Arthroplasty最新文献

Background: Despite the increasing use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the methodology used to evaluate clinically significant postoperative outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is variable. The review aimed to survey studies with identified PROM-based metrics of clinical efficacy and the assessment procedures after TKA.

Methods: The MEDLINE database was queried from 2008-2020. Inclusion criteria were: full texts, English language, primary TKA with minimum one-year follow-up, use of metrics for assessing clinical outcomes with PROMs, and primary derivations of metrics. The following PROM-based metrics were identified: minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimum detectable change (MDC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB). Study design, PROM value data, and methods of derivation for metrics were recorded.

Results: We identified 18 studies (including 46,173 patients) that met the inclusion criteria. Across these studies, 10 different PROMs were employed, and MCID was derived in 15 studies (83%). The MCID was calculated using anchor-based techniques in nine studies (50%) and distribution techniques in eight studies (44%). PASS values were presented in two studies (11%) and SCB in one study (6%) using an anchor-based method; MDC was derived in four studies (22%) using the distribution method.

Conclusion: There is variability in the TKA literature with respect to the definition and derivation of measurements of clinically significant outcomes. Standardization of these values may have implications for optimal case selection and PROM-based quality measurement, ultimately improving patient satisfaction and outcomes.

Background: Various episode-of-care bundled payment models for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty have been implemented. However, participation in bundled payment programs has dropped given the challenges of meeting continually lower target prices. The purpose of our study is to investigate the cost of outpatient physical therapy (PT) and the potential for stand-alone outpatient PT bundled payments for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods: A retrospective review of 501 patients who underwent primary unilateral THA from November 2017 to February 2020 was performed. All patients included in this study received postoperative PT care at a single hospital-affiliated PT practice. Patients above the 75th percentile of therapy visits were then classified as high-PT utilizers and compared with the rest of the population using univariate statistics. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the predictors of high therapy utilization.

Results: Patients averaged 65 ± 10 years of age and a BMI of 29 ± 5 kg/m². Overall, 80% of patients were white and 53% were female. The average patient had 11 ± 8 total therapy sessions in 42 days: one initial evaluation, one re-evaluation and 9 standard sessions. High-PT utilizers incurred estimated average costs of $1934 ± 431 per patient, compared to $783 ± 432 (P < 0.001) in the rest of the population. Further, no significant differences in 90-day outcomes including lower extremity functional scale scores, emergency department returns, readmissions, or returns to the operating room were observed between high utilizers and the rest of the population (all P > 0.08). In the multivariate analysis, women (OR = 1.68, P = 0.017) and those with sleep apnea (OR = 2.02, P = 0.012) were nearly twice as likely to be high utilizers, while white patients were 42% less likely to be high utilizers than patients of other races (OR = 0.58, P = 0.028).

Conclusions: Outpatient PT utilization is highly variable in patients undergoing THA. However, despite using more services and incurring increased cost, patients in the top quartile of utilization experienced similar outcomes to the rest of the population. If outpatient therapy bundles are to be developed, 16 visits appear to be a reasonable target for pricing, given this provides adequate coverage for 75% of THA patients.

Introduction: Extensive acetabular bone loss and poor bone quality are two key challenges often encountered in revision total hip arthroplasty. A new 3D-printed porous acetabular shell has been made available with the option to insert multiple variable-angle locking screws. We sought to evaluate the early clinical and radiological outcomes of this construct.

Methods: A retrospective review of patients operated by two surgeons was performed in a single institution. Fifty-nine revision hip arthroplasties were performed in 55 patients (34 female; mean age 68.8 ± 12.3 years) for Paprosky defects I (n = 21), IIA/B (n = 22), IIC (n = 9), III (n = 7) between February 2018 and January 2022 using the novel porous titanium acetabular shell and multiple variable angle locking screws. Postoperative clinical and radiographic outcomes were locally maintained. Patient-reported outcome measures collected included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Oxford Hip Score, and the 12-item Short Form Survey.

Results: After a mean follow-up of 25.7 ± 13.9 months, two cases of shell migration were noted. One patient had a failed constrained mechanism and received revision to a cemented dual mobility liner. No other acetabular shells showed any evidence of radiographic loosening at the final follow-up. Preoperatively, 21 defects were classified as Paprosky grade I, 19 grade IIA, 3 grade IIB, 9 IIC, 4 grade IIIA, and 3 IIIB. The mean postoperative WOMAC function score was 84 (SD 17), WOMAC (stiffness) 83 (SD 15), WOMAC (pain) 85 (SD 15), and WOMAC (global) 85 (SD 17). The mean postoperative OHS was 83 (SD 15), and mean SF-12 physical score was 44 (SD 11).

Conclusion: The additional augmentation of porous metal acetabular shells with multiple variable-angle locking screws provides reliable initial fixation with good clinical and radiological outcomes in the short term. Further studies are needed to establish the medium- and long-term outcomes.

Level of evidence: IV.

Introduction: The incidence of osteonecrosis of the femoral head is estimated at about 10 to 20,000 patients annually, and, when left untreated, 80% or more of cases progress to femoral head collapse. A series of joint-preserving procedures have been developed to prevent/delay the need for hip arthroplasty. The aim of this study was to provide a five-year update: (1) evaluating temporal trends of arthroplasty vs. joint-preservation techniques such as core decompression, bone grafting, osteotomies, and arthroscopy; (2) determining proportions of procedures in patients aged less than vs. over 50 years; and (3) quantifying rates of specific operative techniques.

Methods: A total of 10,334 patients diagnosed with osteonecrosis of the femoral head and having received hip surgery were identified from a nationwide database between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019, by using the International Classification of Disease, the Ninth/Tenth revision (ICD-9/10) codes. The percentage of patients managed by each operative procedure was calculated annually. To identify trends, patients were grouped by age under/over 50 years and divided into a joint-preserving and a non-joint-preserving (arthroplasty) group. Chi-squared tests were performed to compare the total number of procedures per year.

Results: Rates of arthroplasty far exceeded those for joint-preserving procedures. However, from 2015 to 2019, significantly more joint-preserving procedures were performed than in 2010 to 2014 (4.3% vs. 3.0%, P < 0.001). Significantly more joint-preserving procedures were performed in patients aged < 50 years relative to those ≥ 50 years (7.56% vs. 1.86%, P < 0.001). Overall, total hip arthroplasty was the most common procedure (9,814; 94.97%) relative to core decompression (331; 3.20%), hemiarthroplasty/resurfacing (102; 0.99%), bone grafting (48; 0.46%), and osteotomy (5; 0.05%).

Conclusion: Management of patients who have osteonecrosis of the femoral head continues to be predominantly arthroplasty procedures, specifically, total hip arthroplasty. Our findings suggest a small, but significant trend toward increased joint-preserving procedures, especially in patients under 50 years. In particular, the proportion of patients receiving core decompression has increased significantly from 2015 to 2019 relative to prior years.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the most devastating complication following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) and is posing a global healthcare challenge as the demand for TJA mounts. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty with the placement of antibiotic-loaded spacers has been shown to be efficacious against chronic PJI. This study aimed to review the key concepts, types, and outcome evaluations of articulating spacers in the two-stage exchange for PJI. Previous studies indicated that articulating spacers have been widely used due to better functional improvement and a comparable infection control rate relative to static spacers. Several types of articulating spacers are reportedly available, including hand-made spacers, spacers fashioned from molds, commercially preformed spacers, spacers with additional metal or polyethylene elements, new or autoclaved prosthesis, custom-made articulating spacers, and 3D printing-assisted spacers. However, limited evidence suggested no significant difference in clinical outcomes among the different subtypes of articulating spacers. Surgeons should be familiar with different treatment strategies when using various spacers to know which is the most appropriate.

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing surgery. Similarly, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), is a major cause of failure after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). As the annual volume of TJA procedures is projected to rise, so will the rate of subsequent SSI and PJI. Currently, prevention has been identified as the single most important strategy for combating SSI/PJI. Hence, the present article will serve as a summary of an evidence-based ten-step approach for SSI/PJI prevention that may help orthopedic surgeons with their infection prevention strategies.

Background: Intraoperative fluoroscopy (IFC) is gaining popularity in total hip arthroplasty (THA), with the aim to achieve better component positioning and therefore eventually reduced revision rates. This meta-analysis investigated the benefit of IFC by comparing it to intraoperative assessment alone. The primary outcome was component positioning and the secondary outcomes included complications and revision rates.

Methods: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for both randomized clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies. Effect estimates for radiographic cup position, offset/leg length difference and outliers from a safe zone were pooled across studies using random effects models and presented as a weighted odds ratio (OR) with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI).

Results: A total of 10 observational studies involving 1,394 patients were included. No randomized trials were found. IFC showed no significant reduction in acetabular cup position (inclination and anteversion), offset, leg-length discrepancies, revision (none reported) or overall complication rates.

Conclusion: The current meta-analysis found no differences in cup positioning, offset, leg length discrepancy, the incidence of complications or revision surgery. It should be acknowledged that the included studies were generally performed by experienced surgeons. The benefit of intraoperative fluoroscopy might become more evident at an early phase of the learning curve for this procedure. Therefore, its role has yet to be defined.

Background: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most common causes of early revision for total hip and knee arthroplasty. Mechanical and chemical debridement typically referred to as debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) can be a successful technique to eradicate PJI in acute postoperative or acute hematogenous infections. This review will focus specifically on the indications, techniques, and outcomes of DAIR.

Discussion: The success of mechanical and chemical debridement, or a DAIR operation, is reliant on a combination of appropriate patient selection and meticulous technique. There are many technical considerations to take into consideration. One of the most important factors in the success of the DAIR procedure is the adequacy of mechanical debridement. Techniques are surgeon-specific and perhaps contribute to the large variability in the literature on the success of DAIR. Factors that have been shown to be associated with success include the exchange of modular components, performing the procedure within seven days or less of symptom onset, and possibly adjunctive rifampin or fluoroquinolone therapy, though this remains controversial. Factors that have been associated with failure include rheumatoid arthritis, age greater than 80 years, male sex, chronic renal failure, liver cirrhosis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Conclusions: DAIR is an effective treatment option for the management of an acute postoperative or hematogenous PJI in the appropriately selected patient with well-fixed implants.

Background: Although it is important to consider pelvic alignment and mobility in the standing and sitting positions before THA, it is not known how to preoperatively predict individual postoperative pelvic alignment and mobility. The purpose of this study was to investigate the pelvic alignment and mobility before and after THA, and to develop a predictive formula using preoperative factors to calculate postoperative sagittal alignment and mobility.

Methods: One hundred seventy patients were assessed. The 170 patients were randomly divided into a prediction model analysis group (n = 85) and an external validation group (n = 85). In the prediction model analysis group, preoperative spinopelvic parameters were used to develop the predictive formulas to predict the postoperative sacral slope (SS) in standing and sitting positions and ΔSS. These were applied to the external validation group and assessed.

Results: R² in multiple linear regression models for postoperative SS in standing, SS in sitting and ΔSS were 0.810, 0.672, and 0.423, respectively. The values of predicted and postoperative parameters were very close with no significant difference: SS in standing (33.87 vs. 34.23, P = 0.834), SS in sitting (18.86 vs. 19.51, P = 0.228), and ΔSS (15.38 vs. 14.72, P = 0.619).

Conclusion: The present study showed that the pelvic alignment and mobility after THA can be predicted using preoperative factors. Although a model with higher accuracy is needed, it is important to use a predictive formula to estimate the postoperative condition before performing THA.

Background: Approximately 23% of patients develop hip pain after total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this systematic review, we aimed to identify risk factors associated with postoperative pain after THA to optimize preoperative surgical planning.

Methods: Six literature databases were searched for articles published from January 1995 to August 2020. Controlled trials and observational studies that reported measurements of postoperative pain with assessments of preoperative modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors were included. Three researchers performed a literature review independently.

Results: Fifty-four studies were included in the study for analysis. The most consistent association between worse pain outcomes and the female sex is poor preoperative pain or function, and more severe medical or psychiatric comorbidities. The correlation was less strong between worse pain outcomes and preoperative high body mass index value, low radiographic grade arthritis, and low socioeconomic status. A weak correlation was found between age and worse pain outcomes.

Conclusions: Preoperative risk factors that were consistently predictive of greater/server postoperative pain after THA were identified, despite the varying quality of studies that prohibited the arrival of concrete conclusions. Modifiable factors should be optimized preoperatively, whereas non-modifiable factors may be valuable to patient education, shared decision-making, and individualized pain management.