training, and faster operative times. The main patient factor influencing selective tourniquet use was peripheral vascular disease and main surgical factors were operative duration and cementless TKA. The most frequent adverse events reported were bruising/pinching under the tourniquet and short-term pain, which majority believed were related to improper tourniquet use (prolonged time, high-pressures, poor cuff fit), yet only 8% use contoured tourniquets and 32% don't use limb protection. Despite substantial evidence in literature that tourniquet safety and probability of harm are affected by tourniquet time and pressure, only 83% and 72% of respondents believe reducing tourniquet time and pressure respectively reduce the probability of harm. In addition, no surgeon utilizes personalized limb occlusion pressure which has been demonstrated to substantially reduce tourniquet pressure while being safe and effective. Furthermore, 62% always use fixed pressure and 37% will modify the pressure based on patient parameters, most often systolic blood pressure and limb size. Almost all (88%) were interested in new evidence-based guidelines regarding these parameters.

Tourniquet use in TKA remains prevalent among arthroplasty surgeons in the CAS; however tremendous practice variability regarding several key parameters required for optimal use exists. Current best practices of tourniquet use regarding personalized pressures, time, and type are not being utilized across Canada. There is considerable interest and need for further research and updated guidelines regarding key parameters of safe tourniquet usage to optimize tourniquet use in TKA.

Increased femoral head size reduces the rate of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). With the introduction of highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) liners in THA there has been a trend towards using larger size femoral heads in relatively smaller cup sizes, theoretically increasing the risk of liner fracture, wear, or aseptic loosening. Short to medium follow-up studies have not demonstrated a negative effect of using thinner HXLPE liners. However, there is concern that these thinner liners may prematurely fail in the long-term, especially in those with thinner liners. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term survival and revision rates of HXLPE liners in primary THA, as well as the effect of liner thickness on these outcomes. We hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between the different liner thicknesses.

We performed a retrospective database analysis from a single center of all primary total hip replacements using HXLPE liners from 2010 and earlier, including all femoral head sizes. All procedures were performed by fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeons. Patient characteristics, implant details including liner thickness, death, and revisions (all causes) were recorded. Patients were grouped for analysis for each millimeter of PE thickness (e.g. 4.0-4.9mm, 5.0-5.9mm). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were estimated with all-cause and aseptic revisions as the endpoints.

A total of 2354 patients (2584 hips) were included (mean age 64.3 years, min-max 19-96). Mean BMI was 29.0 and 47.6% was female. Mean follow-up was 13.2 years (range 11.0-18.8). Liner thickness varied from 4.9 to 12.7 mm. Seven patients had a liner thickness <5.0mm and 859 had a liner thickness of <6.0mm. Head sizes were 28mm (n=85, 3.3%), 32mm (n=1214, 47.0%), 36mm (n=1176, 45.5%), and 40mm (n=109, 4.2%), and 98.4% were metal heads. There were 101 revisions, and in 78 of these cases the liner was revised. Reason for revision was instability/dislocation (n=34), pseudotumor/aseptic lymphocyte-dominant vasculitis associated lesion (n=18), fracture (n=17), early loosening (n=11), infection (n=7), aseptic loosening (n=4), and other (n=10). When grouped by liner thickness, there were no significant differences between the groups when looking at all-cause revision (p=0.112) or aseptic revision (p=0.116).

In our cohort, there were no significant differences in all-cause or aseptic revisions between any of the liner thickness groups at long-term follow-up. Our results indicate that using thinner HXPE liners to maximize femoral head size in THA does not lead to increased complications or liner failures at medium to long term follow-up. As such, orthopedic surgeons can consider the use of larger heads at the cost of liner thickness a safe practice to reduce the risk of dislocation after THA when using HXLPE liners.

With the introduction of highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXLPE) in total hip arthroplasty (THA), orthopaedic surgeons have moved towards using larger femoral heads at the cost of thinner liners to decrease the risk of instability. Several short and mid-term studies have shown minimal liner wear with the use HXLPE liners, but the safety of using thinner HXPLE liners to maximize femoral head size remains uncertain and concerns that this may lead to premature failure exist. Our objective was to analyze the outcomes for primary THA done with HXLPE liners in patients who have a 36-mm head or larger and a cup of 52-mm or smaller, with a minimum of 10-year follow-up. Additionally, linear and volumetric wear rates of the HXLPE were evaluated in those with a minimum of seven-year follow-up. We hypothesized that there would be minimal wear and good clinical outcome.

Between 2000 and 2010, we retrospectively identified 55 patients that underwent a primary THA performed in a high-volume single tertiary referral center using HXLPE liners with 36-mm or larger heads in cups with an outer diameter of or 52-mm or smaller. Patient characteristics, implant details including liner thickness, death, complications, and all cause revisions were recorded. Patients that had a minimum radiographic follow-up of seven years were assessed radiographically for linear and volumetric wear. Wear was calculated using ROMAN, a validated open-source software by two independent researchers on anteroposterior X-rays of the pelvis.

A total of 55 patients were identified and included, with a mean age of 74.8 (range 38.67 - 95.9) years and a mean BMI of 28.98 (range 18.87 - 63-68). Fifty-one (94.4%) of patients were female. Twenty-six (47.7%) patients died during the follow-up period. Three patients were revised, none for liner wear, fracture or dissociation. Twenty-two patients had a radiographic follow-up of minimum seven years (mean 9.9 years, min-max 7.5 –13.7) and were included in the long-term radiographic analysis. Liner thickness was 5.5 mm at 45 degrees in all cases but one, who had a liner thickness of 4.7mm, and all patients had a cobalt-chrome head. Cup sizes were 52mm (n=15, 68%) and 50mm (n=7, 32%). Mean linear liner wear was 0.0470 mm/year (range 0 - 0.2628 mm) and mean volumetric wear was 127.69 mm3/year (range 0 - 721.23 mm3/year).

Using HXLPE liners with 36-mm heads or bigger in 52-mm cups or smaller is safe, with low rates of linear and volumetric wear in the mid to long-term follow-up. Patients did not require revision surgery for liner complications, including liner fracture, dissociation, or wear. Our results suggest that the advantages of using larger heads should outweigh the potential risks of using thin HXLPE liners.

The benefit of using acetabular screws in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been questioned in recent years. The disadvantages of using screws include increased operative time, risk of injury to surrounding neurovascular structures and metal ware breakage. Recent large registry studies have reported that screws do not confer a protective effect against acetabular loosening or the presence of osteolysis. Other studies have even described an increased risk of aseptic acetabular loosening with the selective use of screws. We report findings from a multicentre cohort study.

This large cohort study compared clinical outcomes between primary acetabular components that were inserted with and without screws. Independent variables included the presence (or absence) of screws, the total number of screws used and the cumulative screw length (CSL). Outcome measures included all-cause revision, acetabular component revision and acetabular component loosening. Statistical software (Stata/IC 13.1 for Mac [64-bit Intel]) was used to conduct all statistical analyses. A p-value < 0 .05 taken to be significant.

There were 4,583 THAs performed in total. Screws were used in 15.9% (n=733). At a mean follow-up of 5.2 years, the all-cause revision rate in the screw cohort was 1.5% compared to 0.83% in the no screw cohort (p=0.085). There was no difference in acetabular component revision rates for screws (3/733, 0.41%) versus no screws (12/3,850, 0.31%) (p=0.439). The rate of acetabular loosening noted during the time of revision surgery was significantly higher when screws were used in the index procedure (2/733, 0.2%) compared to the no screw cohort (1/3,850, 0.02%) (p=0.017). There was no difference in outcomes when stratifying by the number of screws used or the cumulative screw length.

Primary acetabular components do not require screws for fixation. All cause revision rates and acetabular component revision rates are comparable for the screw and the no screw cohorts. The rate of acetabular component loosening, as observed during revision surgery, is significantly higher when screws are used in the index total hip replacement.

A large proportion of wait times for primary total knee (TKA) and hip (THA) arthroplasty is the time from primary care referral to surgical consultation. To our knowledge, no study has investigated whether a referral Oxford Knee or Hip Score (OKHS) could be used to triage non-surgical referrals appropriately. The primary purpose of the current study was to determine if a referral OKHS has the predictive ability to discriminate when a knee or hip referral will be deemed conservative as compared to surgical by the surgeon during their first consultation, and to identify an OKHS cut-off point that accurately predicts when a primary TKA or THA referral will be deemed conservative.

We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive primary TKA and THA consultations from a single surgeon's tertiary, high volume practice over a three-year period. Patients with a pre-consultation OKHS, BMI < 4 1, and no absolute contraindication to TJR were included. Consultation knees/hips were categorized into two groups based on surgeon's decision, those that were offered TJR during their first consolation (surgical) versus those that were not (conservative). Baseline demographic data and OKHS were abstracted. Variables of interest were compared between cohorts using the exact chi-square test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were used to measure association between pre-consult OKHS and the surgeon's decision. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) and to identify a cut-off point for the pre-operative OKHS that identified whether or not a referral was deemed conservative. TKA and THA referrals were analyzed separately.

The study included 1,436 knees (1,016 patients) with a median OKS of 25 (IQR 19–32) and 478 hips (388 patients) with a median OHS of 22 (IQR 16–29). Median pre-consultation OKHS demonstrated clinically and statistically significant differences between the surgical versus conservative cohorts (p 32 (sensitivity=0.997, NPV=0.992) and for hips is OHS >34 (sensitivity=0.997 NPV=0.978). ROC analysis identified severable potential lower OKHS thresholds, depending on weight of prioritization of sensitivity, specificity, and NPV.

Referral OKS and OHS demonstrate good ability to discriminate when a primary TKA or THA referral will be deemed non-surgical versus surgical at their first consultation in a single surgeon's practice. Multiple potential effective OKHS thresholds can be applied as a tool to decrease wait times for primary joint arthroplasty. However, a cost analysis would aid in identifying the optimal cut-off score, and these findings need to be externally validated before they can be broadly applied.

Background

Delay in access to primary total hip (THA) arthroplasty continues to pose a substantial burden to patients and society in publicly funded healthcare systems. The majority of strategies to decrease wait times have focused on the time from surgical consult to surgery, however a large proportion of total wait time for these patients is the time from primary care referral to surgical consultation. Prioritization scoring tools and patient reported outcome measures are being used in an attempt to ration limited resources in the face of increasing demand. However, to our knowledge, no study has investigated whether a referral Oxford Hip Score (OHS) could be used to triage non-surgical referrals appropriately, in an effort to increase timely access to specialists for patients that are candidates for total joint replacement (TJR).

The effect of early surgery on hip fracture outcomes has received considerable study and although it has been suggested that early surgical treatment of these fractures leads to better patient outcomes, the findings are inconclusive. The American College of Surgeon's (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (NSQIP) prospectively collects blinded, risk-adjusted patient-level data on surgical patients in over 600 participating hospitals worldwide. The primary objective of this study was to determine the proportion of ACS-NSQIP hospital patients that are currently being treated within the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) time to hip fracture surgery benchmark. The secondary objectives were to identify risk factors for missing the benchmark, and determine if the benchmark is associated with improved 30-day patient outcomes.

Patients that underwent hip fracture surgery between 2005–2013 and entered in the ACS-NSQIP database were included in the study. Counts and proportions were used to determine how frequently the NICE benchmark was met. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify significant predictors of missing the NICE benchmark and determine if missing the benchmark was associated with 30-day mortality/complications rates.

26,006 patients met the study enrolment criteria. 71.4% of patients were treated within the NICE benchmark and 89.4% were treated by post-admission day two. Gender, dyspnea, infectious illness, bleeding disorders, preoperative hematocrit, preoperative platelet count, arthroplasty procedure type, race other than White, and hip fracture diagnosis were all statistically significant predictors of missing the benchmark (p<0.01). Meeting the NICE benchmark was not associated with reductions in major complications (OR=0.93, CI=0.83–1.05, p=0.23), nor a clinically significant difference in postoperative length of stay (LOS) (parameter estimate=0.77, p<0.01); however, it was associated with a decreased 30-day mortality (OR=0.88, CI=0.78–0.99, p=0.03) and the likelihood of minor complications (OR=0.92, CI=0.84–0.995, p=0.04).

ACS-NSQIP hospitals are currently compatible with the NICE benchmark. However, data from the ACS-NSQIP database suggests that surgical treatment within the NICE benchmark may be unnecessarily narrow. Extending the benchmark to post-operative day two did not significantly increase the risk of 30-day mortality and minor complications; nor did it extend the average LOS. Neither the NICE benchmark, nor the extended two-day standard, was associated with reductions in major complications. The findings highlight the importance of further prospective investigation to monitor the effect of time to surgery benchmarks.