The rise of the anterior approach (AA) in primary surgery has led to enthusiasm for using this approach in revision surgery, especially because head and liner exchanges have been accompanied by a high dislocation rate when the posterior approach (PA) is used. The aim of this study was to compare the institutional dislocation rate comparing the PA and AA in isolated head and liner exchange. A retrospective institutional database query was done to identify all aseptic head and liner exchanges between the years 2010- June, 2020. 186 hips were identified with an average age of 64.8+/−10.8 yrs (27.9–87.6) and average BMI of 28.7+/−6.3 kg/m2 (16.2–52). The reason for revision was polyethylene wear and osteolysis in 105 hips (56.5%), adverse tissue reaction to metal on metal (MOM) in 43 hips (23.1%), and recurrent instability in 38 hips (20.4%). The approach used for the revision surgery was PA in 128 hips (68.8%) and AA in 58 hips (31.2%). The mean follow-up for this cohort is 1.9±2 yrs (0.0–8.6).Introduction
Methods
The COVID-19 pandemic caused an abrupt disruption in fellowship training, with most in-person teaching ceasing in mid-March 2020. An online lecture series was quickly initiated named the Fellows Online COVID-19 AAHKS Learning (FOCAL) initiative. This study will summarize the results of that initiative. Beginning March 31, 2020, an online teaching program was initiated. Adult reconstruction fellows and senior residents with interest in adult reconstruction were invited to participate in the free, live, online education sessions. Faculty from well-respected training institutions from around the country volunteered their time to host the initiative, choosing topics to present, ranging from hip (13 lectures) and knee (9), to practice management/miscellaneous (12). All sessions were recorded and posted on the society website for viewing. Attendee registrations were tracked via the online platform and the maximum number of attendees per session was recorded. A survey was administered to attendees for feedback.Background
Methods
It has been hypothesized that a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is more likely to be revised than a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) because conversion surgery to a primary TKA is a less complicated procedure. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a lower threshold for revising a UKA compared with TKA based on Oxford Knee Scores (OKSs) and range of movement (ROM) at the time of revision. We retrospectively reviewed 619 aseptic revision cases performed between December 1998 and October 2018. This included 138 UKAs that underwent conversion to TKA and 481 initial TKA revisions. Age, body mass index (BMI), time in situ, OKS, and ROM were available for all patients.Aims
Methods
The purpose of this study was to use pharmacogenetics to determine the frequency of genetic variants in our total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients that could affect postoperative pain medications. Pharmacogenetic testing evaluates patient DNA to determine if a drug is expected to have a normal clinical effect, heightened effect, or no effect at all on the patient. It also predicts whether patients are likely to experience side effects from medicine. We further sought to determine if changing the multimodal programme based on these results would improve pain control or reduce side effects. In this pilot study, buccal samples were collected from 31 primary TKA patients. Pharmacogenetics testing examined genetic variants in genes Aims
Methods
It has been hypothesized that a unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is more likely to be revised than a total knee (TKA) because conversion surgery to a primary TKA is available. The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a lower threshold for UKA revisions compared to TKA revisions based on Oxford Knee Scores and range of motion (ROM). We retrospectively reviewed 636 aseptic revision cases performed between 1998 and 2018. This included 137 UKAs that underwent conversion to TKA and 499 TKA revisions. Pre-revision age, body mass index (BMI), time in situ, Oxford Knee Scores, and ROM were available for all patients. T-tests were performed to determine if significant differences existed between the two groups. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) when comparing Oxford scores between cohorts has been reported as 5 points.Introduction
Methods
Pharmacogenetics evaluates a patient's DNA to determine if a particular drug is expected to have a normal clinical effect, heightened effect, or no effect at all on a patient. It may also predict which patients are most likely to experience side effects from the medications. The purpose of this study was to use pharmacogenetic testing to determine how frequently total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients have genetic variants to standard postoperative pain medications. We further sought to determine if changing the multimodal program based on these results would improve pain control and reduce side effects. In this prospective, randomized study, buccal cheek swab samples were collected from 31 primary TKA patients. Pharmacogenetics testing was performed on the samples to examine genetic variants in genes OPRM1, CYP1A2, CYP2B6, CYP2C19, CYP3A4, CYP2C9, and CYP2D6. These genes affect the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of NSAIDs and opioids. We examined the frequency of a genetic variant to one of the multimodal medications we prescribe including celecoxib, hydrocodone, and tramadol. Subjects included 9 men and 22 women. Patients were randomized to one of two groups: the control group received the standard postoperative pain regimen; the study group received a customized regimen based on the pharmacogenetic results. For the first 10 postoperative days patients recorded pain scores, amount of pain medication taken, and any side effects experienced.Introduction
Methods
The statements contained in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of CMS. The authors assume responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in this document. The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative was introduced to reduce healthcare costs while maintaining quality. We examined data from a healthcare system comprised of five hospitals that elected to participate in the BPCI Major Joint Replacement of the Lower Extremity Model 2 initiative beginning July 1, 2015. We compared one hospital that did 439 BPCI hip cases to the four other hospitals that did 459 cases. Stratifying the data by hospital volume, we sought to determine if costs decreased during the BPCI period, how the savings were achieved, and if savings resulted in financial rewards for participation. The Medicare data included the target cost for each episode (based on historical data from 2009–2012 for each hospital that was adjusted quarterly) and actual Part A and Part B spending for 90 days. Using 1,574 primary hip replacements, we analyzed the costs associated with the anchor hospitalization, inpatient rehabilitation, skilled nursing facilities, home health, outpatient physical therapy and readmission to compare the 898 hips done during the 16-month BPCI initiative period with the 676 hips done during the 1-year period preceding BPCI participation. Owing to the nonparametric distribution of the cost data, a Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the higher volume hospital with the four lower volume hospitals.Background
Methods
New implants for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are frequently introduced with the promise of improved performance. Infrequently there is accompanying data to document relative performance. The goal of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of an implant widely used for decades (Existing TKA), compared to a new implant (New TKA) from the same manufacturer. From October 2011-March 2015, 19 sites prospectively enrolled and implanted 752 Subjects with Existing TKA. Between November 2012 and May 2015, 23 sites (18 sites had enrolled Existing TKAs), implanted 1131 Subjects with the New TKA. Demographics were similar between groups. Subjects were seen preoperatively, <1-year, 1-year, and 2-years to collect patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiographs and any complications. PROMs consisted of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (permits WOMAC scoring), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Patient's Knee Implant Performance (PKIP) and EQ5D-3L and a p-value of 0.01 was established for statistical significance for PROMs comparisons. Kaplan-Meier (KM) implant survivorship (revision of any component for any reason) estimates were calculated.Introduction
Methods
The statements contained in this document are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of CMS. The authors assume responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of the information contained in this document. The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative was introduced to reduce healthcare costs while maintaining quality. We examined data from a healthcare system comprised of five hospitals that elected to participate in the BPCI Major Joint Replacement of the Lower Extremity Model 2 initiative beginning July 1, 2015. We compared one hospital that did 507 BPCI knee cases to the four other hospitals that did 566 cases. Stratifying the data by hospital volume, we sought to determine if costs decreased during the BPCI period, how the savings were achieved, and if savings resulted in financial rewards for participation. The Medicare data included the target cost for each episode (based on historical data from 2009–2012 for each hospital that was adjusted quarterly) and actual Part A and Part B spending for 90 days. Using 1,836 primary knee replacements, we analyzed the costs associated with the anchor hospitalization, inpatient rehabilitation, skilled nursing facilities, home health, outpatient physical therapy and readmission to compare the 1,073 knees done during the 16-month BPCI initiative period with the 763 knees done during the 1-year period preceding BPCI participation. Owing to the nonparametric distribution of the cost data, a Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the higher volume hospital with the four lower volume hospitals.Background
Methods
