Single- or Two-stage Revision for Infected Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background

The best approach for surgical treatment of an infected THA remains controversial. Two-stage revision is believed to result in lower reinfection rates but may result in significant functional impairment. Some authors now suggest that single-stage revision may provide comparable results in terms of infection eradication while providing superior functional outcomes.

Questions/purposes

We performed a systematic review to determine whether single- or two-stage revision for an infected THA provides lower reinfection rates and higher functional outcome scores.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed and Embase, using the search string [Infection AND (“total hip replacement” OR “total hip arthroplasty”) AND revision]. All studies comparing reinfection rates or functional scores for single- and two-stage revision were retrieved and reviewed. A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA checklist.

Results

The initial search retrieved 1128 studies. Following strict exclusion criteria, we identified nine comparative studies comparing reinfection rates (all nine studies) or functional scores (four studies) between single- and two-stage revisions. The overall quality of studies was poor with no randomized studies being identified. Groups often varied in their baseline characteristics. There was no consensus among the studies regarding the relative incidence of reinfection between the two procedures. There was a trend toward better functional outcomes in single-stage surgery, but this reached significance in only one study.

Conclusions

In appropriate patients, single-stage revision appears to be associated with similar reinfection rates when compared with two-stage revision with superior functional outcomes. This concurs with earlier studies, but given the methodologic quality of the included studies, these findings should be treated with caution. High-quality randomized studies are needed to compare the two approaches to confirm these findings, and, if appropriate, to determine which patients are appropriate for single-stage revision.     

Nerve Decompression Surgery After Total Hip Arthroplasty: What Are the Outcomes?

Background

The purpose of our study was to compare (1) muscle strength; (2) pain; (3) sensation; (4) various outcome measurement scales between post-total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients who had a sciatic nerve injury and did or did not receive decompression surgery for this condition; and (5) to compare these findings with current literature.

Are 20% of Patients Actually Dissatisfied Following Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review of the Literature

BackgroundTotal knee arthroplasty (TKA) is among the most performed orthopaedic surgeries in the United States with at least 1,000,000 cases performed per year. Dissatisfaction following TKA has often been reported as 20% or more, with a multitude of causes including sociodemographic, preoperative, and postoperative factors. The purpose of this study was to re-examine the rate and causes of dissatisfaction following TKA.MethodsA systematic review of the literature was performed searching databases from 2010 to 2022. Only primary TKA cases were included and all cases of unicompartmental arthroplasty and revisions were excluded. After abstracts were reviewed, 35 articles were selected for a full-length review, which was ultimately reduced to 21 articles for final inclusion.ResultsThe average rate of patient dissatisfaction was 10%. Excluding complications, the average rate of dissatisfaction was 7.3%. The most common sociodemographic factors for dissatisfaction were age < 65 years, lower income, and non-White patients. Preoperative factors included lower Kellgren-Lawrence scores, depression/anxiety, and pain catastrophizing. Postoperatively, most dissatisfaction was due to complications, unmet expectations, persistent pain, and stiffness.ConclusionBased on our review, the average rate of patient dissatisfaction following TKA is 10%. Improved counseling for known risk factors may have reduced dissatisfaction rates by increasing preoperative patient optimization. Many studies in recent years have demonstrated the issue of poor patient coping skills, such as pain catastrophizing and anxiety/depression as a common cause of dissatisfaction. Ultimately, dissatisfaction following TKA still continues to affect a high portion of patients but less than historical reports of 20%.     

Does Surgeon Volume Affect Outcomes Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review

Background

Surgeon volume has been identified as an important factor impacting postoperative outcome in patients undergoing orthopedic surgeries. With an absence of a detailed systematic review, we sought to collate evidence on the impact of surgeon volume on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty.

Does the Method of Component Fixation Influence Clinical Outcomes After Total Knee Replacement? A Systematic Literature Review

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify the best available evidence describing the differences in clinical outcome associated with the different methods of total knee replacement (TKR) fixation. Randomized trials published between 1980 and January 2011 comparing differences in clinical outcome scores between groups allocated to either cemented or uncemented fixation for TKR were included. Nine of the 11 studies included in the review reported no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups with either cemented or uncemented prosthesis components. Critical appraisal of methodological bias revealed consistent shortcomings in study design and execution. It is apparent that more rigorous studies with longer follow-up periods are required to verify which method of fixation may be preferable in enhancing clinical outcomes.     

Do Complication Rates Differ by Gender After Metal-on-metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review

Background

Although metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing surfaces provide low rates of volumetric wear and increased stability, evidence suggests that certain MoM hip arthroplasties have high rates of complication and failure. Some evidence indicates that women have higher rates of failure compared with men; however, the orthopaedic literature as a whole has poorly reported such complications stratified by gender.

Questions/purposes

This systematic review aimed to: (1) compare the rate of adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR); (2) dislocation; (3) aseptic loosening; and (4) revision between men and women undergoing primary MoM hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Methods

Systematic MEDLINE and EMBASE searches identified all level I to III articles published in peer-reviewed journals, reporting on the outcomes of interest, for MoM HRA. Articles were limited to those with 2-year followup that reported outcomes by gender. Ten articles met inclusion criteria. Study quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score; the overall quality was poor. Heterogeneity and bias were analyzed using a Mantel-Haenszel statistical method.

Results

Women demonstrated an increased odds of developing ALTR (odds ratio [OR], 5.70 [2.71–11.98]; p < 0.001), dislocation (OR, 3.04 [1.2–7.5], p = 0.02), aseptic loosening (OR, 3.18 [2.21–4.58], p < 0.001), and revision (OR, 2.50 [2.25–2.78], p < 0.001) after primary MoM HRA.

Conclusions

A systematic review of the currently available literature reveals a higher rate of complications (ALTR, dislocation, aseptic loosening, and revision) after MoM HRA in women compared with men. Although femoral head size has been frequently implicated as a prime factor in the higher rate of complication in women, further research is necessary to specifically probe this relationship. Retrospective studies of data available (eg, registry data) should be undertaken, and moving forward studies should report outcomes by gender (particularly complications).

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.     

How Are We Measuring Cost-Effectiveness in Total Joint Arthroplasty Studies? Systematic Review of the Literature

BackgroundAs volumes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) continue to rise, it is important to understand their economic impact. No systematic review on cost-effectiveness of THA/TKA has been performed since 2016 despite recent changes in the healthcare environment. The purpose of the study is to provide a contemporary analysis of the cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty and the use of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).MethodsA systematic review was performed from 2005 to 2020. Online databases (OVID Medline, PubMed, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Google Scholar, Elton B. Stephens Co) were queried to identify economic analyses that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of THA/TKA.ResultsIn total, 38 studies met the screening criteria. Study designs were primarily Markov models (68%), cohort studies (16%), and randomized trials (8%). Most studies adopted either a societal perspective (45%) or a health system perspective (39%). Analysis revealed that THA/TKA was strongly cost-effective compared to nonsurgical treatment. THA/TKA procedures that were not delayed were more cost-effective than delayed intervention. The majority of studies used QALYs as the primary quality metric (82%); in all these studies there was a significant improvement in QALYs gained.ConclusionGiven the high economic impact of arthroplasty, ongoing assessment of cost-effectiveness is needed. Twenty-four percent of studies included in this systematic review were published in the last 4 years of this 15-year study period, highlighting the need for continuous assessment of aggregate data. Future studies should incorporate the cost-effectiveness of THA and TKA with respect to the work-value provided by surgeon providers to support health policy and reimbursement.     

What is the Evidence for Total Knee Arthroplasty in Young Patients?: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Background  

TKA is commonly performed to treat advanced inflammatory and degenerative knee arthritis. With increasing use in younger patients, it is important to define the best practices to enhance clinical performance and implant longevity.     

Are There Prognostic Factors for One-Year Outcome After Total Knee Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review

Background

Preoperative factors predicting outcome for pain, physical function and quality of life after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have not been clearly identified.

Patient Perceived Outcomes After Primary Hip Arthroplasty: Does Gender Matter?

Background  

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) provides high functional scores and long-term survivorship. However, differences in function and disability between men and women before and after arthroplasty are not well understood.     

Does Surgical Approach Affect Outcomes in Total Hip Arthroplasty Through 90 Days of Follow-Up? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

Background

The choice between anterior approach (AA) and posterior approach (PA) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is controversial. Previous reviews have predominantly relied on data from retrospective studies.

Do Patients Lose Weight After Joint Arthroplasty Surgery? A Systematic Review

Background

The ability of patients with a total joint arthroplasty (TJA) to lose weight after surgery has been investigated in a few studies with inconsistent results.

Questions/Purposes

We asked: (1) What is the quality of evidence of current published literature on postoperative weight trends for patients who have had a TJA? (2) Do patients lose any weight after TJA? (3) Do patients lose a clinically meaningful amount of weight after TJA?

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of PubMed and the Cochrane Library. Studies were summarized according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement. Studies were reviewed for quality of evidence and limitations according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Twelve studies were identified, one case-cohort study and 11 case series. Most studies were from single-surgeon or single-hospital series. Five studies included THAs and TKAs, four only THAs, and three only TKAs. We determined study type, level of evidence, inclusion criteria, procedures, proportion of patients who changed weight, body composition assessment, time of composition assessment, statistical analysis performed, and subgroup analysis conducted.

Results

Owing to the observational nature of the studies and the serious limitations identified, all were considered very low quality according to GRADE criteria. Studies reported 14% to 49% of patients had some weight loss at least 1 year postoperatively.

Conclusions

We found no conclusive evidence that weight or body composition increases, decreases, or remains the same after TJA.     

Does Multiple Sclerosis Affect the Inpatient Perioperative Outcomes After Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Background

There is a paucity of studies evaluating the short-term perioperative outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. Therefore, this study evaluated (1) patient factors; and (2) patient outcomes in MS THA patients compared to non-MS THA patients.

Editorial Commentary: Total Hip Arthroplasty After Hip Arthroscopy—Solution for the Failed Arthroscopy or a Matter of Pushing the Envelope and Questionable Indications

With the inevitable explosion of arthroscopic hip procedures being performed, the less frequent indications and failures are becoming prevalent enough to analyze. As with any procedure, failures occur and solutions are sought after. “Total hip arthroplasty after prior hip arthroscopy” is a statement that brings to mind several questions and comments. Yes, it is important to evaluate the impact of a prior arthroscopy on eventual total hip arthroplasty outcomes and complication rates. The bigger question when the arthroplasty is performed less than 2 years after hip arthroscopy, however, is “How did we get here?” The pivotal issue at hand might be one of pushing surgical indications a bit too forcefully on multiple fronts. It might be time to return to “Indications 101” to minimize an exponential increase regarding this particular topic with this particular failure timeline.     

Editorial Commentary: Pain After Hip Arthroscopy—Are We Truly Addressing the Problem?

Pain after hip arthroscopy is a significant and challenging issue as is evidenced by the number of publications on this subject. Various analgesic strategies to circumvent this issue have been tried, with variable results. The central problem is that pain experienced by patients after hip arthroscopy is multifactorial in origin. Regarding local injection, an anatomic approach to the nerve supply to the hip with an effective pain relief strategy should take this into consideration and focus on using drugs with a low risk of complications and infiltration techniques that do not cause an unnecessary delay in rehabilitation and discharge of the patient. Furthermore, addressing traction time, surgical technique, and fluid extravasation and applying an individualized approach, keeping the patient’s personality and profile in mind, will ensure adequate analgesia after arthroscopic intervention.