Vertical or Horizontal (Bikini) Incision for Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: Outcomes of Early (< 90 day) Revision.

BACKGROUND: The horizontal 'bikini' incision for direct anterior approach (DAA) total hip arthroplasty (THA) has gained popularity due to its early wound healing characteristics, however, the non-extensile nature of this approach may pose problems in treating early complications. This study sought to characterize the outcomes of early revision (< 90 days) in patients who underwent anterior hip arthroplasty utilizing either a traditional longitudinal incision or a horizontal (bikini) incision. METHODS: This retrospective study identified patients who underwent DAA primary THA with a subsequent DAA revision within 90 days. Patients were divided into two cohorts based on the orientation of their incision: either 'longitudinal incision' (in accordance with the Smith Peterson interval) or 'horizontal bikini incision' (in accordance with the hip flexion crease). RESULTS: There were 74 patients who underwent DAA revision arthroplasty within 90 days of primary arthroplasty; 65 had a longitudinal incision, and 9 had a horizontal (bikini) incision. In the longitudinal incision group, 2 patients (3.1%) required plastic surgery closure, and 11 patients (16.9%) required additional operations. Of the 9 bikini incision patients, 6 patients required the assistance of plastic surgery closure, and 7 patients required multiple orthopaedic operations. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that a horizontal bikini incision is less forgiving in the early postoperative period if a more extensile exposure is needed for revision surgery, as measured by the need for plastic surgery and additional returns to the operating room. In our cohort, the longitudinal incision allowed for the management of early surgical complications with less morbidity.

Operating Room Air May Harbor Pathogens: The Role of an Ultraviolet Air Filtration Unit.

BACKGROUND: One important factor for the prevention of surgical site infections is ultraclean air in the operating room (OR). Still, the direct sterilization potential of most technologies, especially in a dynamic clinical setting, is not well understood. We aimed to determine and compare the microbial presence from the inlet and outlet flow of a filtration unit with crystalline ultraviolet-C (C-UVC) light. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted at a single institution, where primary total joint arthroplasty and spine surgeries were performed. The OR was fitted with a positive ventilation system. In addition, a filtration unit with a C-UVC sterilizing light was placed in the OR. The inlet and outlet air flows were swabbed simultaneously and compared. Swabs were processed for culture and next-generation sequencing. RESULTS: The mean length of the surgical procedures sampled was 68 ± 13 minutes. Overall, 19 out of 200 (9.5%) swabs isolated microorganisms. Inlet air swabs were positive at a higher rate (16 versus 3%; P < .01) compared to the outlet air swabs. A wide variety of Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and anaerobic bacteria were isolated, but fungi were only recovered from inlet air swabs. The detection of microorganisms was also higher when more door openings were performed (32.5 ± 7.1 versus 27.9 ± 5.6; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Air swabs mainly isolated microorganisms from the inlet flow to the filtration unit with a C-UVC light. The sterilizing unit counteracted factors affecting the air quality in the OR, namely door openings, surgical personnel, and tissue combustion.

Methylene Blue Infiltration As a Method for Distinguishing Superficial and Deep Infections.

BACKGROUND: There are no established objective methods to reliably differentiate between superficial and deep infection in the setting of total hip arthroplasty. We employed a technique of distinguishing superficial and deep infections by infiltrating methylene blue to a prosthetic hip during infection workup to determine its effectiveness and to characterize its utility in defining the joint cavity where deep debridement is required. METHODS: An analysis was conducted on 35 patients who preoperatively received an injection of methylene blue under radiological guidance to their total hip arthroplasty. Where established periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) criteria were not met, without signs of methylene blue beyond the deep fascia, the infection was considered superficial, and debridement remained superficial to the deep fascia. Where diagnosis of PJI was confirmed preoperatively or the presence of methylene blue in the wound cavity confirmed deep contamination, the prosthesis was addressed with methylene blue staining defining the joint cavity as a guide for debridement. RESULTS: There were 11 patients who had no methylene blue extrusion into the superficial compartment and did not meet PJI criteria. Eight patients failed to meet PJI criteria preoperatively, but had extrusion of methylene blue, confirming a deep infection intraoperatively. There were 16 patients who met PJI criteria preoperatively with methylene blue acting as a visual guide to the joint space. CONCLUSION: Infiltrating methylene blue in a prosthetic hip is useful in differentiating between superficial or deep infections where PJI workup is indeterminate. Where deep infection is present, its utility in defining the joint cavity may be advantageous.

The Use of Iodophor-Impregnated Drapes in Patients With Iodine-Related Allergies: A Case Series and Review of the Literature.

Background: The use of iodophor-impregnated adhesive drapes have become almost universally incorporated into standard practice of arthroplasty draping technique. Iodine-related allergies in patients planned for joint replacement present a challenge in terms of the best course of action to minimize complications and optimize outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of patients that received an iodophor-impregnated drape as part of draping for a total hip or knee arthroplasty at a single orthopaedic-specific hospital with documented iodine-related allergies. From 2015 to 2023, 9816 total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty cases were reviewed, and 135 were documented to have an iodine-related allergy for a prevalence of 1.38%. Intraoperative and postoperative records were reviewed to screen for an allergic reaction or wound healing issues that may have been related to an adverse reaction to the use of the iodophor-impregnated drape. Results: Of the 135 patients, 43 had iodine listed as an allergy, 85 had shellfish, 20 had iodinated contrast media, and 3 had povidone iodine. Sixteen patients had a cluster of iodine-related allergies. There were no intraoperative reports of an allergic reaction to this drape. There were four superficial wound problems, none of which were documented to relate to an allergic dermatitis reaction, and none required further surgery. Conclusions: Patients reporting iodine-related allergies were present in 1.38% of patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty in our series. We encountered no allergic reactions or adverse outcomes that could be attributed to the use of iodiphor impregnated drapes in these patients.