No abstract

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

3.

This animal study presents data suggesting that the use of intra-articular vancomycin powder for reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infections should be investigated further in clinical studies.

Background Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is a well-accepted treatment for acetabular dysplasia, but treatment success is not uniform. Concurrent hip arthroscopy has been proposed for select patients to address intraarticular abnormalities. The patient-reported outcomes, complications, and reoperations for concurrent arthroscopy and PAO to treat acetabular dysplasia remain unclear. Questions/purposes (1) What are the functional outcome scores among select patients treated with PAO plus concurrent hip arthroscopy at mid-term follow-up? (2) What factors are associated with conversion to THA or persistent symptoms (modified Harris hip score ≤ 70 or WOMAC pain subscore ≥ 10)? (3) What proportion of patients underwent further hip preservation surgery at mid-term follow-up? (4) What are the complications associated with the procedure? Methods Between November 2005 and December 2012, 78 patients (81 hips) who presented with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia—defined as a lateral center-edge angle less than 20° with hip pain for more than 3 months that interfered with daily function—had undergone unsuccessful nonsurgical treatment, had associated intraarticular abnormalities on MRI, and underwent combined hip arthroscopy and PAO. Eleven patients did not have minimum 4-year follow-up and were excluded, leaving 67 patients (70 hips) who met our inclusion criteria and had a mean follow-up duration of 6.5 ± 1.6 years. We retrospectively evaluated patient-reported outcomes at final follow-up using the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and the WOMAC pain subscore. Conversion to THA or persistent symptoms were considered clinical endpoints. Repeat surgical procedures were drawn from a prospectively maintained database, and major complications were graded according to the validated Clavien-Dindo classification (Grade III or IV). Student t-tests, chi-square tests, and Fisher exact tests identified the association of patient factors, radiographic measures, and surgical details with clinical endpoints. For patients who underwent bilateral procedures, only the first hip was included in our analyses. Results At final follow-up, the mean mHHS for all patients improved from a mean ± SD of 55 ± 19 points to 85 ± 17 points (p < 0.001), the UCLA activity score improved from 6.5 ± 2.7 points to 7.5 ± 2.2 points (p = 0.01), and the WOMAC pain score improved from 9.1 ± 4.3 points to 3.2 ± 3.9 points (p < 0.001). Three percent (2 of 67) of patients underwent subsequent THA, while 21% (15 of 70) of hips were persistently symptomatic, defined as mHHS less than or equal to 70 or WOMAC pain subscore greater than or equal to 10. Univariate analyses indicated that no patient demographics, preoperative or postoperative radiographic metrics, or intraoperative findings or procedures were associated with subsequent THA or symptomatic hips. Worse baseline mHHS and WOMAC pain scores were associated with subsequent THA or symptomatic hips. Seven percent (5 of 67) of patients underwent repeat hip preservation surgery for recurrent symptoms, and 4% (3 of 67) of patients had major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade III or IV). Conclusion This study demonstrated that concurrent hip arthroscopy and PAO to treat symptomatic acetabular dysplasia (with intraarticular abnormalities) has good clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up in many patients; however, persistent symptoms or conversion to THA affected almost a quarter of the sample. We noted an acceptable complication profile. Further study is needed to directly compare this approach to more traditional techniques that do not involve arthroscopy. We do not use isolated hip arthroscopy to treat symptomatic acetabular dysplasia. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic study.

Up to 20% of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients report dissatisfaction with their outcome, especially with weight-bearing in flexion (WBiF) activities. Sagittal plane instability may contribute to dissatisfaction following TKA. We assessed the impact of implant design on TKA sagittal plane stability and clinical satisfaction. We randomized patients to receive one of two TKA implant designs: medial-stabilized (MS) or posterior-stabilized (PS). Sagittal stability was assessed using a KT-1000 arthrometer. Patient-reported outcome measures, including a custom bank of questions targeting patient satisfaction (0–100%) with WBiF activities, were administered to patients 2 years following surgery. The final analysis included 50 patients (25 MS, 25 PS). The MS group had greater sagittal plane stability than the PS group at 30-degree flexion (5.6 ± 1.9 vs. 10.2 ± 2.7 mm; p < 0.0001) but not at 90-degree flexion (4.1 ± 2 vs. 5.3 ± 3 mm; p = 0.14). Range of motion was not different (111.3 ± 10.4 vs. 114.7 ± 10.7 degrees; p = 0.31). There were no differences in the PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) score, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, Forgotten Joint Score, or Veterans Rand. The MS group had no difference in satisfaction for WBiF activities versus non-WBiF activities (80.5 ± 18 vs. 88.3% ± 16.4%; p = 0.13), whereas the PS group had significantly worse satisfaction for WBiF versus non-WBiF activities (71.6 ± 24.6 vs. 87.8% ± 16.6%; p = 0.019). An MS prosthetic design was more stable in the sagittal plane in midflexion compared with a PS design. There was no difference in patient-reported outcomes, although custom survey data suggest improved satisfaction with MS design during WBiF activities.

The current healthcare environment in America is driven by the concepts of quality, cost containment, and value. In this environment, primary hip and knee arthroplasty procedures have been targeted for cost containment through quality improvement initiatives intended to reduce the incidence of costly complications and readmissions. Accordingly, risk prediction tools have been developed in an attempt to quantify the patient-specific assessment of risk. Risk prediction tools may be useful for the informed consent process, for enhancing risk mitigation efforts, and for risk-adjusting data used for reimbursement and the public reporting of outcomes. The evaluation of risk prediction tools involves statistical measures such as discrimination and calibration to assess accuracy and utility. Furthermore, prediction tools are tuned to the source dataset from which they are derived, require validation with external datasets, and should be recalibrated over time. However, a high-quality, externally validated risk prediction tool for adverse outcomes after primary total joint arthroplasty remains an elusive goal.

No abstract