Ultracongruent Versus Posterior-Stabilized Polyethylene: No Difference in Anterior Knee Pain but Decreased Noise Generation.

BACKGROUND: Noise generation and anterior knee pain can occur after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and may affect patient satisfaction. Polyethylene design in cruciate-sacrificing implants could be a variable influencing these complications. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of polyethylene design on noise generation and anterior knee pain. METHODS: We prospectively reviewed a cohort of patients who underwent primary TKA between 2014 and 2022 by a single surgeon using either a posterior-stabilized (PS) or ultracongruent (UC) polyethylene of the same implant design. The primary outcomes were measured through a noise generation questionnaire and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Patellofemoral score. RESULTS: A total of 409 TKA procedures were included, 153 (37.4%) PS and 256 (62.6%) UC. No difference was noted in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Patellofemoral score between PS and UC designs (71.7 ± 26 versus 74.2 ± 23.2, P = 0.313). A higher percentage of patients in the PS cohort reported hearing (32.7% versus 22.3%, P = 0.020) or feeling noise (28.8 versus 20.3, P = 0.051) coming from their implant. No notable difference was observed in noise-related satisfaction rates. Independent risk factors of noise generation were age (OR, 0.96; P = 0.006) and PS polyethylene (OR, 1.61; P = 0.043). Noise generation was associated with decreased patient-reported outcome measure scores (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While there was no difference in anterior knee pain between PS and UC polyethylene designs, PS inserts exhibit higher rates of noise generation compared with UC. Noise generation had comparable satisfaction but was associated with decreased patient-reported outcome measure scores.

Prior Authorization Leads to Administrative Burden and Delays in Treatment in Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: The prior authorization (PA) process is often criticized by physicians due to increased administrative burden and unnecessary delays in treatment. The effects of PA policies on total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have not been well described. The purpose of this study was to analyze the use of PA in a high-volume orthopaedic practice across 4 states. METHODS: We prospectively collected data on 28,725 primary THAs and TKAs performed at our institution between 2020 and 2023. Data collected included patient demographics, payer approval or denial, time to approval or denial, the number of initial denials, the number of peer-to-peer (P2P) or addenda, and the reasons for denial. RESULTS: Seven thousand five hundred twenty eight (56.4%) patients undergoing THA and 8,283 (54%) patients undergoing TKA required PA, with a mean time to approval of 26.3 ± 34.6 and 33.7 ± 41.5 days, respectively. Addenda were requested in 608 of 7,528 (4.6%) THA patients and 737 of 8,283 (8.9%) TKA patients. From a total of 312 (4.1%) THA patients who had an initial denial, a P2P was requested for 50 (0.7%) patients, and only 27 (0.4%) were upheld after the PA process. From a total of 509 (6.1%) TKA patients who had an initial denial, a P2P was requested for 55 (0.7%) patients, and only 26 (0.3%) were upheld after the PA process. The mean time to denial in the THA group was 64.7 ± 83.5, and the most common reasons for denial were poor clinical documentation (25.9%) and lack of coverage (25.9%). The mean time to denial in the TKA group was 63.4 ± 103.9 days, and the most common reason for denial was not specified by the payer (46.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of PA to approve elective THA and TKA led to increased surgical waiting times and a high administrative burden for surgeons and healthcare staff.

The Chitranjan S. Ranawat Award: Manipulation Under Anesthesia to Treat Postoperative Stiffness After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) occurs in 4% of patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Anti-inflammatory medications may target arthrofibrosis pathogenesis, but the data are limited. This multicenter randomized clinical trial investigated the effect of adjuvant anti-inflammatory medications with MUA and physical therapy on range of motion (ROM) and outcomes. METHODS: There were 124 patients (124 TKAs) who developed stiffness after primary TKA for osteoarthritis enrolled across 15 institutions. All received MUA when ROM was < 90° at 4 to 12 weeks postoperatively. Randomization proceeded via a permuted block design. Controls received MUA and physical therapy, while the treatment group also received one dose of pre-MUA intravenous dexamethasone (8 mg) and 14 days of oral celecoxib (200 mg). The ROM and clinical outcomes were assessed at 6 weeks and 1 year. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. RESULTS: The ROM significantly improved a mean of 46° from a pre-MUA ROM of 72 to 118° immediately after MUA (P < .001). The ROM was similar between the treatment and control groups at 6 weeks following MUA (101 versus 99°, respectively; P = .35) and at one year following MUA (108 versus 108°, respectively; P = .98). Clinical outcomes were similar at both end points. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter randomized clinical trial, the addition of intravenous dexamethasone and a short course of oral celecoxib after MUA did not improve ROM or outcomes. However, MUA provided a mean ROM improvement of 46° immediately, 28° at 6 weeks, and 37° at 1 year. Further investigation in regards to dosing, duration, and route of administration of anti-inflammatory medications remains warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, RCT.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

Poor Patient Compliance Limits the Attainability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Completion Thresholds for the Comprehensive Care for Joint Arthroplasty Model.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) links patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with hospital reimbursement in some value-based models for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). This study evaluates PROM reporting compliance and resource utilization using protocol-driven electronic collection of outcomes for commercial and CMS alternative payment models (APMs). METHODS: We analyzed a consecutive series of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from 2016 and 2019. Compliance rates were obtained for reporting hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement (HOOS-JR.), knee disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement (KOOS-JR.), and 12-item short form survey (SF-12) surveys preoperatively and postoperatively at 6-months, 1 year, and 2- years. Of 43,252 THA and TKA patients, 25,315 (58%) were Medicare-only. Direct supply and staff labor costs for PROM collection were obtained. Chi-square testing compared compliance rates between Medicare-only and all-arthroplasty groups. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) estimated resource utilization for PROM collection. RESULTS: In the Medicare-only cohort, preoperative HOOS-JR./KOOS-JR. compliance was 66.6%. Postoperative HOOS-JR./KOOS-JR. compliance was 29.9%, 46.1%, and 27.8% at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. Preoperative SF-12 compliance was 70%. Postoperative SF-12 compliance was 35.9%, 49.6%, and 33.4% at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. Medicare patients had lower PROM compliance than the overall cohort (P < .05) at all time points except preoperative KOOS-JR., HOOS-JR., and SF-12 in TKA patients. The estimated annual cost for PROM collection was $273,682 and the total cost for the entire study period was $986,369. CONCLUSION: Despite extensive experience with APMs and a total expenditure near $1,000,000, our center demonstrated low preoperative and postoperative PROM compliance rates. In order for practices to achieve satisfactory compliance, Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) compensation should be adjusted to reflect the costs associated with collecting these PROMs and CJR target compliance rates should be adjusted to reflect more attainable levels consistent with currently published literature.

Patients Who Have Kellgren-Lawrence Grade 3 and 4 Osteoarthritis Benefit Equally From Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Recently, some payers have limited access to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to patients who have Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 4 osteoarthritis only. This study compared the outcomes of patients who have KL grade 3 and 4 osteoarthritis after TKA to determine if this new policy is justified. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a series originally established to collect outcomes for a single, cemented implant design. A total of 152 patients underwent primary, unilateral TKA at two centers from 2014 to 2016. Only patients who had KL grade 3 (n = 69) or 4 (n = 83) osteoarthritis were included. There was no difference in age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, or preoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) between the groups. Patients who had KL grade 4 disease had a higher body mass index. KSS and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) were collected preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Generalized linear models were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Controlling for demographics, improvements in KSS were comparable between the groups at all time points. There was no difference in KSS, FJS, and the proportion that achieved the patient acceptable symptom state for FJS at 2 years. CONCLUSION: Patients who had KL grade 3 and 4 osteoarthritis experienced similar improvement at all time points up to 2 years after primary TKA. There is no justification for payers to deny access to surgical treatment for patients who have KL grade 3 osteoarthritis and have otherwise failed nonoperative treatment.

Routine Use of Bladder Scans After Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty is Not Necessary: Results of a Protocol Change.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative urinary retention is a common concern after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and can cause discomfort, incontinence and, if left untreated, myogenic changes to the bladder. However, overdiagnosis of postoperative urinary retention by bladder scans may lead to unnecessary interventions and delayed discharges. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety of two bladder management protocols following TJA. METHODS: From January 3, 2022 to April 29, 2022, 519 consecutive patients operated on by thirteen surgeons underwent routine postoperative bladder scanning (standard protocol). From February 28, 2022 to April 29, 2022, a new protocol was introduced by three surgeons in 209 consecutive patients using a specific algorithm (selective protocol) so that only symptomatic patients had bladder scans. The primary outcome of interest was catheterization rate. Chi-square and Students t-tests were used for analyses. There were 37.7% of patients in the selective group who received scans. RESULTS: Times to catheterization, readmissions, emergency department visits, and straight catheterization rates (15.0 versus 14.8% P = .999) were similar. More scans in the selective group resulted in intervention (39.2 versus 15.0%, P < .001). Prevoid volumes were higher in the selective protocol (608 versus 448 mL, P < .001). Postvoid volumes were similar (233 versus 223 mL, P = .497). There was one readmission for a urinary tract infection in the standard group and no urinary-related readmissions in the selective group. CONCLUSION: The selective protocol had a higher rate of same day discharge, fewer bladder scans, and did not lead to increased rates of urinary-related complications. These findings suggest that selective bladder scanning for symptomatic patients can be safely instituted for TJA patients.

Prior Authorization in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Survey of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Membership.

BACKGROUND: This study surveyed the impact that prior authorization has on the practices of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS). METHODS: A 24-question survey was approved by the AAHKS Advocacy Committee and distributed to all 2,802 board-certified members of AAHKS. RESULTS: There were 353 survey responses (13%). Ninety-five percent of surgeons noted a 5-year increase in prior authorization. A majority (71%) of practices employ at least 1 staff member to exclusively work on prior authorization. Average time spent on prior authorization was 15 h/wk (range, 1 to 125) and average number of claims peer week was 18 (range, 1 to 250). Surgeries (99%) were the most common denial. These were denied because nonoperative treatment had not been tried (71%) or had not been attempted for enough time (67%). Most (57%) prior authorization processes rarely/never changed the treatment provided. Most (56%) indicated that prior authorization rarely/never followed evidence-based guidelines. A majority (93%) expressed high administrative burden as well as negative clinical outcomes (87%) due to prior authorization including delays to access care (96%) at least sometimes. DISCUSSION: Prior authorization has increased in the past 5 years resulting in high administrative burden. Prior authorizations were most common for TJA surgeries because certain nonoperative treatments were not attempted or not attempted for enough time. Surgeons indicated that prior authorization may be detrimental to high-value care and lead to potentially harmful delays in care without ultimately changing the management of the patient.

The effects of tourniquet on cement penetration in total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: Aseptic loosening is a common cause of implant failure following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Cement penetration depth is a known factor that determines an implant's "strength" and plays an important role in preventing aseptic loosening. Tourniquet use is thought to facilitate cement penetration, but its use has mixed reviews. The aim of this study was to compare cement penetration depth between tourniquet and tourniquet-less TKA patients. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective review was conducted. Patients were randomized preoperatively to undergo TKA with or without the use of an intraoperative tourniquet. The variables collected were cement penetration measurements in millimeters (mm) within a 1-month post-operative period, length of stay (LOS), and baseline demographics. Measurements were taken by two independent raters and made in accordance to the zones described by the Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System and methodology used in previous studies. RESULTS: A total of 357 TKA patients were studied. No demographic differences were found between tourniquet (n = 189) and tourniquet-less (n = 168) cohorts. However, the tourniquet cohort had statistically, but not clinically, greater average cement penetration depth [2.4 ± 0.6 mm (range 1.2-4.1 mm) vs. 2.2 ± 0.5 mm (range 1.0-4.3 mm, p = 0.01)]. Moreover, the tourniquet cohort had a significantly greater proportion of patients with an average penetration depth within the accepted zone of 2 mm or greater (78.9% vs. 67.3%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Tourniquet use does not affect average penetration depth but increases the likelihood of achieving optimal cement penetration depth. Further study is warranted to determine whether this increased likelihood of optimal cement penetration depth yields lower revision rates.

Should We Aim to Help Patients "Feel Better" or "Feel Good" After Total Hip Arthroplasty? Determining Factors Affecting the Achievement of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State.

BACKGROUND: Recent attempts have been made to use preoperative patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) thresholds as prior authorization criteria based on the assumption that patients who have higher baseline scores are less likely to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). This study aimed to identify factors affecting the achievement of MCID and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) after total hip arthroplasty (THA), and to determine the overlap between the two outcomes. METHODS: We identified 3,581 primary, unilateral THAs performed at a single practice in 2015-2019. PROMs including Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR) and 12-item Short Form Health Survey were collected preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. The likelihood of attaining PASS according to attainment of MCID was assessed. Multivariable regression was used to identify independent predictors of MCID and PASS. RESULTS: In total, 79.8% achieved MCID and 73.6% achieved PASS for HOOS-JR. Approximately 1 in 7 patients who achieved MCID did not eventually achieve PASS. Worse preoperative HOOS-JR (odd ratio 0.933) was associated with MCID attainment. Better preoperative HOOS-JR (odd ratio 1.015) was associated with PASS attainment. Men, lower body mass index, better American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and better preoperative 12-item Short Form Health Survey mental score were predictors of MCID and PASS. Age, race, ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and smoking status were not significant predictors. CONCLUSION: Preoperative PROMs were associated with achieving MCID and PASS after THA, albeit in opposite directions. Clinicians should strive to help patients "feel better" and "feel good" after surgery. Preoperative PROMs should not solely be used to prioritize access to care.

Recurrent Failures After 2-Stage Exchanges are Secondary to New Organisms Not Previously Covered by Antibiotics.

Background: Prior studies have shown that the majority of re-infections following two-stage revisions are due to organisms different from the initial organisms identified. It remains unknown whether these new organisms were susceptible to the antibiotics given (indicating the patient likely developed another infection following successful treatment) or not susceptible (indicating these organisms may have been initially present, but were not identified, and thus, inadequately treated). The purpose of this study was to determine if bacteria identified at time of re-infection following two-stage revisions were susceptible to the antibiotics administered during treatment of the index infection, in order to understand if these are new infections or from organisms that were present but not initially identified. Methods: Thirty failures (19 knees and 11 hips) following two-stage revisions from four institutions were identified. Cultures and antibiotic sensitivities were used to determine whether the re-infectious organisms were new and if they were susceptible to the antibiotics initially given. Results: Twenty-five (83.3%) re-infections were due to new organisms. Of these re-infections from new organisms, 16 (64.0%) were susceptible to the antibiotics previously administered, suggesting they were new infections rather than persistent infections from organisms that were not detected during initial treatment. No statistically significant differences in demographics or time to revision were observed when comparing by organism type (new vs. repeat) or by antibiotic susceptibility. Conclusions: Failures following two-stage revisions are frequently due to organisms different than those identified prior to two-stage revision and are likely new infections rather than persistent infections from undetected organisms.

The Efficacy and Safety of Regional Nerve Blocks in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Direct Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regional nerve blocks are widely used in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regional nerve blocks after TKA in support of the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, Knee Society, and American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published before March 24, 2020 on femoral nerve block, adductor canal block, and infiltration between Popliteal Artery and Capsule of Knee in primary TKA. All included studies underwent qualitative and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the regional nerve blocks compared to a control, local peri-articular anesthetic infiltration (PAI), or between regional nerve blocks. RESULTS: Critical appraisal of 1,673 publications yielded 56 publications representing the best available evidence for analysis. Femoral nerve and adductor canal blocks are effective at reducing postoperative pain and opioid consumption, but femoral nerve blocks are associated with quadriceps weakness. Use of a continuous compared to single shot adductor canal block can improve postoperative analgesia. No difference was noted between an adductor canal block or PAI regarding postoperative pain and opioid consumption, but the combination of both may be more effective. CONCLUSION: Single shot adductor canal block or PAI should be used to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption following TKA. Use of a continuous adductor canal block or a combination of single shot adductor canal block and PAI may improve postoperative analgesia in patients with concern of poor postoperative pain control.

The Efficacy and Safety of Regional Nerve Blocks in Total Hip Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Direct Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regional nerve blocks may be used as a component of a multimodal analgesic protocol to manage postoperative pain after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of regional nerve blocks after THA in support of the combined clinical practice guidelines of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, Knee Society, and American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Management. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published prior to March 24, 2020 on fascia iliaca, lumbar plexus, and quadratus lumborum blocks in primary THA. All included studies underwent qualitative and quantitative homogeneity testing followed by a systematic review and direct comparison meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of the regional nerve blocks. RESULTS: An initial critical appraisal of 3,382 publications yielded 11 publications representing the best available evidence for an analysis. Fascia iliaca, lumbar plexus, and quadratus lumborum blocks demonstrate the ability to reduce postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Among the available comparisons, no difference was noted between a regional nerve block or local periarticular anesthetic infiltration regarding postoperative pain and opioid consumption. CONCLUSION: Local periarticular anesthetic infiltration should be considered prior to a regional nerve block due to concerns over the safety and cost of regional nerve blocks. If a regional nerve block is used in primary THA, a fascia iliaca block is preferred over other blocks due to the differences in technical demands and risks associated with the alternative regional nerve blocks.

Making a Joint Decision Regarding the Timing of Surgery for Elective Arthroplasty Surgery After Being Infected With COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a substantial number of patients to have their elective arthroplasty surgeries rescheduled. While it is established that patients with COVID-19 who are undergoing surgery have a significantly higher risk of experiencing postoperative complications and mortality, it is not well-known at what time after testing positive the risk of postoperative complications or mortality returns to normal. METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE, and professional society websites were systematically reviewed on March 7, 2022 to identify studies and guidelines on the optimal timeframe to reschedule patients for elective surgery after preoperatively testing positive for COVID-19. Outcomes included postoperative complications such as mortality, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, and pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies and professional society guidelines met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Patients with asymptomatic COVID-19 should be rescheduled 4-8 weeks after testing positive (as long as they do not develop symptoms in the interim), patients with mild/moderate COVID-19 should be rescheduled 6-8 weeks after testing positive (with complete resolution of symptoms), and patients with severe/critical COVID-19 should be rescheduled at a minimum of 12 weeks after hospital discharge (with complete resolution of symptoms). CONCLUSIONS: Given the negative association between preoperative COVID-19 and postoperative complications, patients should have elective arthroplasty surgery rescheduled at differing timeframes based on their symptoms. In addition, a multidisciplinary and patient-centered approach to rescheduling patients is recommended. Further study is needed to examine the impact of novel COVID-19 variants and vaccination on timeframes for rescheduling surgery.