Risk Factors for Peripheral Nerve Injury Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in 112,310 Patients.

Background: Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) following revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) can be a devastating complication. This study assessed the frequency of and risk factors for postoperative PNI following rTHA. Methods: Patients who underwent rTHA from 2003 to 2015 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Demographics, medical history, surgical details, and complications were compared between patients who sustained a PNI and those who did not, to identify risk factors for the development of PNI after rTHA. Results: Overall, 112,310 patients who underwent rTHA were identified, 929 (0.83%) of whom sustained a PNI. Univariate analysis found that younger patients (p < 0.0001), females (p = 0.025), and those with a history of flexion contracture (0.65% vs. 0.22%, p = 0.005), hip dislocation (24.0% vs. 18.0%, p < 0.001), and spine conditions (4.8% vs. 2.7%, p < 0.001) had significantly higher rates of PNI. In-hospital complications associated with PNI included postoperative hematoma (2.6% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.0001), postoperative seroma (0.75% vs. 0.30%, p = 0.011), superficial wound dehiscence (0.65% vs. 0.23%, p = 0.008), and postoperative anemia (36.1% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.007). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a history of pre-existing spine conditions (aOR: 1.7; 95%-CI: 1.3-2.4, p < 0.001), prior dislocation (aOR 1.5; 95%-CI: 1.3-1.7, p < 0.001), postoperative anemia (aOR 1.2; 95%-CI: 1.0-1.4, p = 0.01), and hematoma (aOR 2.1; 95%-CI: 1.4-3.2, p < 0.001) were associated with increased risk for PNI. Conclusions: Our findings align with the existing literature, affirming that sciatic nerve injury is the prevailing neuropathic complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Furthermore, we observed a 0.83% incidence of PNI following rTHA and identified pre-existing spine conditions, prior hip dislocation, postoperative anemia, or hematoma as risk factors. Orthopedic surgeons may use this information to guide their discussion of PNI following rTHA, especially in high-risk patients.

Patient Reported Clinical Outcomes Following PCL Suture Augmentation in Patients with Multiligamentous Knee Injury: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Purpose: To compare the patient-reported outcomes between patients with posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction or repair alone versus PCL reconstruction or repair with internal bracing (IB) in the context of multi-ligament knee injuries (MLKI). Methods: All patients who underwent surgical management of MLKI at two institutions between 2006 and 2020 were retrospectively identified and offered participation in the study. Patient reported outcomes were measured via three instruments: Lysholm Knee score, Multiligament Quality of Life (ML-QOL), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT). The postoperative outcomes and reoperation rates were compared between the internal bracing and non-internal bracing groups. Results: Fifty-two patients were analyzed; 34 were included in the IB group (17.6% female; age 33.1 ±1.60 years), and 18 were included in the non-IB group (11.1% female; age 34.1 ±3.72 years). Mean follow-up time of the entire cohort was 1.44 ± 0.22 years (IB: 1.21 ± 0.18; non-IB: 2.1 ±0.65). There were no significant differences between PROMIS CAT [PROMIS Pain (54.4 ±1.78 vs 51.7 ±1.70, p=0.319), Physical Function (44.3 ±2.27 vs 47.9 ±1.52, p=0.294), Mobility (44.0 ±1.71 vs 46.1 ±2.10, p=0.463)], ML-QOL [ML-QOL Physical Impairment (40.7 ±4.21 vs 41.7±5.10, p=0.884), Emotional Impairment (49.2 ±4.88 vs 44.7±5.87, p=0.579), Activity Limitation (43.5 ±4.56 vs 31.5±3.62, p=0.087), Societal Involvement (44.9 ±4.96 vs 37.5 ±5.30, p=0.345)] and Lysholm knee score (61.8 ±4.55 vs 61.0 ±4.95, p=0.916) postoperatively compared to the non-IB group. Conclusion: In this group of patients, function and patient-reported outcomes between patients treated with PCL reconstruction and repair without internal brace versus those with additional internal brace augmentation were not significantly different. Further research encompassing a larger patient sample is necessary to investigate the efficacy of the internal brace for PCL injury in the context of MLKI injuries.

Outcomes of multiligament knee injury treated with versus without internal brace suture augmentation.

PURPOSE: To compare the postoperative outcomes between Internal Brace (IB) and non-IB patients who underwent surgical management of multiple-ligament knee injuries (MLKI). METHODS: Patients who underwent surgical management of MLKI at two institutions between 2010 and 2020 were identified and offered participation in the study via the collection of postoperative functional outcomes for MLKI; Lysholm Knee score, Multiligament Quality of Life (ML-QOL), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT), Pain Interference (PI), Physical Function (PF), and Mobility instruments (MI). The postoperative outcomes and reoperation rates were compared between the IB group and non-IB group. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-six patients were analyzed; 89 were included in the IB group (31.5% female; age 35.6 ± 1.4 years), and 37 were included in the non-IB group (25.7% female; age 38.8 ± 2.4 years). Mean follow-up time of the entire cohort was 37.9 ± 4.7 months [IB: 21.8 + 1.63; non-IB: 76.4 ± 6.2, p < 0.001). The IB group achieved similar PROMIS CAT [PROMIS Pain (51.8 + 1.1 vs. 52.1 + 1.6, p = 0.8736), Physical Function (46.6 + 1.2 vs. 46.4 + 1.8, p = 0.9168), Mobility (46.0 + 1.0 vs. 43.7 + 1.6, p = 0.2185)], ML-QOL [ML-QOL Physical Impairment (36.6 + 2.5 vs. 43.5 ± 4.2, p = 0.1485), Emotional Impairment (42.5 + 2.9 vs. 48.6 ± 4.6, p = 0.2695), Activity Limitation (34.5 + 2.8 vs. 36.2 ± 4.3, p = 0.7384), Societal Involvement (39.1 + 3.0 vs. 41.7 + 4.2, p = 0.6434)] and Lysholm knee score (64.9 + 2.5 vs. 60.4 + 4.0, p = 0.3397) postoperatively compared the non-IB group, but the differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients with MLKI treated with versus without IB, outcomes and reoperation rates trended toward favoring IB, but the study was not sufficiently powered to reach statistical significance. Internal bracing could be useful in the management of MLKI. In the future, matched patient cohorts with more patients are warranted to further evaluate the clinical impact of the internal brace in MLKI.

Risk Factors for Peripheral Nerve Injury Following Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in 132,960 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) following revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a potentially devastating injury for patients. This study assessed the frequency of and risk factors for postoperative PNI following rTKA. METHODS: Patients who underwent rTKA from 2003 to 2015 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Demographics, medical histories, surgical details, and complications were compared between patients who sustained a PNI and those who did not to identify risk factors for the development of PNI after rTKA. RESULTS: Overall, 132,960 patients who underwent rTKA were identified, and 737 (0.56%) sustained a postoperative PNI. After adjusting for confounders, patients with a history of a spine condition (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.7, 95%-confidence interval 1.2 to 2.4, P = .003) and postoperative anemia (aOR: 1.3, 95%-CI: 1.1 to 1.5, P = .004) had higher risk of PNI following rTKA. Intraoperative periprosthetic fracture (aOR: 1.3, 0.78 to 2.2, P = .308), rheumatoid arthritis (aOR: 1.0, 95%-CI: 0.68 to 1.6, P = .865), and history of knee dislocation (aOR: 1.1, 95%-CI: 0.85 to 1.5, P = .412), were not significantly associated with higher risk for PNI. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a 0.56% incidence of PNI following rTKA, and patients who had preexisting spine conditions or postoperative anemia were at an increased risk for this complication. Orthopedic surgeons may use the results of this study to appropriately counsel patients on the potential for a PNI following rTKA.

Volume, indications, and number of surgeons performing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty continue to expand: a nationwide cohort analysis from 2016-2020.

Background: Since its approval, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) has continued to increase in usage, with expanding indications beyond rotator cuff arthropathy. Existing literature has captured further increased utilization over the last decade through 2017. However, this data has not been updated to include a contemporary cohort of patients. This study sought to determine the trends of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), rTSA, and hemiarthroplasty (HA) usage based on primary diagnosis and total number of surgeons performing each procedure annually from 2016-2020. Methods: Patients who underwent primary rTSA, aTSA, and HA from 2016-2020 were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database. Primary indication diagnoses for procedures were identified using International Classification of Diseases 10th edition codes. Temporal trends in patient and hospital demographics, primary indication, and procedure utilization were captured on an annualized basis. The number of surgeons performing each procedure annually was noted. Descriptive statistics were employed with significance set at P < .05. Results: From 2016 to 2020, 154,499 patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty were identified: 48,890 aTSA, 95,808 rTSA, and 9801 HA. In 2016, rTSA comprised a slight majority (55%) of all arthroplasty cases but increased to nearly 70% of all arthroplasty cases in 2020. The absolute numbers of aTSA and HA cases decreased over time, while rTSA volume increased from 14,781 in 2016 to a high of 23,644 cases in 2019. There was a corresponding 12% increase in the number of surgeons performing rTSA across the same time period, contrasted with a 42.1% decrease in surgeons performing HA and a 14.3% decrease for aTSA. Glenohumeral osteoarthritis remains the most common indication for rTSA and aTSA, while HA is used primarily for proximal humerus fractures or hardware complications. Conclusion: The volume of primary rTSA in the United States has continued to increase from 2016 to 2020 with concurrent decreases in the number of primary aTSA and HA cases performed. Primary rTSA accounts for nearly 70% of all primary shoulder arthroplasty cases. The number of surgeons performing rTSA continues to increase, while there has been a decrease in the number of surgeons performing aTSA and HA.

Resident Involvement in Arthroscopic Knee Surgery Is Not Associated With Increased Short-term Risk to Patients.

BACKGROUND: Whether resident involvement in surgical procedures affects intra- and/or postoperative outcomes is controversial. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to compare operative time, adverse events, and readmission rate for arthroscopic knee surgery cases with and without resident involvement. We hypothesized that resident involvement would not negatively affect these variables. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A retrospective review of the prospectively maintained National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was performed. Patients who underwent arthroscopic knee surgery between 2005 and 2012 were identified. Multivariate Poisson regression with robust error variance was used to compare the rates of postoperative adverse events and readmission within 30 days between cases with and without resident involvement. Multivariate linear regression was used to compare operative time between cohorts. Because of multiple statistical comparisons, a Bonferroni correction was used, and statistical significance was set at P < .004. RESULTS: A total of 29,539 patients who underwent arthroscopic knee surgery were included in the study, and 11.3% of these patients had a resident involved with the case. The overall rate of adverse events was 1.62%. On multivariate analysis, resident involvement was not associated with increased rates of adverse events or readmission. Resident cases had a mean 6-minute increase in operative time (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Overall, resident involvement in arthroscopic knee surgery was not associated with an increased risk of adverse events or readmission. Resident involvement was associated with only a mean increased operative time of 6 minutes, a difference that is not likely to be clinically significant. These results support the safety of resident involvement with arthroscopic knee surgery.