Cemented Versus Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty in Obese Patients With Body Mass Index ≥35 kg/m2: A Contemporary Analysis of 812 Patients

BackgroundCemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been shown to have higher failure rates in obese patients, and cementless TKA may provide more durable fixation. This study compared outcomes and survivorship of obese patients undergoing cemented and cementless TKA of the same modern design.MethodsWe identified a consecutive series of 406 primary cementless TKA performed in obese patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m² in 2013-2018. Each case was matched 1:1 with 406 cemented TKA based on age, sex, BMI, bearing surface, and year of surgery. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement and Short Form-12 were collected preoperatively, at 6 months and 2 years. Implant survivorship was recorded at mean 4.0 years (range 2.0-7.8).ResultsThere was no difference in mean BMI between the cemented (38.6 ± 3.4 kg/m²; range, 35-60) and cementless cohorts (38.7 ± 3.3 kg/m²; range, 35-54; P = .706). Both groups had similar final postoperative scores and improvement in scores at 2 years. Furthermore, a similar percentage met the minimal clinically important difference (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, 70.0% vs 71.2%, P = .700; Short Form-12 Physical, 74.1% vs 70.4%, P = .240). Both groups demonstrated high 7-year survivorship free from aseptic revision (99.0% vs 99.5%, P = .665).ConclusionObese patients with BMI ≥35 kg/m² undergoing cementless and cemented TKA of the same modern design had similar outcomes and survivorship at early to mid-term follow-up. Continued surveillance of this high-risk population is necessary.     

Hybrid fixation versus full-cemented or full-cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty: Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

ObjectiveHybrid fixation is one alternative to full-cemented fixation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with theoretical advantages. Hybrid fixation may offer the advantages of cementless femoral fixation, while also avoiding the problem of tibial loosening in full-cementless TKA. The purpose of the study is to determine whether hybrid TKA may perform comparably to or better than full-cemented and full-cementless TKA.MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through September 2018 for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing outcomes of hybrid versus full-cemented or full-cementless fixation techniques. Outcomes of interest included aseptic loosening, overall reoperation rate, infection, radiolucent lines and operating time. Data were pooled with the Mantel–Haenszel random effects model.ResultsWe included 14 studies with follow-up ranging from 2.7 to 9.6 years in our quantitative analysis, of which 7 studies compared hybrid fixation with full-cemented TKA and another 7 compared hybrid fixation with full-cementless TKA. Combined data revealed that the hybrid fixation group had a similar rate of aseptic loosening compared with cemented (P = 0.19) and cementless (P = 0.49) groups. There was no difference with respect to other outcomes, including overall reoperation rate, infection, radiolucent lines and operating time between groups.ConclusionHybrid, cementless and cemented TKAs have comparable mid-term results as it pertains to aseptic loosening, overall reoperation, infection, radiolucent lines and operating time. Further comparative studies are needed to investigate these potential effects over the long-term.     

Redefining Indications for Modern Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty: Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship in Patients >75 Years Old

BackgroundMost studies on cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have excluded patients >75 years due to concerns that older patients have poorer bone mineral density and osteogenic activity. This study compared the midterm outcomes and survivorship of cemented and cementless TKA of the same modern design performed in patients >75 years.MethodsWe identified a consecutive series of 120 primary cementless TKA performed in patients >75 years. Each case was propensity score matched 1:3 with 360 cemented TKA of the same modern design based on age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, bilateral procedures, liner type, and year of surgery. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) and Short Form-12 (SF-12) were collected preoperatively, at 6 months and 2 years. Implant survivorship was recorded at mean 4.2 years (range, 2.0-7.9).ResultsMean age was 79.0 ± 3.4 years (range, 75-92) in the cemented cohort and 78.9 ± 3.5 (range, 75-91) in the cementless cohort (P = .769). There was no difference in final postoperative scores or improvement in scores at 2 years. The percentage of patients that met the minimal clinically important difference was also similar (KOOS-JR, 68.9% vs 69.2%, P = .955; SF-12 Physical, 71.7% vs 66.7%, P = .299). Seven-year survivorship free from aseptic revision was 99.4% for cemented knees and 100% for cementless knees (log-rank, P = .453).ConclusionPatients over 75 years undergoing cementless or cemented TKA of the same modern design had comparable outcomes and survivorship in the midterm. The theoretical risks of cementless fixation in this age group were not realized in this study.     

Mepivacaine Versus Bupivacaine Spinal Anesthesia for Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundMepivacaine is an intermediate acting amide local anesthetic that can be used for neuraxial anesthesia in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) with a shorter duration of action (1.5-2 hours) compared to the more commonly used local anesthetic bupivacaine. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing bupivacaine and mepivacaine spinal anesthesia during elective TJA and the surgical outcomes of the time to full neurologic motor return, pain, mobility, length of stay (LOS), and complications including transient neurologic symptoms and urinary function.MethodsPubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Ovid Embase were screened for “arthroplasty, spinal anesthesia, bupivacaine, and mepivacaine,” in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 159 studies were screened and 5 studies were evaluated. Data were compared regarding motor function return, mobility (distance ambulated), pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), LOS, and postoperative complications.ResultsFull-text screening yielded 5 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 2 retrospective cohort studies), with a total of 1,550 patients. Mepivacaine spinals had an earlier return to motor function (154 minutes vs 170 minutes, 95% CI: [?31.6, ?0.9], P = .04), shorter LOS (25.95 hours vs 29.96 hours, 95% CI: [?6.8, ?1.2], P = .01), and decreased urinary retention (7.15% vs 10.58%, 95% CI: [?6.3%, ?0.6%], P = .02) with no differences in pain (VAS 3.57 vs 3.68, 95% CI: [?2.1, 1.9], P = .90) or distance ambulated (94.2 ft vs 89.1 ft, 95% CI: [?15, 25.2], P = .60) compared to bupivacaine spinal anesthesia.ConclusionsThe method of anesthesia administration has been an increasing area of focus for quicker and safer recovery to allow for early ambulation and facility discharge. The rapid recovery facilitated by mepivacaine may further enable outpatient TJA and enhance patient recovery.Level of EvidenceIII.     

The 22 to 25-Year Survival of Cemented and Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty in Young Patients

BackgroundDespite cementless total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) have potential advantages over cemented TKAs, there are conflicting results. The purpose of the present study is to determine the long-term clinical and radiographic results, the survival rate, and the prevalence of osteolysis of cemented vs cementless TKAs.MethodsA total of 261 patients (522 knees) who underwent bilateral simultaneous TKAs were included in the present study (mean age, 62.5 ± 5.5 years). Patients were evaluated clinically, radiographically, and also using computed tomography scans. A mean follow-up period was 23.8 years (range, 22-25 years).ResultsThere were no significant differences between the Knee Society total score, change in total score, knee function score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score in the 2 groups. In total, 8 knees (3%) were revised in the cementless group and 5 knees (2%) in the cemented group. Radiographs and computed tomography scans showed no femoral, tibial, or patellar osteolysis in either group. The rate of survival at 25 years was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 92%-100%) in the cementless group and 98% (95% CI, 94%-100%) in the cemented group, with reoperation for any reason as the end point. The rate of survival at 25 years was 98% (95% CI, 94%-100%), with reoperation for aseptic loosening as the end point in both groups.ConclusionsAt this length of follow-up, cementless TKA has comparable outcomes and survivorship to cemented TKA.     

Cemented Vs Cementless Femoral Fixation for Total Hip Arthroplasty After Displaced Femoral Neck Fracture: A Nationwide Analysis of Short-Term Complications and Readmission Rates

BackgroundActive patients with displaced femoral neck fractures are often treated with total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, optimal femoral fixation in these patients is controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare early complication and readmission rates in patients with hip fracture treated with THA receiving cemented vs cementless femoral fixation.MethodsThe National Readmissions Database was queried to identify patients undergoing primary THA for femoral neck fracture from 2016 to 2017. Postoperative complications and unplanned readmissions at 30, 90, and 180 days were compared between patients treated with cemented and cementless THA. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare differences between groups and account for confounding variables.ResultsOf 17,491 patients identified, 4427 (25.3%) received cemented femoral fixation and 13,064 (74.7%) cementless. The cemented group was significantly older (77.2 vs 71.1, P < .001), had more comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index: 4.44 vs 3.92, P < .001), and had a greater proportion of women (70.5% vs 65.2%, P < .001) compared with the cementless group. On multivariate analysis, cemented fixation was associated with reduced rates of periprosthetic fracture (odds ratio: 0.052, 95% confidence interval: 0.003-0.247, P = .004) at 30 days but similar readmission rates at 30, 90, and 180 days (odds ratio range: 1.012-1.114, P > .05) postoperatively compared with cementless fixation. Cemented fixation was associated with greater odds of medical complications at 180 days postoperatively (odds ratio:: 1.393, 95% confidence interval: 1.042-1.862, P = .025).ConclusionCemented femoral fixation was associated with a lower short-term incidence of periprosthetic fractures, higher incidence of medical complications, and equivalent unplanned readmission rates within 180 days postoperatively compared with cementless fixation in patients undergoing THA for femoral neck fracture.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Perioperative Systemic Dexamethasone Reduces Length of Stay in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BackgroundThe objective of this review is to examine the effect of perioperative systemic corticosteroids at varying doses and timings on early postoperative recovery outcomes following unilateral total knee and total hip arthroplasty. The primary outcome was length of stay (LOS).MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 1, 2020. Studies comparing the outcome of adult patients receiving a systemic steroid to patients who did not receive steroids were included.ResultsSeventeen studies were included, incorporating 1957 patients. Perioperative corticosteroids reduced hospital LOS (mean difference [MD] = ?0.39 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] ?0.61 to ?0.18). A subsequent dose of corticosteroid at 24 hours further reduced LOS (MD = ?0.33, 95% CI ?0.55 to ?0.11). Corticosteroids resulted in reduced levels of pain on postoperative day (POD) 0 (MD = ?1.99, 95% CI ?3.30 to ?0.69), POD1 (MD = ?1.47, 95% CI ?2.15 to ?0.79), and POD2. Higher doses were more effective in reducing pain with activity on POD0 (P = .006) and 1 (P = .023). Steroids reduced the incidence of PONV on POD1 (log odds ratio [OR] = ?1.05, 95% CI ?1.26 to ?0.84) and POD2, with greater effect at higher doses (P = .046). Corticosteroids did not increase the incidence of infection (P = 1.000), venous thromboembolism (P = 1.000), or gastrointestinal hemorrhage (P = 1.000) but were associated with an increase in blood glucose (MD = 5.30 mg/dL, 95% CI 2.69-7.90).ConclusionPerioperative corticosteroids are safe, facilitate earlier discharge, and improve patient recovery following unilateral total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. Higher doses (15-20 mg of dexamethasone) are associated with further reductions in dynamic pain and PONV, and repeat dosing may further reduce LOS.     

Clinical outcomes in patients with retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: A meta-analysis

BackgroundRotator cuff retear is a major concern after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR); however, the effects of retear remain unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the clinical outcomes of postoperative retear and intact tendons after ARCR.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and PEDro databases for studies performed from January 2000 to June 2020. Clinical outcomes included the Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, University of California Los Angeles shoulder (UCLA) score, pain score, range of motion, and muscle strength. Meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed on the pooled results to determine significance.ResultsThe initial database search yielded 3141 records. After removal of duplicates, 26 of which met the inclusion criteria. Patients in the retear group had significantly lower Constant score [? 8.51 points (95% CI, ? 10.29 to ? 6.73); P < 0.001], ASES score [? 12.53 points (95% CI, ? 16.27 to ? 8.79); P < 0.001], UCLA score [? 3.77 points (95% CI, ? 4.72 to ? 2.82); P < 0.001], and significantly higher pain score [0.56 cm (95% CI, 0.10 to 1.01); P = 0.02] than the intact group. In addition, the retear group had significantly lower flexion [? 10.46° (95% CI, ? 19.86 to ? 1.07); P = 0.03], abduction [? 14.84° (95% CI, ? 28.55 to ? 1.14); P = 0.03], and external rotation [? 7.22° (95% CI, ? 13.71 to ? 0.74); P = 0.03] range of motion, and flexion [? 1.65 kg·f (95% CI, ? 2.29 to ? 1.01); P < 0.001], abduction [? 1.87 kg·f (95% CI, ? 3.02 to ? 0.72); P = 0.001], and external rotation [? 1.66 kg·f (95% CI, ? 3.25 to ? 0.07); P = 0.04] muscle strength.ConclusionOur results suggest that retear after ARCR leads to poor clinical outcomes after surgery.     

No Difference in Revision Rate Between Low Viscosity and High Viscosity Cement Used in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundLoosening remains one of the most common reasons for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Cement viscosity has a potential role in reducing revision rates for loosening. The aim of this study was to assess the outcome for loosening of the 5 most used cemented knee prostheses by constraint type, based on the cement viscosity type used.MethodsThere were 214,708 TKA procedures performed between 1999 and 2020 for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis using the 5 most commonly used minimally stabilized, posterior stabilized, and medial pivot design cemented tibial components. Only procedures with a cemented tibial component were included. Outcomes for two different cement viscosities, 140,060 high viscosity and 74,648 low viscosity cement, were compared for each fixation type within each of the three stability groups.ResultsThere was no difference in a risk of all-cause revision when high viscosity cement was used compared to low viscosity cement for minimally stabilized prostheses (hazards ratio [HR] 1.07 [95% CI 0.99-1.15], P = .09), posterior stabilized prostheses (HR 1.03 [95% CI 0.95-1.11], P = .53), and medial pivot design prostheses (HR 1.06 [95% CI 0.80-1.41], P = .67). No difference was observed between cement viscosity types for any of the prosthesis constraint types when aseptic loosening was assessed.ConclusionsWe found no difference in the risk of revision for any reason, or for loosening, with cement viscosity for the most commonly used minimally stabilized, posterior stabilized, and medial pivot TKA. The role of cement viscosity in the risk of TKA revision remains unclear and further research is required.Level of EvidenceLevel III Retrospective comparative study.     

Manipulation Under Anesthesia is Safe After Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Study

BackgroundCementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is thought to facilitate durable, biological fixation between the bone and implant. However, the 4-12 weeks required for osseointegration coincides with the optimal timeframe to perform a manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) if a patient develops postoperative stiffness. This study aims to determine the impact of early MUA on cementless fixation by comparing functional outcomes and survivorship of cementless and cemented TKAs.MethodsA consecutive series of patients who underwent MUA for postoperative stiffness within 90 days of primary, unilateral TKA at 2 academic institutions between 2014 and 2018 were identified. Cases involving extensive hardware removal were excluded. Cementless TKAs undergoing MUA (n = 100) were propensity matched 1:1 to cemented TKAs undergoing MUA (n = 100) using age, gender, body mass index, and year of surgery. Both groups had comparable baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS), Short Form (SF)-12 Physical, and SF-12 Mental scores. MUA-related complications as well as postoperative KOOS and SF-12 scores were compared.ResultsMUA-related complications were equivalently low in both groups (P = .324), with only 1 patella component dissociation in the cementless group. No tibial or femoral components acutely loosened in the perioperative period. Postoperative KOOS (P = .101) and SF-12 Mental scores (P = .380) were similar between groups. Six-year survivorship free from any revision after MUA was 98.0% in both groups (P = 1.000).ConclusionEarly postoperative MUA after cementless TKA was not associated with increased MUA-related complications or worse patient-reported outcomes compared to cemented TKA. Short-term survivorship was also comparable, suggesting high durability of the bone-implant interface.     

Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes of Medial Stabilized Versus Non–Medial Stabilized Prostheses in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of medial stabilized total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with non–medial stabilized TKAs.MethodsA systematic search of multiple databases was conducted in October 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted for the Knee Society Score (KSS), Knee Society Functional Score (KFS), range of motion (ROM), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS).ResultsA total of 857 articles yielded 21 studies eligible for inclusion with 13 studies used for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis revealed that the medial stabilized group had a mean FJS that was 13.8 points higher than that of the non–medial stabilized TKA (mean difference [MD]: 13.83, P ≤ .0001, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.90-18.76, I² = 0%) which was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 14. The medial stabilized group also demonstrated a statistically significant difference in the postoperative ROM (MD = 2.52, P = .05, 95% CI: ?0.03 to 5.07, I² = 85%) and OKS when compared with the non–medial stabilized group (MD = 1.25, P = .02, 95% CI: 0.17-2.33, I² = 27%), but these were not clinically significant. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in the KSS, KFS, and WOMAC scores.ConclusionMedial stabilized knee prostheses demonstrated no clinically significant differences for the ROM, OKS, WOMAC, KSS, and KFS. The FJS demonstrated the greatest MD and warrants further investigation. Future research is required using patient-reported outcome measures with a lower ceiling effect such as the FJS.     

Safety and efficacy of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and m-analysis

ObjectiveThis research aimed to study the safety and efficacy of adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs) for knee osteoarthritis (OA).MethodsWe used six databases to search for records and then screened them for eligibility. In both randomized and non-randomized studies, the risk of bias was assessed. The data were then retrieved and used in single-arm and double-arm analyses using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) Version 3.0 and RevMan Version 5.3, respectively.ResultsBased on the study's inclusion criteria, we included 15 studies with a total of 463 patients. According to our single-arm analyses, there was a significant improvement in quality of life (QOL) among the three dose subgroups (high, medium, and low doses), as measured by SF-36 scores after a year of follow-up [low dose: mean (M) = ?23.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) [?31.49 to ?16.49]; P < 0.001; medium dose: M = ?15.96; 95% CI [?23.5 to ? 8.42]; P < 0.001; high dose: M = ?19.31; 95% CI [?28.02 to ?10.59], P < 0.001] and the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) QOL sub-score after six months following ADMSCs injection in the low-dose group (M = 24.9; 95% CI [4.3 to 45.6]; P < 0.05). Moreover, after three months of follow-up, we detected significant pain reduction as measured by the numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), with no significant difference between the low and medium doses (low dose: M = ?3.12; 95% CI [?5.09 to ?1.14]; P < 0.01; medium dose; M = ?2.17; 95% CI [?3.13 to ?1.21]; P < 0.001). However, after a year, the results were no longer significant. Despite finding no significant difference between them after 6 and 12 months post-treatment in the Visual Analogue scale (VAS) scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score, double-arm analyses revealed significant pain reduction in the ADMSCs group over the control after 12 months as estimated by the WOMAC pain sub-score (mean difference (MD) = ?1.85, 95% CI [?3.55, ?0.15], P < 0.05). After six months, the low dosage group's knee functions and activity levels improved significantly, as determined by the WOMAC physical function and stiffness subscales (M = ?23.79; 95% CI [?38.43 to ?9.16]; P = 0.001; M = ?10.25; 95% CI [?17.31 to ?2.59]; P < 0.01, respectively), as well as the KOOS scores after a year (P < 0.01 for all KOOS subscales). In the ADMSCs injections group, there were no serious adverse effects [event rate (ER) = 0.11; 95% CI [0.03–0.3]; P = 0.001].ConclusionIn the present single-arm meta-analysis, ADMSCs were associated with significant reduction in pain and improvement in QOL and knee functions in patients with knee OA. However, double arm analyses did not confirm these positive findings, which may be returned to the small sample size of included patients. Therefore, to introduce ADMSCs into clinical practice and establish guidelines for their use, more randomized controlled clinical trials with large sample sizes and long-term follow-ups are needed.     

Romosozumab versus Teriparatide for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis through a Grade Analysis of Evidence

ObjectiveTo provide a systematic review about the efficacy and safety of romosozumab and teriparatide for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.MethodRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched from electronic databases, including PubMed (1996 to June 2019), Embase (1980 to June 2019), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, June 2019), Web of Science (1998 to June 2019), and others. The primary outcomes included the following: the percentage change in bone mineral density of lumbar spine and total hip from baseline at month 6 and month 12 in each group. The secondary outcomes included the following: the percentage change in bone mineral density of femoral neck from baseline at month 6 and month 12 in each group and the incidence of adverse events at month 12 in each group.ResultsFour studies containing 1304 patients met our selection criteria. The result of our analysis indicated that romosozumab showed better effects in improving BMD of lumbar spine (month 6: MD = 3.54, 95% CI [3.13, 3.94], P<0.001; month 12: MD = 4.93, 95% CI [4.21, 5.64], P<0.001), total hip (month 6: MD = 2.27, 95% CI [0.62, 3.91], P = 0.007; month 12: MD = 3.17, 95% CI [2.68, 3.65], P<0.001), and femoral neck (month 6: MD = 2.30, 95% CI [0.51, 4.08], P = 0.01; month 12: MD = 3.04, 95% CI [2.29, 3.78], P<0.001). Also, the injection‐site reaction was less (month 12: RR = 2.84, 95% CI [1.22, 6.59], P = 0.02), but there were no significant difference in the incidence of serious adverse events (month 12: RR = 0.78, 95% CI [0.46, 1.33], P = 0.37) and death (month 12: RR = 0.61, 95% CI [0.08, 4.62], P = 0.63).ConclusionBased on the available studies, our current results demonstrate that romosozumab was better than teriparatide both in terms of efficacy and side effects.     

Early Discharge After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty—An Observational Cohort Study Evaluating Safety in 330,000 Patients

BackgroundThere has been considerable interest in recent years for early discharge after arthroplasty. We endeavored to evaluate the safety of same-day discharge given the rapid uptake of this practice approach.MethodsThis is a retrospective observational cohort study of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry database. We included patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between 2015 and 2018. We categorized length of stay (LOS) as same-day discharge (LOS = 0 days), accelerated discharge (LOS = 1 day), and routine discharge (LOS = 2-3 days). For each LOS cohort, we determined the incidence of major complications within 30 days (surgical site infection [SSI], reoperation, readmission, deep vein thrombosis [DVT], and PE) and evaluated risk using multivariate logistic regression analysis if incidence was >1%. Patients undergoing THA and TKA were evaluated independently.ResultsThe final study cohort consisted of 333,212 patients, including 124,150 who underwent THA (37%) and 209,062 who had TKA (63%). In the THA same-day discharge cohort, the incidence of superficial SSI (0.2%), deep/organ space SSI (0.3%), DVT (0.2%), and PE (0.2%) was low. The risk of reoperation was comparable to routine discharge (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.09; P = .17) and readmission rate was significantly lower (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48-0.76; P < .001). The risk of reoperation and readmission was also lower in the accelerated discharge cohort compared to routine discharge. In the TKA same-day discharge cohort, the risk of superficial SSI (0.3%), deep/organ space SSI (0.3%), reoperation (0.8%), DVT (0.4%), and PE (0.5%) was low. The risk of readmission after same-day discharge was comparable to routine discharge (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01; P = .07). In the accelerated discharge cohort, there was a small reduction in readmission risk (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.93; P < .001).ConclusionThis large, observational, real-world study suggests that same-day and accelerated discharge management is safe clinical practice for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty, yielding a similar risk of major acute 30-day complications. Further clinical trials evaluating long-term major outcomes, including patient-reported outcomes and experiences, would offer further and definitive insight into this practice approach.     

Is Aspirin as Effective as the Newer Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty? An Analysis From the National Joint Registry for England,Wales, Northern Ireland,and the Isle of Man

BackgroundFew studies have compared aspirin with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (DOACs = direct thrombin inhibitors and factor Xa inhibitors) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We assessed the efficacy and safety of aspirin compared with DOACs for VTE prophylaxis after THA and TKA using the world's largest joint arthroplasty registry.MethodsWe studied the National Joint Registry linked to English hospital inpatient episodes for 218,650 THA and TKA patients. Patients receiving aspirin were matched separately to patients receiving direct thrombin inhibitors and factor Xa inhibitors using propensity scores. Outcomes assessed at 90 days included VTE, length of stay, and adverse events.ResultsAfter THA, there was a significantly lower risk of VTE associated with the use of direct thrombin inhibitors (0.44%; odds ratio [OR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.55-0.87; P = .002) and factor Xa inhibitors (0.37%; OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85; P = .003) compared with aspirin (0.63%). After THA, direct thrombin inhibitors (coefficient, −0.37 days; 95% CI, −0.43 to −0.31; P < .001) and factor Xa inhibitors (coefficient, −0.80 days; 95% CI, −0.87 to −0.74; P < .001) were associated with a reduced length of stay compared with aspirin. Similar findings for both outcomes were observed after TKA. Compared with aspirin, DOACs were not associated with an increase in the risk of short-term revision surgery, reoperation, major hemorrhage, wound disruption, surgical site infection, and mortality.ConclusionAfter THA and TKA, DOACs were associated with a reduced risk of VTE compared with aspirin. DOACs were associated with a reduced length of stay, and DOACs were not associated with an increase in the risk of further surgery, wound problems, bleeding complications, or mortality compared with aspirin.     

Hospital Frailty Risk Score Predicts Adverse Events in Primary Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThe Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) is a validated geriatric comorbidity measure derived from routinely collected administrative data. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of the HFRS as a predictor for postoperative adverse events after primary total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty.MethodsIn a retrospective analysis of 8250 patients who had undergone THA or TKA between 2011 and 2019, the HFRS was calculated for each patient. Reoperation rates, readmission rates, complication rates, and transfusion rates were compared between patients with low and intermediate or high frailty risk. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess the relationship between the HFRS and postoperative adverse events.ResultsPatients with intermediate or high frailty risk showed a higher rate of reoperation (10.6% vs 4.1%, P < .001), readmission (9.6% vs 4.3%, P < .001), surgical complications (9.1% vs 1.8%, P < .001), internal complications (7.3% vs 1.1%, P < .001), other complications (24.4% vs 2.0%, P < .001), Clavien-Dindo grade IV complications (4.1% vs 1.5%, P < .001), and transfusion (10.4% vs 1.3%, P < .001). Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed a high HFRS as independent risk factor for reoperation (odds ratio [OR] = 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46-3.09; P < .001), readmission (OR = 1.78; 95% CI, 1.21-2.61; P = .003), internal complications (OR = 3.72; 95% CI, 2.28-6.08; P < .001), surgical complications (OR = 3.74; 95% CI, 2.41-5.82; P < .001), and other complications (OR = 9.00; 95% CI, 6.58-12.32; P < .001).ConclusionThe HFRS predicts adverse events after THA and TKA. As it derives from routinely collected data, the HFRS enables hospitals to identify at-risk patients without extra effort or expense.Level of EvidenceLevel III–retrospective cohort study.     

Effectiveness and safety of endoscopy-assisted versus conventional open lateral neck dissection: A meta-analysis

The objective of this study was to systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic-assisted lateral neck dissection (EALND) compared with conventional open lateral neck dissection (COLND) for the treatment of thyroid cancer with positive lymph node metastases. Medical literature databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wan Fang and VIP were systematically searched for articles that compared EALND and COLND for the treatment of thyroid carcinoma with lymph node metastasis, up to June 2019. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software after two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted information and evaluated the methodological quality of included studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in the selection of seven studies with a total of 372 patients from six non-RCTs and an RCT. The results of meta-analysis showed that EALND was associated with a longer operative time (MD = 24.86, 951CI：21.76 to 27.96, P＜0.05), with a shorter postoperative stay (MD = ?1.45, 95％CI：-2.70 to ?0.21，P = 0.02), reduced length of scar (MD = ?8.14，95％CI：-8.41 to ?7.88, P＜0.00001) and a lower incidence of neck discomfort (OR = 0.19, 95％CI：0.07 to 0.58, P = 0.003) compared with COLND. The incidences in both groups of transient hypocalcemia (OR = 0.66，95％CI：0.28 to 1.55，P = 0.343), transient hoarseness (OR = 0.58，95％CI：0.17 to 1.93，P = 0.38)，chylous fistula (OR = 0.69，95％CI：0.26 to 1.83，P = 0.45), choking on water (OR = 0.24，95％CI：0.04 to 1.31，P = 0.10) and the number of lymph nodes retrieved from the lateral cervical region (MD = 0.14，95％CI：-0.36 to 0.65，P = 0.59) were not statistically significant. It was concluded that EALND was safe and feasible compared with COLND, despite the longer operation time. The incision was more aesthetically pleasing and the postoperative recovery was quicker, which makes EALND a clinical procedure worthy of use in such cases.     

Does Body Mass Index Influence the Outcomes and Survivorship of Modern Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BackgroundHigher body mass index (BMI) has been associated with higher rates of aseptic loosening following cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there is a paucity of evidence on the effect of BMI on the durability of modern cementless TKA. We aimed to assess the association between BMI and clinical outcomes following cementless TKA and to determine if there was a BMI threshold beyond which the risk of revision significantly increased.MethodsWe identified 1,408 cementless TKAs of a modern design from an institutional registry. Patients were classified into BMI categories: normal (n = 136), overweight (n = 476), obese class I (n = 423), II (n = 258), and III (n = 115). The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement and 12-item Short Form Health Survey scores were collected preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. Survivorship was recorded at minimum 2 years (range, 24 to 88 months). BMI was analyzed as a continuous and categorical variable.ResultsThe improvement in patient-reported outcomes was similar across the groups. Thirty four knees (2.4%) were revised and 14 (1.0%) were for aseptic failure. Mean time-to-revision was 1.2 ± 1.3 years and did not differ across BMI categories (P = .455). Survivorship free from all-cause and aseptic revision was 97.1% and 99.0% at mean 4 years, respectively. Using Cox regression to control for demographics and bilateral procedures, BMI had no association with all-cause revision (P = .612) or aseptic revision (P = .186). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis found no relationship between BMI and revision risk (c-statistic = 0.51).ConclusionBMI did not influence functional outcomes and survivorship of modern cementless TKA, possibly due to improved biological fixation at the bone-implant interface. Longer follow-up is necessary to confirm these findings.     

Reoperation rate and implant survivorship compared between cementless and cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty in femoral neck fracture patients with chronic kidney disease

BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) is commonly associated with aging and disorders of mineral and bone metabolism. Femoral neck fracture (FNF) is one of the most common fractures among older adults with coexisting CKD, and bipolar hemiarthroplasty (BHA) is a preferred treatment. However, the optimal method of stem fixation has not been conclusively determined. Accordingly, this study aimed to investigate the reoperation rate and implant survivorship compared between cementless and cemented BHA in FNF patients with CKD.MethodsA total of 183 FNF patients with moderate to severe CKD who underwent BHA during 2003 to 2019 were recruited and divided into either the cemented (CT group, n = 56) or cementless (CL group, 127) groups. Demographic data, preoperative laboratory investigations, preoperative radiographic outcomes, perioperative outcomes, and 90-day morbidity, mortality, and reoperation rates for any reason were recorded and compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare implant survivorship between the CT and CL groups. Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to identify independent risk factors for implant survivorship.ResultsThere were no significant differences in patient characteristics or preoperative data between groups, except for Dorr's classification of proximal femoral geometry. The CT group had a significantly lower proportion of Dorr type A (p = 0.020), and a higher proportion of Dorr type C (p<0.001). The CT group also had significantly more intraoperative blood loss (p<0.01). No significant differences in morbidity or mortality were observed. The median follow-up time in the CT group and CL group was 22.6 months (range: 0–151) and 22.6 months (range 0–154), respectively (p = 0.607). The reoperation rate was 5.4% and 4.7% among CT and CL patients, respectively (p = 1.000). There was no significant difference in the mean survival time between the CT (139.5 ± 6.3 months, 95%CI: 127.1–151.8) and CL (142.5 ± 4.7 months, 95%CI: 133.2–151.7) groups (p = 0.880). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed no independent risk factors for implant survivorship.ConclusionThe results of this study showed no significant differences in the reoperation rate or implant survivorship between cemented and cementless BHA for treating FNF in moderate to severe CKD patients. A well-designed larger and longer-term study is needed to confirm these results.     

Comparison of the Efficacy Between Closed Incisional Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy and Conventional Wound Management After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasties: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundWound-related problems after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can cause periprosthetic joint infections. We sought to evaluate the effect of closed incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) on wound complications, skin blisters, surgical site infections (SSIs), reoperations, and length of hospitalization (LOH).MethodsStudies comparing ciNPWT with conventional dressings following THA and TKA were systematically searched on MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Two reviewers performed the study selection, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. Funnel plots were employed to evaluate publication bias and forest plots to analyze pooled data.ResultsTwelve studies were included herein. The odds ratios (ORs) for wound complications and SSIs indicated a lack of publication bias. ciNPWT showed significantly lower risks of wound complication (OR, 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.9; P = .027) and SSI (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23-0.68; P < .001) than did conventional dressings. ciNPWT also yielded a significantly lower reoperation rate (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.21-0.69; P = .001) and shorter LOH (mean difference, 0.41 days; 95% CI, −0.51 to −0.32; P < .001). However, the rate of skin blisters was higher in ciNPWT (OR, 4.44; 95% CI, 2.24-8.79; P < .001).ConclusionAlthough skin blisters were more likely to develop in ciNPWT, the risks of wound complication, SSI, reoperation, and longer LOH decreased in ciNPWT compared with those in conventional dressings. This finding could alleviate the potential concerns regarding wound-related problems after THA and TKA.