Does Treatment at a Specialized Prosthetic Joint Infection Center Improve the Rate of Reimplantation.

BACKGROUND: Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is currently the preferred treatment method for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The effectiveness of this strategy in returning patients to premorbid function has recently been challenged. In a review of 18,535 PJI knee patients, 38% did not undergo reimplantation. In another review of 18,156 hip and knee PJI patients, 43% did not undergo reimplantation. These disturbing statistics led us to ask whether treatment at a specialized PJI center could improve the rate of reimplantation compared to the previously noted studies from large national administrative databases. METHODS: A retrospective review of our registry was performed to identify 390 patients who underwent a two-stage exchange after total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty who had a confirmed chronic bacterial PJI, defined by Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria, from January 2010 through December 2019. Variables included number of joints resected, number reimplanted, and the number not reimplanted. RESULTS: Of the 390 patients undergoing 2-stage treatment, 386 of 390 (99%) were reimplanted and 4 of 390 (1%) were not reimplanted due to medical issues. CONCLUSION: We have shown that 2-stage treatment at a PJI center significantly improves the rate of reimplantation. A specialized PJI center with experienced revision surgeons doing high volume infection procedures complemented by infectious disease and medical consultants familiar with the special needs of PJI patients may be advantageous. A national network of such centers may have the ability to improve outcomes, standardize treatment protocols, and allow for collaborative research.

High Rate of Intramedullary Canal Culture Positivity in Total Knee Arthroplasty Resection for Prosthetic Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic infection is a devastating complication following total knee arthroplasty. A 2-stage protocol often includes an interim antibiotic spacer with intramedullary (IM) dowels. However, the necessity of IM dowels has recently been challenged. Specifically, the data supporting bacterial colonization of the IM canal are limited and controversial. The purpose of this study was to identify the rate of positive IM cultures during resection arthroplasty in periprosthetic knee infection. METHODS: A total of 66 IM diaphyseal cultures were taken during resection arthroplasty from 34 patients diagnosed with periprosthetic knee infection. These IM cultures were taken from the femoral and tibial canals using separate sterile instruments. All patients had infected primary total knee arthroplasty implants at the time of resection. RESULTS: Thirty one percent (n = 21) of IM canal cultures in this study were positive from either the tibial or the femoral diaphysis at the time of resection arthroplasty. There were 18 of 21 (86%) of the positive IM canal cultures with concordant intraoperative joint cultures where the IM cultures matched the intraarticular cultures. CONCLUSION: With a 31% positive IM canal culture rate, this study confirms the logic of using IM dowels with an antibiotic spacer to treat periprosthetic knee infection. Since the failure of a 2-stage reimplantation is catastrophic, any attempt to provide additional local antibiotic delivery seems warranted. Since nearly one-third of our patients had positive IM cultures, this simple addition to an antibiotic spacer has the potential to improve 2-stage results. Claims supporting the elimination of IM dowels during resection arthroplasty seem ill-advised.

Pain and Anxiety due to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of Patients With Delayed Elective Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic led to cancelation of all elective surgeries for a time period in the vast majority of the United States. We compiled a questionnaire to determine the physical and mental toll of this delay on elective total joint arthroplasty patients. METHODS: All patients whose primary or revision total hip or knee arthroplasty was canceled because of the COVID-19 pandemic at a large academic-private practice were identified. An 11-question survey was administered to these patients via email. All data were deidentified and stored in a REDCAP database. RESULTS: Of 367 total patients identified, 113 responded to the survey. Seventy-seven percent of patients had their surgery postponed at least 5 weeks, and 20% were delayed longer than 12 weeks. Forty-one percent of patients reported an average visual analog scale pain score greater than 7.5. Forty percent of respondents experienced increased anxiety during the delay. Thirty-four percent of patients felt their surgery was not elective. Sixteen percent experienced a fall during the delay, and 1 patient sustained a hip fracture. Level of pain reported was significantly associated with negative emotions, negative effects of delay, and whether patients felt their surgery was indeed elective. Seventy-six percent reported trust in their surgeon's judgment regarding appropriate timing of surgery. Communication was listed as the number one way in which patients felt their surgeon could have improved during this time. CONCLUSION: Surgical delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased pain and anxiety for many total joint arthroplasty patients. While most patients maintained trust in their surgeon during the delay, methods to improve communication may benefit the patient experience in future delays. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Results of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention for periprosthetic knee joint infection supplemented with the use of intraosseous antibiotics.

AIMS: Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) remains one option for the treatment of acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) despite imperfect success rates. Intraosseous (IO) administration of vancomycin results in significantly increased local bone and tissue concentrations compared to systemic antibiotics alone. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the addition of a single dose of IO regional antibiotics to our protocol at the time of DAIR would improve outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective case series of 35 PJI TKA patients, with a median age of 67 years (interquartile range (IQR) 61 to 75), who underwent DAIR combined with IO vancomycin (500 mg), was performed with minimum 12 months' follow-up. A total of 26 patients with primary implants were treated for acute perioperative or acute haematogenous infections. Additionally, nine patients were treated for chronic infections with components that were considered unresectable. Primary outcome was defined by no reoperations for infection, nor clinical signs or symptoms of PJI. RESULTS: Mean follow-up for acute infection was 16.5 months (12.1 to 24.2) and 15.8 months (12 to 24.8) for chronic infections with unresectable components. Overall non-recurrence rates for acute infection was 92.3% (24/26) but only 44.4% (4/9) for chronic infections with unresectable components. The majority of patients remained on suppressive oral antibiotics. Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) host grade was a significant indicator of failure (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The addition of IO vancomycin at the time of DAIR was shown to be safe with improved results compared to current literature using standard DAIR without IO antibiotic administration. Use of this technique in chronic infections should be applied with caution. While these results are encouraging, this technique requires longer follow-up before widespread adoption. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):185-190.

Debridement and Implant Retention for Acute Periprosthetic Knee Infection.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication of total joint arthroplasty. We reviewed the current data on DAIR procedures and two-stage exchange for periprosthetic knee infection. This case study illustrates successful treatment of an acute PJI using a debridement and implant retention (DAIR) technique with adjuvant intraosseous (IO) vancomycin. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 30(4):249-252, 2021).

Radiologist Overreads of Intraoperative Radiographs-Value or Waste?

BACKGROUND: All aspects of the arthroplasty pathway must be scrutinized to maximize value and eliminate unnecessary cost. Radiology providers' contracts with hospitals often call for readings of all radiographs. This policy has little effect on patient care when intraoperative radiographs are taken and used to make real-time decisions. In order to determine the value of radiologist overreads, we asked 3 questions: what was the delay between the time an intraoperative radiograph was taken and time the report was generated, were the overreads accurate, and what is the associated cost? METHODS: Two hundred hip and knee radiograph reports generated over 6 months during 391 cases were reviewed. The time the report was dictated was compared to the time taken and time of surgery completion. To determine accuracy, each overread was rated as accurate or inaccurate. The cost of the overread was determined by multiplying the number of radiographs times the radiology fee less the technical fee. RESULTS: Median delay between taking the radiograph and filing the report was 45 minutes (range, 0-9778 minutes). Only 31.5% were filed before completion of the procedure. And 18.0% (36/200) were considered inaccurate despite lenient criteria. The reading fee for hip radiographs was $52.00, and for knee radiographs was $38.00, representing a total cost of $10,182 in our select series. This cost projects to $43,614 annually at our facility. CONCLUSION: Radiology overreads of intraoperative radiographs have no effect on real-time decision-making. In the era of value-based care, payors should stop paying for overreads and reimburse providers who actually read the films intraoperatively.

One-Stage Periprosthetic Joint Infection Reimbursement-Is It Worth The Effort?

BACKGROUND: One-stage protocols for the management of periprosthetic infection take an extended period of time requiring two separate preps and sets of instruments to ensure optimal sterility. While intraoperative service time is one part of the reimbursement algorithm, reimbursement has lagged behind for single-stage treatment with respect to the time and resources necessary to perform these complex treatment regimens. If one-stage results are shown to be acceptable, but not reimbursed appropriately, surgeons will be discouraged from managing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in a one-stage fashion. METHODS: The reimbursement and operative time for 50 PJI procedures were compared with 250 primary total hips and 250 primary total knees by the same 4 surgeons. RESULTS: The average reimbursement for a one-stage knee procedure was $2,597.08, with an average intraoperative service time of 259 minutes ($601.60/h). The average reimbursement for a primary total knee was $2,435.00, with an average intraoperative service time of 100 minutes ($1,461/h). The average reimbursement for a one-stage hip procedure was $2,826.17, with an average intraoperative service time of 311 minutes ($545.24/h). The average reimbursement for a primary total hip was $2,754.71 with an average intraoperative service time of 104 minutes ($1,589.26/h). CONCLUSION: One-stage procedures for PJI are reimbursed at approximately 1/3 the hourly rate of a primary procedure, which may discourage surgeons from selecting this treatment alternative even if recent studies confirm efficacy. Payers should be encouraged to reimburse physicians commensurate with the intraoperative service time needed to perform a one-stage procedure as adoption will decrease morbidity and save the healthcare system financially.

Variability of Pelvic Orientation in the Lateral Decubitus Position: Are External Alignment Guides Trustworthy?

BACKGROUND: The position of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is critical for success. However, this remains the most variable aspect of the surgery. We hypothesized that there is wide variation in pelvic orientation in the lateral decubitus position. We sought to determine the variability in pelvic positioning and the frequency of pelvic malposition during THA in lateral decubitus with regard to pelvic tilt and pelvic rotation. METHODS: We analyzed preoperative standing and intraoperative anteroposterior pelvis X-rays in 248 consecutive THAs performed in lateral decubitus by one surgeon. Pelvic tilt and rotation were determined for preoperative and intraoperative X-rays. Proper intraoperative positioning was defined as less than 10° change in tilt or rotation between preoperative and intraoperative X-rays. RESULTS: With regard to pelvic tilt, the intraoperative position was proper in 188 (76%) cases. There was a pelvic tilt discrepancy of 10°-20° in 43 (17.5%) cases and greater than 20° in 16 (6.5%) patients. With regard to pelvic rotation, the intraoperative position was proper in 202 (81%) cases. There was a pelvic rotation discrepancy of 10°-20° in 38 (15.4%) cases and greater than 20° in 7 (2.8%) cases. In 248 cases, only 154 (62.1%) had intraoperative positioning within 10° of preoperative tilt and axial rotation. Pelvic malposition occurred in 38% of cases overall. CONCLUSION: There is wide variation in pelvic orientation in lateral decubitus and frequent discrepancy in pelvic tilt and rotation between preoperative and intraoperative anteroposterior X-rays. Anatomic landmarks should be used to guide acetabular component positioning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: Diagnostic.

Should Depression Be Treated Before Lower Extremity Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Patient optimization is becoming increasingly important before arthroplasty to ensure outcomes. It has been suggested that depression is a modifiable risk factor that should be corrected preoperatively. It remains to be determined whether psychological intervention before surgery will improve outcomes. We theorized that the use of preoperative depression scales to predict postoperative outcomes may be influenced by the pain and functional disability of arthritis. To determine whether depression is a modifiable risk factor that should be corrected preoperatively we asked the following questions: (1) What is the prevalence of depression in arthroplasty patients preoperatively? (2) Do depressive symptoms improve after surgery? (3) Is preoperative depression associated with outcome? METHODS: Patients scheduled for surgery completed a patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) to assess the presence and severity of depression pre-operatively and one year post-operatively. RESULTS: Sixty-five of the 282 patients had a PHQ-9 score >10 indicating moderate depression and 57 (88%) improved to <10 postoperatively (P = .0012). Ten patients had a PHQ-9 score >20 indicating severe depression and 9 (90%) improved to <10 postoperatively (P = .10). Of the 65 patients who had a PHQ-9 score >10 preoperatively, the median postoperative Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (N = 40) was 92.3, while the median postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (N = 25) was 84.6. The median postoperative Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in nondepressed patients were 96.2 and 84.6, respectively (P = .9041). CONCLUSION: By diminishing pain and improving function through arthroplasty, depression symptoms improve significantly. Patients with depressive symptoms preoperatively had similar postoperative outcome scores compared to non-depressed patients. Patients should not be denied surgical intervention through optimization programs that include a depression scale threshold. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Efficacy of Revision Surgery for the Treatment of Stiffness After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Knee stiffness following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may cause pain and reduced functionality, contributing to unsatisfactory surgical outcomes. Revision surgery remains a possible treatment for refractory postoperative stiffness. However, the efficacy of the procedure has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies that reported on outcomes for patients who underwent revision surgery for postoperative stiffness after TKA. RESULTS: Ten studies (including 485 knees) were reviewed. The most common etiologies of stiffness requiring revision TKA were component malposition, malalignment, overstuffing, aseptic loosening, arthrofibrosis, patella baja, and heterotopic ossification. Of 9 studies reviewing range of motion outcomes after revision TKA, 7 studies documented significant improvement and 2 found trends toward improvement. Seven of 8 studies documenting Knee Society knee scores and 7 of 9 studies documenting functional scores found improvement after revision TKA. All studies reporting on pain found improvement at final follow-up after revision TKA. CONCLUSION: Revision TKA results in increased range of motion, improved functionality, and reduced pain in most patients who require surgery for stiffness. The present literature is inadequate to predict which patients will achieve adequate outcomes from revision TKA based on the specific etiology of their stiffness, although identification of the etiology may help in surgical planning. Surgeons performing revision TKA should counsel patients on the risks and benefits of undergoing revision surgery, with the understanding that outcomes for well-selected patients are generally favorable.

Inferomedial Hip Center Decreases Failure Rates in Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty for Crowe II and III Hip Dysplasia.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate the outcomes of cementless acetabular components used in patients with Crowe II and III dysplasia, and to compare outcomes between cups placed within vs outside of an "anatomic" zone. Our specific aims were to (1) plot hip centers in these patients at our institution to characterize "anatomic" vs "nonanatomic" positions, (2) evaluate the association between hip center and radiographic loosening, (3) determine whether hip center was associated with acetabular component revision, and (4) compare patient-reported outcome scores between groups. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 88 primary cementless total hip arthroplasties at a mean follow-up of 10 years (range 2-26 years). Patients were 85% female, with a mean age of 44 years (range 28-61 years) and a body mass index of 27 kg/m2 (range 19-42 kg/m2). Medical records and radiographs were reviewed, and a survey was conducted for all patients. Anatomic hip center was defined using the 4-zone system, wherein centers are "anatomic" if they are <1 cm superior and <1 cm lateral to the approximate femoral head center. Cox proportional analyses were used to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Seventy hips (80%) had an anatomic hip center. Anatomic hips had a lower incidence of radiographic acetabular loosening (0% vs 17%, P = .007) and cup revision (0% vs 28%, P = .0002). There were no differences in Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome and Joint Replacement Scores (96.2 ± 5 vs 91.9 ± 12, P = .7). CONCLUSION: The incidence of aseptic loosening and cup revision were lower when hip center was <1 cm superior and 1 cm lateral to the approximate femoral head center.

Radiographic Findings in Patients With Catastrophic Varus Collapse After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Catastrophic varus collapse is an uncommon mechanism of failure in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Varus collapse has been associated with obesity and smaller implant sizes. However, to our knowledge, preoperative radiographic characterization of this cohort has not been performed. Therefore, the following study evaluated preoperative alignment and how this correlates with the degree of eventual varus collapse identified in this patient population prior to revision. METHODS: Utilizing our institutional database, 1106 revision TKAs were performed from 2004 to 2017. Of these, 35 patients were revised secondary to tibial varus collapse. Twenty-seven patients had their primary TKA performed at our institution. Coronal alignment of the knee was recorded from anteroposterior knee radiographs. Medial tibial bone loss was recorded at final follow-up. RESULTS: The average body mass index was 38 kg/m2. Twenty-six of 27 patients had a preoperative varus deformity (4.2° varus) and all were corrected to a valgus coronal alignment immediately postoperatively (5.2° valgus, P = .0001). Twenty-four of 27 patients' coronal alignment after varus collapse was within 2° of their preoperative alignment (5.8° varus). Twenty-five of 27 patients had radiographic medial tibial bone loss prior to varus collapse. CONCLUSION: Tibial varus collapse in an uncommon cause of failure after primary TKA. Preoperative varus deformity, postoperative medial tibial bone loss, and obesity were common findings in this series of patients. Therefore, increased tibial stem lengths should be considered in patients with a preoperative varus deformity, small tibial implant size, and a body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 undergoing primary TKA.

Midterm Survivorship After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With a Custom Triflange Acetabular Component.

BACKGROUND: Custom triflange acetabular components are being increasingly used for the reconstruction of Paprosky type IIIB acetabular defects. However, midterm survivorship data are lacking. METHODS: We queried the prospective registries at 2 high-volume revision centers for patients who had undergone revision total hip arthroplasty using a custom triflange component between 2000 and 2011. We identified 73 patients with minimum 5-year follow-up. These patients' records were reviewed to determine incidence of revision or reoperation, clinical performance, and radiographic stability. The mean follow-up was 7.5 years (range 5-12 years). RESULTS: Fifteen of 73 triflange components (20.5%) were indicated for revision during the follow-up period, including 6 for instability (8%) and 8 for infection (11%). Twelve of 73 patients (16%) underwent reoperation for reasons other than failure of the triflange component. The median hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement score at midterm follow-up was 85 (interquartile range 73-100). Only 1 of 73 implants was determined to be radiographically loose at midterm follow-up. CONCLUSION: Custom triflange reconstruction for severe acetabular deficiency is a viable option; however, complications are common and significant challenges remain for those that fail.

Coronal alignment predicts the use of semi-constrained implants in contemporary total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Semi-constrained, or varus-valgus constrained, implants are occasionally necessary to achieve stability in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, outcomes with these implants are largely unknown. Therefore, the primary goals of this study were to determine 1) can we identify preoperatively which patients might require a semi-constrained implant and 2) are there any clinical and or radiographic differences for those that require a semi-constrained implant? METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study was performed to retrospectively review patients that had a Stryker Triathlon (Kalamazoo, MI) TKA with a Total Stabilized (TS) tibial insert (n=75). This TS cohort was subsequently matched 1:1 based on age, gender, and BMI to a cohort of patients with the same primary TKA design with a PS insert (n=75). Preoperative and postoperative radiographic and clinical data were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Preoperatively, the TS cohort had significantly greater varus (9.72 vs. 3.48; p=0.0001) and valgus (14.1 vs. 7.57; p=0.0001) deformity. Post-operatively, there were no statistically significant differences in revisions (p=1), reoperations (p=1), or complications (p=1). Mean clinical and radiographic follow-ups were equivalent between groups (25.5 vs. 25.8months, p=0.8851). CONCLUSION: As suspected, use of a semi-constrained insert to achieve intraoperative coronal stability was most predicted by preoperative coronal deformity (either varus or valgus). Longer follow-up and larger patient cohorts are necessary to determine.