While advanced technology, increased medical knowledge and improved surgical technique has improved patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty, prosthetic joint infection still remains one of the leading causes of increased healthcare costs, medical resources and societal burdens in orthopaedic care. Two stage arthroplasty revision remains the gold standard for treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Proponents of single stage revision arthroplasty for infection argue that it results in lower healthcare costs while improving patient reported functional outcomes and with equivalent success rates. Here we review the history of single stage revision arthroplasty, discuss the key principles, highlight the indications and contraindications, and review the reported outcomes with a focus on future developments of single stage revision arthroplasty for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infections.

INTRODUCTION: Controversy exists on the ideal type of fixation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Noncemented fixation has been theorized to improve patient outcomes and longevity of implantation without increased risk of aseptic loosening or radiolucent lines. We sought to compare (1) patient-reported outcomes, (2) survivorship, and (3) revision rates for all-cause and aseptic loosening in a noncemented tantalum total knee with its cemented counterpart. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines were searched using a combination of keywords trabecular metal, tantalum knee, total knee arthroplasty, and cementless trabecular. Patient demographics such as age, sex, and body mass index were collected. Outcomes such as Knee Society Scores (KSSs), revisions, and radiolucent lines were recorded for analysis. RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials involving 507 patients with an average 5-year follow-up were eligible for meta-analysis. No differences were observed in any demographics such as age, sex, body mass index, nor preoperative KSS. Patients in the cemented cohort improved from preoperative KSS 46.4 to postoperative KSS 90.4 while the tantalum cohort improved from 46.4 to 89.3. No statistical difference was observed in postoperative KSS mean difference between groups. Six patients from the tantalum group underwent revision with one patient for aseptic loosening. Twelve patients from the cemented group underwent revision with four patients for aseptic loosening. No statistical difference was observed between rates of revision, aseptic loosening, or radiolucent line development. DISCUSSION: Patient-reported outcomes improved postoperatively in both groups. No differences were detected between the cemented and noncemented TKAs in patient-reported outcomes, revision rates, or radiolucent line development. Noncemented tantalum fixation seems equivalent to cemented TKA survivorship. Longer term follow-up of these randomized controlled trials may provide a clearer understanding whether a difference exists.

Purpose Enhanced recovery protocols for total hip arthroplasty (THA), using opioid-sparing techniques have become widely used. Reports of novel additions to multimodal pain control regimens have been published, however, a paucity of literature exists on the use of intravenous dexmedetomidine. In this study, we analyzed our experience with intravenous dexmedetomidine and hypothesized that it would reduce postoperative opioid use. Secondary outcomes were also examined, including post-operative hypotension, hemoglobin, length of stay, and discharge disposition. Methods All patients who underwent primary THA at a single tertiary-level center between January 1, 2016, and September 1, 2019, underwent investigation. Diagnosis, surgical approach, anesthetic type, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score were recorded. Postoperative clinical measures were analyzed, adjusting for patient and surgical characteristics. Results Of the 599 patients included in the study, 218 patients received intravenous (IV) dexmedetomidine, at a mean dose of 44.9 mg during their operative event. Using a multivariate model, patients in the IV dexmedetomidine group were estimated to have received 24% elevated morphine milligram equivalent at postoperative day zero compared to those in the control group (p = 0.05). In addition, patients in the IV dexmedetomidine group who underwent spinal anesthesia had increased odds of hypotension 3.47 times that of the control [odds ratio (OR) 1.43-8.43, p=0.006]. Conclusions Surprisingly, we found no opioid-sparing effects with the use of IV dexmedetomidine. IV dexmedetomidine may be used cautiously as an anesthesia adjunct with spinal anesthesia in the setting of primary THA, as the experience at our institution illustrated increased odds of postoperative hypotension. Level of evidence This retrospective case-control study has a level of evidence III.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) has not been well characterized. The purpose of this study was to characterize preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative opioid use during rTHA. METHODS: Patients undergoing revision THA from 2010 to 2018 were screened for opioid use 3 months before revision surgery and tracked 24 months postoperatively. Patients were categorized as naïve or tolerant. Opioid prescriptions and average morphine milligram equivalents (MME) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four of 247 patients (50%) in the tolerant group averaged a preoperative MME of 23.7 mg/day. Postoperatively, tolerant patients received significantly higher daily MME at all time points, including at 3 months 31.4 versus 18.1 mg/day (P < 0.001), 6 months 19.9 versus 2.95 mg/day (P < 0.001), 12 months 14.3 versus 3.5 mg/day (P < 0.001), and 24 months 10.7 versus 2.17 mg/day (P < 0.001). Tolerant patients were more likely to have a prescription at 6 months (44% versus 22%), 12 months (41.4% versus 24%), and 24 months (38% versus 19.3%) (P < 0.001, P = 0.002, P < 0.001, respectively). DISCUSSION: Opioid-tolerant patients had higher postoperative MME requirements for longer recovery duration. Both groups reduced opioid use at 3 months and plateaued at 6 months. These findings can help the revision surgeon counsel patients and expectations.

Introduction

Single-stage revision arthroplasty for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) may yield comparable infection-free survivorship with two-stage revision arthroplasty. It is unclear if the most common mode of failure of single-stage revision arthroplasty is infection or aseptic loosening. In this meta-analysis, we sought to (1) determine survivorship and (2) compare rates of different etiologies of failure of single-stage revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses guidelines search was done using search terms for "single stage revision," "exchange arthroplasty," "periprosthetic infection," "PJI," and "single stage." Patient demographics such as age, body mass index, and mean follow-up time were recorded. Overall survivorship and rates of revision surgery were aggregated using a random-effects model. Comparison of septic and aseptic loosening rates was done by risk difference and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) calculation.

Results

Twenty-four studies were identified with 2,062 and 147 single-stage revision THA and TKA procedures performed between 1984 and 2019, respectively. The weighted mean follow-up and age were 69.8 months and 66.3 years, respectively, with 55% men overall. The all-cause revision surgery rate was 11.1% and 11.8% for THA and TKA, respectively. The revision surgery rate secondary to infection and aseptic loosening and associated 95% CI for the risk difference for THA and TKA was 5.5% and 3.3% (-1.7% to 5.0%), and 3% and 8.8% (-11.4% to 2.3%), respectively. Revision surgeries due to instability and fracture combined and mortality rate were both less than 3%.

Discussion

Single-stage revision THA and TKA for PJI demonstrated overall high rates of survivorship, low mortality, and revision surgeries secondary to infection and aseptic loosening to be equivalent. Aseptic loosening after single-stage revision TKA might be higher than in primary TKA. As implant survivorship from infection improves in PJI, surgeons should be aware of aseptic loosening as an equally common mode of failure.

The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for program directors (PDs) during the 2021 orthopaedic residency application season, requiring many alterations to the traditional application cycle and interview format. Away rotations were restricted, and in-person interviews were discouraged in accordance with the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the American Orthopaedic Association Counsel of Orthopaedic Residency Directors (CORD). Programs mitigated the loss of these in-person encounters by conducting virtual rotations (VRs), informational sessions, and virtual interviews (VIs). Traditionally, applicants to orthopaedic residency programs are ranked primarily by United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores, Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) status, third-year clerkship grades, research experiences, and letters of recommendation (LORs). Performance of applicants during in-person orthopaedic rotations has been especially important. PDs have previously indicated that rotating with their program is the most important criterium in ranking applicants. In the past, over half of matched applicants match at their home institution or a program where they have rotated. PDs and applicants clearly value away rotations and in-person interactions to determine whether applicants will be successful in their programs, and there is concern that ability to assess applicant compatibility may be limited in virtual interactions. How VI impact rank list formation for both orthopaedic PDs and applicants is unclear.

Osteoporosis is a major public health issue, with more than 53 million people in the United States either having osteoporosis or at increased risk for developing osteoporosis. Osteoporosis places patients at risk for fragility fractures which are associated with a decreased health-related quality of life and substantial financial burden on the healthcare system. Previous studies discovered a low rate of osteoporosis evaluation and treatment in adult patients after a hip fragility fracture though these studies need to be updated to determine if improvements have occurred over the last decade. Thus, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate rates of osteoporosis evaluation and treatment in adult patients following low-energy hip fractures.