Development and content validation of a questionnaire identifying patients' functional priorities and abilities after hip or knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: To develop a self-report questionnaire evaluating functional priorities after hip or knee arthroplasty and evaluate patients' understanding of its items and conceptual relevance. METHODS: A self-report questionnaire was first developed based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) core set for osteoarthritis (OA). In the second stage, two research physiotherapists thoroughly reviewed and refined the questionnaire, and another physiotherapist conducted cognitive think-aloud interviews with 18 patients to assess the face and content validity of the questionnaire. RESULTS: All categories and corresponding activities of ICF core set for OA were used to develop the questionnaire. Several questionnaire issues were identified and addressed. Most challenges were related to comprehension, followed by item ordering and visual elements. Patients identified ambiguous wording which we subsequently simplified. Ten activities of the core set were excluded due to lack of face validity, two activities were added, and four activities were modified. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the ICF core set for OA needs to be adjusted for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty and highlight the feasibility of applying a modified core set to assess functional priorities after hip or knee arthroplasty.

The questionnaire developed in this study can be used to assess patients' functional priorities after hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis.Several activities that comprise the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) core set for osteoarthritis could be used to assess functional priorities after hip or knee arthroplasty.Some categories need to be removed or modified within this core set based on feedback from patients during the think-aloud sessions in our study.Using our questionnaire to determine postoperative patient priorities can help identify appropriate patient-centered outcome measures to use after hip or knee arthroplasty.

Functional patient-reported outcome measures after hip or knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and content analysis using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF).

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to identify the existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in hip or knee arthroplasty for adults with osteoarthritis and assess their content validity using the modified International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) core set for osteoarthritis (OA). METHOD: Four databases were systematically searched to identify disease or joint-specific PROMs evaluating function after hip or knee arthroplasty. Two reviewers independently evaluated the content of PROMs based on established ICF linking rules. RESULTS: From 449 studies included in this review, 50 PROMs were identified. The mobility chapter of activities and participation was the most common component, followed by sensory function and pain chapter of body function and structure. The most frequent ICF activity and participation categories were d451:going up and down stairs, d4701:using private motorized transportation, d4104:standing, and d4154:maintaining a standing position. However, 11 ICF categories of the modified OA coreset were not captured in any PROMs. This ICF-based content analysis of PROMs revealed that included activity and participation categories vary widely, with little overlap between PROMs. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score had the most coverage for activity and participation (36.7%). CONCLUSION: Even though our search identified 50 specific PROMs, there remain gaps in content related to activity and participation coverage. By providing a content analysis of the PROMs used after hip or knee arthroplasty, this study may help clinicians select PROMs based on covered categories and relevant clinical objectives.

Determining Appropriateness of Total Joint Arthroplasty for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Patient-Centred Conceptual Model.

INTRODUCTION: Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) for osteoarthritis is one of several treatment options with benefits and harms that patients value differently. However, the process for determining TJA appropriateness does not sufficiently acknowledge patient perspectives. The aim of this paper is to propose an evidence-informed patient-centred conceptual model for elective TJA appropriateness for hip and knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: Our interprofessional team developed a conceptual model for determining the appropriateness of adults considering elective TJA. The model was informed by a review of the evidence, a qualitative study we conducted with adults who underwent TJA for osteoarthritis to determine barriers and facilitators to the use of appropriateness criteria, and the research and clinical experience of team members. RESULTS: Appropriateness is providing health services (e.g., TJA) with net benefits to the right patient at the right time. The proposed Patient-centred Elective TJA Appropriateness Conceptual Model involves three key steps. First, assess adults with osteoarthritis to determine eligibility for TJA. Second, acknowledge the patient's informed preferences including their expectations and goals. Third, explore and support their mental and physical readiness for TJA. Given that osteoarthritis is a chronic condition, these steps can be revisited over time with patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our proposed conceptual model reconceptualises the appropriateness of TJA to be more patient-centred. Hence, this approach has the potential to be a more inclusive approach and ensure patients undergoing TJA are eligible, ready to proceed, and achieve what matters most to them. Future research is needed to test and validate the model.

How to Best Identify Acetabular Retroversion on Radiographs: Thresholds to Guide Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Acetabular retroversion is associated with impingement and instability. An adequate interpretation of acetabular version and coverage on radiographs is essential to determine the optimal treatment strategy (periacetabular osteotomy vs hip arthroscopic surgery). The crossover sign (COS) has been associated with the presence of acetabular retroversion, and the anterior wall index (AWI) and posterior wall index (PWI) assess anteroposterior acetabular coverage. However, the radiographic appearance of the acetabulum is sensitive to anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) morphology and pelvic tilt (PT), which differs between the supine and standing positions. PURPOSE: To (1) identify differences in the acetabular appearance between the supine and standing positions among patients presenting with hip pain; (2) determine factors (acetabular version, AIIS morphology, and spinopelvic characteristics) associated with the crossover ratio (COR), AWI, and PWI; and (3) define relevant clinical thresholds to guide management. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients who presented to a hip preservation surgical unit (n = 134) were included (mean age, 35 ± 8 years; 58% female; mean body mass index, 27 ± 6). All participants underwent supine and standing anteroposterior pelvic radiography to assess the COS, COR, AWI, and PWI as well as standing lateral radiography to determine standing PT. Computed tomography was used to measure supine PT, acetabular version, and AIIS morphology. Acetabular version was measured at 3 transverse levels, corresponding to the 1-, 2-, and 3-o'clock positions. The correlation between radiographic characteristics (COR, AWI, and PWI) and acetabular version, AIIS morphology, and PT was calculated using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to define thresholds for the COR, AWI, and PWI to identify retroversion (version thresholds: <10°, <5°, and <0°). RESULTS: The COS was present in 55% of hips when supine and 30% when standing, with a mean difference in the COR of 12%. The supine COR (rho = -0.661) and AWI/PWI ratio (rho = -0.618) strongly correlated with acetabular version. The COS was more prevalent among patients with type 2 AIIS morphology (71%) than among those with type 1 AIIS morphology (43%) (P = .003). COR thresholds of 23% and 28% were able to identify acetabular version <5° (sensitivity = 81%; specificity = 80%) and <0° (sensitivity = 88%; specificity = 85%), respectively. An AWI/PWI ratio >0.6 was able to reliably identify acetabular version <0° (sensitivity = 83%; specificity = 84%). In the presence of a COR >30% and an AWI/PWI ratio >0.6, the specificity to detect retroversion was significantly increased (>90%). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of the COS was very common among patients with hip pain. False-positive results (high COR/normal version) may occur because of AIIS morphology/low PT. Relevant thresholds of COR >30% and AWI/PWI ratio >0.6 can help with diagnostic accuracy. In cases in which either the COR or AWI/PWI ratio is high, axial cross-sectional imaging can further help to avoid false-positive results.

Development and implementation of a roadmap for improving quality of care in prearthritic hip disease: A journey over 20 years.

The understanding and treatment of prearthritic hip disease has evolved remarkably over the past 20 years. The principal investigator and the multicenter Academic Network of Conservational Hip Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) group have had a key role in improving the quality of care for these patients suffering from the three most common prearthritic conditions: femoroacetabular impingement, developmental dysplasia of the hip, and residual Legg-Calve-Perthes Disease. We aim to demonstrate that based on the six quality of care dimensions as defined by Donabedian, our 20-year academic journey has markedly improved the quality of care for young patients with prearthritic hip disease.

How Is Variability in Femoral and Acetabular Version Associated With Presentation Among Young Adults With Hip Pain?

BACKGROUND: Acetabular and femoral version contribute to hip pain in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) or dysplasia. However, definitions and measurement methods of femoral version have varied in different studies, resulting in different "normal" values being used by clinicians for what should be the same anatomic measurement. This could result in discrepant or even inappropriate treatment recommendations. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In patients undergoing hip preservation surgery, (1) what is the range of acetabular and femoral version at presentation, and how much do two commonly used measurement techniques (those of Murphy and Reikerås) differ? (2) How are differences in acetabular and femoral version associated with clinical factors and outcomes scores at the time of presentation? METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of data gathered in a longitudinally maintained database of patients undergoing hip preservation at a tertiary care referral center. Between June 2020 and December 2021, 282 hips in 258 patients were treated for an isolated labral tear (9% [26 hips]), hip dysplasia (21% [59 hips]), FAI (52% [147 hips]), mixed FAI and dysplasia (17% [47 hips]), or pediatric deformity (slipped capital femoral head epiphysis or Perthes disease; 1% [3 hips]) with hip arthroscopy (71% [200 hips]), periacetabular osteotomy (26% [74 hips]), surgical hip dislocation (2.5% [7 hips]), or femoral derotation osteotomy (0.5% [1 hip]). We considered those with complete radiographic data (CT including the pelvis and distal femur) and patient-reported outcome scores as potentially eligible. Exclusion criteria were age younger than 18 or older than 55 years (5 hips, 3 patients), signs of hip osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade ≥ 2; 0), pediatric deformity (slipped capital femoral head epiphysis or Perthes disease; 3 hips, 3 patients), previous femoral or acetabular osteotomy (2 hips, 2 patients), avascular necrosis of the femoral head (0), history of neuromuscular disorder (Ehlers-Danlos syndrome; 3 hips, 3 patients) or rheumatoid disease (ankylosing spondylitis; 1 hip, 1 patient), and when CT did not include the knees (19 hips, 19 patients). Based on these criteria, 249 hips in 227 patients were included. Of patients with bilateral symptomatic hips, one side was randomly selected for inclusion, leaving 227 hips in 227 patients for further analysis. The patients' median age (range) was 34 years (19 to 55 years), the median BMI (range) was 27 kg/m2 (16 to 55 kg/m2), and 63% (144) were female; they were treated with hip arthroscopy (in 74% [168]) or periacetabular osteotomy (in 23% [52]). Patients underwent a CT scan to measure acetabular version and femoral version using the Murphy (low < 10°; normal: 10° to 25°; high > 25°) or Reikerås (low < 5°; normal: 5° to 20°; high > 20°) technique. The McKibbin index was calculated (low: < 20°; normal: 20° to 50°; high > 50°). Based on the central acetabular version and femoral version as measured by Murphy, hips were grouped according to their rotational profile into four groups: unstable rotational profile: high (high acetabular version with high femoral version) or moderate (high acetabular version with normal femoral version or normal acetabular version with high femoral version); normal rotational profile (normal acetabular version with femoral version); compensatory rotational profile (low acetabular version with high femoral version or high acetabular version with low femoral version); and impingement rotational profile (low acetabular version with low femoral version): high (low acetabular version with low femoral version) or moderate (low acetabular version with normal femoral version or normal acetabular version with low femoral version). Radiographic assessments were manually performed on digitized images by two orthopaedic residents, and 25% of randomly selected measurements were repeated by the senior author, a fellowship-trained hip preservation and arthroplasty surgeon. Interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities were calculated using the correlation coefficient with a two-way mixed model, showing excellent agreement for Murphy technique measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.908 [95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.97]) and Reikerås technique measurements (ICC 0.938 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.97]). Patient-reported measures were recorded using the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) (0 to 100; worse to best). RESULTS: The mean acetabular version was 18° ± 6°, and mean femoral version was 24° ± 12° using the Murphy technique and 12° ± 11° with the Reikerås method. Eighty percent (181 of 227) of hips had normal acetabular version, 42% (96 of 227) to 63% (142 to 227) had normal femoral version per Murphy and Reikerås, respectively, and 67% (152 to 227) had a normal McKibbin index. Patients with an impingement profile (low acetabular version or femoral version) were older (39 ± 9 years) than patients with an unstable (high acetabular version or femoral version; 33 ± 9 years; p = 0.004), normal (33 ± 9 years; p = 0.02), or compensatory (high acetabular version with low femoral version or vice versa; 33 ± 7 years; p = 0.08) rotational profile. Using the Murphy technique, femoral version was 12° greater than with the Reikerås method (R2 0.85; p < 0.001). There were no differences in iHOT-33 score between different groups (impingement: 32 ± 17 versus normal 35 ± 21 versus compensated: 34 ± 20 versus unstable: 31 ± 17; p = 0.40). CONCLUSION: Variability in femoral version is twice as large as acetabular version. Patients with an impingement rotational profile were older than patients with a normal, compensatory, or unstable profile, indicating there are other variables not yet fully accounted for that lead to earlier pain and presentation in these groups. Important differences exist between measurement methods. This study shows that different measurement methods for femoral anteversion result in different numbers; if other authors compare their results to those of other studies, they should use equations such as the one suggested in this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

The relationship of pain catastrophizing with postoperative patient-reported outcome measures in adults with pre-arthritic hip disease.

The association between preoperative pain catastrophizing and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures of patients with pre-arthritic hip disease was evaluated. All patients scheduled for joint-preserving surgeries of the hip (JPSH) at our institution were approached. Patient demographics (age, sex, body mass index (BMI)), pain intensity (Numeric Pain Scale (NPS)) and pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)) were collected preoperatively. Patient function (12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHot-12)) and physical and mental health (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-10) mental/physical) were collected preoperatively, three-month and one-year postoperatively. The analysis consisted of multivariate linear regression models fitted for continuous scores of outcome measures at three-month and one-year. Correlation between preoperative PCS and iHot-12 was assessed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. A total of 274 patients completed the PCS and were included in the multivariate linear regression models. Most patients were females (66.8%), mean age was 33 (SD 9), mean BMI was 26.5 (SD 5.8) and most were diagnosed with femoro-acetabular impingement (46.0%) and underwent arthroscopy (77.0%). There were statistically significant correlations between PCS and iHot-12 (preoperatively -0.615, P < 0.001; three-month -0.242, P = 0.002). Statistically significant associations were found for function (three-month PCS P = 0.046, age P = 0.014, NPS P = 0.043; one-year BMI P = 0.005, NPS P = 0.014), physical health (three-month BMI, P = 0.002, NPS P = 0.008; one-year BMI P = 0.002, NPS P = 0.013) and mental health (three-month BMI P = 0.047; one-year BMI P = 0.030). There is an association between function and preoperative pain catastrophizing in patients with pre-arthritic hip disease undergoing JPSH. When considering confounding variables, preoperative pain catastrophizing is associated with short-term recovery.

Strategies to Manage Poorer Outcomes After Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review of Current Understanding, Unanswered Questions, and Future Directions.

PURPOSE: Although hip or knee arthroplasty is generally a successful intervention, it is documented that 15%-30% of patients undergoing arthroplasty report suboptimal outcomes. This narrative review aims to provide an overview of the key findings concerning the management of poorer outcomes after hip or knee arthroplasty. METHOD: A comprehensive search of articles was conducted up to November 2023 across three electronic databases. Only studies written in English were included, with no limitations applied regarding study design and time. RESULT: Efficiently addressing poorer outcomes after arthroplasty necessitates a thorough exploration of appropriate methods for assessing recovery following hip or knee arthroplasty, ensuring accurate identification of patients at risk or experiencing poorer recovery. When selecting appropriate outcome measure tools, various factors should be taken into consideration, including understanding patients' priorities throughout the recovery process, assessing psychometric properties of outcome measure tools at different time points after arthroplasty, understanding how to combine/reconcile provider-assessed and patient-reported outcome measures, and determining the appropriate methods to interpret outcome measure scores. However, further research in these areas is warranted. In addition, the identification of key modifiable factors affecting outcomes and the development of interventions to manage these factors are needed. CONCLUSION: There is growing attention paid to delivering interventions for patients at risk or not optimally recovering following hip or knee arthroplasty. To achieve this, it is essential to identify the most appropriate outcome measure tools, factors associated with poorer recovery and management of these factors.

The Otto Aufranc Award: Does Hip Arthroscopy at the Time of Periacetabular Osteotomy Improve the Clinical Outcome for the Treatment of Hip Dysplasia? A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: A periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is often sufficient to treat the symptoms and improve quality of life for symptomatic hip dysplasia. However, acetabular cartilage and labral pathologies are very commonly present, and there is a lack of evidence examining the benefits of adjunct arthroscopy to treat these. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of patients undergoing PAO with and without arthroscopy, with the primary end point being the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 at 1 year. METHODS: In a multicenter study, 203 patients who had symptomatic hip dysplasia were randomized: 97 patients undergoing an isolated PAO (mean age 27 years [range, 16 to 44]; mean body mass index of 25.1 [range, 18.3 to 37.2]; 86% women) and 91 patients undergoing PAO who had an arthroscopy (mean age 27 years [range, 16 to 49]; mean body mass index of 25.1 [17.5 to 25.1]; 90% women). RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 2.3 years (range, 1 to 5), all patients exhibited improvements in their functional score, with no significant differences between PAO plus arthroscopy versus PAO alone at 12 months postsurgery on all scores: preoperative International Hip Outcome Tool-33 score of 31.2 (standard deviation [SD] 16.0) versus 36.4 (SD 15.9), and 12 months postoperative score of 72.4 (SD 23.4) versus 73.7 (SD 22.6). The preoperative Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome pain score was 60.3 (SD 19.6) versus 66.1 (SD 20.0) and 12 months postoperative 88.2 (SD 15.8) versus 88.4 (SD 18.3). The mean preoperative physical health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System score was 42.5 (SD 8.0) versus 44.2 (SD 8.8) and 12 months postoperative 48.7 (SD 8.5) versus 52.0 (SD 10.6). There were 4 patients with PAO without arthroscopy who required an arthroscopy later to resolve persistent symptoms, and 1 patient from the PAO plus arthroscopy group required an additional arthroscopy. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial has failed to show any significant clinical benefit in performing hip arthroscopy at the time of the PAO at 1-year follow-up. Longer follow-up will be required to determine if hip arthroscopy provides added value to a PAO for symptomatic hip dysplasia.

Two-Year Results of Ceramic-on-Ceramic Hip Resurfacing in an International Multicenter Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is a bone-conserving alternative to total hip arthroplasty. We present the 2-year clinical and radiographic follow-up of a novel ceramic-on-ceramic HRA in an international multicenter cohort. METHODS: Patients undergoing HRA between September 2018 and January 2021 were prospectively included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the form of the Forgotten Joint Score, Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Jr., Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, Oxford Hip Score, and University of California, Los Angeles, Activity Score were collected preoperatively, and at 1 and 2 years postoperation. Serial radiographs were assessed for migration, component alignment, evidence of osteolysis or loosening, and heterotopic ossification formation. RESULTS: The study identified 200 patients who reached a minimum 2-year follow-up (mean 3.5 years). Of these, 185 completed PROMs follow-up at 2 years. There was a significant improvement in Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (P < .001) and Oxford Hip Score (P < .001) between the preoperative, 1-year, and 2-year outcomes. Patients had improved activity scores on the University of California, Los Angeles, Active Score (P < .001), with 45% reporting a return to high-impact activity at 2 years. At 1 and 2 years, the Forgotten Joint Score was not significantly different (P = .38). There was no migration, osteolysis, or loosening of any of the implants. No fractures were reported over the 2-year follow-up, with only 1 patient reporting a sciatic nerve palsy. There were 2 revisions, 1 for unexplained pain at 3 months due to acetabular component malposition and 1 at 33.5 months for acetabular implant failure. CONCLUSIONS: The ceramic-on-ceramic resurfacing at 2 years postoperation demonstrates promising results with satisfactory outcomes in all recorded PROMs. Further long-term data are needed to support the widespread adoption of this prosthesis as an alternative to other HRA bearings.

Prevalence of anemia and association with outcome in joint arthroplasty - is there a difference between primary and revision cases?

PURPOSE: Anemia has been shown to be a modifiable pre-operative, patient factor associated with outcome following arthroplasty. The aims of this retrospective study were to (1) ascertain the prevalence of preoperative anemia in patients undergoing primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty at a tertiary referral center and (2) to test the association with outcome and whether it differs between primary and revision cases. METHODS: All hip and knee primary and revision arthroplasties performed at a Canadian academic, tertiary-care, arthroplasty center between 2012 and 2017 were included in this study. The study group consisted of 5944 patients, of which 5251 were primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasties or Hip Resurfacings and 693 were revision arthroplasties (65% hip revisions/35% knee revisions). Anemia was classified as per WHO definition (hemoglobin < 130 g/L for men and < 120 g/L for women). All anemic patients were grouped into mild, moderate or severe anemia. Length-of-stay, perioperative transfusion-rate, 90-day readmission, overall complication rate and reoperation rates were recorded. The effect of preoperative anemia and the effect of severity of the anemia was evaluated through multivariable regression analysis controlling for relevant covariates. RESULTS: Preoperatively, 15% (786/5251) of the primary patients and 47% (322/693) of the revision arthroplasty patients were anemic preoperatively. Anemic revision patients were 3.1 times more likely (95% CI: 1.47-6.33) to obtain blood transfusions during the hospital stay, compared to a 4.9 times higher risk in primary patients. The odds ratio to sustain any postoperative complication if anemic was 1.5 times higher (95% CI: 0.73-3.16) in revision patients and 1.7 in primary cases. In addition, the 90-day readmission rate among both groups was 1.6 times higher in anemic patients. Furthermore, anemic revision patients had a 5.3 days longer length of stay (95% CI: 2.63-7.91), compared to only 1 additional day in anemic primary patients (95% CI: 0.69-1.34). CONCLUSION: In this study cohort, the prevalence of anemia in patients awaiting revision arthroplasty was 3 times higher (46.6%) than in primary arthroplasty patients (18.7%). Preoperative anemia was associated with similarly, inferior outcomes in both groups. To reduce postoperative complications and the "burden" associated with anemia, these findings strongly recommend optimizing the preoperative hemoglobin in all arthroplasty patients. However, revision patients are affected more frequently, and particular attention must therefore be taken to this growing group in the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Using Unsupervised Machine Learning to Predict Quality of Life After Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an important metric to assess total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. The purpose of this study was to use a machine learning (ML) algorithm to identify patient features that impact PROMs after TKA. METHODS: Data from 636 TKA patients enrolled in our patient database between 2018 and 2022, were retrospectively reviewed. Their mean age was 68 years (range, 39 to 92), 56.7% women, and mean body mass index of 31.17 (range, 16 to 58). Patient demographics and the Functional Comorbidity Index were collected alongside Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System Global Health v1.2 (PROMIS GH-P) physical component scores preoperatively, at 3 months, and 1 year after TKA. An unsupervised ML algorithm (spectral clustering) was used to identify patient features impacting PROMIS GH-P scores at the various time points. RESULTS: The algorithm identified 5 patient clusters that varied by demographics, comorbidities, and pain scores. Each cluster was associated with predictable trends in PROMIS GH-P scores across the time points. Notably, patients who had the worst preoperative PROMIS GH-P scores (cluster 5) had the most improvement after TKA, whereas patients who had higher global health rating preoperatively had more modest improvement (clusters 1, 2, and 3). Two out of Five patient clusters (cluster 4 and 5) showed improvement in PROMIS GH-P scores that met a minimally clinically important difference at 1-year postoperative. CONCLUSIONS: The unsupervised ML algorithm identified patient clusters that had predictable changes in PROMs after TKA. It is a positive step toward providing precision medical care for each of our arthroplasty patients.

Periprosthetic fracture following anterior approach or dislocation after posterior approach: which one is the lesser evil?

INTRODUCTION: The most common approaches in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have different complication profiles; anterior-approach (AA-THA) has an increased risk of periprosthetic fractures (PPF); posterior-approach (PA-THA) is associated with higher dislocation risk. However, the relative severity of one versus the other is unknown. This study aims to compare outcome of patients who suffered PPF after AA-THA with those that sustained dislocation after PA-THA. METHODS: This is a retrospective, single-center, multi-surgeon, consecutive case-series of primary THA patients. In a cohort of 9867 patients who underwent THA, 79 fulfilled the approach-specific, post-operative complication criteria, of which 44 were PPF after AA-THA and 35 with dislocation after PA-THA (age 67.9 years (range: 38.0-88.1), 58.2% women). Outcome included complication- and revision- rates, and patient-reported outcomes including Oxford Hip Score (OHS). RESULTS: At 5.8 years follow-up (range: 2.0-18.5), reoperation was more common in the dislocation after PA-THA group (23/35 vs. 20/44; p = 0.072). Change of surgical approach occurred in 15/20 of patients with PPF after AA-THA, but none in those with dislocation after PA-THA. Following re-operation, complication rate was greater in the PPF group (9/20 vs. 4/23; p = 0.049). At latest follow-up, OHS were superior in the PPF after AA-THA group [42.6 (range: 25.0-48.0) vs. 36.6 (range: 21.0-47.0); p = 0.006]. CONCLUSION: Dislocation following PA-THA is more likely to require revision. However, PPF following AA-THA requires more often a different surgical approach and is at higher risk of complications. Despite the increased surgical burden post-operative PROMs are better in the peri-prosthetic fracture group, especially in cases not requiring reoperation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, case-control study.

The Effect of Surgical Approach and Hip Offset Reconstruction on Gait Biomechanics Following Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to examine how hip offset (HO) and surgical approach affect gait biomechanics following total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: There were 55 THA patients assigned to 3 groups based on surgical approach (ANT: anterior, LAT: lateral, or POS: posterior) and HO difference (large HO: >5 millimeters (mm), small HO; <5 mm, or normal; between +3 mm and -3 mm). Kinematics and kinetics were recorded using motion capture and force plate data. Group differences were assessed using statistical parametric mapping. RESULTS: The ANT group demonstrated more normal sagittal plane kinematics and kinetics. No frontal plane kinematic differences were found, but the LAT group displayed more normal frontal plane kinetics. The LAT group displayed a slower walking speed than the ANT group, and the LAT and POS groups used a shorter stride/step length than the control group. The large HO group showed fewer differences in sagittal plane kinematics and kinetics than the small HO and normal groups. No frontal plane kinematic differences were observed, but the normal group demonstrated more significant differences than the large HO and small HO groups. No significant differences were found between any of the HO patient groups. CONCLUSION: Anterior and lateral approaches led to more normal gait biomechanics in sagittal kinematics and frontal kinetics, respectively, but only the ANT group exhibited spatiotemporal gait parameters within normal ranges. Hip offset differences greater or less than 5 mm do not significantly change gait patterns. Surgical approach plays a greater role than HO reconstruction in producing more normal gait biomechanics following THA.

Which Acetabular Measurements Most Accurately Differentiate Between Patients and Controls? A Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Acetabular morphology is an important determinant of hip biomechanics. To identify features of acetabular morphology that may be associated with the development of hip symptoms while accounting for spinopelvic characteristics, one needs to determine acetabular characteristics in a group of individuals older than 45 years without symptoms or signs of osteoarthritis. Previous studies have used patients with unknown physical status to define morphological thresholds to guide management. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) To determine acetabular morphological characteristics in males and females between 45 and 60 years old with a high Oxford hip score (OHS) and no signs of osteoarthritis; (2) to compare these characteristics with those of symptomatic hip patients treated with hip arthroscopy or periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for various kinds of hip pathology (dysplasia, retroversion, and cam femoroacetabular impingement); and (3) to assess which radiographic or CT parameters most accurately differentiate between patients who had symptomatic hips and those who did not, and thus, define thresholds that can guide management. METHODS: Between January 2018 and December 2018, 1358 patients underwent an abdominopelvic CT scan in our institution for nonorthopaedic conditions. Of those, we considered 5% (73) of patients as potentially eligible as controls based on the absence of major hip osteoarthritis, trauma, or deformity. Patients were excluded if their OHS was 43 or less (2% [ 28 ]), if they had a PROMIS less than 50 (1% [ 18 ]), or their Tönnis score was higher than 1 (0.4% [ 6 ]). Another eight patients were excluded because of insufficient datasets. After randomly selecting one side for each control, 40 hips were left for analysis (age 55 ± 5 years; 48% [19 of 40] were in females). In this comparative study, this asymptomatic group was compared with a group of patients treated with hip arthroscopy or PAO. Between January 2013 and December 2020, 221 hips underwent hip preservation surgery. Of those, eight were excluded because of previous pelvic surgery, and 102 because of insufficient CT scans. One side was randomly selected in patients who underwent bilateral procedure, leaving 48% (107 of 221) of hips for analysis (age 31 ± 8 years; 54% [58 of 107] were in females). Detailed radiographic and CT assessments (including segmentation) were performed to determine acetabular (depth, cartilage coverage, subtended angles, anteversion, and inclination) and spinopelvic (pelvic tilt and incidence) parameters. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was used to assess diagnostic accuracy and determine which morphological parameters (and their threshold) differentiate most accurately between symptomatic patients and asymptomatic controls. RESULTS: Acetabular morphology in asymptomatic hips was characterized by a mean depth of 22 ± 2 mm, with an articular cartilage surface of 2619 ± 415 mm 2 , covering 70% ± 6% of the articular surface, a mean acetabular inclination of 48° ± 6°, and a minimal difference between anatomical (24° ± 7°) and functional (22° ± 6°) anteversion. Patients with symptomatic hips generally had less acetabular depth (20 ± 4 mm versus 22 ± 2 mm, mean difference 3 mm [95% CI 1 to 4]; p < 0.001). Hips with dysplasia (67% ± 5% versus 70% ± 6%, mean difference 6% [95% CI 0% to 12%]; p = 0.03) or retroversion (67% ± 5% versus 70% ± 6%, mean difference 6% [95% CI 1% to 12%]; p = 0.04) had a slightly lower relative cartilage area compared with asymptomatic hips. There was no difference in acetabular inclination (48° ± 6° versus 47° ± 7°, mean difference 0.5° [95% CI -2° to 3°]; p = 0.35), but asymptomatic hips had higher anatomic anteversion (24° ± 7° versus 19° ± 8°, mean difference 6° [95% CI 3° to 9°]; p < 0.001) and functional anteversion (22° ± 6° versus 13°± 9°, mean difference 9° [95% CI 6° to 12°]; p < 0.001). Subtended angles were higher in asymptomatic at 105° (124° ± 7° versus 114° ± 12°, mean difference 11° [95% CI 3° to 17°]; p < 0.001), 135° (122° ± 9° versus 111° ± 12°, mean difference 10° [95% CI 2° to 15°]; p < 0.001), and 165° (112° ± 9° versus 102° ± 11°, mean difference 10° [95% CI 2° to 14°]; p < 0.001) around the acetabular clockface. Symptomatic hips had a lower pelvic tilt (8° ± 8° versus 11° ± 5°, mean difference 3° [95% CI 1° to 5°]; p = 0.007). The posterior wall index had the highest discriminatory ability of all measured parameters, with a cutoff value of less than 0.9 (area under the curve [AUC] 0.84 [95% CI 0.76 to 0.91]) for a symptomatic acetabulum (sensitivity 72%, specificity 78%). Diagnostically useful parameters on CT scan to differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic hips were acetabular depth less than 22 mm (AUC 0.74 [95% CI 0.66 to 0.83]) and functional anteversion less than 19° (AUC 0.79 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.87]). Subtended angles with the highest accuracy to differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic hips were those at 105° (AUC 0.76 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.88]), 135° (AUC 0.78 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.86]), and 165° (AUC 0.77 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.85]) of the acetabular clockface. CONCLUSION: An anatomical and functional acetabular anteversion of 24° and 22°, with a pelvic tilt of 10°, increases the acetabular opening and allows for more impingement-free flexion while providing sufficient posterosuperior coverage for loading. Hips with lower anteversion or a larger difference between anatomic and functional anteversion were more likely to be symptomatic. The importance of sufficient posterior coverage was also illustrated by the posterior wall indices and subtended angles at 105°, 135°, and 165° of the acetabular clockface having a high discriminatory ability to differentiate between symptomatic and asymptomatic hips. Future research should confirm whether integrating these parameters when selecting patients for hip preservation procedures can improve postoperative outcomes.Level of Evidence Level III, prognostic study.

Early- to mid-term outcome of a short, cementless, titanium, flat, tapered stem for primary total hip arthroplasty: an independent series.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to: (1) describe perioperative complications amongst patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a short cementless, titanium, flat, tapered stem; (2) estimate this stem's early- to mid-term survival; (3) identify factors associated with revision arthroplasty; and (4) describe femoral remodelling at minimum 6 years postoperatively. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent THA using a Taperloc Microplasty stem (Zimmer-Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA) with minimum 2-year follow-up was performed. Surgeries were performed by 1 of 6, non-designer, arthroplasty surgeons between 2014 and 2018. Outcomes included perioperative complications including revision arthroplasty, and survival. Cox analysis was used to analyse the effect of different factors on risk of revision arthroplasty. Radiographs with 6-year follow-up served to describe femoral remodelling. RESULTS: In 1205 patients, followed for 5.1 ± 1.4 years, the incidence of perioperative complication was 5.2% for which 29 patients (2.4%) required revision arthroplasty. The 5- and 7-year survival rates were 97.8% (95% CI, 96.9-98.5) and 97.0% (95% CI, 95.6-98.0), respectively. The only factor associated with revision arthroplasty was proximal femur morphology, as per Dorr classification (HR 1.24 [95%CI, 1.09-1.41]; p = 0.005). During radiographic assessment, 12% of patients showed ⩾25% of relative change in cortical thickness in Gruen zones 3 or 5. We observed calcar remodelling in 50% of radiographs while 10% showed presence of a pedestal sign. CONCLUSIONS: The 7-year survivorship of the Taperloc Microplasty stem is within National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Patients ⩽65 years with osteoarthritis and Dorr A/B femoral morphology may be ideal candidates for THA with this stem. Femoral remodelling is common and not associated with adverse outcome.

Prevalence of Lumbosacral Transitional Vertebral Anomalies Among Healthy Volunteers and Patients with Hip Pathology: Association with Spinopelvic Characteristics.

A lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV) has been reported to be prevalent among patients with hip dysplasia. The aims of this study were to determine the (1) prevalence of an LSTV in young patients presenting with hip pain and a group of asymptomatic volunteers, (2) effect of an LSTV on spinopelvic characteristics, and (3) presence of low back pain among patients with an LSTV. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 102 patients with hip pathology and 51 asymptomatic volunteers (mean age, 33.9 ± 7.3 years; mean body mass index, 26.0 ± 5.0 kg/m2; 57.5% female). Participants underwent radiographic assessment of the lumbar spine and pelvis in standing and deep-seated positions. LSTV occurrence was classified according to the Castellvi system. Spinopelvic characteristics included lumbar lordosis (including segmental lumbar angles), pelvic tilt, and hip flexion (pelvic-femoral angle). Differences between standing and deep-seated values were calculated. Low back pain was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index. Results: The prevalence of LSTV type ≥II was 8.5%, with no difference between patients and volunteers (p = 0.386). Individuals with an LSTV had a greater standing L1-L5 angle (mean, 51.6° ± 11.7° versus 38.9° ± 9.3°; p < 0.001). The overall spinal flexion (change in L1-S1 angle between the standing and deep-seated positions) in individuals with an LSTV was similar to that in individuals without an LSTV; restricted L5-S1 mobility was compensated for at L1-L2 (10.2° ± 5.8° in those with versus 8.4° ± 4.1° in those without an LSTV; p = 0.070). No significant difference in the presence of low back pain was found (p = 0.250). Conclusions: An LSTV was found in 8.5% of young adults, with no difference between patients with hip pathology and controls. Individuals with an LSTV have greater standing lumbar lordosis, with altered mechanics at the cephalad adjacent level, which may predispose these individuals to degenerative changes at this level. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Leveraging machine learning and prescriptive analytics to improve operating room throughput.

Successful days are defined as days when four cases were completed before 3:45pm, and overtime hours are defined as time spent after 3:45pm. Based on these definitions and the 460 unsuccessful days isolated from the dataset, 465 hours, 22 minutes, and 30 seconds total overtime hours were calculated. To reduce the increasing wait lists for hip and knee surgeries, we aim to verify whether it is possible to add a 5th surgery, to the typical 4 arthroplasty surgery per day schedule, without adding extra overtime hours and cost at our clinical institution. To predict 5th cases, 301 successful days were isolated and used to fit linear regression models for each individual day. After using the models' predictions, it was determined that increasing performance to a 77% success rate can lead to approximately 35 extra cases per year, while performing optimally at a 100% success rate can translate to 56 extra cases per year at no extra cost. Overall, this shows the extent of resources wasted by overtime costs, and the potential for their use in reducing long wait times. Future work can explore optimal staffing procedures to account for these extra cases.

Outcome of hip resurfacing revision through the Hueter-anterior approach.

BACKGROUND: The Hueter-Anterior Approach (HAA) with its limited soft tissue and internervous dissection has been shown to be an effective approach for primary total hip and hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcome of patients requiring revision of HRA to total hip replacement using the HAA, assessing function and complications. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained research database. Between 2006 and 2015, 555 primary metal-on-metal (MoM) HRAs were performed via the HAA; we identified 33 hips in 30 patients that required revisions for aseptic causes to THA: aseptic loosening of acetabulum in 12 and femoral in 7, 10 for pseudotumour/ALTR, 4 for femoral neck fracture. All revision surgeries were performed through a HAA by a single surgeon who had also performed the index operation. PROMs were collected preoperatively and yearly at various timepoints postoperatively. RESULTS: The mean age at time of revision was 48.9 years (±5.3 SD) for 22 males (67%) and 11 females (33%). The mean time to revision surgery/failure of hip resurfacing was 3.3 years (±2.4 SD). There were 5 major reoperations with 3 infections, 1 acetabular loosening and 1 trunnionosis. There were significant improvements in multiple PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: The HAA is a viable surgical approach for revision of HRA with smaller initial HRA acetabular components generally requiring a relatively larger acetabular compoent at time of revision. Patients reported improvement in symptoms and function and a lower risk of subsequent reoperation than what has previously been reported for failed MoM bearings.

Patient-clinician digital health interventions for the hip fracture population: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Older adults with hip fracture often require extensive post-surgery care across multiple sectors, making follow-up care even more important to ensure an ideal recovery. With the increased adoption of technology, patient-clinician digital health interventions can potentially improve post-surgery outcomes of hip fracture patients by helping them and their caregivers better understand the various aspects of their care, post-hip fracture surgery. The purpose of this study was to examine the available literature on the impact of hip fracture-specific, patient-clinician digital health interventions on patient outcomes and health care delivery processes. We also aimed to identify the barriers and enablers to the uptake and implementation of these technologies and to provide strategies for improved use of these digital health interventions. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following the six stages of Arksey and O'Malley's framework and following the PRISMA-ScR reporting format. Searches were conducted in five databases. In addition to hand searching for relevant studies from the references of all included studies, we also conducted a grey literature search to identify relevant primary studies. Screening of titles and abstracts as well as full texts were performed independently by two reviewers. Two reviewers also performed the data extraction of the included studies. RESULTS: After screening 3,638 records, 20 articles met the criteria and 1 article was identified through hand searching. Various patient-clinician digital health interventions were described including telehealth /telerehabilitation programs (n = 6), care transition /follow-up interventions (n = 5), online resources (n = 2), and wearable devices /sensor monitoring (n = 1). Outcomes were varied and included functional status, gait/mobility, quality of life, psychological factors, satisfaction, survival/complications, caregiver outcomes, compliance, technology-user interactions, and feedback on the use of the digital health interventions. For clinicians, a key barrier to the use of the digital health interventions was the acceptability of the technology. However, the usefulness of the digital health intervention by clinicians was seen as both a barrier and an enabler. For patients and caregivers, all the themes were seen as both a barrier and an enabler depending on the study. These themes included: 1) availability and access, 2) usability, 3) knowledge and skills, 4) acceptability, and 5) usefulness of the digital health intervention. CONCLUSION: Many behavioural factors affect the use of patient-clinician digital health interventions. However, a specific attention should be focused on the acceptability of the technology by the clinicians to encourage uptake of the digital health interventions. The results of this scoping review can help to better understand the factors that may be targeted to increase the use of these technologies by clinicians, patients, and caregivers.