Siraj A. Sayeed

Minimizing Dynamic Knee Spacer Complications in Infected Revision Arthroplasty

BackgroundDeep infections are devastating complications of TKA often treated with component explantation, intravenous antibiotics, and antibiotic-impregnated cement spacers. Historically, the spacers have been static, which may limit patients’ ROM and ability to walk. Several recent reports describe dynamic spacers, which may allow for improved ROM and make later reimplantation easier. However, because of several dynamic spacer problems noted at our institution, we wanted to assess their associated failures, reinfection rates, and functionality.Questions/purposesWe therefore asked whether there were differences between static and dynamic spacers in (1) reinfection rates, (2) complications directly related to the spacer, and (3) final patient functionality as measured by Knee Society objective scores and ROM.Patients and MethodsWe retrospectively identified 111 patients (115 knees) with 34 dynamic spacers (30%) and 81 static spacers (70%). Reinfection rates, complications requiring additional surgery, and final Knee Society scores and ROM were collected for all patients.ResultsReinfection rates were comparable between groups. In the dynamic spacer cohort, there were four complications; however, these could all be explained by surgical technical errors or patient weightbearing compliance. All patients with failed results eventually underwent successful two-stage exchange arthroplasty. Final Knee Society scores and ROM were also similar between groups.ConclusionsReinfection rates, Knee Society scores, and ROM were comparable between the static and dynamic spacer groups. Meticulous surgical technique and proper patient selection should be used to avoid any complications with any spacers.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

State of the art in hard-on-hard bearings: how did we get here and what have we achieved?

Total hip arthroplasty has shown excellent results in decreasing pain and improving function in patients with degenerative disease of the hip. Improvements in prosthetic materials, designs and implant fixation have now resulted in wear of the bearing surface being the limitation of this technology, and a number of hard-on-hard couples have been introduced to address this concern. The purpose of this article is to review the origins, development, survival rates and potential advantages and disadvantages of the following hard-on-hard bearings for total hip arthroplasty: metal-on-metal standard total hip arthroplasty; metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty, ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty; and ceramic-on-metal bearings. Improvements in the manufacturing of metal-on-metal bearings over the past 50 years have resulted in implants that provide low wear rates and allow for the use of large femoral heads. However, concerns remain regarding elevated serum metal ion levels, potential teratogenic effects and potentially devastating adverse local tissue reactions, whose incidence and pathogenesis remains unclear. Modern total hip resurfacing has shown excellent outcomes over 10 years in the hands of experienced surgeons. Current ceramic-on-ceramic bearings have demonstrated excellent survival with exceptionally low wear rates and virtually no local adverse effects. Concerns remain for insertional chipping, in vivo fracture and the variable incidence of squeaking. Contemporary ceramic-on-metal interfaces are in the early stages of clinical use, with little data reported to date. Hard-on-hard bearings for total hip arthroplasty have improved dramatically over the past 50 years. As bearing designs continue to improve with new and modified materials and improved manufacturing techniques, it is likely that the use of hard-on-hard bearings will continue to increase, especially in young and active patients.

The risk of subsequent joint arthroplasty after primary unilateral total knee arthroplasty, a 10-year study.

The purposes of this study were to determine the probabilities of subsequent lower extremity arthroplasty after index knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and to evaluate the demographic as well as radiographic factors that may predict progression to arthroplasty in the contralateral knee. Between 1984 and 1994, 646 patients, aged 40 to 75 years, with a primary cruciate-retaining knee were identified. The 10-year probability of having a contralateral knee after index knee was 36%. When grade 4 radiographic changes were present, the probability increased to 70%. Demographic factors played no role in the risk of future contralateral knee. The radiographic grade of the contralateral knee at the time of index surgery was found to correlate strongly with the future risk of contralateral total knee.

Economic Impact of Ketorolac vs Corticosteroid Intra-Articular Knee Injections for Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND Knee osteoarthritis is a disabling disease that costs billions of dollars to treat. Corticosteroid gives varying pain relief and costs

Tranexamic Acid Use in Total Joint Arthroplasty: The Clinical Practice Guidelines Endorsed by the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Hip Society, and Knee Society

12 per injection, whereas ketorolac costs

The Safety of Tranexamic Acid in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Direct Meta-Analysis

2 per injection, per institutional costs. The aim of this study was to compare ketorolac with corticosteroid based on pain relief using patient outcome measures and cost data. METHODS A total of 35 patients were randomized to ketorolac or corticosteroid intra-articular knee injection in a double-blind, prospective study. Follow-up was 24 weeks. Osteoarthritis was evaluated using Kellgren-Lawrence grading. Visual analog scale (VAS) was the primary outcome measure. A query of the institutional database was performed for International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes 715.16 and 719.46, and procedure code 20610 over a 3-year period. Two-way, repeated measures analysis of variance and Spearman rank correlation were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS Mean VAS for ketorolac and corticosteroid decreased significantly from baseline at 2 weeks, 6.3-4.6 and 5.2-3.6, respectively and remained decreased for 24 weeks. There was no correlation between VAS and demographics within treatments. There were 220, 602, and 405 injections performed on patients with the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes 715.16 and 719.46 during 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively. The cost savings per year using ketorolac instead of corticosteroid would be

The Efficacy of Tranexamic Acid in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Network Meta-Analysis

2259.40,

Patient-Reported Activity Level After Total Knee Arthroplasty

6182.54, and

Survival of Hard-on-Hard Bearings in Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

4159.35 for 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively, with a total savings of

Hip Resurfacing in Patients Who Have Osteonecrosis and are 25 Years or Under

12,601.29 over this period. CONCLUSION Pain relief was similar between ketorolac and corticosteroid injections. Ketorolac knee injection is safe and effective with a cost savings percentage difference of 143% when compared with corticosteroid.