The accuracy of component positioning during revision total hip arthroplasty using 3D optical computer-assisted navigation.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the excellent outcomes associated with primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), implant failure and revision continue to burden the healthcare system. The use of computer-assisted navigation (CAN) offers the potential for more accurate placement of hip components during surgery. While intraoperative CAN systems have been shown to improve outcomes in primary THA, their use in the context of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) has not been elucidated. We sought to investigate the validity of using CAN during rTHA. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed at an academic medical institution identifying all patients who underwent rTHA using CAN from 2016-2019. Patients were 1:1 matched with patients undergoing rTHA without CAN (control) based on demographic data. Cup anteversion, inclination, change in leg length discrepancy (ΔLLD) and change in femoral offset between pre- and post-operative plain weight-bearing radiographic images were measured and compared between both groups. A safety target zone of 15-25° for anteversion and 30-50° for inclination was used as a reference for precision analysis of cup position. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included: 42 CAN cases and 42 control cases. CAN cases displayed a lower ΔLLD (5.74 ± 7.0 mm vs 9.13 ± 7.9 mm, p = 0.04) and greater anteversion (23.4 ± 8.53° vs 19.76 ± 8.36°, p = 0.0468). There was no statistical difference between the proportion of CAN or control cases that fell within the target safe zone (40% vs 20.9%, p = 0.06). Femoral offset was similar in CAN and control cases (7.63 ± 5.84 mm vs 7.14 ± 4.8 mm, p = 0.68). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the use of CAN may improve accuracy in cup placement compared to conventional methodology, but our numbers are underpowered to show a statistical difference. However, with a ΔLLD of ~ 3.4 mm, CAN may be useful in facilitating the successful restoration of pre-operative leg length following rTHA. Therefore, CAN may be a helpful tool for orthopedic surgeons to assist in cup placement and LLD during complex revision cases.

High-volume revision surgeons have better outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty.

AIMS: It has previously been shown that higher-volume hospitals have better outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). We were unable to identify any studies which investigated the effect of surgeon volume on the outcome of rTKA. We sought to investigate whether patients of high-volume (HV) rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following this procedure compared with those of low-volume (LV) surgeons. METHODS: This retrospective study involved patients who underwent aseptic unilateral rTKA between January 2016 and March 2019, using the database of a large urban academic medical centre. Surgeons who performed ≥ 19 aseptic rTKAs per year during the study period were considered HV and those who performed < 19 per year were considered LV. Demographic characteristics, surgical factors, and postoperative outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 308 rTKAs were identified, 132 performed by HV surgeons and 176 by 22 LV surgeons. The LV group had a significantly greater proportion of non-smokers (59.8% vs 49.2%; p = 0.029). For all types of revision, HV surgeons had significantly shorter mean operating times by 17.75 minutes (p = 0.007). For the 169 full revisions (85 HV, 84 LV), HV surgeons had significantly shorter operating times (131.12 (SD 33.78) vs 171.65 (SD 49.88) minutes; p < 0.001), significantly lower re-revision rates (7.1% vs 19.0%; p = 0.023) and significantly fewer re-revisions (0.07 (SD 0.26) vs 0.29 (SD 0.74); p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Patients of HV rTKA surgeons have better outcomes following full rTKA. These findings support the development of revision teams within arthroplasty centres of excellence to offer patients the best possible outcomes following rTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):131-136.

Factors Affecting Range of Motion After Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Range of motion (ROM) after revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA) is an important clinical outcome, as decreased ROM can lead to patient dissatisfaction and diminished mobility. This study sought to determine the effect of type of revision, implant constraint level, and reason for revision has on RTKA ROM. METHODS: A retrospective review of 832 RTKA cases from 2011 to 2019 was conducted at a single, urban academic institution. Patients who underwent aseptic RTKA and had preoperative and 1-year postoperative ROM in their chart were included. The ΔROM was calculated by subtracting the preoperative ROM from the 1-year postoperative ROM. ROM was compared between tibial polyethylene liner-only revisions (liner) and all other revision types (component) and based on reason for revision. Subanalysis was performed within the liner and component revision cohorts to determine the effect of reason for revision and implant constraint level on ROM. RESULTS: In total, 290 patients qualified. Forty-two patients had liner revisions (14.5%) and 248 had component revisions (85.5%). The ΔROM for component revision cases was significantly higher than liner exchange only (10° ± 24° vs.1° ± 19°; P = .03). ΔROM was not significant when comparing the level of implant constraint nor was it when separating and comparing by type of revision. Component revisions due to instability were found to significantly decrease ΔROM. CONCLUSION: Component revision cases have significantly improved ΔROM when compared with liner-only revision. Constraint level is not significantly associated with changes in ROM in either liner or component revisions. Component revisions due to instability significantly reduce ΔROM.

Tranexamic Acid Is Safe in Patients with a History of Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid (TXA) is increasingly used to minimize blood loss during total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Although TXA has been shown to be highly effective in reducing operative blood loss, many surgeons believe that it places patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or a history of coronary stents at an increased risk for myocardial infarction. The purpose of this study was to determine if TXA is safe to use in patients with a history of CAD or coronary stents. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis at a single, tertiary academic medical center identifying consecutive total hip and knee arthroplasty cases over an 8-year period. From this cohort who received TXA intraoperatively, we identified patients with a history of CAD or coronary stents and determined the total myocardial infarction and venous thromboembolism (VTE) rates within a 90-day postoperative period. Chi-square analyses were used to identify differences in VTE rates between cohorts. A post hoc power analysis was also performed to determine whether our results were powered to detect a difference in VTE rates. RESULTS: In the 26,808 identified at-risk patients, there were no postoperative myocardial infarctions. No significant differences were observed for VTE rates compared with the control cohort using either topical or intravenous TXA, with regard to CAD (0.29% compared with 0.76%; p = 0.09) or coronary stents (0% compared with 0.76%; p = 0.14). Moreover, there was no significant difference observed in VTE rates when administration was subcategorized into intravenous and topical methods with regard to CAD (0.13% compared with 0.72%; p = 0.12) or coronary stents (0% compared with 0%; p = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: In our series, topical and intravenous TXA were equally safe when used in patients with a history of CAD and coronary stents in comparison with the control cohort. With equal efficacy and risk of adverse events, we recommend intravenous TXA, which may enable easier institutional implementation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Obesity does not influence acetabular component accuracy when using a 3D optical computer navigation system.

INTRODUCTION: Improper cup positioning and leg length discrepancy (LLD) are two of the most common errors following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and are associated with potentially significant consequences. Obesity is associated with increased risk of mechanical complications, including dislocations, which may be secondary to cup malposition and failure to restore leg length and offset. 3D Optical Camera computerassisted navigation (CAN) system may reduce the risk of component malposition and LLD with real time intraoperative feedback. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of CAN influences acetabular component placement (CP) accuracy and leg length restoration in obese (body mass index(BMI)≥35kg/m 2 ) patients undergoing primary THA. METHODS: A multi-center retrospective review was conducted identifying consecutive THA cases with BMI > 35kg/m 2 using CAN (Intellijoint Hip, Waterloo, CA) from 2015-2019. These patients were then matched with patients undergoing conventional THA (control) at a 1:1 ratio according to BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and gender. TraumaCad™ software (Brainlab, Chicago, IL) was used to measure cup anteversion, inclination, and change (Δ) in LLD between pre- and postoperative radiographic images. The safety target zones used as reference for precision analysis of CP were 15°-30° for anteversion and 30°-50° for inclination. RESULTS: 176 patients were included: 88 CAN and 88 control cases. CAN cases were found to have a lower ΔLLD than controls (3.53±2.12mm vs. 5.00±4.05mm; p=0.003). Additionally, more CAN cases fell within the target safe zone than controls (83% vs.60%, p=0.00083). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the use of a CAN system may be more precise in component placement, and useful in facilitating the successful restoration of preoperative leg length following THA than conventional methodology.

Patellar Tracking in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: Does Retaining a Patella From a Different Implant System Matter?

BACKGROUND: Patellar maltracking is a potential surgical complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and can result in anterior knee pain, recurrent patellar dislocation, and damage to the medial patellar soft tissue stabilizers. Data remain unclear as to whether the patellar button should be revised during a revision TKA (rTKA) if changing the component implant system. Our study examines whether retaining the original patellar button during an rTKA using a different implant system affects patellar tracking. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of rTKA patients between August 2011 and June 2019 was performed at an urban, tertiary referral center. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts depending on whether their retained patella from their primary TKA was of the same (SIM) or different implant manufacturer (DIM) as the revision system used. Radiographic measurements were performed on preoperative and postoperative knee radiographs and differences were compared between the 2 groups. Baseline demographic data were also collected. RESULTS: Of the 293 consecutive, aseptic rTKA cases identified, 122 underwent revision in the SIM cohort and 171 in the DIM cohort. There were no demographic differences between the groups. No statistical significance was calculated for differences in preoperative and postoperative patellar tilt or Insall-Salvati ratio between the groups. The DIM group was found to have more lateral patellar translation (-0.01 ± 6.09 vs 2.68 ± 7.61 mm, P = .001). However, when calculating differences in the magnitude of the translation (thereby removing differences due to laterality), no difference was observed (0.06 ± 3.69 vs 0.52 ± 4.95 mm, P = .394). CONCLUSION: No clinically significant differences in patellar tracking were observed when the original patellar component was retained and a different revision implant system was used. Given the inherent risks of bone loss and fracture with patellar component revision, surgeons performing rTKA may retain the primary patella if it is well fixed and can still expect appropriate patellar tracking regardless of the revision implant system used. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective cohort study.

The Need for an Interpreter Increases Length of Stay and Influences Postoperative Disposition Following Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Many US patients who undergo total joint arthroplasty have low English proficiency, yet no study has investigated how the need for a translator impacts postoperative outcomes for these patients. We hypothesized that need for an interpreter after total joint arthroplasty would impact discharge disposition and length of stay. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients at a single large urban academic institution undergoing single primary total joint replacement from July 2016 to November 2019. Patients were classified as primarily English speaking (E), non-English primary language and did not require an interpreter (NE-N), or non-English primary language and did require an interpreter (NE-I). Data on patient characteristics, length of stay, and discharge disposition were collected. RESULTS: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients in the NE-I group had significantly longer length of stay than both the NE-N group (2.85 vs 2.28 days, P = .015) and the E group (2.85 s vs 1.87 days, P < .0001). THA patients who required a translator were also significantly less likely to be discharged to home than those who were primarily English speaking (71.4% vs 88.8%, P < .0001). Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients in the NE-I group had significantly longer length of stay than the E group (2.66 vs 2.50 days, P = .009). The TKA patients in the NE-I group were significantly less likely to be discharged home than in the E group (74.5% vs 82.4%, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Although interpreter services are provided by the hospital for NE-I patients, the communication barrier that exists affects both length of stay and discharge disposition for both THA and TKA.