Innovations in the Isolation and Treatment of Biofilms in Periprosthetic Joint Infection: A Comprehensive Review of Current and Emerging Therapies in Bone and Joint Infection Management

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are a devastating complication of joint arthroplasty surgeries that are often complicated by biofilm formation. The development of biofilms makes PJI treatment challenging as they create a barrier against antibiotics and host immune responses. This review article provides an overview of the current understanding of biofilm formation, factors that contribute to their production, and the most common organisms involved in this process. This article focuses on the identification of biofilms, as well as current methodologies and emerging therapies in the management of biofilms in PJI.

Aspirin prophylaxis is not associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolism in arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures: a non-inferiority study

PURPOSE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a known complication of hip arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures (FNF) with various prophylactic anticoagulants utilized to decrease risk. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and perioperative outcomes associated with aspirin for VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty for FNF.

METHODS

Medical records of 1,220 patients who underwent hip hemiarthroplasty (HHA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) at an urban academic center from 2011 to 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes, including length of stay (LOS), VTE, 90-day hospital encounters, and discharge disposition, were collected. Outcomes for patients prescribed aspirin (n = 214) were compared to those prescribed non-aspirin VTE prophylaxis (n = 1006) using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Patients who received aspirin had higher rates of THA (36.0 vs 26.7%; p = 0.008). There were no significant risk-adjusted differences in the incidence of VTE (0.5 vs 0.5%, p = 1.000) and 90-day readmissions (10.4 vs 12.3%, p = 0.646) between patients prescribed aspirin and non-aspirin VTE prophylaxis, respectively. Patients prescribed non-aspirin agents had higher rates of non-home discharge (73.9 vs 58.5%; p < 0.001) and longer LOS (143.5 vs 124.9 h; p = 0.005). Sub-analysis of patients prescribed aspirin and non-aspirin prophylaxis based on comorbidity scores demonstrated no difference in VTE incidence for low (0.0 vs 1.6%, p = 1.000) and high scores (0.0 vs 0.0%, p = 1.000), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Aspirin is not associated with increased incidence of VTE after HHA or THA for FNF. Aspirin prophylaxis should be considered in hip fracture patients to mitigate bleeding risk, particularly those with low to intermediate VTE risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Retrospective study.

Aseptic Acetabular Revisions ≤90 Days, 91 Days to 2 Years, and >2 Years After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Comparing Etiologies, Complications, and Postoperative Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Isolated acetabular component revision is an effective treatment for revision total hip arthroplasty patients who have well-fixed femoral implants. We aimed to evaluate the modes of acetabular failure following primary total hip arthroplasty and to identify factors associated with increased morbidities and postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis and identified 318 isolated aseptic acetabular revisions. We separated patients by ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years for acetabular revisions and compared demographics, reasons for revision, 90-day readmissions, rerevisions, and postrevision infections. Revisions ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years accounted for 10.7, 19.2, and 70.1% of revisions, respectively. Revisions ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years had their primary total hip arthroplasty at a mean age of 66, 63, and 55 years (P < .001), respectively.

RESULTS

Revisions within 90 days were mainly indicated for dislocation/instability (58.8%) or periprosthetic fracture (23.5%) while revisions over 2 years were indicated for polyethylene wear/osteolysis (37.2%). Patients with revisions past 90 days were more likely to require rerevision compared to patients with revisions within 90 days (P < .001). There were no differences in readmissions (P = .28) or infection rates (P = .37).

CONCLUSIONS

Acetabular revisions within 90 days were more commonly indicated for instability and periprosthetic fracture, while those over 2 years were indicated for polyethylene wear. Revisions past 90 days were more likely to require subsequent rerevisions without increased 90-day readmissions or infections.

LEVEL III EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study.

Mid-term outcomes of a kinematically designed cruciate retaining total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Advances in implant material and design have allowed for improvements in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes. A cruciate retaining (CR) TKA provides the least constraint of TKA designs by preserving the native posterior cruciate ligament. Limited research exists that has examined clinical outcomes or patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of a large cohort of patients undergoing a CR TKA utilizing a kinematically designed implant. It was hypothesized that the studied CR Knee System would demonstrate favorable outcomes and a clinically significant improvement in pain and functional scores.

AIM

To assess both short-term and mid-term clinical outcomes and PROMs of a novel CR TKA design.

METHODS

A retrospective, multi-surgeon study identified 255 knees undergoing a TKA utilizing a kinematically designed CR Knee System (JOURNEY™ II CR; Smith and Nephew, Inc., Memphis, TN) at an urban, academic medical institution between March 2015 and July 2021 with a minimum of two-years of clinical follow-up with an orthopedic surgeon. Patient demographics, surgical information, clinical outcomes, and PROMs data were collected via query of electronic medical records. The PROMs collected in the present study included the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) scores. The significance of improvements in mean PROM scores from preoperative scores to scores collected at six months and two-years postoperatively was analyzed using Independent Samples t-tests.

RESULTS

Of the 255 patients, 65.5% were female, 43.8% were White, and patients had an average age of 60.6 years. Primary osteoarthritis (96.9%) was the most common primary diagnosis. The mean surgical time was 105.3 minutes and mean length of stay was 2.1 d with most patients discharged home (92.5%). There were 18 emergency department (ED) visits within 90 d of surgery resulting in a 90 d ED visit rate of 7.1%, including a 2.4% orthopedic-related ED visit rate and a 4.7% non-orthopedic-related ED visit rate. There were three (1.2%) hospital readmissions within 90 d postoperatively. With a mean time to latest follow-up of 3.3 years, four patients (1.6%) required revision, two for arthrofibrosis, one for aseptic femoral loosening, and one for peri-prosthetic joint infection. There were significant improvements in KOOS JR, PROMIS Pain Intensity, PROMIS Pain Interference, PROMIS Mobility, and PROMIS Physical Health from preoperative scores to six month and two-year postoperative scores.

CONCLUSION

The evaluated implant is an effective, novel design offering excellent outcomes and low complication rates. At a mean follow up of 3.3 years, four patients required revisions, three aseptic and one septic, resulting in an overall implant survival rate of 98.4% and an aseptic survival rate of 98.8%. The results of our study demonstrate the utility of this kinematically designed implant in the setting of primary TKA.

Human versus artificial intelligence-generated arthroplasty literature: A single-blinded analysis of perceived communication, quality, and authorship source

BACKGROUND

Large language models (LLM) have unknown implications for medical research. This study assessed whether LLM-generated abstracts are distinguishable from human-written abstracts and to compare their perceived quality.

METHODS

The LLM ChatGPT was used to generate 20 arthroplasty abstracts (AI-generated) based on full-text manuscripts, which were compared to originally published abstracts (human-written). Six blinded orthopaedic surgeons rated abstracts on overall quality, communication, and confidence in the authorship source. Authorship-confidence scores were compared to a test value representing complete inability to discern authorship.

RESULTS

Modestly increased confidence in human authorship was observed for human-written abstracts compared with AI-generated abstracts (p = 0.028), though AI-generated abstract authorship-confidence scores were statistically consistent with inability to discern authorship (p = 0.999). Overall abstract quality was higher for human-written abstracts (p = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

AI-generated abstracts' absolute authorship-confidence ratings demonstrated difficulty in discerning authorship but did not achieve the perceived quality of human-written abstracts. Caution is warranted in implementing LLMs into scientific writing.

Two-Year Outcomes of Novel Dual-Mobility Implant in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

Introduction

Dual-mobility (DM) implants for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have gained popularity due to their potential to reduce hip instability and dislocation events that may lead to revision surgery. These implants consist of a femoral head articulated within a polyethylene liner, which articulates within an outer acetabular shell, creating a dual-bearing surface. Our study aimed to report our observations on the survivorship of a novel DM implant for primary total hip arthroplasty at two years.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, multicenter study to assess the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing a THA with a novel DM implant (OR3O acetabular system™, Smith & Nephew, Inc., Memphis, TN) from January 2020 to September 2021. Patient demographics, surgical information, and survivorship data were collected from medical records for patients with a minimum of two years of follow-up. Primary outcomes included overall implant survivorship at two years as well as aseptic survivorship, revision rates of the DM acetabular shell, and average time to revision. Patient-reported outcomes were collected in the form of HOOS JR.

Results

A total of 250 hips in 245 patients had a minimum two-year follow-up. Primary osteoarthritis (80%) was the most common indication for index THA. The average aseptic survivorship of the DM acetabular components at two years for the cohort was 98.4% and survivorship of the acetabular implants overall was 97.6%. There were a total of four (1.6%) aseptic revisions of the DM acetabular component. Reasons for aseptic acetabular revision included one case of instability, one intraprosthetic dislocation, one periprosthetic acetabular fracture, and one malpositioned acetabular cup resulting in impingement. The mean time of follow-up was 893.9 days. Eighty-seven patients had preoperative and two-year HOOS JR available. HOOS JR improved by an average of 38.5 points.

Conclusion

This novel DM acetabular implant demonstrates excellent survivorship at two years follow-up with low rates of instability and intraprosthetic dislocation and no episodes of metal-on-metal corrosion. Use of the DM implant demonstrated clinically relevant improvements in patient-reported outcomes at two years.

Treatment of Intraoperative Trochanteric Fractures During Primary and Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Intraoperative trochanteric fractures during primary and revision total hip arthroplasty typically occur during femoral canal preparation and component placement. Several fixation strategies, including wires, cables, cable grips, and plating, are available for fracture fixation. Surgeons should consider patient activity level preoperatively, bone mineral density, and fracture morphology when deciding on fixation strategies. Patient activity must be modified postoperatively to prevent fracture displacement and additional complications. Patients must be counseled postoperatively about the possibility of decreased clinical outcomes.

Can pain be improved with retention of the posterior cruciate ligament during total knee arthroplasty?

PURPOSE

The purpose of the current study was to determine if differences exist between cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) implant articulations for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with regards to early post-operative pain.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent primary TKA, with the same TKA implant design, at our institution between January 2018 and July 2021. Patients were stratified based on whether they received a CR or non-constrained PS (PSnC) articulation and propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio. A sub-analysis matching patient who received a constrained PS implant (PSC) to those undergoing CR TKA and PSnC TKA was also carried out. Opioid dosages were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MME).

RESULTS

616 patients after CR TKA were matched 1:1 to 616 patients with a PSnC implant. There were no significant differences between demographic variables. There were no statistically significant differences in opioid usage measured by MME on post-operative day (POD) 0 (p = 0.171), POD1 (p = 0.839), POD2 (p = 0.307), or POD3 (p = 0.138); VAS pain scores (p = 0.175); or 90-day readmission rate for pain (p = 0.654). A sub-analysis of CR versus PSC TKA demonstrated no significant differences in opioid usage on POD0 (p = 0.765), POD1 (p = 0.747), POD2 (p = 0.564), POD3 (p = 0.309); VAS pain scores (p = 0.293); and 90-day readmission rate for pain (p > 0.9).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrated no significant difference in post-operative VAS pain scores and MME usage based on implant. The results suggest that neither the type of articulation or constraint used for primary TKA has a significant impact on immediate post-operative pain and opioid consumption.

LEVEL III EVIDENCE

Retrospective Cohort Study.

The Influence of Tourniquet and Adductor Canal Block Use on Pain and Opioid Consumption after Total Knee Arthroplasty

Reducing pain and opioid consumption after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an important perioperative consideration. Though commonly used, the combined influence of tourniquets and adductor canal blocks (ACBs) on pain and opioid consumption is unknown. This study evaluated inpatient opioid consumption and pain between patients with TKA based on tourniquet and/or ACB use. Pain and opioid consumption were highest when a tourniquet, but no ACB was used, and lowest when an ACB, but no tourniquet was used - though absolute differences in pain scores were not clinically significant. Tourniquet and ACB use should be considered as part of TKA opioid-sparing protocols.

Cementing a Monoblock Dual-Mobility Implant into a Fully Porous Cup in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty to Address Hip Instability: Surgical Technique

Background

The use of a cemented monoblock dual-mobility implant into a fully porous cup is indicated for patients with acetabular bone loss who have a high risk of postoperative hip instability. Patients undergoing lumbar fusion for sagittal spinal deformities have an increased risk of hip dislocation (7.1%) and should be assessed on sitting and standing radiographs1. Gabor et al. conducted a multicenter, retrospective study assessing the use of a cemented monoblock dual-mobility bearing in a porous acetabular shell in patients with acetabular bone loss and a high risk of hip instability2. Of the 38 patients, 1 (2.6%) experienced a postoperative dislocation that was subsequently treated with closed reduction without further dislocation. This surgical technique represents a favorable surgical option for patients with acetabular bone loss who are at risk for hip instability. In the example case described in the present video article, the patients had a history of dislocations, lumbar fusion, and evidence of Paprosky 3B acetabular defect; as such, the decision was made to revise to a porous shell and cement a monoblock dual-mobility implant.

Description

With use of the surgeon's preferred approach, the soft tissue is dissected and the hip is aspirated. The hip is dislocated and a subgluteal pocket is made with use of electrocautery to mobilize the trunnion of the femoral stem to aid in acetabular exposure. The femoral component is assessed to ensure appropriate positioning with adequate anteversion. The acetabular component and any acetabular screws are removed. A "ream to fit" technique is performed in the acetabulum until bleeding bone is encountered, with minimal reaming performed in healthy bone from the posterior column. A trial prosthesis is placed within the acetabulum to evaluate if there is satisfactory fixation and if any augment is necessary. Care must be taken during reaming to ensure that enough bone is reamed to accommodate a porous shell that can fit the monoblock dual-mobility implant with a 2-mm cement mantle. Smaller porous shells measuring 56 mm are available for smaller defects but are often not utilized in cases of substantial acetabular bone loss. Fresh-frozen cancellous allograft is utilized to fill any contained defects. The revision porous shell with circumferential screw holes is utilized to allow for screw fixation posterosuperior and anterior toward the pubis. The implants are dried prior to placement of the cement. The cement is applied to the shell and the monoblock dual-mobility implant to ensure adequate coverage. Antibiotic-loaded cement can be utilized according to surgeon preference. Excess cement is removed under direct visualization while the cement is drying, and the position of the dual-mobility implant is adjusted in approximately 20° anteversion and 40° inclination. Stability is assessed after the cement cures, and intraoperative radiography can be performed to confirm cup positioning prior to closure. Any remaining capsule is closed, followed by closure of the remaining soft tissue in a layered fashion.

Alternatives

A fully porous multi-hole jumbo cup with conventional polyethylene liner and femoral head can be utilized to increase the jump distance of the femoral head. Constrained, lipped, or offset polyethylene liners can be utilized if the shell is well fixed and a dual-mobility implant cannot be inserted. A cemented dual-mobility implant can be utilized in a well-fixed acetabular shell without evidence of loosening or osteolysis.

Rationale

Dual-mobility implants have become increasingly utilized because of their advantages: (1) ability to decrease dislocation rate without increasing constraint and (2) increasing range of motion with reduced impingement risk2-8. These implants are particularly useful in the setting of revision cases with large acetabular bone defects. In a study of 76 patients with dual-mobility implants cemented into porous acetabular shells, Muthusamy et al. found that only 3.3% of patients experienced postoperative dislocations9. Moreover, acetabular cup survival was excellent, with 100% survival at 1 year and 96.2% at 2 years.

Expected Outcomes

The use of a dual-mobility implant is a viable treatment option in cases of revision total hip arthroplasty, particularly those in which postoperative stability is a concern; monoblock dual-mobility implants cemented into porous shells are particularly useful in this setting2-8. These trends are similarly seen in patients treated with monoblock dual-mobility implants cemented into porous shells. Muthusamy et al. evaluated the use of this construct to treat instability or risk of hip dislocation in 76 hips, reporting a dislocation rate of 3.3% at 2 years. Additionally, the authors reported rates of all-cause acetabular survival from re-revision of 96.7% at 6 months, 93.3% at 1 year, and 89.7% at 2 years9. Physicians should be aware of the possibility for intra-prosthetic dislocations, as although this complication is rare, it has been reported in the literature7,10.

Important Tips

In order to allow for circumferential coverage for fixation and ingrowth potential in cases with acetabular defects, the shell is typically impacted slightly vertical (45° to 50° of inclination) and in neutral version (0° to 5° of anteversion). Positioning can be adjusted to improve osseous contact and ingrowth as determined by the size and shape of the defect.The use of a drill guide for the locking screws allows limited degrees of variable screw angulation. In the revision setting, longer screws may be placed posterosuperior toward the sciatic notch or anteroinferior into the pubis. Surgeons should be aware of the anatomy and should predrill holes to reduce the risk of injury to surrounding neurovascular structures such as the obturator artery anteriorly.Any screw holes that are not filled should be covered with plastic hole covers in order to prevent cement from migrating behind the cup. Implants should be dried prior to the placement of the cement, and the cement should be applied to the shell and the dual-mobility implant to ensure adequate coverage.Utilize a monoblock dual-mobility implant that is designed for cementation in order to avoid implant dissociation from the acetabular shell.Remove all fibrous tissue that may hinder bony integration.Assess for pelvis discontinuity; pelvis discontinuity and acetabular bone loss are risk factors in the setting of any revision and should be properly assessed preoperatively and intraoperatively and managed accordingly.Avoid over-reaming and damage of the posterior column.Utilize a reamer or trial to assess defect size and need for augments.Place a compression screw where the cup is in contact with the bone in order to avoid tilting.Cover unused screw holes.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

THA = total hip arthroplastyS/P = status postTKA = total knee arthroplastyCT = computed tomographyKM = Kaplan MeierDMC = dual-mobility cupPE = polyethylene.

History, indications, and advantages of orthopaedic operating room tables: a review

Although surgical procedures have been occurring as early at 6500 BC, the modern sense of the operating room (OR) did not exist until more recently. As aseptic techniques and surgical procedures began to evolve, so too did the OR table. The OR table began to transition from a static, wooden table to a dynamic table with the ability to position patients for a variety of procedures. With the advent of intraoperative imaging for orthopaedic procedures, OR tables have adapted and allow for imaging of bony anatomy by using radiolucent materials. These changes have led to the development of numerous OR tables, each with their own sets of advantages and disadvantages. There is currently no summary of the development, indications, benefits, and disadvantages of the various OR tables available to orthopaedic surgeons in the literature. The purpose of this review is to provide a comprehensive review of orthopaedic operating tables for both the junior orthopaedic resident and experienced attending surgeon.

Bias Does Not Exist in Treating Knee Periprosthetic Joint Infection Among Patients With Substance Use Disorder

Debridement, antibiotics with implant retention (DAIR), and 2-stage revision are standard surgical interventions for treating knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Patients with substance use disorder (SUD), especially addictive drug use disorder (DUD), have been shown to receive inferior medical care in many specialties compared with nonusers. The authors identified patients with a diagnosis of PJI after knee arthroplasty who received either DAIR or 2-stage revision with the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2010 to 2014. Patients were stratified into 2 groups, patients with DUD and nonusers, based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, criteria. Descriptive analysis was conducted to show the national trend for knee PJI treatment among the 2 patient groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the prevalence of DAIR and 2-stage revision between these 2 groups, adjusted for likely confounders, including age, sex, income, race, and comorbidities. Among the 11,331 patients with knee infection, 139 (1.23%) had DUD. Compared with nonusers, patients with DUD were significantly younger (P<.001), had more chronic conditions (P<.001), and were predominantly in lower income quartiles (P=.046). The 2 groups did not differ in sex and race (P=.072 and P=.091, respectively). The authors found that 30.22% of patients with DUD and 36.36% of nonusers received DAIR. The difference in these proportions was not statistically significant (P=.135). The results did not change after adjustment for confounding factors (P=.509). The findings suggested that bias does not exist among orthopedic surgeons who choose DAIR or 2-stage revision for knee PJI among patients with DUD. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(3):e385-e389.].