Aims

Despite numerous studies focusing on periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs), there are no robust data on the risk factors and timing of metachronous infections. Metachronous PJIs are PJIs that can arise in the same or other artificial joints after a period of time, in patients who have previously had PJI.

The Accolade®TMZF is a taper-wedge cementless metaphyseal coated femoral stem widely utilized from 2002-2012. In recent years, there have been reports of early catastrophic failure of this implant. Establishing a deeper understanding of the rate and causes of revision in patients who developed aseptic failure in stems with documented concerns about high failure rates is critical. Understanding any potential patient or implant factors which are risk factors for failure is important to inform both clinicians and patients. We propose a study to establish the long-term survival of this stem and analyze patients who underwent aseptic revision to understand the causes and risk factors for failure.

A retrospective review was undertaken of all patients who received a primary total hip arthroplasty with an Accolade® TMZF stem at a high-volume arthroplasty center. The causes and timing of revision surgery were documented and cross referenced with the Canadian Institute of Health Information Discharge Abstract Database to minimize loss to follow-up. Survivorship analysis was performed with use of the Kaplan-Meier curves to determine the overall and aseptic survival rates at final follow-up. Patient and implant factors commonly associated with aseptic failure were extracted and Cox proportional hazards model was used.

A consecutive series of 2609 unilateral primary THA patients implanted with an Accolade®TMZF femoral hip stem were included. Mean time from primary surgery was 12.4 years (range 22 days to 19.5 years). Cumulative survival was 96.1% ± 0.2 at final follow-up. One hundred and seven patients underwent revision surgery with aseptic loosening of the femoral component was the most common cause of aseptic failure in this cohort (33/2609, 1.3%). Younger age and larger femoral head offset were independent risk factors for aseptic failure.

To our knowledge, this is the largest series representing the longest follow-up of this taper-wedge cementless femoral implant. Despite early concerns, the Accolade® TMZF stem has excellent survivorship in this cohort. Trunnionosis as a recognized cause for revision surgery was rare. Younger age and larger femoral head offset were independent risk factors for aseptic failure.

Orthopaedic surgeons prescribe more opioids than any other surgical speciality. Opioids remain the analgesic of choice following arthroscopic knee and shoulder surgery. There is growing evidence that opioid-sparing protocols may reduce postoperative opioid consumption while adequately addressing patients’ pain. However, there are a lack of prospective, comparative trials evaluating their effectiveness. The objective of the current randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the efficacy of a multi-modal, opioid-sparing approach to postoperative pain management in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder and knee surgery.

The NO PAin trial is a pragmatic, definitive RCT (NCT04566250) enrolling 200 adult patients undergoing outpatient shoulder or knee arthroscopy. Patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to an opioid-sparing group or standard of care. The opioid-sparing group receives a three-pronged prescription package consisting of 1) a non-opioid prescription: naproxen, acetaminophen and pantoprazole, 2) a limited opioid “rescue prescription” of hydromorphone, and 3) a patient education infographic. The control group is the current standard of care as per the treating surgeon, which consists of an opioid analgesic. The primary outcome of interest is oral morphine equivalent (OME) consumption up to 6 weeks postoperatively. The secondary outcomes are postoperative pain scores, patient satisfaction, quantity of OMEs prescribed and number of opioid refills. Patients are followed at both 2 and 6 weeks postoperatively. Data analysts and outcome assessors are blinded to the treatment groups.

As of December 1, 2021 we have enrolled 166 patients, reaching 83% of target enrolment. Based on the current recruitment rate, we anticipate that enrolment will be completed by the end of January 2022 with final follow-up and study close out completed by March of 2022. The final results will be released at the Canadian Orthopaedic Association Meeting in June 2022 and be presented as follows. The mean difference in OME consumption was XX (95%CI: YY-YY, p=X). The mean difference in OMEs prescribed was XX (95%CI: YY-YY, p=X). The mean difference in Visual Analogue Pain Scores (VAS) and patient satisfaction are XX (95%CI: YY-YY, p=X). The absolute difference in opioid refills was XX (95%CI: YY-YY, p=X).

The results of the current study will demonstrate whether an opioid sparing approach to postoperative outpatient pain management is effective at reducing opioid consumption while adequately addressing postoperative pain in patients undergoing outpatient shoulder and knee arthroscopy. This study is novel in the field of arthroscopic surgery, and its results will help to guide appropriate postoperative analgesic management following these widely performed procedures.

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has become more frequently used in surgical specialties in recent years. Orthopaedic surgery is particularly well-suited to 3D printing applications, and thus has seen a variety of uses for this technology. These uses include pre-operative planning, patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), and patient-specific implant production. As with any new technology, it is important to assess the clinical impact, if any, of three-dimensional printing.

The purpose of this review was to answer the following questions:

What are the current clinical uses of 3D printing in orthopaedic surgery?

Four electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science) were searched for Articles discussing clinical applications of 3D printing in orthopaedics up to November 13, 2018. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened in duplicate and data was abstracted. Descriptive analysis was performed for all studies. A meta-analysis was performed among eligible studies to compare estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time, and fluoroscopy use between 3D printing cases and controls. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria for non-randomized studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD42018099144).

One-hundred and eight studies were included, published between 2012 and 2018. A total of 2328 patients were included in these studies, and 1558 patients were treated using 3D printing technology. The mean age of patients, where reported, was 47 years old (range 3 to 90). Three-dimensional printing was most commonly reported in trauma (N = 41) and oncology (N = 22). Pre-operative planning was the most common use of 3D printing (N = 63), followed by final implants (N = 32) and PSI (N = 22). Titanium was the most commonly used 3D printing material (16 studies, 27.1%). A wide range of costs were reported for 3D printing applications, ranging from “less than $10” to $20,000. The mean MINORS score for non-randomized studies was 8.3/16 for non-comparative studies (N = 78), and 17.7/24 for non-randomized comparative studies (N = 19). Among RCTs, the most commonly identified sources of bias were for performance and detection biases. Three-dimensional printing resulted in a statistically significant decrease in mean operative time (−15.6 mins, p < .00001), mean EBL (−35.9 mL, p<.00001), and mean fluoroscopy shots (−3.5 shots, p < .00001) in 3D printing patients compared to controls.

The uses of 3D printing in orthopaedic surgery are growing rapidly, with its use being most common in trauma and oncology. Pre-operative planning is the most common use of 3D printing in orthopaedics. The use of 3D printing significantly reduces EBL, operative time, and fluoroscopy use compared to controls. Future research is needed to confirm and clarify the magnitude of these effects.