Background

There are several surgical options available for patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis including simultaneous bilateral TKA (BTKA) and staged approach. The appropriate and safe time interval between two stages is still controversial. The preset systematic review aims to determine the optimal time interval between two stages of BTKA.

Introduction

Reported data on impact of obesity on outcome of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is mixed. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the impact of obesity on surgical procedure and postoperative outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty.

There are a number of progressive conditions that afflict the hip and result in degenerative arthritis. Along the path of progression of the disease and prior to the development of arthritis, some of these conditions may be treatable by joint preservation procedures. Periacetabular osteotomy for developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), femoroacetabular osteoplasty for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), and a variety of surgical procedures for management of early osteonecrosis of the femoral head are some examples of joint preservation of the hip. DDH is characterised by abnormal development of the acetabulum and the proximal femur that leads to suboptimal contact of the articular surfaces and the resultant increase in joint reaction forces. FAI is a condition characterised by an abnormal contact between the femoral neck and the acetabular rim. FAI is believed to exist when a triad of signs (abnormal alpha angle, labral tear, and chondral lesion) can be identified.

The question that remains is whether joint preservation procedures are able to avert the need for arthroplasty or just an intervention along the natural path of progression of the hip disease. There is an interesting study that followed 628 infants born in a Navajo reservation, including 8 infants with severe dysplasia, for 35 years. None of the children with DDH had surgical treatment and all had developed severe arthritis in the interim. The latter study and a few other natural history studies have shown that the lack of administration of surgical treatment to patients with symptomatic DDH results in accelerated arthritis. The situation is not so clear with FAI. Some believe that FAI is a pre-arthritic condition and surgical treatment is only effective in addressing the symptoms and does not delay or defer an arthroplasty. While others believe that restoration of the normal mechanical environment to the hip of FAI patients, by removing the abnormal contact and repair of the labrum, is likely to change the natural history of the disease and at minimum delay the need for an arthroplasty. There is a need for natural history studies or case series to settle the latter controversy.

Total hip arthroplasty continues to be one of the most effective procedures. Aseptic loosening compromises the long term outcome of this otherwise successful procedure. Large hemispherical cups may be used during revision surgery for patients with severe bone loss. Acetabular revision with cementless components has been remarkably successful with some series reporting no revisions for aseptic loosening at an average follow-up of 13.9 years. Another study on 186 patients (196 hips) receiving jumbo acetabular components, noted a survivorship of 98% at 4 years and 96% at 16 years. Cementless acetabular revision is now feasible for a wide range of revision situations, including some cases of pelvic discontinuity. The Paprosky classification is useful in predicting the reconstructive technique that will be required. Type I and many Type II defects may be reconstructed with standard cementless components. Many Type II and Type III defects, which involve the loss of additional structural bone, can be reconstructed with a jumbo cup. A jumbo cup is defined by Whaley et al. as a component that is >61 mm in women and >65 mm in men, a definition that is based on a shell that is >10 mm greater than the average diameter cup implanted in women and men. The jumbo cup has the advantage of an increased contact area between host bone and cup which maximises the surface area for ingrowth or ongrowth. The increased area of contact also prevents cup migration by allowing for force dissipation over a large area. Use of a jumbo cup may also decrease the need to use bone graft. In contrast to positioning the cup in the so-called high hip center, a jumbo cup can help to restore the hip center of rotation.

The disadvantages of this technique are that host bone may have to be removed to implant the cup, that bone stock is not restored by the reconstruction, and that hemispherical cups have limited applicability in situations of oblong bone stock deficiency.

Jumbo acetabular components can be used in combination with both structural and cancellous bone graft. In these cases, the cementless cup must achieve adequate contact with host bone in order to allow bone ingrowth to occur.

Aim

Different perioperative strategies have been implemented to reduce the devastating burden of infection following arthroplasty. The use of iodophor-impregnated adhesive incise drapes is one such strategy. Despite its wide adoption, there is little proof that this practice leads to a reduction of bacterial colonization. The aim of this randomized, prospective study was to evaluate the efficacy of iodophor-impregnated adhesive drapes for reducing bacterial count at the incision site.

There is no doubt that peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one the most terrible complications of joint arthroplasty. There has been a surge of interest in PJI in recent years as this problem moves to be the last frontier in joint arthroplasty.

There are a number of strategies employed for prevention of PJI. Irrigation of the surgical site with various irrigation solutions is one such strategy as it helps reduce bioburden in the wound and reduce the potential for subsequent infection.

Although the irrigation solution may work by dilution phenomenon alone, some believe that bactericidal or bacteriostatic agents may be added to the irrigation solution to increase its efficacy. Addition of antibiotics (Abx) to the irrigation solution stems from the same reasoning.

There are a number of serious issues related to the addition of Abx to the irrigation solution or in fact, for pouring into the wound (like the vancomycin powder).

Efficacy: There are no randomised prospective studies to demonstrate that addition of Abx to the irrigation solution improves “kill”. To do such a study would be logistically challenging. Basic science studies and other clinical studies with a small number of patients have failed to prove the efficacy of Abx in the irrigation solution. In fact, I would argue that the use of agents like dilute betadine is much more likely to be effective in reduction of bioburden without having many of the issues related to the use of Abx in irrigation solution.

Emergence of Resistance: Some may argue what would one lose by adding Abx to the wound or the irrigation solution. The modern society is facing an emerging catastrophe. Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR), if it persists, will kill more people than cancer by the year 2050. Annually 1000s of patients die of ESKAPE or AMR related issues. A recent task force convened by the British government produced a report about AMR which is sobering. The main finding of the task force was that continued liberal use of Abx will lead to further escalation of the AMR crisis that threatens the modern society. The guidelines by the CDC, that are about to be published, will discourage clinicians from pouring Abx into wounds and asks clinicians to exercise Abx stewardship.

Expense: There are costs associated with the use of Abx in any circumstance including their addition to irrigation solution. With over 1 million joint arthroplasties being done in the US alone, this cost can be substantial.

Hypersensitivity reactions: The use of Abx is not without problems. There have been a few fatalities associated with the use of Abx in patients with recognised and possibly unrecognised hypersensitivity to antibiotics.

Peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one the most devastating complications of joint arthroplasty. Although PJI is an infrequent complication (the reported incidence is 1%-2% in the United States), it is the most common indication for revision total knee arthroplasty in the Medicare population and the third most frequent indication for revision total hip arthroplasty. Moreover, the prevalence of PJI appears to be on the rise, with a projected number exceeding 60,000 to 70,000 cases in the United States by 2020.

It is estimated that more than 25% of revision procedures annually are attributed to PJI and this number is expected to increase in the upcoming years. The increase in the prevalence of obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities among the patient population and the emergence of resistant infecting organisms are some of the reasons for the expected rise in the number of infections that medical community will witness.

The challenges that PJI present to the orthopaedic community are on many fronts. Prevention of PJI has proven to be a difficult task indeed. Effective strategies for prevention of PJI are being refined. The Center for Disease Control will be publishing its updated Surgical Site Prevention Guidelines in the next few months that consists of specific recommendations for prevention of PJI. In recent years, strides are made in introducing novel molecular techniques for diagnosis of PJI, which may stand to change our practices. The current surgical technique for management of PJI, besides the immense cost, fall short of delivering high success to the patients. The major problem in eradication of infection relates to formation of biofilm on the implant surface and internalization of the organisms by affected cells. Biofilm is a sophisticated structure comprising of organisms embedded in multiple layers of glycoccalyx that allows the organisms to evade host immunity and is impenetrable to antibiotics. These organisms are capable of communicating through molecular mechanisms such as quorum sensing that affords them advantage for survival in the host environment. In recent years strategies to prevent colonization of the implant surface, an essential first step in formation of biofilm, or biofilm disruption techniques have been introduced. A recent International Consensus meeting on PJI that assembled more than 350 experts identified some of the best practices in this field and identified areas in need of future research. Moving into the future, the field of orthopaedics in general and PJI in particular stand to benefit from the discoveries in the field of molecular diagnostics, metabolomics and epigenetics.

Aims

We aimed to assess the influence of ethnicity on the incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Computer-aided surgical systems commonly use preoperative CT scans when performing pelvic osteotomies for intraoperative navigation. These systems have the potential to improve the safety and accuracy of pelvic osteotomies, however, exposing the patient to radiation is a significant drawback. In order to reduce radiation exposure, we propose a new smooth extrapolation method leveraging a partial pelvis CT and a statistical shape model (SSM) of the full pelvis in order to estimate a patient's complete pelvis. A SSM of normal, complete, female pelvis anatomy was created and evaluated from 42 subjects. A leave-one-out test was performed to characterise the inherent generalisation capability of the SSM. An additional leave-one-out test was conducted to measure performance of the smooth extrapolation method and an existing “cut-and-paste” extrapolation method. Unknown anatomy was simulated by keeping the axial slices of the patient's acetabulum intact and varying the amount of the superior iliac crest retained; from 0% to 15% of the total pelvis extent. The smooth technique showed an average improvement over the cut-and-paste method of 1.31 mm and 3.61 mm, in RMS and maximum surface error, respectively. With 5% of the iliac crest retained, the smoothly estimated surface had an RMS surface error of 2.21 mm, an improvement of 1.25 mm when retaining none of the iliac crest. This anatomical estimation method creates the possibility of a patient and surgeon benefiting from the use of a CAS system and simultaneously reducing the patient's radiation exposure.

Introduction

First-generation annealed HXLPE has been clinically successful at reducing both clinical wear rates and the incidence of osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. However, studies have observed oxidative and mechanical degradation occurring in annealed HXLPE. Thus, it is unclear whether the favorable clinical performance of 1st generation HXLPE is due to the preservation of bearing surface tribological properties or, at least partially, to the reduction in patient activity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro wear performance (assessed using multidirectional pin-on-disk (POD) testing) of 1^st-generation annealed HXLPE with respect to in vivo duration, clinical wear rates, oxidation, and mechanical properties.

Introduction

In THA, fretting corrosion at the head-stem taper junction has emerged as a clinical concern that may result in adverse local tissue reactions, even in patients with a metal-on-polyethylene bearing [1]. Taper junctions that employ a ceramic head have demonstrated reduced corrosion at the interface [2]. However, during revision surgery with a well-fixed stem, a titanium sleeve is used in conjunction with a ceramic head to ensure proper fit of the head onto the stem and better stress distribution. In vitro testing has suggested that corrosion is not a concern in sleeved ceramic heads [3]; however, little is known about the in vivo fretting corrosion of the sleeves. The purpose of this study was to investigate fretting corrosion in sleeved ceramic heads.

Introduction

A variety of porous coatings and substrates have been used to obtain fixation at the bone-implant interface. Clinical studies of porous tantalum, have shown radiographically well-fixed implants with limited cases of loosening. However, there has been limited retrieval analysis of porous tantalum hip implants. The purpose of this study was to investigate factors affecting bone ingrowth into porous tantalum hip implants.

The purpose of this article is to provide the reader with a seven-step checklist that could help in minimising the risk of PJI. The check list includes strategies that can be implemented pre-operatively such as medical optimisation, and reduction of the bioburden by effective skin preparation or actions taking during surgery such as administration of timely and appropriate antibiotics or blood conservation, and finally implementation of post-operative protocols such as efforts to minimise wound drainage and haematoma formation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):18–22.

Introduction

Recent implant design trends have renewed concerns regarding metal wear debris release from modular connections in THA. Previous studies regarding modular head-neck taper corrosion were largely based on cobalt chrome (CoCr) alloy femoral heads. Comparatively little is known about head-neck taper corrosion with ceramic femoral heads or about how taper angle clearance influences taper corrosion. This study addressed the following research questions: 1) Could ceramic heads mitigate electrochemical processes of taper corrosion compared to CoCr heads? 2) Which factors influence stem taper corrosion with ceramic heads? 3) What is the influence of taper angle clearance on taper corrosion in THA?

Introduction

The release of metal debris and ions has raised concerns in joint arthroplasty. In THA metal debris and ions can be generated by wear of metal-on-metal bearing surfaces and corrosion at modular taper interfaces, currently understood to be mechanically assisted crevice corrosion (MACC) [1]. More recently, inflammatory-cell induced corrosion (ICIC) has been identified as a possible source of metal debris and/or ions [2]. Although MACC has been shown to occur at modular junctions in TKA, little is known about the prevalence of other sources. The purpose of this study was to determine the sources of metallic debris and ion release in long-term implanted (in vivo > 15y) TKA femoral components. Specific attention was paid to instances of ICIC as well as damage at the implant-bone interface.

It is strongly recommended that tissue and synovial fluid culture samples be obtained during reimplantation performed as part of a two-stage exchange arthroplasty. The incidence of positive cultures during reimplantation and the influence of positive cultures on subsequent outcome are unknown. This aim of this study was to determine the incidence of positive cultures during reimplantation and to investigate the association between positive cultures at reimplantation and the subsequent outcome

A retrospective review was conducted on 267 patients that met the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria for PJI that completed both stages of two-stage exchange arthroplasty (Table 1). Intraoperative culture results from tissue and/or synovial fluid were obtained. Cultures were positive in 33 cases (12.4%) undergoing reimplantation surgery (Figure 1). Treatment failure was assessed based on the Delphi consensus definition. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the predictors of positive culture and risk factors for failure of two-stage exchange arthroplasty.

Treatment failure was 45.5% for those with a positive intraoperative culture and 20.9% in those with negative cultures at the time of reimplantation. When controlling for organism virulence, comorbidities, and other confounding factors, treatment failure was higher (odds ratio [OR]: 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3–4.5) and occurred at an earlier time point (hazard ratio: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.3–4.5) in patients with a positive reimplantation culture. The treatment failure rate was not different between cases with two or more positive cultures (36.4%) and one positive culture (42.8%).

Positive intraoperative cultures during reimplantation, regardless of the number of positive samples were independently associated with two times the risk of subsequent infection and earlier treatment failure. Surgeons should be aware that a positive culture at the time of reimplantation independently increases the risk of subsequent failure and needs to be taken seriously. Given the significance of these findings, future studies are needed to evaluate the optimal management of positive cultures during reimplantation surgery.

Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis remains one of the most important strategies for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with current guideline recommending a first or second generation cephalosporin. Penicillin (PCN) allergy is often reported by patients, which often results in avoidance of administration of cephalosporins due to fear of cross-reactivity. Alternative medications, such as vancomyin, are often used despite reduced antimicrobial coverage. The purpose of this study was to determine if PCN allergic patients who received vancomycin alone prior to elective primary total joint arthroplasty were at increased risk of developing a subsequent PJI.

A retrospective review of 7,602 primary total joint arthroplasties (TJAs) performed between 2005 and 2013 in two institutions were identified using a prospective institutional database. Patient reported PCN or cephalosporin allergy was electronically queried from the anesthesia note. Patients who recieved multiple prophylactic antibiotics, or had unavailable perioperative antibiotic information, or those who received medication other than cefazolin and vancomycin were excluded. PJI was determined using a cross-match with an institutional PJI database constructed from International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 codes. Logistic regression analysis was then performed to evaluate the risk of subsequent PJI.

The rate of PJI was 1.4% (32/2296) in patients with a reported PCN allergy that received vancomycin alone versus 1.1% (59/5306) in non-PCN allergic patients that received cefazolin alone. The multivariate analysis, with the given sample size, did not detect a statistically significant increased risk of PJI when vancomycin was administered alone (adjusted odds ratio: 1.23, 95% CI 0.6–3.1, p=0.35). While there was no significant differences in the organism profile between PJIs in both groups, the rate of PJI caused by resistant organisms was higher in patients who received vancomycin alone (11.9%, 7/59) compared to those who received cefazolin (3.1%, 1/32).

While administration of perioperative prophylactic vancomycin alone during elective primary arthroplasty does not seem to result in a higher rate of subsequent PJI, patients who received vancomycin alone and developed a PJI were more likely to develop an infection with an antibiotic resistant organism. Future studies are needed to determine the most appropriate prophylactic antibiotic for patients who undergo elective arthroplasty and report PCN allergy.

Considerable efforts have been invested into identifying risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Preoperative identification of risk factors for developing PJI is imperative for medical optimization and targeted prophylaxis. The purpose of this study was to create a preoperative risk calculator for PJI by assessing a patient's individual risks for developing PJI with resistant organisms and S.aureus.

A retrospective review of 27117 patients (43253 TJAs) from 1999 to 2014, including 1035 PJIs, was performed. A total of 41 risk factors including demographics, comorbidities (using the Elixhauser and Charlson Index), and the number of previous TJAs, were evaluated. Multivariate analysis was performed; coefficients of the models were scaled to produce useful integer scoring. Predictive model strength was assessed employing area under the curve (AUC) analysis.

Among the 41 assessed variables, the following were significant risk factors in descending order of significance: prior surgeries (p<0.0001), drug abuse (p=0.0003), revision surgery (p<0.0001), human immunodeficiency virus (p=0.0004), coagulopathy (p<0.0001), renal disease (p<0.0001), congestive heart-failure (p<0.0001), psychoses (p=0.0024), rheumatological disease (p<0.0001), knee involvement (p<0.0001), diabetes (p<0.0001), anemia (p<0.0001), males (p<0.0001), liver disease (p=0.0093), smoking (p=0.0268), and high BMI (p<0.0001). Furthermore, presence of heart-valve disease (p=0.0409), metastatic disease (p=0.0006), and pulmonary disease (p=0.0042) increased the resistant organism PJIs. Patients with metastatic disease were also more likely to be infected with S. aureus (p=0.0002). AUCs were 0.83 for any PJI, 0.86 for resistant PJI, and 0.84 for S.aureus PJI models.

This large-scale single-institutional study has determined various risk factors for PJI. Some factors are modifiable and need to be addressed before elective arthroplasty. It is imperative that surgeons are aware of these risk factors and implement all possible preventative measures, including targeted prophylaxis, in patients with high-risk of PJI. Continued efforts are needed to find novel and effective solutions to minimize the burden PJI.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is one of the most devastating complications of total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Only a few studies have investigated PJI's impact on the most worrisome of all endpoints, mortality. The purpose of this study was to perform a large-scale study to determine the rates of PJI associated in-hospital mortality, and compare it to other surgical procedures.

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried from 2002 to 2010 to assess the risk of mortality for patients undergoing revision for PJI or aseptic failures. Elixhauser comorbidity index and ICD-9 codes were used to obtain patients’ medical conditions and identify PJI. Multiple logistic-regression analyses were used to determine the associated variables with mortality. In-hospital mortality was compared to the followings: coronary-artery bypass graft, mastectomy, prostatectomy, appendectomy, kidney transplant, carotid surgery, cholecystectomy, and coronary interventional procedures.

PJI was associated with an increased risk (odds ratio 2.04) of in-hospital mortality (0.77%) compared to aseptic revisions (0.38%). The in-hospital mortality of revision THAs done for PJI (1.38%, 95%CI, 1.12–1.64%) was comparable to or higher than interventional coronary procedure (1.22%, 95%CI, 1.20–1.24%), cholecystectomy (1.13%, 95%CI, 1.11–1.15%), kidney transplantation (0.70%, 95%CI, 0.61%–0.79%) and carotid surgery (0.89%, 95%CI, 0.86%–0.93%) (Figure 1). The following comorbidities were independent risk factors for in-hospital mortality after TJA: liver disease, metastatic disease, fluid and electrolyte disorders, coagulopathy, weight loss and malnutrition, congestive heart failure, pulmonary circulation disorder, renal failure, and peripheral vascular disease.

PJI is associated with a two-fold increase in mortality and have mortality rates comparable to kidney transplantation and carotid surgery. Considering the fact that patients with PJI often require multiple surgical procedures, the rate of actual in-hospital mortality for patients with PJI may be considerably higher. Surgeons should be cognizant of the potentially fatal outcome of PJI and must emphasize the importance of infection control to reduce the risk of mortality.

Failure of a two-stage exchange arthroplasty for management of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) poses a major clinical challenge. There is a paucity of information regarding the outcome of further surgical intervention in these patients. Thus, we aim to report the clinical outcomes of subsequent surgical intervention following a failed prior two-stage exchange.

Our institutional database was used to identify 60 patients (42 knees and 18 hips) with a failed prior two-stage exchange from infection, who underwent further surgical intervention between 1998 and 2012 and had a minimum of two years follow-up. A retrospective review was performed to extract relevant clinical information, such as mortality, microbiology, and subsequent surgeries. Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria were used to define PJI, and treatment success was defined using the Delphi criteria as previously reported.

Irrigation and debridement (I&D) was performed after a failed two-stage exchange in 61.7% (37/60) patients. The failure rate of I&D in this cohort was 51.3% (19/37). Two patients underwent amputation after I&D due to uncontrolled infection. A total of 40 patients underwent an intended a second two-stage exchange. Reimplantation occurred in only 65% of cases (26/40), and infection was controlled in 61.6% (16/26) of patients. An interim spacer exchange was required in 15% (6/40) of the cases. Of the 14 cases that did not undergo a second stage reimplantation, 5 required amputation, 6 had retained spacers, 1 underwent arthrodesis, and 2 patients died.

Further surgical intervention after a failed prior two-stage exchange has poor outcomes. I&D has a high failure rate and many of the patients who are deemed candidates for a second two-stage exchange either do not undergo reimplantation for various reasons or fail after reimplantation. The management of PJI clearly remains imperfect, and there is a dire need for further innovations that may improve the care of these PJI patients.