M. Bas

Risk Factors for Wound Complications After Direct Anterior Approach Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND Previous studies have suggested that wound complications may be higher after direct anterior approach (DAA) hip arthroplasty, but, specific risk factors have not been closely examined. METHODS We conducted a retrospective case-control study of 651 consecutive DAA hip arthroplasty surgeries performed by 2 surgeons over a 3-year period. Outcome measures included any postoperative wound problem (including prolonged drainage, wound dehiscence, wound necrosis, suture granuloma, and superficial infection) requiring additional intervention or reoperation. Univariate odds ratios (ORs) were calculated, and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine risk correlation. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were created to determine disease predictability. RESULTS A total of 75 patients (11.5%) experienced wound complications requiring additional intervention, of which, 13 (1.9%) required reoperation. Multivariate regression analysis found that development of wound complications was significantly and independently associated with body mass index (BMI) 30-35 kg/m2 (OR 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-3.88), BMI 35-40 kg/m2 (OR 3.40; 95% CI 1.42-8.26), BMI > 40 kg/m2 (OR 7.28; 95% CI 2.55-20.78), and diabetes mellitus (OR 2.97; 95% CI 1.46-6.07). Reoperation for wound complication was significantly associated with BMI > 40 kg/m2 (OR 5.68; 95% CI 1.17-27.48) and diabetes mellitus (OR 13.08; 95% CI 3.97-43.11). Optimal cutoff values for BMI were found through receiver operator characteristic curve analysis to be 28.0 kg/m2 for development of wound complications and 28.2 kg/m2 for reoperation for wound complications. CONCLUSION Obesity and diabetes mellitus are significantly associated with postoperative wound-healing complications and the need for reoperation for these wound complications after DAA hip arthroplasty.

Revision Arthroplasty for the Management of Stiffness After Primary TKA

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of revision surgery for the treatment of stiffness after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS An IRB-approved retrospective review was performed to identify patients who were revised due to stiffness after a primary TKA. Patients were included when at least one major component had to be revised due to stiffness after primary TKA with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients with history of previous infection and those treated with isolated polyethylene exchange were excluded. RESULTS The study group involved 42 knees. Mean follow-up was 47 months (24-109 months). Mean flexion contracture improved from 9.7° (0°-35°) preoperatively to 2.3° (0°-20°) postoperatively (P < .00). Mean flexion improved from 81.5° (10°-125°) preoperatively to 94.3° (15°-140°) postoperatively (P .02). Mean range of motion improved from 72.0° preoperatively (10°-100°) to 92° (15°-140°) postoperatively (P < .00). Mean Knee Society knee scores improved from 43.9 points (15-67) preoperatively to 72.0 points (50-93) at latest follow-up and mean Knee Society Function scores improved from 48.7 (35-80) preoperatively to 70.1 points (30-90) postoperatively. Pain improved in 73% of the patients. CONCLUSION Revision surgery appears to be a reasonable option for patients presenting with pain and stiffness after TKA. However, the benefits may be modest as the outcomes still do not approach those achieved with primary TKA.

Closed incision negative pressure therapy decreases complications after periprosthetic fracture surgery around the hip and knee

INTRODUCTION Periprosthetic fractures (PPFXs) are becoming increasingly common following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Patients sustaining PPFXs face considerable perioperative morbidity, with relatively increased rates of surgical site infection. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of closed-incision negative-pressure wound therapy (ciNPT) in decreasing perioperative wound complications following lower extremity periprosthetic fracture surgery. METHODS We performed a retrospective review of 69 consecutive patients who underwent surgery to address lower extremity periprosthetic fractures around hip or knee implants performed over a 6.5-year period. The population was divided into two groups based on the surgical dressing used at the conclusion of the procedure: (1) a sterile, antimicrobial hydrofiber dressing, or (2) ciNPT. There were no baseline demographic differences between the two groups. Rates of wound complications, surgical site infection, and reoperation related to the surgical site were compared between groups. Continuous variables were analyzed using a students t-test, and categorical variables using either chi-square or fishers exact test. RESULTS Patients treated with ciNPT developed fewer wound complications (4% vs. 35%; p=0.002), fewer deep infections (0% vs. 25%; p=0.004), and underwent fewer reoperations related to the surgical site (4% vs. 25%; p=0.021) compared to patients treated with standard of care. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that ciNPT may reduce wound complications, SSIs, and reoperations in patients undergoing lower extremity periprosthetic fracture surgery. This is the first study to investigate ciNPT as a treatment for periprosthetic fracture surgery, and has the potential to change the postoperative management of these patients.