Nonagenarians (aged 90 to 99 years) have experienced the fastest percent decile population growth in the USA recently, with a consequent increase in the prevalence of nonagenarians living with joint arthroplasties. As such, the number of revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in nonagenarians is expected to increase. We aimed to determine the mortality rate, implant survivorship, and complications of nonagenarians undergoing aseptic revision THAs and revision TKAs. Our institutional total joint registry was used to identify 96 nonagenarians who underwent 97 aseptic revisions (78 hips and 19 knees) between 1997 and 2018. The most common indications were aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture for both revision THAs and revision TKAs. Mean age at revision was 92 years (90 to 98), mean BMI was 27 kg/m2 (16 to 47), and 67% (n = 65) were female. Mean time between primary and revision was 18 years (SD 9). Kaplan-Meier survival was used for patient mortality, and compared to age- and sex-matched control populations. Reoperation risk was assessed using cumulative incidence with death as a competing risk. Mean follow-up was five years.Aims
Methods
This study aimed to evaluate whether an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for arthroplasty established during the COVID-19 pandemic at a safety net hospital can be associated with a decrease in hospital length of stay (LOS) and an increase in same-day discharges (SDDs) without increasing acute adverse events. A retrospective review of 124 consecutive primary arthroplasty procedures performed after resuming elective procedures on 11 May 2020 were compared to the previous 124 consecutive patients treated prior to 17 March 2020, at a single urban safety net hospital. Revision arthroplasty and patients with < 90-day follow-up were excluded. The primary outcome measures were hospital LOS and the number of SDDs. Secondary outcome measures included 90-day complications, 90-day readmissions, and 30day emergency department (ED) visits.Aims
Methods
The Unified Classification System (UCS) was introduced
because of a growing need to have a standardised universal classification
system of periprosthetic fractures. It combines and simplifies many
existing classification systems, and can be applied to any fracture
around any partial or total joint replacement occurring during or
after operation. Our goal was to assess the inter- and intra-observer
reliability of the UCS in association with knee replacement when
classifying fractures affecting one or more of the femur, tibia
or patella. We used an international panel of ten orthopaedic surgeons with
subspecialty fellowship training and expertise in adult hip and
knee reconstruction (‘experts’) and ten residents of orthopaedic
surgery in the last two years of training (‘pre-experts’). They
each received 15 radiographs for evaluation. After six weeks they
evaluated the same radiographs again but in a different order. The reliability was assessed using the Kappa and weighted Kappa
values. The Kappa values for inter-observer reliability for the experts
and the pre-experts were 0.741 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.707
to 0.774) and 0.765 (95% CI 0.733 to 0.797), respectively. The weighted
Kappa values for intra-observer reliability for the experts and
pre-experts were 0.898 (95% CI 0.846 to 0.950) and 0.878 (95% CI
0.815 to 0.942) respectively. The UCS has substantial inter-observer reliability and ‘near
perfect’ intra-observer reliability when used for periprosthetic
fractures in association with knee replacement in the hands of experienced
and inexperienced users. Cite this article:
The lateral subvastus approach combined with an osteotomy of the tibial tubercle is a recognised, but rarely used approach for total knee replacement (TKR). A total of 32 patients undergoing primary TKR was randomised into two groups, in one of which the lateral subvastus approach combined with a tibial tubercle osteotomy and in the other the medial parapatellar approach were used. The patients were assessed radiologically and clinically using measurement of the range of movement, a visual analogue patient satisfaction score, the Western Ontario McMasters University Osteoarthritis Index and the American Knee Society score. Four patients were lost to the complete follow-up at two years. At two years there were no significant differences between the groups in any of the parameters for clinical outcome. In the lateral approach group there was one complication due to displacement of the tibial tubercle osteotomy and two osteotomies took more than six months to unite. In the medial approach group, one patient had a partial tear of the quadriceps. There was a significantly greater incidence of lateral patellar subluxation in the medial approach group (3 of 12) compared with the lateral approach group (0 of 16) (p = 0.034), but without any apparent clinical detriment. We conclude that the lateral approach with tibial tubercle osteotomy is a safe technique with an outcome comparable with that of the medial parapatellar approach for TKR, but the increased surgical time and its specific complications do not support its routine use. It would seem to be more appropriate to reserve this technique for patients in whom problems with patellar tracking are anticipated.
