Comparison of the hospital costs for two-stage reimplantation for deep infection, single-stage revision and primary total elbow arthroplasty

High failure rate of 2-stage revision for the infected total elbow arthroplasty: a single institution's experience

BACKGROUND

Despite 2-stage revision being a common treatment for elbow prosthetic joint infection (PJI), failure rates are high. The purpose of this study was to report on a single institution's experience with 2-stage revisions for elbow PJI and determine risk factors for failed eradication of infection. The secondary purpose was to determine risk factors for needing allograft bone at the second stage of revision in the setting of compromised bone stock.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all 2-stage revision total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs) performed for infection at a single institution between 2006 and 2020. Data collected included demographics and treatment course prior to, during, and after 2-stage revision. Radiographs obtained after explantation and operative reports were reviewed to evaluate for partial component retention and incomplete cement removal. The primary outcome was failed eradication of infection, defined as the need for repeat surgery to treat infection after the second-stage revision. The secondary outcome was the use of allograft for compromised bone stock during the second-stage revision. Risk factors for both outcomes were determined.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients were included. Seven patients (37%) had either the humeral or ulnar component retained during the first stage, and 10 (53%) had incomplete removal of cement in either the humerus or ulna. Nine patients (47%) had allograft strut used during reimplantation and reconstruction. Nine patients (47%) failed to eradicate the infection after 2-stage revision. Demographic data were similar between the repeat-infection and nonrepeat-infection groups. Six patients (60%) with retained cement failed compared with 3 patients (33%) with full cement removal (P = .370). Two patients (29%) with a retained component failed compared to 7 patients (58%) with full component removal (P = .350). Allograft was used less frequently when a well-fixed component or cement was retained, with no patients with a retained component needing allograft compared to 9 with complete component removal (P = .003). Three patients (30%) with retained cement needed allograft, compared with 6 patients (67%) who had complete cement removal (P = .179).

CONCLUSION

Nearly half of the patients failed to eradicate infection after 2-stage revision. The data did not demonstrate a clear association between retained cement or implants and risk of recurrent infection. Allograft was used less frequently when a component and cement were retained, possibly serving as a proxy for decreased bone loss during the first stage of revision. Therefore, the unclear benefit of removing well-fixed components and cement need to be carefully considered as it likely leads to compromised bone stock that complicates the second stage of revision.

Prognostic factors associated with failure of total elbow replacement: a protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Total elbow replacement (TER) has higher failure rates requiring revision surgery compared with the replacement of other joints. Understanding the factors associated with failure is essential for informed decision-making between patients and clinicians, and for reducing the failure rate. This review aims to identify, describe and appraise the literature examining prognostic factors for failure of TER.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This systematic review will be conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. Electronic literature searches will be conducted using Medline, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane. The search strategy will be broad, including a combination of subject headings (MESH) and free text search. This search will be supplemented with a screening of reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews. Two independent reviewers will screen all search results in two stages (title and abstract, and full text) based on the Population, Index prognostic factor, Comparator prognostic factor, Outcome, Time and Setting criteria. The types of evidence included will be randomised trials, non-randomised trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, registry studies and case-control studies. If the literature lacks enough studies, then case series with 50 or more TERs will be considered for inclusion. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment for included studies will be performed by two independent reviewers using the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies for Prognostic Factors and Quality In Prognostic Studies tools.Meta-analyses of prognostic estimates for each factor will be undertaken for studies that are deemed to be sufficiently robust and comparable. Several challenges are likely to arise due to heterogeneity between studies, therefore, subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to account for the differences between studies. Heterogeneity will be assessed using Q and I2 statistics. If I2>40% then pooled estimates will not be reported. When quantitative synthesis is not possible, a narrative synthesis will be undertaken. The quality of the evidence for each prognostic factor will be assessed using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023384756.

Comparison of direct surgical cost for humeral shaft fracture fixation: open reduction internal fixation versus intramedullary nailing

Background and/or Hypothesis

Prior literature has supported similar complication rates and outcomes for humeral shaft fractures treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) with a plate/screw construct versus intramedullary nailing (IMN). The purpose of this study is to determine whether surgical encounter total direct costs (SETDCs) differ between ORIF and IMN for these fractures.

Methods

Adult patients (≥ 18 years) treated for isolated humeral shaft fractures by ORIF or IMN between June 18, 2014 and June 17, 2019 at a single tertiary academic center were available for inclusion. SETDCs for ORIF and IMN groups, obtained through our institution's information technology value tool, were adjusted to 2019 US dollars and converted to relative costs per institutional policy. SETDCs for ORIF and IMN were compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Results

Demographic factors did not differ between ORIF and IMN cohorts with the exception of age (mean of 18.6 years older for IMN; P < .001) and American Society of Anesthesiologist class (higher for IMN; P = .029). Substantial cost variation was observed among the 39 included ORIF and 21 IMN cases. Costs pertaining to operating room utilization (P = .77), implants (P = .64), and the recovery room (P = .27) were similar for ORIF and IMN, whereas supply costs were significantly greater for IMN with a median (interquartile range) of 0.21 (0.17 ∼ 0.28), more than twice the supply costs of ORIF (0.09 [0.05 ∼ 0.13], P < .001). The SETDC of IMN was significantly greater than that of ORIF (median [interquartile range]:1.00 [0.9 to 1.13] vs. 0.83 [0.71∼1.05], respectively; P = .047).

Discussion and/or Conclusion

Our study found that the SETDC for humeral shaft fracture fixation was greater for IMN than for ORIF, although patient cohorts differed significantly with respect to age and the American Society of Anesthesiologist class. Surgeons should take these findings into consideration when consenting patients with humeral shaft fractures for the appropriate fixation type.

Evaluation of factors driving cost variation for distal humerus open reduction internal fixation

Background

Distal humerus fracture open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) represents a substantial cost burden to the health care system. The purpose of this study was to describe surgical encounter cost variation for distal humerus ORIF, and to determine demographic-, injury-, and treatment-specific factors that influence cost.

Methods

We retrospectively identified adult patients (≥18 years) treated for isolated distal humerus fractures between July 2014 and July 2019 at a single tertiary academic referral center. For each case, surgical encounter total direct costs (SETDCs) were obtained via our institution's information technology value tools, which prospectively record granular direct cost data for every health care encounter. Costs were converted to 2019 dollars using the personal consumption expenditure indices for health and summarized with descriptive statistics. Univariate and multivariate linear regression models were used to identify factors influencing SETDC.

Results

Surgical costs varied widely for the 47 included patients, with a standard deviation (SD) of 33% and interquartile range of 76%-124% relative to the mean SETDC. Implant and facility costs were responsible for 46.2% and 32.6% of the SETDC, respectively. Implant costs also varied considerably, with an SD of 21% and range from 13%-36% relative to the mean SETDC. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that SETDC increased 24% (P < .001) on performing an olecranon osteotomy, and by 15% for each additional 1 hour of surgical time (P < .001). These findings were independent of age, sex, body mass index, open fracture, need for an additional small plate construct as a reduction aid, and fracture pattern (all insignificant in the multivariate analysis, with P >.05 for each factor).

Conclusion

Substantial variations in surgical encounter total direct costs for distal humerus ORIF exist, as do wide variations in associated implant costs that comprise nearly half of the entire surgical cost. Performing an olecranon osteotomy, and increased surgical time, significantly increased surgical costs. Although use of an olecranon osteotomy may not be a completely controllable factor as it is confounded by fracture severity and operative time, this may suggest that surgeons should try to use an olecranon osteotomy judiciously. Although complexity of the fracture pattern was statistically insignificant, it is confounded by the need for an olecranon osteotomy and increased surgical time and likely is a clinically relevant and nonmodifiable driver of surgical cost. These findings highlight opportunities to reduce cost variation, and potentially improve the value of care, for distal humerus ORIF patients.

Revision total elbow arthroplasty: Is it safe to perform a single-stage revision for presumed aseptic loosening based on clinical assessment, normal inflammatory markers, and a negative aspiration?

BACKGROUND

Revision total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is a challenging procedure that is becoming increasingly common. In our unit, we regard it as essential to exclude infection as the underlying cause of TEA loosening. In all patients with arthroplasty loosening, we undertake a careful history and examination, perform radiographs, monitor inflammatory markers, and undertake a joint aspiration. If any investigation suggests infection as the etiology, then a 2-stage revision is undertaken. Open biopsies are not routinely performed. The aim was to ascertain from our outcomes whether it is safe to perform a single-stage revision for presumed aseptic loosening using these criteria.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a consecutive series of revision TEAs was performed in our unit over a 10-year period (2008-2018). Single-stage revisions performed for presumed aseptic loosening were identified. Case notes, radiographs, bloods, aspiration results, and microbiology of tissue samples taken at revision were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 123 revision elbow arthroplasty cases were performed in the study period. Sixty cases were revised for preoperatively proven infection, instability, or implant failure and were excluded from this study. In 63 cases, aseptic loosening was diagnosed based on history, clinical examination, blood markers, and aspiration. There were 21 dual-component and 42 single-component revisions. In the dual-component revision group, tissue samples taken at the time of revision were positive in only 1 case (5%). In the single-component revision group, positive culture samples were present in 3 cases (7%). χ² analysis showed no significant difference between single- and dual-component revisions (P = .76). No cases with positive culture samples from either group have required subsequent revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

Given the results of this study, we conclude that is safe to perform single-stage revision arthroplasty for implant loosening based on history, examination, normal inflammatory markers, and negative aspiration results without the need for open biopsy.

The use of tobacco is a modifiable risk factor for poor outcomes and readmissions after shoulder arthroplasty

Aims

The impact of tobacco use on readmission and medical and surgical complications has been documented in hip and knee arthroplasty. However, there remains little information about the effect of smoking on the outcome after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). We hypothesized that active smokers are at an increased risk of poor medical and surgial outcomes after TSA.

Methods

Data for patients who underwent arthroplasty of the shoulder in the USA between January 2011 and December 2015 were obtained from the National Readmission Database, and 90-day readmissions and complications were documented using validated coding methods. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to quantify the risk of smoking on the outcome after TSA, while controlling for patient demographics, comorbidities, and hospital-level confounding factors.

Results

A total of 196,325 non-smokers (93.1%) and 14,461 smokers (6.9%) underwent TSA during the five-year study period. Smokers had significantly increased rates of 30- and 90-day readmission (p = 0.025 and 0.001, respectively), revision within 90 days (p < 0.001), infection (p < 0.001), wound complications (p < 0.001), and instability of the prosthesis (p < 0.001). They were also at significantly greater risk of suffering from pneumonia (p < 0.001), sepsis (p = 0.001), and myocardial infarction (p < 0.001), postoperatively.

Conclusion

Smokers have an increased risk of readmission and medical and surgical complications after TSA. These risks are similar to those found for smokers after hip and knee arthroplasty. Many surgeons choose to avoid these elective procedures in patients who smoke. The increased risks should be considered when counselling patients who smoke before undertaking TSA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1549–1554.

The use of tobacco is a modifiable risk factor for poor outcomes and readmissions after shoulder arthroplasty

AIMS

The impact of tobacco use on readmission and medical and surgical complications has been documented in hip and knee arthroplasty. However, there remains little information about the effect of smoking on the outcome after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). We hypothesized that active smokers are at an increased risk of poor medical and surgial outcomes after TSA.

METHODS

Data for patients who underwent arthroplasty of the shoulder in the USA between January 2011 and December 2015 were obtained from the National Readmission Database, and 90-day readmissions and complications were documented using validated coding methods. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to quantify the risk of smoking on the outcome after TSA, while controlling for patient demographics, comorbidities, and hospital-level confounding factors.

RESULTS

A total of 196,325 non-smokers (93.1%) and 14,461 smokers (6.9%) underwent TSA during the five-year study period. Smokers had significantly increased rates of 30- and 90-day readmission (p = 0.025 and 0.001, respectively), revision within 90 days (p < 0.001), infection (p < 0.001), wound complications (p < 0.001), and instability of the prosthesis (p < 0.001). They were also at significantly greater risk of suffering from pneumonia (p < 0.001), sepsis (p = 0.001), and myocardial infarction (p < 0.001), postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Smokers have an increased risk of readmission and medical and surgical complications after TSA. These risks are similar to those found for smokers after hip and knee arthroplasty. Many surgeons choose to avoid these elective procedures in patients who smoke. The increased risks should be considered when counselling patients who smoke before undertaking TSA.

Therapeutic postoperative anticoagulation is a risk factor for wound complications, infection, and revision after shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship between postoperative therapeutic anticoagulation, wound complications, infection, and revision.

METHODS

Using a national insurance database from 2007 to 2016, patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty with an indication for postoperative therapeutic anticoagulation in the case of atrial fibrillation or acute postoperative venous thromboembolism were identified. Those with a prescription for a therapeutic anticoagulant within 2 weeks of surgery were identified and compared with controls without postoperative therapeutic anticoagulant prescriptions. Wound complications and postoperative infection at 3 and 6 months, and revision shoulder arthroplasty at 6 months and all time points were then compared in the database using a multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 17,272 patients were included, including 684 patients who received therapeutic anticoagulation and 16,588 controls. Patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation experienced increased wound complications at 3 months (odds ratio [OR] 3.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-4.6, P < .0001) and 6 months (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.7-3.8, P < .0001). Patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation also experienced increased rates of wound infection at 3 months (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.0, P = .007) and 6 months (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4-2.3, P < .0001). Finally, patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation experienced increased rates of revision surgery at 6 months (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3-2.5, P = .0003) and within 9 years (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.0, P = .007).

CONCLUSIONS

Wound complications and revision rates in patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty who require postoperative therapeutic anticoagulation are significantly elevated compared with controls.

Treatment of elbow periprosthetic joint infection: a systematic review of clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the elbow is a relatively common complication after total elbow arthroplasty (TEA), and its treatment is frequently variable. Few articles have provided direct comparisons of outcomes, making it difficult to draw conclusions from the available literature. This systematic review synthesizes the English-language literature on elbow PJI to quantify treatment outcomes.

METHODS

The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched in December 2018. Our review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Keywords included "elbow replacement infection" and "elbow arthroplasty infection." A total of 1056 titles were identified; after application of the exclusion criteria, 41 studies met the screening criteria and underwent full-text review. Fifteen articles were included for the final analysis regarding demographic characteristics, risk factors, infecting organisms, success of eradication of infection based on surgical method, and functional outcomes of specific treatment regimens.

RESULTS

Among the 15 articles selected, there were 309 TEA infections. Staphylococcus aureus was the most frequently isolated organism (42.4%), followed by coagulase-negative staphylococci (32.6%). Risk factors for the development of elbow PJI included rheumatoid arthritis, steroid use, an immunocompromised state, and previous elbow surgery. The rate of successful infection eradication was highest with 2-stage revision (81.2%) and lowest with irrigation and débridement for component retention (55.8%). The level of evidence was IV in 14 studies and III in 1 study.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review of TEA infections, Staphylococcus species represent the most common infecting organism. Two-stage revision was the most effective treatment for elbow PJI, showing the lowest recurrence rate for infection.

Total Elbow Arthroplasty: Clinical Outcomes, Complications, and Revision Surgery

Total elbow arthroplasty is a common surgical procedure used in the management of advanced rheumatoid arthritis, posttraumatic arthritis, osteoarthritis, and unfixable fracture in elderly patients. Total elbow prostheses have evolved over the years and now include the linked, unlinked, and convertible types. However, long-term complications, including infection, aseptic loosening, instability, and periprosthetic fracture, remain a challenge. Here, we introduce each type of implant and evaluate clinical outcomes and complications by reviewing the previous literature.

One- and two-stage surgical revision of infected elbow prostheses following total joint replacement: a systematic review

Background

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a challenging complication of total elbow replacement (TER). Potential surgical treatments include one- or two-stage revision; however, the best treatment for elbow PJI is not clearly defined. We conducted a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to compare the clinical effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision surgery for elbow PJI using re-infection (recurrent and new infections) rates; mortality; clinical measures of function, pain, and satisfaction; and non-infection related adverse events.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library were searched up to June 2019 to identify observational cohort studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that had recruited patients with elbow PJI following TER and treated with one- or two-stage revision. Of 96 retrieved articles, 2 one-stage and 6 two-stage revision studies were eligible. No RCT was identified. Arcsine transformation was used in estimating rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Staphylococcus aureus was the most common causative organism for PJI of the elbow (24 of 71 elbow PJIs). The re-infection rate (95% CI) for one-stage (7 elbows) ranged from 0.0% (0.0–79.3) to 16.7% (3.0–56.4) and that for two-stage revision (87 elbows) from 0.0% (0.0–49.0) to 20.0% (3.6–62.4). Non-infection related adverse event rate for one-stage (based on a single study) was 16.7% (3.0–56.4) and that for two-stage ranged from 11.8% (4.7–26.6) to 20.0% (3.6–62.4). There were no mortality events recorded following one- or two-stage revision surgery and postoperative clinical measures of function, pain, and satisfaction could not be effectively compared because of limited data.

Conclusions

No strong conclusions can be drawn because of limited data. The one-stage revision may be potentially at least as clinically effective as two-stage revision, but further data is needed. There are clear gaps in the existing literature and studies are urgently warranted to assess the clinical effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies for PJI following TER.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO 2018: CRD42018118002.