The American Journal of Orthopedics

Septic arthritis is a common orthopedic emergency. The most common causative organism is Staphylococcus aureus. Mycotic infections, such as those involving Candida organisms, are much less common but just as debilitating. Delayed diagnosis of septic arthritis caused by Candida infection may result in increased morbidity, making treatment more challenging. Here we report a case of Candida albicans septic arthritis of the ankle and subtalar joint in a patient with diabetes mellitus (DM) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 52-year-old woman with type 2 DM (requiring subcutaneous insulin analogue therapy) and RA presented to a local emergency department with a 3-day history of right ankle pain after having the subtalar joint injected with steroid by a rheumatologist 4 weeks earlier. For about 2 weeks, there was purulent discharge from the peroneal sheath. The patient’s RA was being treated with prednisolone (maintenance therapy). Physical examination revealed low-grade pyrexia (37.8°C) and difficulty bearing full weight on the ankle. Clinically, the joint was not erythematous, but active and passive movements were painful. Blood tests revealed a C-reactive protein level of 98 mg/dL and a white blood cell (WBC) count of 11.3 × 10⁹/L. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was not checked. The ankle underwent magnetic resonance imaging (Figures A-D).

The subtalar joint was aspirated under ultrasound guidance, and specimens were sent for identification of organisms and sensitivities. More aspirate was obtained 1 week later. Both aspirates grew mycotic organisms.

Mycotic screening of the fluid was positive for C albicans. The patient was referred to the orthopedic team, which performed urgent arthroscopic surgical débridement, biopsy, and washout of the subtalar joint. After surgery, a 6-week course of antifungal therapy with anidulafungin was started, per specialist microbiology advice.

The septic ankle was successfully managed with arthroscopic surgical débridement followed by treatment with anidulafungin. The patient continued to make good progress and was weight-bearing when discharged home from the orthopedic unit.

Discussion

Worldwide, about 1 in 6 people has arthritis, which affects daily lifestyle and reduces quality of life. Degenerative, inflammatory, and septic arthritis each has its management challenges.¹

Septic arthritis is an acute infection of the joint, usually of bacterial etiology. It can present as a polyarticular arthropathy (~15% of cases),^2,3 but a monoarthropathy of the hip, knee, or ankle is more common.⁴The Kocher criteria are often applied to cases of suspected septic arthritis of joints, even though they were initially used to distinguish septic arthritis from transient synovitis in pediatric hip joints.⁵ Kocher and colleagues⁵ reported 4 key clinical criteria: inability to bear weight, WBC count over 12 × 10⁹/L, ESR over 40 mm/h, and temperature over 38.5°C. When all 4 criteria are met, the predictive value is 99.6%. These criteria are now widely applied to adult joints, and not only the hips.

In septic arthritis, the most common causative pathogen is S aureus.^3,6Streptococcus, Neisseria, and Pseudomonas also are common.⁷ Although much rarer, Candida variants and other mycotic pathogens have been implicated as well.⁸C albicans is a well-known fungus that colonizes mucosal surfaces. Research indicates increased oral C albicans colonization in rheumatoid patients.⁹ Although most Candida septic arthritis cases are caused by C albicans, there is no large body of data showing the true incidence of fungal pathogens in septic arthritis.

Our literature search yielded 2 case reports on Candida septic arthritis involving the ankle, but the causative organisms were Candida parapsilosis and Candida glabrata.^9,10 Cases of Candida septic arthritis involving the knee or shoulder have also been reported.^11-15 Case reports demonstrate that Candida fungal arthritis is extremely rare.⁹ Etiology reportedly includes direct intra-articular inoculation by surgery or secondary to hematogenous seeding, particularly in immunocompromised patients.¹⁰ Risk factors include immunosuppression and joint suppression. DM and RA are common comorbidities in patients with septic arthritis.^6,16 The pathophysiology of RA is inflammatory pannus formation of the periarticular surface with subsequent articular cartilage destruction and erosion, as well as progressive deformity and functional debilitation.¹Patients with DM are at increased risk for developing fungal and other infections. Factors increasing this risk include disruption of skin-barrier integrity; reduced peripheral oxygen and blood supply, which also disrupts antibiotic delivery; and hyperglycemia-induced reduction in antibody function and disruption of phagocytosis and chemotaxis.¹⁷Fungi are eukaryotic, and infections caused by these organisms are difficult to treat.¹⁸ As fungal infections are more prevalent among immunosuppressed patients, they often result in prolonged treatment without guarantee of eradication, as spores may persist subclinically.

Literature on C albicans septic arthritis is lacking in general but especially in rheumatoid patients. Delayed diagnosis and suboptimal treatment may result in fungal osteomyelitis. There is little evidence on treating this rare fungal complication, and outcomes historically have been poor.¹⁹In an animal model, Marijnissen and colleagues²⁰ found that C albicans infection can increase destruction in an arthritic joint by cytokine environment modification. The result was advanced destruction of the joint and debilitation. For disease management, the authors considered these essential: early diagnosis, prompt treatment, and, as indicated, surgical débridement.

Treatment of Candida septic arthritis largely involves use of antifungal medication, either with surgical débridement, as in our patient’s case, or without. Which antifungal medication to use should be based on sensitivities, identified from wound aspirate, and microbiology advice about treatment duration. The antibiotic should be a broad-spectrum antifungal cover, in keeping with local antibiotic prescribing guidelines, which can be refined once definitive organism culture and sensitivity results are known. However, early aggressive treatment is essential. Periprosthetic fungal infection is rarely resolved without implant removal.²¹

 

Conclusion

This case reflects the complexities of septic arthritis caused by atypical pathogens and highlights the need for clinical vigilance in the setting of comorbidities, such as DM and RA. Failure to consider the diagnosis early on might result in delayed and inadequate treatment, increased joint destruction, and, potentially, osteomyelitis with subsequent increased morbidity. Early diagnosis (based on joint aspirate findings), surgical débridement, and prolonged aggressive treatment with antifungal medication are the mainstays of treatment.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E478-E480. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Septic arthritis is a common orthopedic emergency. The most common causative organism is Staphylococcus aureus. Mycotic infections, such as those involving Candida organisms, are much less common but just as debilitating. Delayed diagnosis of septic arthritis caused by Candida infection may result in increased morbidity, making treatment more challenging. Here we report a case of Candida albicans septic arthritis of the ankle and subtalar joint in a patient with diabetes mellitus (DM) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 52-year-old woman with type 2 DM (requiring subcutaneous insulin analogue therapy) and RA presented to a local emergency department with a 3-day history of right ankle pain after having the subtalar joint injected with steroid by a rheumatologist 4 weeks earlier. For about 2 weeks, there was purulent discharge from the peroneal sheath. The patient’s RA was being treated with prednisolone (maintenance therapy). Physical examination revealed low-grade pyrexia (37.8°C) and difficulty bearing full weight on the ankle. Clinically, the joint was not erythematous, but active and passive movements were painful. Blood tests revealed a C-reactive protein level of 98 mg/dL and a white blood cell (WBC) count of 11.3 × 10⁹/L. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was not checked. The ankle underwent magnetic resonance imaging (Figures A-D).

The subtalar joint was aspirated under ultrasound guidance, and specimens were sent for identification of organisms and sensitivities. More aspirate was obtained 1 week later. Both aspirates grew mycotic organisms.

Mycotic screening of the fluid was positive for C albicans. The patient was referred to the orthopedic team, which performed urgent arthroscopic surgical débridement, biopsy, and washout of the subtalar joint. After surgery, a 6-week course of antifungal therapy with anidulafungin was started, per specialist microbiology advice.

The septic ankle was successfully managed with arthroscopic surgical débridement followed by treatment with anidulafungin. The patient continued to make good progress and was weight-bearing when discharged home from the orthopedic unit.

Discussion

Worldwide, about 1 in 6 people has arthritis, which affects daily lifestyle and reduces quality of life. Degenerative, inflammatory, and septic arthritis each has its management challenges.¹

Septic arthritis is an acute infection of the joint, usually of bacterial etiology. It can present as a polyarticular arthropathy (~15% of cases),^2,3 but a monoarthropathy of the hip, knee, or ankle is more common.⁴The Kocher criteria are often applied to cases of suspected septic arthritis of joints, even though they were initially used to distinguish septic arthritis from transient synovitis in pediatric hip joints.⁵ Kocher and colleagues⁵ reported 4 key clinical criteria: inability to bear weight, WBC count over 12 × 10⁹/L, ESR over 40 mm/h, and temperature over 38.5°C. When all 4 criteria are met, the predictive value is 99.6%. These criteria are now widely applied to adult joints, and not only the hips.

In septic arthritis, the most common causative pathogen is S aureus.^3,6Streptococcus, Neisseria, and Pseudomonas also are common.⁷ Although much rarer, Candida variants and other mycotic pathogens have been implicated as well.⁸C albicans is a well-known fungus that colonizes mucosal surfaces. Research indicates increased oral C albicans colonization in rheumatoid patients.⁹ Although most Candida septic arthritis cases are caused by C albicans, there is no large body of data showing the true incidence of fungal pathogens in septic arthritis.

Our literature search yielded 2 case reports on Candida septic arthritis involving the ankle, but the causative organisms were Candida parapsilosis and Candida glabrata.^9,10 Cases of Candida septic arthritis involving the knee or shoulder have also been reported.^11-15 Case reports demonstrate that Candida fungal arthritis is extremely rare.⁹ Etiology reportedly includes direct intra-articular inoculation by surgery or secondary to hematogenous seeding, particularly in immunocompromised patients.¹⁰ Risk factors include immunosuppression and joint suppression. DM and RA are common comorbidities in patients with septic arthritis.^6,16 The pathophysiology of RA is inflammatory pannus formation of the periarticular surface with subsequent articular cartilage destruction and erosion, as well as progressive deformity and functional debilitation.¹Patients with DM are at increased risk for developing fungal and other infections. Factors increasing this risk include disruption of skin-barrier integrity; reduced peripheral oxygen and blood supply, which also disrupts antibiotic delivery; and hyperglycemia-induced reduction in antibody function and disruption of phagocytosis and chemotaxis.¹⁷Fungi are eukaryotic, and infections caused by these organisms are difficult to treat.¹⁸ As fungal infections are more prevalent among immunosuppressed patients, they often result in prolonged treatment without guarantee of eradication, as spores may persist subclinically.

Literature on C albicans septic arthritis is lacking in general but especially in rheumatoid patients. Delayed diagnosis and suboptimal treatment may result in fungal osteomyelitis. There is little evidence on treating this rare fungal complication, and outcomes historically have been poor.¹⁹In an animal model, Marijnissen and colleagues²⁰ found that C albicans infection can increase destruction in an arthritic joint by cytokine environment modification. The result was advanced destruction of the joint and debilitation. For disease management, the authors considered these essential: early diagnosis, prompt treatment, and, as indicated, surgical débridement.

Treatment of Candida septic arthritis largely involves use of antifungal medication, either with surgical débridement, as in our patient’s case, or without. Which antifungal medication to use should be based on sensitivities, identified from wound aspirate, and microbiology advice about treatment duration. The antibiotic should be a broad-spectrum antifungal cover, in keeping with local antibiotic prescribing guidelines, which can be refined once definitive organism culture and sensitivity results are known. However, early aggressive treatment is essential. Periprosthetic fungal infection is rarely resolved without implant removal.²¹

 

Conclusion

This case reflects the complexities of septic arthritis caused by atypical pathogens and highlights the need for clinical vigilance in the setting of comorbidities, such as DM and RA. Failure to consider the diagnosis early on might result in delayed and inadequate treatment, increased joint destruction, and, potentially, osteomyelitis with subsequent increased morbidity. Early diagnosis (based on joint aspirate findings), surgical débridement, and prolonged aggressive treatment with antifungal medication are the mainstays of treatment.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E478-E480. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Septic arthritis is a common orthopedic emergency. The most common causative organism is Staphylococcus aureus. Mycotic infections, such as those involving Candida organisms, are much less common but just as debilitating. Delayed diagnosis of septic arthritis caused by Candida infection may result in increased morbidity, making treatment more challenging. Here we report a case of Candida albicans septic arthritis of the ankle and subtalar joint in a patient with diabetes mellitus (DM) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 52-year-old woman with type 2 DM (requiring subcutaneous insulin analogue therapy) and RA presented to a local emergency department with a 3-day history of right ankle pain after having the subtalar joint injected with steroid by a rheumatologist 4 weeks earlier. For about 2 weeks, there was purulent discharge from the peroneal sheath. The patient’s RA was being treated with prednisolone (maintenance therapy). Physical examination revealed low-grade pyrexia (37.8°C) and difficulty bearing full weight on the ankle. Clinically, the joint was not erythematous, but active and passive movements were painful. Blood tests revealed a C-reactive protein level of 98 mg/dL and a white blood cell (WBC) count of 11.3 × 10⁹/L. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) was not checked. The ankle underwent magnetic resonance imaging (Figures A-D).

The subtalar joint was aspirated under ultrasound guidance, and specimens were sent for identification of organisms and sensitivities. More aspirate was obtained 1 week later. Both aspirates grew mycotic organisms.

Mycotic screening of the fluid was positive for C albicans. The patient was referred to the orthopedic team, which performed urgent arthroscopic surgical débridement, biopsy, and washout of the subtalar joint. After surgery, a 6-week course of antifungal therapy with anidulafungin was started, per specialist microbiology advice.

The septic ankle was successfully managed with arthroscopic surgical débridement followed by treatment with anidulafungin. The patient continued to make good progress and was weight-bearing when discharged home from the orthopedic unit.

Discussion

Worldwide, about 1 in 6 people has arthritis, which affects daily lifestyle and reduces quality of life. Degenerative, inflammatory, and septic arthritis each has its management challenges.¹

Septic arthritis is an acute infection of the joint, usually of bacterial etiology. It can present as a polyarticular arthropathy (~15% of cases),^2,3 but a monoarthropathy of the hip, knee, or ankle is more common.⁴The Kocher criteria are often applied to cases of suspected septic arthritis of joints, even though they were initially used to distinguish septic arthritis from transient synovitis in pediatric hip joints.⁵ Kocher and colleagues⁵ reported 4 key clinical criteria: inability to bear weight, WBC count over 12 × 10⁹/L, ESR over 40 mm/h, and temperature over 38.5°C. When all 4 criteria are met, the predictive value is 99.6%. These criteria are now widely applied to adult joints, and not only the hips.

In septic arthritis, the most common causative pathogen is S aureus.^3,6Streptococcus, Neisseria, and Pseudomonas also are common.⁷ Although much rarer, Candida variants and other mycotic pathogens have been implicated as well.⁸C albicans is a well-known fungus that colonizes mucosal surfaces. Research indicates increased oral C albicans colonization in rheumatoid patients.⁹ Although most Candida septic arthritis cases are caused by C albicans, there is no large body of data showing the true incidence of fungal pathogens in septic arthritis.

Our literature search yielded 2 case reports on Candida septic arthritis involving the ankle, but the causative organisms were Candida parapsilosis and Candida glabrata.^9,10 Cases of Candida septic arthritis involving the knee or shoulder have also been reported.^11-15 Case reports demonstrate that Candida fungal arthritis is extremely rare.⁹ Etiology reportedly includes direct intra-articular inoculation by surgery or secondary to hematogenous seeding, particularly in immunocompromised patients.¹⁰ Risk factors include immunosuppression and joint suppression. DM and RA are common comorbidities in patients with septic arthritis.^6,16 The pathophysiology of RA is inflammatory pannus formation of the periarticular surface with subsequent articular cartilage destruction and erosion, as well as progressive deformity and functional debilitation.¹Patients with DM are at increased risk for developing fungal and other infections. Factors increasing this risk include disruption of skin-barrier integrity; reduced peripheral oxygen and blood supply, which also disrupts antibiotic delivery; and hyperglycemia-induced reduction in antibody function and disruption of phagocytosis and chemotaxis.¹⁷Fungi are eukaryotic, and infections caused by these organisms are difficult to treat.¹⁸ As fungal infections are more prevalent among immunosuppressed patients, they often result in prolonged treatment without guarantee of eradication, as spores may persist subclinically.

Literature on C albicans septic arthritis is lacking in general but especially in rheumatoid patients. Delayed diagnosis and suboptimal treatment may result in fungal osteomyelitis. There is little evidence on treating this rare fungal complication, and outcomes historically have been poor.¹⁹In an animal model, Marijnissen and colleagues²⁰ found that C albicans infection can increase destruction in an arthritic joint by cytokine environment modification. The result was advanced destruction of the joint and debilitation. For disease management, the authors considered these essential: early diagnosis, prompt treatment, and, as indicated, surgical débridement.

Treatment of Candida septic arthritis largely involves use of antifungal medication, either with surgical débridement, as in our patient’s case, or without. Which antifungal medication to use should be based on sensitivities, identified from wound aspirate, and microbiology advice about treatment duration. The antibiotic should be a broad-spectrum antifungal cover, in keeping with local antibiotic prescribing guidelines, which can be refined once definitive organism culture and sensitivity results are known. However, early aggressive treatment is essential. Periprosthetic fungal infection is rarely resolved without implant removal.²¹

 

Conclusion

This case reflects the complexities of septic arthritis caused by atypical pathogens and highlights the need for clinical vigilance in the setting of comorbidities, such as DM and RA. Failure to consider the diagnosis early on might result in delayed and inadequate treatment, increased joint destruction, and, potentially, osteomyelitis with subsequent increased morbidity. Early diagnosis (based on joint aspirate findings), surgical débridement, and prolonged aggressive treatment with antifungal medication are the mainstays of treatment.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E478-E480. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Over the past several decades, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become increasingly important in assessing the quality and effectiveness of medical and surgical care.^1,2 The benefit lies in the ability of PROs to characterize the impact of medical interventions on symptoms, function, and other outcomes from the patient’s perspective. Consequently, clinical practices can improve patients’ objective findings (from radiographic and clinical examinations) as well as their preferences in a social-psychological context.^2,3 As a patient’s satisfaction with a surgical intervention may not correlate with the surgeon’s objective assessment of outcome, PROs offer unique insight into the patient’s perceptions of well-being.⁴

Health-related quality-of-life assessments can be made with either general-health or disease-specific instruments. These instruments traditionally are administered with pen and paper—a data collection method with several limitations, chief being the need to manually transfer the data into an electronic medical record, a research database, or both. In addition, administering surveys on paper risks potential disqualification of partially or incorrectly completed surveys. With pen and paper, it is difficult to mandate that every question be answered accurately.

Currently, there is a potential role for electronic medical records and digital tablet devices in survey administration and data collection and storage. Theoretical advantages include direct input of survey data into databases (eliminating manual data entry and associated entry errors), improved accuracy and completion rates, and long-term storage not dependent on paper charts.⁵To our knowledge, there have been no prospective studies of different orthopedic outcomes collection methods. Some studies have evaluated use of touch-based tablets in data collection. Dy and colleagues⁶ considered administration of the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) survey on an iPad tablet (Apple Computers) and retrospectively compared the tablet and paper completion rates. The tablet group’s rate (98%) was significantly higher than the paper group’s rate (76%). Aktas and colleagues⁷ reported a high completion rate for a tablet survey of palliative care outcomes (they did not compare modalities). A handful of other studies have found higher intraclass correlation and validation for digital data collection than for paper collection.^7-14 The comparability of the data collected digitally vs on paper was the nidus for our decision to prospectively evaluate the ease and reliability of digital data collection.

We conducted a prospective, randomized study to compare the performance of tablet and paper versions of several general-health and musculoskeletal disease–specific questionnaires. We hypothesized the tablet and paper surveys would have similar completion rates and times.

Methods

This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. Participants were recruited during their clinic visit to 3 subspecialty orthopedic services (upper extremity, spine, arthroplasty). The questionnaires included basic demographics questions and questions about tablet use (comfort level with computers, measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and ownership of a tablet or smartphone). Also included were European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D, General Health), a disease questionnaire specific to 1 of the 3 subspecialty services, and a satisfaction survey. Patients were asked to complete the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for low-back pain, the Neck Disability Index (NDI) for neck pain, the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (HOOS) for hip pain, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) for knee pain, or the QuickDASH survey for upper extremity complaints (subspecialty-specific). After recruitment, a computer-generated randomization technique was used to randomly assign patients to either a paper or an electronic (iPad) data collection group.¹⁵ We included all surveys for which patients had sufficient completion time (no clinic staff interruptions) and excluded surveys marked incomplete (because of interruptions for clinic workflow efficiency). For direct input from tablets and for data storage, we used the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system hosted at our institution.¹⁶ Our staff registered patients as REDCap participants, assigned them to their disease-specific study arms, and gave them tablets to use to complete the surveys.

Patients who were randomly assigned to take the surveys on paper were given a packet that included the demographics survey, the EQ-5D, a disease-specific survey, and a satisfaction survey. Their responses were then manually entered by the investigators into the REDCap system.

Patients who were randomly assigned to take the surveys on tablets used the REDCap survey feature, which allowed them to directly input their responses into the database (Figure).

To allow them to skip a question (same as on paper), we did not activate the REDCap “require” feature. Had this feature been used, patients would have had to answer each question before being allowed to proceed to the next one. Similarly, patients could select multiple answers for a single question (as on paper). With these modifications, we attempted to replicate, as much as possible, the experience of taking a survey on paper.

Our primary outcome measure was survey completion rate. Secondary outcome measures were total time for completion, number of questions left unanswered on incomplete surveys, patient satisfaction with survey length (Likert scale, 1-5), ease of completion (Likert scale, 1-5), ability to comprehend questions (Likert scale, 1-5), and preference for the other survey modality (Appendix).

We used the findings of Dy and colleagues⁶ to identify the sample size needed for detecting a significant difference between the tablet and the paper group when using a 2-sided test with a power set to 80%. In their study, 24% of paper surveys and 2% of tablet surveys were unscorable,⁶ which we used as our predicted incompletion rate.

We used SPSS statistical software (IBM) to analyze our data, t test to compare continuous variables, χ² test to compare categorical variables, and linear regression to test the relationship between number of questions and completion rate. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

 

Results

Of the 510 patients enrolled in the study, 483 completed the initial demographics questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Patients were excluded if they were unable to complete the initial demographics questionnaire because of clinic workflow (eg, immediate need to be seen by physician, need to transfer to radiology for imaging and not being able to revisit the survey). Mean age was 56 years (range, 14-93 years), and 51% of the respondents were female. Fifty percent owned tablets, 70% owned smartphones, and mean (SD) self-rating of computer skills was 3.13 (1.16) (Likert scale, 1-5). There were no significant demographic differences between the tablet and paper groups (Table 1).

The EQ-5D was completed by 477 patients (252 tablet, 225 paper). Regarding the disease-specific questionnaires, 212 patients (102 tablet, 110 paper) were administered the ODI, 65 (30 tablet, 35 paper) the NDI, 28 (14 tablet, 14 paper) the HOOS, 57 (24 tablet, 33 paper) the KOOS, and 101 (67 tablet, 34 paper) the QuickDASH.

For each disease-specific questionnaire, the instrument’s published instructions for calculating scores were followed; these scores were then compared in order to further characterize the groups. There were significant differences in scores on the EQ-5D descriptive questions, a pain visual analog scale (VAS), and the NDI. Mean EQ-5D score was 0.664 for the tablet group and 0.699 for the paper group (P = .041), mean pain VAS score was 62.5 for the tablet group and 71.6 for the paper group (P < .001), and mean NDI score was 42.8 for the tablet group and 32.4 for the paper group (P = .033).

The other scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups (Table 2).

The overall completion rate for all questionnaires was 84.4%. The KOOS completion rate was 83.3% for the tablet group and 54.5% for the paper group (P = .023). Although it was not statistically significant, there was a trend toward higher rates of completing all disease-specific questionnaires in the tablet group relative to the paper group.

Time for completion of PRO questionnaires did not differ between the groups (Table 3).

Satisfaction regarding the surveys and their modalities was similar between the groups.

However, the 41.4% of paper group patients who reported they would prefer to use a tablet to take the survey in the future was higher (P < .001) than the 19.7% of tablet group patients who reported they would prefer the paper survey (Table 4).

Discussion

Electronic data entry has many advantages over traditional paper-based data collection and can be used with PRO surveys to measure response to treatment. Our study evaluated whether completion rates differed between surveys administered on digital tablets and those administered on traditional paper forms in a clinic setting. We selected general-health and disease-specific instruments commonly used to collect PROs from orthopedic patients. Our primary outcome measure was survey completion rate. Secondary outcome measures were total time for completion, number of questions left unanswered on incomplete surveys, patient satisfaction, and survey preferences.

In this study, our tablet and paper groups had similar overall survey completion rates, which suggests digital tablet-based data collection is noninferior to traditional pen-and-paper data collection with respect to patient response rate in the clinical setting. It is worth emphasizing that the tablet surveys were made to resemble and function as much as possible like the paper surveys. For example, patients were allowed to select multiple answers as well as advance without answering a question. Paper surveys were mimicked so we could study inherent differences in patient responsiveness without adding digital features to prevent patients from selecting multiple answers or skipping questions. We postulate that adding these digital features could have introduced a significant difference in patient responsiveness.

Time for survey completion was not significantly different between the tablet and paper groups, demonstrating that data can be digitally collected and the aforementioned advantages realized without significant delay or clinic workflow disruption. In the future, patients may be able to complete their forms digitally, on their own devices, before arriving for their clinic visits—resulting in improved clinic workflow and data collection efficiency.

Scores computed for the health-related quality-of-life questionnaires were not significantly different between the tablet and paper groups, except for EQ-5D and NDI. Although statistically significant, the 0.035 difference between the groups’ EQ-5D scores (0.664, 0.699) is not clinically significant. (Pickard and colleagues¹⁷ established that 0.06 is the clinically significant difference between EQ-5D scores in the United States.) If there were any clinical difference in the present study, our paper group patients appeared to be in better health than our tablet group patients.

Patients’ motivation to complete surveys often plays a large role in meaningful rates of completion. On our subjective satisfaction survey, a larger percentage of patients reported they would prefer to use a tablet for future surveys (Table 4). This finding may be driven by the novelty or ease of using a popular device. Nevertheless, we think it is worthwhile to heed patient preferences, as they may point to more successful data collection and compliance.

Several other studies have compared electronic and paper data capture.^{6,7,9-14,18-22} Dy and colleagues⁶ reported on administering the DASH survey on an iPad tablet using REDCap in an outpatient setting. They found that the percentage of surveys that could be scored (<3 questions left unanswered) was significantly higher for their tablet group (98%) than their paper group (76%). The larger difference in survey completion rates in their study (vs ours) may be attributable to their use of DASH, which has more survey items (compared with QuickDASH, the instrument we used) and thus may be more sensitive to detecting differences, at the risk of increasing the burden on survey takers.²³ Aktas and colleagues⁷ conducted a similar but smaller study of completion rates, completion times, and overall practicality of using digital tablets to collect PROs in a palliative care clinic (they did not compare tablet and paper modalities). Marsh and colleagues,¹² who studied the agreement between data collected on electronic and paper versions of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Osteoarthritis Index and the SF-12 (12-item Short Form Health Survey, Version 2) after total hip and total knee arthroplasty, found a high intraclass correlation coefficient between the 2 methods. Griffiths-Jones and colleagues¹¹ also found a high degree of agreement between patient data collected on digital and paper surveys. In a similar study, Fanning and McAuley¹⁰ compared digital tablet and paper survey administration in an older population and found a higher percentage of preference for tablets, with ease of use and anxiety during survey completion correlating with preference. These findings mirror ours, even with our inclusion of patients in a broader age range.

Strengths of our study included its overall cohort size and the variety of measurement instruments used. In addition, we measured time for survey completion to assess the practicality of tablet-based data collection and refrained from using digital features that could have artificially improved the completion rate for this survey modality.

Our study had a few limitations. First, we recruited unequal numbers of patients from the different subspecialties—a result of each subspecialty having a different number of attending physicians and a different patient volume. Given randomization and use of similar patients across the study arms, however, this likely did not present any significant bias. Second, each patient completed a tablet survey or a paper survey but not both, and therefore we could not compare a patient’s performance on the 2 modalities. However, the burden of completing the same survey more than once likely would have lowered our participation rate and introduced additional biases we wanted to avoid. Third, despite our attempt to mimic the look of a paper survey, the tablet’s user interface presented several potential difficulties. For example, its small text and small answer buttons may have been limiting for patients with poor vision. These design features emphasize the importance of having a user interface that can be adapted to the individual, regardless of handicap. Indeed, adaptability is a potential strength of digital interfaces. For adaptability, an interface designer can use large, scalable text and add audio prompts and other features.

Our findings can be useful in evaluating patient responsiveness to surveys administered on digital tablets in an outpatient clinic setting. In this prospective, randomized study, we found that, for survey completion, use of a tablet device did not require more time than use of a paper form. In addition, the administration modalities had similar completion and error rates for a variety of orthopedic outcomes surveys. We did not activate digital features that would have given unfair advantage to the digital data collection modality. We also found a strong preference for use of technology in PRO data collection, and this may help improve collection rates. Last, though optimizing the flow of patients in our clinic was not a strict research metric, we prioritized making sure patients were not spending any more time completing these surveys than in the past. Given the potential benefits of digital surveys—immediate and accurate transfer of collected data into multiple databases, including the patient’s electronic medical record—our experience supports continuing validation of these instruments for potential wider use.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E451-E457. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Over the past several decades, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become increasingly important in assessing the quality and effectiveness of medical and surgical care.^1,2 The benefit lies in the ability of PROs to characterize the impact of medical interventions on symptoms, function, and other outcomes from the patient’s perspective. Consequently, clinical practices can improve patients’ objective findings (from radiographic and clinical examinations) as well as their preferences in a social-psychological context.^2,3 As a patient’s satisfaction with a surgical intervention may not correlate with the surgeon’s objective assessment of outcome, PROs offer unique insight into the patient’s perceptions of well-being.⁴

Health-related quality-of-life assessments can be made with either general-health or disease-specific instruments. These instruments traditionally are administered with pen and paper—a data collection method with several limitations, chief being the need to manually transfer the data into an electronic medical record, a research database, or both. In addition, administering surveys on paper risks potential disqualification of partially or incorrectly completed surveys. With pen and paper, it is difficult to mandate that every question be answered accurately.

Currently, there is a potential role for electronic medical records and digital tablet devices in survey administration and data collection and storage. Theoretical advantages include direct input of survey data into databases (eliminating manual data entry and associated entry errors), improved accuracy and completion rates, and long-term storage not dependent on paper charts.⁵To our knowledge, there have been no prospective studies of different orthopedic outcomes collection methods. Some studies have evaluated use of touch-based tablets in data collection. Dy and colleagues⁶ considered administration of the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) survey on an iPad tablet (Apple Computers) and retrospectively compared the tablet and paper completion rates. The tablet group’s rate (98%) was significantly higher than the paper group’s rate (76%). Aktas and colleagues⁷ reported a high completion rate for a tablet survey of palliative care outcomes (they did not compare modalities). A handful of other studies have found higher intraclass correlation and validation for digital data collection than for paper collection.^7-14 The comparability of the data collected digitally vs on paper was the nidus for our decision to prospectively evaluate the ease and reliability of digital data collection.

We conducted a prospective, randomized study to compare the performance of tablet and paper versions of several general-health and musculoskeletal disease–specific questionnaires. We hypothesized the tablet and paper surveys would have similar completion rates and times.

Methods

This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. Participants were recruited during their clinic visit to 3 subspecialty orthopedic services (upper extremity, spine, arthroplasty). The questionnaires included basic demographics questions and questions about tablet use (comfort level with computers, measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and ownership of a tablet or smartphone). Also included were European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D, General Health), a disease questionnaire specific to 1 of the 3 subspecialty services, and a satisfaction survey. Patients were asked to complete the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for low-back pain, the Neck Disability Index (NDI) for neck pain, the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (HOOS) for hip pain, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) for knee pain, or the QuickDASH survey for upper extremity complaints (subspecialty-specific). After recruitment, a computer-generated randomization technique was used to randomly assign patients to either a paper or an electronic (iPad) data collection group.¹⁵ We included all surveys for which patients had sufficient completion time (no clinic staff interruptions) and excluded surveys marked incomplete (because of interruptions for clinic workflow efficiency). For direct input from tablets and for data storage, we used the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system hosted at our institution.¹⁶ Our staff registered patients as REDCap participants, assigned them to their disease-specific study arms, and gave them tablets to use to complete the surveys.

Patients who were randomly assigned to take the surveys on paper were given a packet that included the demographics survey, the EQ-5D, a disease-specific survey, and a satisfaction survey. Their responses were then manually entered by the investigators into the REDCap system.

Patients who were randomly assigned to take the surveys on tablets used the REDCap survey feature, which allowed them to directly input their responses into the database (Figure).

To allow them to skip a question (same as on paper), we did not activate the REDCap “require” feature. Had this feature been used, patients would have had to answer each question before being allowed to proceed to the next one. Similarly, patients could select multiple answers for a single question (as on paper). With these modifications, we attempted to replicate, as much as possible, the experience of taking a survey on paper.

Our primary outcome measure was survey completion rate. Secondary outcome measures were total time for completion, number of questions left unanswered on incomplete surveys, patient satisfaction with survey length (Likert scale, 1-5), ease of completion (Likert scale, 1-5), ability to comprehend questions (Likert scale, 1-5), and preference for the other survey modality (Appendix).

We used the findings of Dy and colleagues⁶ to identify the sample size needed for detecting a significant difference between the tablet and the paper group when using a 2-sided test with a power set to 80%. In their study, 24% of paper surveys and 2% of tablet surveys were unscorable,⁶ which we used as our predicted incompletion rate.

We used SPSS statistical software (IBM) to analyze our data, t test to compare continuous variables, χ² test to compare categorical variables, and linear regression to test the relationship between number of questions and completion rate. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

 

Results

Of the 510 patients enrolled in the study, 483 completed the initial demographics questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Patients were excluded if they were unable to complete the initial demographics questionnaire because of clinic workflow (eg, immediate need to be seen by physician, need to transfer to radiology for imaging and not being able to revisit the survey). Mean age was 56 years (range, 14-93 years), and 51% of the respondents were female. Fifty percent owned tablets, 70% owned smartphones, and mean (SD) self-rating of computer skills was 3.13 (1.16) (Likert scale, 1-5). There were no significant demographic differences between the tablet and paper groups (Table 1).

The EQ-5D was completed by 477 patients (252 tablet, 225 paper). Regarding the disease-specific questionnaires, 212 patients (102 tablet, 110 paper) were administered the ODI, 65 (30 tablet, 35 paper) the NDI, 28 (14 tablet, 14 paper) the HOOS, 57 (24 tablet, 33 paper) the KOOS, and 101 (67 tablet, 34 paper) the QuickDASH.

For each disease-specific questionnaire, the instrument’s published instructions for calculating scores were followed; these scores were then compared in order to further characterize the groups. There were significant differences in scores on the EQ-5D descriptive questions, a pain visual analog scale (VAS), and the NDI. Mean EQ-5D score was 0.664 for the tablet group and 0.699 for the paper group (P = .041), mean pain VAS score was 62.5 for the tablet group and 71.6 for the paper group (P < .001), and mean NDI score was 42.8 for the tablet group and 32.4 for the paper group (P = .033).

The other scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups (Table 2).

The overall completion rate for all questionnaires was 84.4%. The KOOS completion rate was 83.3% for the tablet group and 54.5% for the paper group (P = .023). Although it was not statistically significant, there was a trend toward higher rates of completing all disease-specific questionnaires in the tablet group relative to the paper group.

Time for completion of PRO questionnaires did not differ between the groups (Table 3).

Satisfaction regarding the surveys and their modalities was similar between the groups.

However, the 41.4% of paper group patients who reported they would prefer to use a tablet to take the survey in the future was higher (P < .001) than the 19.7% of tablet group patients who reported they would prefer the paper survey (Table 4).

Discussion

Electronic data entry has many advantages over traditional paper-based data collection and can be used with PRO surveys to measure response to treatment. Our study evaluated whether completion rates differed between surveys administered on digital tablets and those administered on traditional paper forms in a clinic setting. We selected general-health and disease-specific instruments commonly used to collect PROs from orthopedic patients. Our primary outcome measure was survey completion rate. Secondary outcome measures were total time for completion, number of questions left unanswered on incomplete surveys, patient satisfaction, and survey preferences.

In this study, our tablet and paper groups had similar overall survey completion rates, which suggests digital tablet-based data collection is noninferior to traditional pen-and-paper data collection with respect to patient response rate in the clinical setting. It is worth emphasizing that the tablet surveys were made to resemble and function as much as possible like the paper surveys. For example, patients were allowed to select multiple answers as well as advance without answering a question. Paper surveys were mimicked so we could study inherent differences in patient responsiveness without adding digital features to prevent patients from selecting multiple answers or skipping questions. We postulate that adding these digital features could have introduced a significant difference in patient responsiveness.

Time for survey completion was not significantly different between the tablet and paper groups, demonstrating that data can be digitally collected and the aforementioned advantages realized without significant delay or clinic workflow disruption. In the future, patients may be able to complete their forms digitally, on their own devices, before arriving for their clinic visits—resulting in improved clinic workflow and data collection efficiency.

Scores computed for the health-related quality-of-life questionnaires were not significantly different between the tablet and paper groups, except for EQ-5D and NDI. Although statistically significant, the 0.035 difference between the groups’ EQ-5D scores (0.664, 0.699) is not clinically significant. (Pickard and colleagues¹⁷ established that 0.06 is the clinically significant difference between EQ-5D scores in the United States.) If there were any clinical difference in the present study, our paper group patients appeared to be in better health than our tablet group patients.

Patients’ motivation to complete surveys often plays a large role in meaningful rates of completion. On our subjective satisfaction survey, a larger percentage of patients reported they would prefer to use a tablet for future surveys (Table 4). This finding may be driven by the novelty or ease of using a popular device. Nevertheless, we think it is worthwhile to heed patient preferences, as they may point to more successful data collection and compliance.

Several other studies have compared electronic and paper data capture.^{6,7,9-14,18-22} Dy and colleagues⁶ reported on administering the DASH survey on an iPad tablet using REDCap in an outpatient setting. They found that the percentage of surveys that could be scored (<3 questions left unanswered) was significantly higher for their tablet group (98%) than their paper group (76%). The larger difference in survey completion rates in their study (vs ours) may be attributable to their use of DASH, which has more survey items (compared with QuickDASH, the instrument we used) and thus may be more sensitive to detecting differences, at the risk of increasing the burden on survey takers.²³ Aktas and colleagues⁷ conducted a similar but smaller study of completion rates, completion times, and overall practicality of using digital tablets to collect PROs in a palliative care clinic (they did not compare tablet and paper modalities). Marsh and colleagues,¹² who studied the agreement between data collected on electronic and paper versions of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Osteoarthritis Index and the SF-12 (12-item Short Form Health Survey, Version 2) after total hip and total knee arthroplasty, found a high intraclass correlation coefficient between the 2 methods. Griffiths-Jones and colleagues¹¹ also found a high degree of agreement between patient data collected on digital and paper surveys. In a similar study, Fanning and McAuley¹⁰ compared digital tablet and paper survey administration in an older population and found a higher percentage of preference for tablets, with ease of use and anxiety during survey completion correlating with preference. These findings mirror ours, even with our inclusion of patients in a broader age range.

Strengths of our study included its overall cohort size and the variety of measurement instruments used. In addition, we measured time for survey completion to assess the practicality of tablet-based data collection and refrained from using digital features that could have artificially improved the completion rate for this survey modality.

Our study had a few limitations. First, we recruited unequal numbers of patients from the different subspecialties—a result of each subspecialty having a different number of attending physicians and a different patient volume. Given randomization and use of similar patients across the study arms, however, this likely did not present any significant bias. Second, each patient completed a tablet survey or a paper survey but not both, and therefore we could not compare a patient’s performance on the 2 modalities. However, the burden of completing the same survey more than once likely would have lowered our participation rate and introduced additional biases we wanted to avoid. Third, despite our attempt to mimic the look of a paper survey, the tablet’s user interface presented several potential difficulties. For example, its small text and small answer buttons may have been limiting for patients with poor vision. These design features emphasize the importance of having a user interface that can be adapted to the individual, regardless of handicap. Indeed, adaptability is a potential strength of digital interfaces. For adaptability, an interface designer can use large, scalable text and add audio prompts and other features.

Our findings can be useful in evaluating patient responsiveness to surveys administered on digital tablets in an outpatient clinic setting. In this prospective, randomized study, we found that, for survey completion, use of a tablet device did not require more time than use of a paper form. In addition, the administration modalities had similar completion and error rates for a variety of orthopedic outcomes surveys. We did not activate digital features that would have given unfair advantage to the digital data collection modality. We also found a strong preference for use of technology in PRO data collection, and this may help improve collection rates. Last, though optimizing the flow of patients in our clinic was not a strict research metric, we prioritized making sure patients were not spending any more time completing these surveys than in the past. Given the potential benefits of digital surveys—immediate and accurate transfer of collected data into multiple databases, including the patient’s electronic medical record—our experience supports continuing validation of these instruments for potential wider use.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E451-E457. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Over the past several decades, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become increasingly important in assessing the quality and effectiveness of medical and surgical care.^1,2 The benefit lies in the ability of PROs to characterize the impact of medical interventions on symptoms, function, and other outcomes from the patient’s perspective. Consequently, clinical practices can improve patients’ objective findings (from radiographic and clinical examinations) as well as their preferences in a social-psychological context.^2,3 As a patient’s satisfaction with a surgical intervention may not correlate with the surgeon’s objective assessment of outcome, PROs offer unique insight into the patient’s perceptions of well-being.⁴

Health-related quality-of-life assessments can be made with either general-health or disease-specific instruments. These instruments traditionally are administered with pen and paper—a data collection method with several limitations, chief being the need to manually transfer the data into an electronic medical record, a research database, or both. In addition, administering surveys on paper risks potential disqualification of partially or incorrectly completed surveys. With pen and paper, it is difficult to mandate that every question be answered accurately.

Currently, there is a potential role for electronic medical records and digital tablet devices in survey administration and data collection and storage. Theoretical advantages include direct input of survey data into databases (eliminating manual data entry and associated entry errors), improved accuracy and completion rates, and long-term storage not dependent on paper charts.⁵To our knowledge, there have been no prospective studies of different orthopedic outcomes collection methods. Some studies have evaluated use of touch-based tablets in data collection. Dy and colleagues⁶ considered administration of the DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand) survey on an iPad tablet (Apple Computers) and retrospectively compared the tablet and paper completion rates. The tablet group’s rate (98%) was significantly higher than the paper group’s rate (76%). Aktas and colleagues⁷ reported a high completion rate for a tablet survey of palliative care outcomes (they did not compare modalities). A handful of other studies have found higher intraclass correlation and validation for digital data collection than for paper collection.^7-14 The comparability of the data collected digitally vs on paper was the nidus for our decision to prospectively evaluate the ease and reliability of digital data collection.

We conducted a prospective, randomized study to compare the performance of tablet and paper versions of several general-health and musculoskeletal disease–specific questionnaires. We hypothesized the tablet and paper surveys would have similar completion rates and times.

Methods

This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. Participants were recruited during their clinic visit to 3 subspecialty orthopedic services (upper extremity, spine, arthroplasty). The questionnaires included basic demographics questions and questions about tablet use (comfort level with computers, measured on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), and ownership of a tablet or smartphone). Also included were European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions (EQ-5D, General Health), a disease questionnaire specific to 1 of the 3 subspecialty services, and a satisfaction survey. Patients were asked to complete the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) for low-back pain, the Neck Disability Index (NDI) for neck pain, the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (HOOS) for hip pain, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) for knee pain, or the QuickDASH survey for upper extremity complaints (subspecialty-specific). After recruitment, a computer-generated randomization technique was used to randomly assign patients to either a paper or an electronic (iPad) data collection group.¹⁵ We included all surveys for which patients had sufficient completion time (no clinic staff interruptions) and excluded surveys marked incomplete (because of interruptions for clinic workflow efficiency). For direct input from tablets and for data storage, we used the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) system hosted at our institution.¹⁶ Our staff registered patients as REDCap participants, assigned them to their disease-specific study arms, and gave them tablets to use to complete the surveys.

Patients who were randomly assigned to take the surveys on paper were given a packet that included the demographics survey, the EQ-5D, a disease-specific survey, and a satisfaction survey. Their responses were then manually entered by the investigators into the REDCap system.

Patients who were randomly assigned to take the surveys on tablets used the REDCap survey feature, which allowed them to directly input their responses into the database (Figure).

To allow them to skip a question (same as on paper), we did not activate the REDCap “require” feature. Had this feature been used, patients would have had to answer each question before being allowed to proceed to the next one. Similarly, patients could select multiple answers for a single question (as on paper). With these modifications, we attempted to replicate, as much as possible, the experience of taking a survey on paper.

Our primary outcome measure was survey completion rate. Secondary outcome measures were total time for completion, number of questions left unanswered on incomplete surveys, patient satisfaction with survey length (Likert scale, 1-5), ease of completion (Likert scale, 1-5), ability to comprehend questions (Likert scale, 1-5), and preference for the other survey modality (Appendix).

We used the findings of Dy and colleagues⁶ to identify the sample size needed for detecting a significant difference between the tablet and the paper group when using a 2-sided test with a power set to 80%. In their study, 24% of paper surveys and 2% of tablet surveys were unscorable,⁶ which we used as our predicted incompletion rate.

We used SPSS statistical software (IBM) to analyze our data, t test to compare continuous variables, χ² test to compare categorical variables, and linear regression to test the relationship between number of questions and completion rate. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

 

Results

Of the 510 patients enrolled in the study, 483 completed the initial demographics questionnaire and were included in the analysis. Patients were excluded if they were unable to complete the initial demographics questionnaire because of clinic workflow (eg, immediate need to be seen by physician, need to transfer to radiology for imaging and not being able to revisit the survey). Mean age was 56 years (range, 14-93 years), and 51% of the respondents were female. Fifty percent owned tablets, 70% owned smartphones, and mean (SD) self-rating of computer skills was 3.13 (1.16) (Likert scale, 1-5). There were no significant demographic differences between the tablet and paper groups (Table 1).

The EQ-5D was completed by 477 patients (252 tablet, 225 paper). Regarding the disease-specific questionnaires, 212 patients (102 tablet, 110 paper) were administered the ODI, 65 (30 tablet, 35 paper) the NDI, 28 (14 tablet, 14 paper) the HOOS, 57 (24 tablet, 33 paper) the KOOS, and 101 (67 tablet, 34 paper) the QuickDASH.

For each disease-specific questionnaire, the instrument’s published instructions for calculating scores were followed; these scores were then compared in order to further characterize the groups. There were significant differences in scores on the EQ-5D descriptive questions, a pain visual analog scale (VAS), and the NDI. Mean EQ-5D score was 0.664 for the tablet group and 0.699 for the paper group (P = .041), mean pain VAS score was 62.5 for the tablet group and 71.6 for the paper group (P < .001), and mean NDI score was 42.8 for the tablet group and 32.4 for the paper group (P = .033).

The other scores were not significantly different between the 2 groups (Table 2).

The overall completion rate for all questionnaires was 84.4%. The KOOS completion rate was 83.3% for the tablet group and 54.5% for the paper group (P = .023). Although it was not statistically significant, there was a trend toward higher rates of completing all disease-specific questionnaires in the tablet group relative to the paper group.

Time for completion of PRO questionnaires did not differ between the groups (Table 3).

Satisfaction regarding the surveys and their modalities was similar between the groups.

However, the 41.4% of paper group patients who reported they would prefer to use a tablet to take the survey in the future was higher (P < .001) than the 19.7% of tablet group patients who reported they would prefer the paper survey (Table 4).

Discussion

Electronic data entry has many advantages over traditional paper-based data collection and can be used with PRO surveys to measure response to treatment. Our study evaluated whether completion rates differed between surveys administered on digital tablets and those administered on traditional paper forms in a clinic setting. We selected general-health and disease-specific instruments commonly used to collect PROs from orthopedic patients. Our primary outcome measure was survey completion rate. Secondary outcome measures were total time for completion, number of questions left unanswered on incomplete surveys, patient satisfaction, and survey preferences.

In this study, our tablet and paper groups had similar overall survey completion rates, which suggests digital tablet-based data collection is noninferior to traditional pen-and-paper data collection with respect to patient response rate in the clinical setting. It is worth emphasizing that the tablet surveys were made to resemble and function as much as possible like the paper surveys. For example, patients were allowed to select multiple answers as well as advance without answering a question. Paper surveys were mimicked so we could study inherent differences in patient responsiveness without adding digital features to prevent patients from selecting multiple answers or skipping questions. We postulate that adding these digital features could have introduced a significant difference in patient responsiveness.

Time for survey completion was not significantly different between the tablet and paper groups, demonstrating that data can be digitally collected and the aforementioned advantages realized without significant delay or clinic workflow disruption. In the future, patients may be able to complete their forms digitally, on their own devices, before arriving for their clinic visits—resulting in improved clinic workflow and data collection efficiency.

Scores computed for the health-related quality-of-life questionnaires were not significantly different between the tablet and paper groups, except for EQ-5D and NDI. Although statistically significant, the 0.035 difference between the groups’ EQ-5D scores (0.664, 0.699) is not clinically significant. (Pickard and colleagues¹⁷ established that 0.06 is the clinically significant difference between EQ-5D scores in the United States.) If there were any clinical difference in the present study, our paper group patients appeared to be in better health than our tablet group patients.

Patients’ motivation to complete surveys often plays a large role in meaningful rates of completion. On our subjective satisfaction survey, a larger percentage of patients reported they would prefer to use a tablet for future surveys (Table 4). This finding may be driven by the novelty or ease of using a popular device. Nevertheless, we think it is worthwhile to heed patient preferences, as they may point to more successful data collection and compliance.

Several other studies have compared electronic and paper data capture.^{6,7,9-14,18-22} Dy and colleagues⁶ reported on administering the DASH survey on an iPad tablet using REDCap in an outpatient setting. They found that the percentage of surveys that could be scored (<3 questions left unanswered) was significantly higher for their tablet group (98%) than their paper group (76%). The larger difference in survey completion rates in their study (vs ours) may be attributable to their use of DASH, which has more survey items (compared with QuickDASH, the instrument we used) and thus may be more sensitive to detecting differences, at the risk of increasing the burden on survey takers.²³ Aktas and colleagues⁷ conducted a similar but smaller study of completion rates, completion times, and overall practicality of using digital tablets to collect PROs in a palliative care clinic (they did not compare tablet and paper modalities). Marsh and colleagues,¹² who studied the agreement between data collected on electronic and paper versions of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Osteoarthritis Index and the SF-12 (12-item Short Form Health Survey, Version 2) after total hip and total knee arthroplasty, found a high intraclass correlation coefficient between the 2 methods. Griffiths-Jones and colleagues¹¹ also found a high degree of agreement between patient data collected on digital and paper surveys. In a similar study, Fanning and McAuley¹⁰ compared digital tablet and paper survey administration in an older population and found a higher percentage of preference for tablets, with ease of use and anxiety during survey completion correlating with preference. These findings mirror ours, even with our inclusion of patients in a broader age range.

Strengths of our study included its overall cohort size and the variety of measurement instruments used. In addition, we measured time for survey completion to assess the practicality of tablet-based data collection and refrained from using digital features that could have artificially improved the completion rate for this survey modality.

Our study had a few limitations. First, we recruited unequal numbers of patients from the different subspecialties—a result of each subspecialty having a different number of attending physicians and a different patient volume. Given randomization and use of similar patients across the study arms, however, this likely did not present any significant bias. Second, each patient completed a tablet survey or a paper survey but not both, and therefore we could not compare a patient’s performance on the 2 modalities. However, the burden of completing the same survey more than once likely would have lowered our participation rate and introduced additional biases we wanted to avoid. Third, despite our attempt to mimic the look of a paper survey, the tablet’s user interface presented several potential difficulties. For example, its small text and small answer buttons may have been limiting for patients with poor vision. These design features emphasize the importance of having a user interface that can be adapted to the individual, regardless of handicap. Indeed, adaptability is a potential strength of digital interfaces. For adaptability, an interface designer can use large, scalable text and add audio prompts and other features.

Our findings can be useful in evaluating patient responsiveness to surveys administered on digital tablets in an outpatient clinic setting. In this prospective, randomized study, we found that, for survey completion, use of a tablet device did not require more time than use of a paper form. In addition, the administration modalities had similar completion and error rates for a variety of orthopedic outcomes surveys. We did not activate digital features that would have given unfair advantage to the digital data collection modality. We also found a strong preference for use of technology in PRO data collection, and this may help improve collection rates. Last, though optimizing the flow of patients in our clinic was not a strict research metric, we prioritized making sure patients were not spending any more time completing these surveys than in the past. Given the potential benefits of digital surveys—immediate and accurate transfer of collected data into multiple databases, including the patient’s electronic medical record—our experience supports continuing validation of these instruments for potential wider use.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E451-E457. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an efficacious procedure for end-stage knee arthritis. Although TKA is cost-effective and has a high rate of success,^1-6 TKAs fail and may require revision surgery. Failure mechanisms include periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, wear, osteolysis, instability, and infection.^7-9 In these cases, revision arthroplasty may be needed in order to restore function.

There has been a steady increase in the number of primary and revision TKAs performed in the United States.^8,10,11 Revision rates are 4% at 5 years after index TKA and 8.9% at 9 years.¹² However, surgical techniques and improved implants have led to improved outcomes after primary TKA, as evidenced by the reduction in revisions performed for polyethylene wear and osteolysis.¹³ Given the continuing need for revision TKAs (despite technical improvements¹³), evidence-based standard protocols that improve outcomes after revision TKA are necessary.

The Total Joint Replacement Perioperative Surgical Home (TJR-PSH) implemented and used by surgeons and anesthesiologists at our institution has shown that an evidence-based perioperative protocol can provide consistent and improved outcomes in primary TKA.^14-16

TJR-PSH is a clinical care pathway that defines and standardizes preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and postdischarge management for patients who undergo elective primary total knee and total hip arthroplasty.^14,15

The clinical pathway developed by the TJR-PSH team is briefly described in Appendixes A and B.

Garson and colleagues¹⁴ and Chaurasia and colleagues¹⁵ found that patients who underwent primary TKA in a TJA-PSH had a predicted short length of stay (LOS): <3 days. About half were discharged to a location other than home, and 1.1% were readmitted within the first 30 days after surgery. There were no major complications and no mortalities. Conversely, as shown in different nationwide database analysis,^17,18 mean LOS after primary unilateral TKA was 5.3 days, 8.2% of patients had procedure-related complications, 30-day readmission rate was 4.2%, and the in-hospital mortality rate was 0.3%. As with TJA-PSH, about half the patients were discharged to a place other than home.

We conducted a study to test the effect of the TJA-PSH clinical pathway on revision TKA patients. Early perioperative outcomes, such as LOS, readmission rate, and reoperation rate, are invaluable tools in measuring TKA outcomes and correlate with the dedicated orthopedic complication grading system proposed by the Knee Society.^14,15,17,19 We hypothesized that the TJR-PSH clinical pathway would close the perioperative morbidity gap between primary and revision TKAs and yield equivalent perioperative outcomes.

Materials and Methods

In this study, which received Institutional Review Board approval, we performed a prospective cross-sectional analysis comparing the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent primary TKA with those of patients who underwent revision TKA. Medical records and our institution’s data registry were queried for LOS, discharge disposition, readmission rates, and reoperation rates.

The study included all primary and revision TKAs performed at our institution since the inception of TJA-PSH. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties and exchanges of a single component (patella, tibia, or femur) were excluded. We identified a total of 285 consecutive primary or revision TKAs, all performed by a single surgeon. Three cases lacked complete data and were excluded, leaving 282 cases: 235 primary and 50 revision TKAs (no simultaneous bilateral TKAs). The demographic data we collected included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, calculated Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), LOS, and discharge disposition.

The same established perioperative surgical home clinical pathway was used to care for all patients, whether they underwent primary or revision TKA. The primary outcomes studied were LOS, discharge disposition (subacute nursing facility or home), 30-day orthopedic readmission, and return to operating room. All reoperations on the same knee were analyzed.

Statistical Analysis

Primary and revision TKAs were compared on LOS (with an independent-sample t test) and discharge disposition, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations (χ² Fisher exact test). Multivariate regression analysis was performed with each primary outcome, using age, sex, BMI, ASA score, and CCI as covariates. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ .05. All analyses were performed with SPSS Version 16.0 (SPSS Inc.) and Microsoft Excel 2011 (Microsoft).

Results

Mean (SD) age was 66 (13.2) years for primary TKA patients and 62 (12.8) years for revision TKA patients. The cohort had more women (62.5%) than men (37.5%). There was no statistical difference in patient demographics with respect to age (P = .169) or BMI (P = .701) between the 2 groups. There was an even age distribution within each group and between the groups (Table).

There was no statistically significant difference in mean ASA score between the groups (P = .914).

 

There was no statistically significant difference in LOS between the groups. Mean (SD) LOS was 2.55 (1.25) days for primary TKA and 2.92 (1.24) days for revision TKA (P = .061; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.017-0.749). Regression analysis showed a correlation between ASA score and LOS for primary TKAs but not revision TKAs. For every unit increase in ASA score, there was a 0.39-day increase in LOS for primary TKA (P = .46; 95% CI, 0.006-0.781). There was no correlation between ASA score and LOS for revision TKA when controlling for covariates (P = .124). Eighty (34%) of the 235 primary TKA patients and 21 (41%) of the 50 revision TKA patients were discharged to a subacute nursing facility; the difference was not significant (P = .123). No patient was discharged to an acute inpatient rehabilitation unit. In addition, there was no significant difference in 30-day readmission rates between primary and revision TKA (P = .081). One primary TKA patient (0.4%) and 2 revision TKA patients (4%) were readmitted within 30 days after surgery (P = .081). The primary TKA readmission was for severe spasticity and a history of cerebral palsy leading to a quadriceps avulsion fracture from the superior pole of the patella. One revision TKA readmission was for acute periprosthetic joint infection, and the other for periprosthetic fracture around a press-fit distal femoral replacement stem. There was no significant difference in number of 30-day reoperations between the groups (P = .993). None of the primary TKAs and 2 (4%) of the revision TKAs underwent reoperation. Of the revision TKA patients who returned to the operating room within 30 days after surgery, one was treated for an acute periprosthetic joint infection, the other for a femoral periprosthetic fracture.

Discussion

Advances in multidisciplinary co-management of TKA patients and their clinical effects are highlighted in the TJR-PSH.¹⁴ TJR-PSH allows the health team and the patient to prepare for surgery with an understanding of probable outcomes and to optimize the patient’s medical and educational standing to better meet expectations and increase satisfaction.

Previous studies have focused on the etiologies of revision TKA^7,8 and on understanding the factors that may predict increased risk for a poor outcome after primary TKA and indicate a possible need for revision.^8,12 The present study focused on practical clinical processes that could potentially constitute a standardized perioperative protocol for revision TKA. An organized TJR-PSH may allow the health team to educate patients that LOS, rehabilitation and acute recovery, risk of acute (30-day) complications, and risk of readmission and return to the operating room within the first 30 days after surgery are similar for revision and primary TKAs, as long as proper preoperative optimization and education occur within the TJR-PSH.

Studies have found correlations between revision TKA and significantly increased LOS and postoperative complications.^20,21 In contrast, we found no significant difference in LOS between our primary and revision TKA groups. LOS was 2.6 days for primary TKA and 2.9 days for revision TKA—a significant improvement in care and cost for revision TKA patients. That the reduced mean LOS for revision TKA is similar to the mean LOS for primary TKA also implies a reduction in the higher cost of care in revision TKA.²⁰ In addition to obtaining similar LOS for primary and revision TKA, TJR-PSH achieved an overall reduction in LOS.^17,22Our results also showed no difference in discharge disposition between primary and revision TKA in our protocol. Discharge disposition also did not correlate with age, sex, BMI, ASA score, or CCI. In TJR-PSH, discharge planning starts before admission and is patient-oriented for optimal recovery. About 66% of primary TKA patients and 58% of revision TKA patients in our cohort were discharged home—implying we are able to send a majority of our postoperative patients home after a shorter hospital stay, while obtaining the same good outcomes. Discharging fewer revision TKA patients to extended-care facilities also indicates a possible reduction in the cost of postoperative care, bringing it in line with the cost in primary TKA. Early individualized discharge planning in TJA-PSH accounts for the similar outcomes in primary and revision TKAs.

There was no significant difference in 30-day readmission rates between our primary and revision TKA patients. An important component of the TJR-PSH pathway is the individualized postdischarge recovery plan, which helps with optimal recovery and reduces readmission rates. Our cohort’s 30-day readmission rate was 0.4% for primary TKA and 4% for revision TKA (P = .081). Thirty-day readmission is a good indicator of postoperative complications and recovery from surgery. We have previously reported on primary TKA outcomes.^{14,15,,18,22,23} In a study using an NSQIP (National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) database, 11,814 primary TKAs had a 30-day readmission rate of 4.2%.¹⁸ In an outcomes study of 17,994 patients who underwent primary TKA in a single fiscal year, the 30-day readmission rate was 5.9%.⁹ In addition, in a single-institution cohort study of 1032 primary TKA patients, Schairer and colleagues²³ found a 30-day unplanned readmission rate of 3.4%. Compared with primary TKA, revision TKA traditionally has had a higher postoperative complication rate.^20,21 There is also concern that shorter hospital stays may indicate that significant complications of revision TKAs are being missed. In this study, however, we established that the equal outcomes obtained in the perioperative period carry over to the 30-day postoperative period in our revision TKA group. Good postoperative follow-up and planning are important factors in readmission reduction. Readmissions also have significant overall cost implications.²⁴There was no statistical difference in 30-day reoperation rates between our primary and revision TKA patients. The primary TKA patients had no 30-day reoperations. Previous studies have found reoperation rates ranging from 1.8% to 4.7%.^25,26 Revision TKA patients are up to 6 times more likely than primary TKA patients to require reoperation.²⁰ Our study found no significant difference in outcomes between primary and revision TKAs.

Comparison of the outcomes of primary TKA and revision TKA in TJR-PSH showed no difference in acute recovery from surgery. LOS and discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and 30-day return to the operating room were the same for primary and revision TKAs. The morbidity gap between primary and revision TKA patients has been closed in our research cohort. This outcome is important, as indications for primary TKA continue to expand and more primary TKAs are performed in younger patients.^18,23 The implication is that, in the future, more knees will need to be revised as patients outlive their prostheses.

Our study had some limitations. First, it involved a small sample of patients, operated on by a single surgeon in a well-organized TJR-PSH at a large academic center. This population might not represent the US patient population, but that should not have adversely affected data analysis, because patients were compared with a similar population. Second, the data might be incomplete because some patients with complications might have sought care at other medical facilities, and we might not have been aware of these cases. Third, we focused on objective clinical outcomes in order to measure the success of TKAs. We did not include any subjective, patient-reported data, such as rehabilitation advances and functioning levels. Fourth, multiple parameters can be used to address complication outcomes, but we used LOS, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and 30-day reoperation rate because current payers and institutions often consider these variables when assessing quality of care. These parameters can be influenced by factors such as inpatient physical therapy goals, facility discharge practices, individual social support structure, and hospital pay-for-performance model. The implication is that different facilities have different outcomes in terms of LOS, discharge disposition, readmissions, and reoperations. However, we expect proportionate similarities in these parameters as patient perioperative outcomes become more complicated. Nevertheless, a multicenter study would be able to answer questions raised by this limitation. Fifth, our statistical analysis might have been affected by decreased power of some of the outcome variables.

TJR-PSH has succeeded in closing the perioperative morbidity and outcomes gap between primary and revision TKAs. Outcome parameters used to measure the success of TJR-PSH are standard measures of the immediate postoperative recovery and short-term outcomes of TKA patients. These measures are linked to complication rates and overall outcomes in many TKA studies.^14,15,17,19 Also important is that hospital costs can be drastically cut by reducing LOS, readmissions, and reoperations. Presence of any complication of primary or revision TKA raises the cost up to 34%. This increase can go as high as 64% in the 90 days after surgery.²⁷

 

Conclusion

The major challenge of the changing medical landscape is to integrate quality care and a continually improving healthcare system with the goal of cost-effective delivery of healthcare. Surgical care costs can be significantly increased by evitable hospital stays, complications that lead to readmissions, and unplanned returns to the operating room after index surgery. The new perioperative surgical home created for TJA has helped drastically reduce LOS, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and 30-day reoperation rate in revision TKA. This study demonstrates similar outcomes in our revision TKA patients relative to their primary TKA counterparts.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E458-E464. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an efficacious procedure for end-stage knee arthritis. Although TKA is cost-effective and has a high rate of success,^1-6 TKAs fail and may require revision surgery. Failure mechanisms include periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, wear, osteolysis, instability, and infection.^7-9 In these cases, revision arthroplasty may be needed in order to restore function.

There has been a steady increase in the number of primary and revision TKAs performed in the United States.^8,10,11 Revision rates are 4% at 5 years after index TKA and 8.9% at 9 years.¹² However, surgical techniques and improved implants have led to improved outcomes after primary TKA, as evidenced by the reduction in revisions performed for polyethylene wear and osteolysis.¹³ Given the continuing need for revision TKAs (despite technical improvements¹³), evidence-based standard protocols that improve outcomes after revision TKA are necessary.

The Total Joint Replacement Perioperative Surgical Home (TJR-PSH) implemented and used by surgeons and anesthesiologists at our institution has shown that an evidence-based perioperative protocol can provide consistent and improved outcomes in primary TKA.^14-16

TJR-PSH is a clinical care pathway that defines and standardizes preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and postdischarge management for patients who undergo elective primary total knee and total hip arthroplasty.^14,15

The clinical pathway developed by the TJR-PSH team is briefly described in Appendixes A and B.

Garson and colleagues¹⁴ and Chaurasia and colleagues¹⁵ found that patients who underwent primary TKA in a TJA-PSH had a predicted short length of stay (LOS): <3 days. About half were discharged to a location other than home, and 1.1% were readmitted within the first 30 days after surgery. There were no major complications and no mortalities. Conversely, as shown in different nationwide database analysis,^17,18 mean LOS after primary unilateral TKA was 5.3 days, 8.2% of patients had procedure-related complications, 30-day readmission rate was 4.2%, and the in-hospital mortality rate was 0.3%. As with TJA-PSH, about half the patients were discharged to a place other than home.

We conducted a study to test the effect of the TJA-PSH clinical pathway on revision TKA patients. Early perioperative outcomes, such as LOS, readmission rate, and reoperation rate, are invaluable tools in measuring TKA outcomes and correlate with the dedicated orthopedic complication grading system proposed by the Knee Society.^14,15,17,19 We hypothesized that the TJR-PSH clinical pathway would close the perioperative morbidity gap between primary and revision TKAs and yield equivalent perioperative outcomes.

Materials and Methods

In this study, which received Institutional Review Board approval, we performed a prospective cross-sectional analysis comparing the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent primary TKA with those of patients who underwent revision TKA. Medical records and our institution’s data registry were queried for LOS, discharge disposition, readmission rates, and reoperation rates.

The study included all primary and revision TKAs performed at our institution since the inception of TJA-PSH. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties and exchanges of a single component (patella, tibia, or femur) were excluded. We identified a total of 285 consecutive primary or revision TKAs, all performed by a single surgeon. Three cases lacked complete data and were excluded, leaving 282 cases: 235 primary and 50 revision TKAs (no simultaneous bilateral TKAs). The demographic data we collected included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, calculated Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), LOS, and discharge disposition.

The same established perioperative surgical home clinical pathway was used to care for all patients, whether they underwent primary or revision TKA. The primary outcomes studied were LOS, discharge disposition (subacute nursing facility or home), 30-day orthopedic readmission, and return to operating room. All reoperations on the same knee were analyzed.

Statistical Analysis

Primary and revision TKAs were compared on LOS (with an independent-sample t test) and discharge disposition, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations (χ² Fisher exact test). Multivariate regression analysis was performed with each primary outcome, using age, sex, BMI, ASA score, and CCI as covariates. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ .05. All analyses were performed with SPSS Version 16.0 (SPSS Inc.) and Microsoft Excel 2011 (Microsoft).

Results

Mean (SD) age was 66 (13.2) years for primary TKA patients and 62 (12.8) years for revision TKA patients. The cohort had more women (62.5%) than men (37.5%). There was no statistical difference in patient demographics with respect to age (P = .169) or BMI (P = .701) between the 2 groups. There was an even age distribution within each group and between the groups (Table).

There was no statistically significant difference in mean ASA score between the groups (P = .914).

 

There was no statistically significant difference in LOS between the groups. Mean (SD) LOS was 2.55 (1.25) days for primary TKA and 2.92 (1.24) days for revision TKA (P = .061; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.017-0.749). Regression analysis showed a correlation between ASA score and LOS for primary TKAs but not revision TKAs. For every unit increase in ASA score, there was a 0.39-day increase in LOS for primary TKA (P = .46; 95% CI, 0.006-0.781). There was no correlation between ASA score and LOS for revision TKA when controlling for covariates (P = .124). Eighty (34%) of the 235 primary TKA patients and 21 (41%) of the 50 revision TKA patients were discharged to a subacute nursing facility; the difference was not significant (P = .123). No patient was discharged to an acute inpatient rehabilitation unit. In addition, there was no significant difference in 30-day readmission rates between primary and revision TKA (P = .081). One primary TKA patient (0.4%) and 2 revision TKA patients (4%) were readmitted within 30 days after surgery (P = .081). The primary TKA readmission was for severe spasticity and a history of cerebral palsy leading to a quadriceps avulsion fracture from the superior pole of the patella. One revision TKA readmission was for acute periprosthetic joint infection, and the other for periprosthetic fracture around a press-fit distal femoral replacement stem. There was no significant difference in number of 30-day reoperations between the groups (P = .993). None of the primary TKAs and 2 (4%) of the revision TKAs underwent reoperation. Of the revision TKA patients who returned to the operating room within 30 days after surgery, one was treated for an acute periprosthetic joint infection, the other for a femoral periprosthetic fracture.

Discussion

Advances in multidisciplinary co-management of TKA patients and their clinical effects are highlighted in the TJR-PSH.¹⁴ TJR-PSH allows the health team and the patient to prepare for surgery with an understanding of probable outcomes and to optimize the patient’s medical and educational standing to better meet expectations and increase satisfaction.

Previous studies have focused on the etiologies of revision TKA^7,8 and on understanding the factors that may predict increased risk for a poor outcome after primary TKA and indicate a possible need for revision.^8,12 The present study focused on practical clinical processes that could potentially constitute a standardized perioperative protocol for revision TKA. An organized TJR-PSH may allow the health team to educate patients that LOS, rehabilitation and acute recovery, risk of acute (30-day) complications, and risk of readmission and return to the operating room within the first 30 days after surgery are similar for revision and primary TKAs, as long as proper preoperative optimization and education occur within the TJR-PSH.

Studies have found correlations between revision TKA and significantly increased LOS and postoperative complications.^20,21 In contrast, we found no significant difference in LOS between our primary and revision TKA groups. LOS was 2.6 days for primary TKA and 2.9 days for revision TKA—a significant improvement in care and cost for revision TKA patients. That the reduced mean LOS for revision TKA is similar to the mean LOS for primary TKA also implies a reduction in the higher cost of care in revision TKA.²⁰ In addition to obtaining similar LOS for primary and revision TKA, TJR-PSH achieved an overall reduction in LOS.^17,22Our results also showed no difference in discharge disposition between primary and revision TKA in our protocol. Discharge disposition also did not correlate with age, sex, BMI, ASA score, or CCI. In TJR-PSH, discharge planning starts before admission and is patient-oriented for optimal recovery. About 66% of primary TKA patients and 58% of revision TKA patients in our cohort were discharged home—implying we are able to send a majority of our postoperative patients home after a shorter hospital stay, while obtaining the same good outcomes. Discharging fewer revision TKA patients to extended-care facilities also indicates a possible reduction in the cost of postoperative care, bringing it in line with the cost in primary TKA. Early individualized discharge planning in TJA-PSH accounts for the similar outcomes in primary and revision TKAs.

There was no significant difference in 30-day readmission rates between our primary and revision TKA patients. An important component of the TJR-PSH pathway is the individualized postdischarge recovery plan, which helps with optimal recovery and reduces readmission rates. Our cohort’s 30-day readmission rate was 0.4% for primary TKA and 4% for revision TKA (P = .081). Thirty-day readmission is a good indicator of postoperative complications and recovery from surgery. We have previously reported on primary TKA outcomes.^{14,15,,18,22,23} In a study using an NSQIP (National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) database, 11,814 primary TKAs had a 30-day readmission rate of 4.2%.¹⁸ In an outcomes study of 17,994 patients who underwent primary TKA in a single fiscal year, the 30-day readmission rate was 5.9%.⁹ In addition, in a single-institution cohort study of 1032 primary TKA patients, Schairer and colleagues²³ found a 30-day unplanned readmission rate of 3.4%. Compared with primary TKA, revision TKA traditionally has had a higher postoperative complication rate.^20,21 There is also concern that shorter hospital stays may indicate that significant complications of revision TKAs are being missed. In this study, however, we established that the equal outcomes obtained in the perioperative period carry over to the 30-day postoperative period in our revision TKA group. Good postoperative follow-up and planning are important factors in readmission reduction. Readmissions also have significant overall cost implications.²⁴There was no statistical difference in 30-day reoperation rates between our primary and revision TKA patients. The primary TKA patients had no 30-day reoperations. Previous studies have found reoperation rates ranging from 1.8% to 4.7%.^25,26 Revision TKA patients are up to 6 times more likely than primary TKA patients to require reoperation.²⁰ Our study found no significant difference in outcomes between primary and revision TKAs.

Comparison of the outcomes of primary TKA and revision TKA in TJR-PSH showed no difference in acute recovery from surgery. LOS and discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and 30-day return to the operating room were the same for primary and revision TKAs. The morbidity gap between primary and revision TKA patients has been closed in our research cohort. This outcome is important, as indications for primary TKA continue to expand and more primary TKAs are performed in younger patients.^18,23 The implication is that, in the future, more knees will need to be revised as patients outlive their prostheses.

Our study had some limitations. First, it involved a small sample of patients, operated on by a single surgeon in a well-organized TJR-PSH at a large academic center. This population might not represent the US patient population, but that should not have adversely affected data analysis, because patients were compared with a similar population. Second, the data might be incomplete because some patients with complications might have sought care at other medical facilities, and we might not have been aware of these cases. Third, we focused on objective clinical outcomes in order to measure the success of TKAs. We did not include any subjective, patient-reported data, such as rehabilitation advances and functioning levels. Fourth, multiple parameters can be used to address complication outcomes, but we used LOS, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and 30-day reoperation rate because current payers and institutions often consider these variables when assessing quality of care. These parameters can be influenced by factors such as inpatient physical therapy goals, facility discharge practices, individual social support structure, and hospital pay-for-performance model. The implication is that different facilities have different outcomes in terms of LOS, discharge disposition, readmissions, and reoperations. However, we expect proportionate similarities in these parameters as patient perioperative outcomes become more complicated. Nevertheless, a multicenter study would be able to answer questions raised by this limitation. Fifth, our statistical analysis might have been affected by decreased power of some of the outcome variables.

TJR-PSH has succeeded in closing the perioperative morbidity and outcomes gap between primary and revision TKAs. Outcome parameters used to measure the success of TJR-PSH are standard measures of the immediate postoperative recovery and short-term outcomes of TKA patients. These measures are linked to complication rates and overall outcomes in many TKA studies.^14,15,17,19 Also important is that hospital costs can be drastically cut by reducing LOS, readmissions, and reoperations. Presence of any complication of primary or revision TKA raises the cost up to 34%. This increase can go as high as 64% in the 90 days after surgery.²⁷

 

Conclusion

The major challenge of the changing medical landscape is to integrate quality care and a continually improving healthcare system with the goal of cost-effective delivery of healthcare. Surgical care costs can be significantly increased by evitable hospital stays, complications that lead to readmissions, and unplanned returns to the operating room after index surgery. The new perioperative surgical home created for TJA has helped drastically reduce LOS, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and 30-day reoperation rate in revision TKA. This study demonstrates similar outcomes in our revision TKA patients relative to their primary TKA counterparts.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E458-E464. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an efficacious procedure for end-stage knee arthritis. Although TKA is cost-effective and has a high rate of success,^1-6 TKAs fail and may require revision surgery. Failure mechanisms include periprosthetic fracture, aseptic loosening, wear, osteolysis, instability, and infection.^7-9 In these cases, revision arthroplasty may be needed in order to restore function.

There has been a steady increase in the number of primary and revision TKAs performed in the United States.^8,10,11 Revision rates are 4% at 5 years after index TKA and 8.9% at 9 years.¹² However, surgical techniques and improved implants have led to improved outcomes after primary TKA, as evidenced by the reduction in revisions performed for polyethylene wear and osteolysis.¹³ Given the continuing need for revision TKAs (despite technical improvements¹³), evidence-based standard protocols that improve outcomes after revision TKA are necessary.

The Total Joint Replacement Perioperative Surgical Home (TJR-PSH) implemented and used by surgeons and anesthesiologists at our institution has shown that an evidence-based perioperative protocol can provide consistent and improved outcomes in primary TKA.^14-16

TJR-PSH is a clinical care pathway that defines and standardizes preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative, and postdischarge management for patients who undergo elective primary total knee and total hip arthroplasty.^14,15

The clinical pathway developed by the TJR-PSH team is briefly described in Appendixes A and B.

Garson and colleagues¹⁴ and Chaurasia and colleagues¹⁵ found that patients who underwent primary TKA in a TJA-PSH had a predicted short length of stay (LOS): <3 days. About half were discharged to a location other than home, and 1.1% were readmitted within the first 30 days after surgery. There were no major complications and no mortalities. Conversely, as shown in different nationwide database analysis,^17,18 mean LOS after primary unilateral TKA was 5.3 days, 8.2% of patients had procedure-related complications, 30-day readmission rate was 4.2%, and the in-hospital mortality rate was 0.3%. As with TJA-PSH, about half the patients were discharged to a place other than home.

We conducted a study to test the effect of the TJA-PSH clinical pathway on revision TKA patients. Early perioperative outcomes, such as LOS, readmission rate, and reoperation rate, are invaluable tools in measuring TKA outcomes and correlate with the dedicated orthopedic complication grading system proposed by the Knee Society.^14,15,17,19 We hypothesized that the TJR-PSH clinical pathway would close the perioperative morbidity gap between primary and revision TKAs and yield equivalent perioperative outcomes.

Materials and Methods

In this study, which received Institutional Review Board approval, we performed a prospective cross-sectional analysis comparing the perioperative outcomes of patients who underwent primary TKA with those of patients who underwent revision TKA. Medical records and our institution’s data registry were queried for LOS, discharge disposition, readmission rates, and reoperation rates.

The study included all primary and revision TKAs performed at our institution since the inception of TJA-PSH. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasties and exchanges of a single component (patella, tibia, or femur) were excluded. We identified a total of 285 consecutive primary or revision TKAs, all performed by a single surgeon. Three cases lacked complete data and were excluded, leaving 282 cases: 235 primary and 50 revision TKAs (no simultaneous bilateral TKAs). The demographic data we collected included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, calculated Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), LOS, and discharge disposition.

The same established perioperative surgical home clinical pathway was used to care for all patients, whether they underwent primary or revision TKA. The primary outcomes studied were LOS, discharge disposition (subacute nursing facility or home), 30-day orthopedic readmission, and return to operating room. All reoperations on the same knee were analyzed.

Statistical Analysis

Primary and revision TKAs were compared on LOS (with an independent-sample t test) and discharge disposition, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations (χ² Fisher exact test). Multivariate regression analysis was performed with each primary outcome, using age, sex, BMI, ASA score, and CCI as covariates. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ .05. All analyses were performed with SPSS Version 16.0 (SPSS Inc.) and Microsoft Excel 2011 (Microsoft).

Results

Mean (SD) age was 66 (13.2) years for primary TKA patients and 62 (12.8) years for revision TKA patients. The cohort had more women (62.5%) than men (37.5%). There was no statistical difference in patient demographics with respect to age (P = .169) or BMI (P = .701) between the 2 groups. There was an even age distribution within each group and between the groups (Table).

There was no statistically significant difference in mean ASA score between the groups (P = .914).

 

There was no statistically significant difference in LOS between the groups. Mean (SD) LOS was 2.55 (1.25) days for primary TKA and 2.92 (1.24) days for revision TKA (P = .061; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.017-0.749). Regression analysis showed a correlation between ASA score and LOS for primary TKAs but not revision TKAs. For every unit increase in ASA score, there was a 0.39-day increase in LOS for primary TKA (P = .46; 95% CI, 0.006-0.781). There was no correlation between ASA score and LOS for revision TKA when controlling for covariates (P = .124). Eighty (34%) of the 235 primary TKA patients and 21 (41%) of the 50 revision TKA patients were discharged to a subacute nursing facility; the difference was not significant (P = .123). No patient was discharged to an acute inpatient rehabilitation unit. In addition, there was no significant difference in 30-day readmission rates between primary and revision TKA (P = .081). One primary TKA patient (0.4%) and 2 revision TKA patients (4%) were readmitted within 30 days after surgery (P = .081). The primary TKA readmission was for severe spasticity and a history of cerebral palsy leading to a quadriceps avulsion fracture from the superior pole of the patella. One revision TKA readmission was for acute periprosthetic joint infection, and the other for periprosthetic fracture around a press-fit distal femoral replacement stem. There was no significant difference in number of 30-day reoperations between the groups (P = .993). None of the primary TKAs and 2 (4%) of the revision TKAs underwent reoperation. Of the revision TKA patients who returned to the operating room within 30 days after surgery, one was treated for an acute periprosthetic joint infection, the other for a femoral periprosthetic fracture.

Discussion

Advances in multidisciplinary co-management of TKA patients and their clinical effects are highlighted in the TJR-PSH.¹⁴ TJR-PSH allows the health team and the patient to prepare for surgery with an understanding of probable outcomes and to optimize the patient’s medical and educational standing to better meet expectations and increase satisfaction.

Previous studies have focused on the etiologies of revision TKA^7,8 and on understanding the factors that may predict increased risk for a poor outcome after primary TKA and indicate a possible need for revision.^8,12 The present study focused on practical clinical processes that could potentially constitute a standardized perioperative protocol for revision TKA. An organized TJR-PSH may allow the health team to educate patients that LOS, rehabilitation and acute recovery, risk of acute (30-day) complications, and risk of readmission and return to the operating room within the first 30 days after surgery are similar for revision and primary TKAs, as long as proper preoperative optimization and education occur within the TJR-PSH.

Studies have found correlations between revision TKA and significantly increased LOS and postoperative complications.^20,21 In contrast, we found no significant difference in LOS between our primary and revision TKA groups. LOS was 2.6 days for primary TKA and 2.9 days for revision TKA—a significant improvement in care and cost for revision TKA patients. That the reduced mean LOS for revision TKA is similar to the mean LOS for primary TKA also implies a reduction in the higher cost of care in revision TKA.²⁰ In addition to obtaining similar LOS for primary and revision TKA, TJR-PSH achieved an overall reduction in LOS.^17,22Our results also showed no difference in discharge disposition between primary and revision TKA in our protocol. Discharge disposition also did not correlate with age, sex, BMI, ASA score, or CCI. In TJR-PSH, discharge planning starts before admission and is patient-oriented for optimal recovery. About 66% of primary TKA patients and 58% of revision TKA patients in our cohort were discharged home—implying we are able to send a majority of our postoperative patients home after a shorter hospital stay, while obtaining the same good outcomes. Discharging fewer revision TKA patients to extended-care facilities also indicates a possible reduction in the cost of postoperative care, bringing it in line with the cost in primary TKA. Early individualized discharge planning in TJA-PSH accounts for the similar outcomes in primary and revision TKAs.

There was no significant difference in 30-day readmission rates between our primary and revision TKA patients. An important component of the TJR-PSH pathway is the individualized postdischarge recovery plan, which helps with optimal recovery and reduces readmission rates. Our cohort’s 30-day readmission rate was 0.4% for primary TKA and 4% for revision TKA (P = .081). Thirty-day readmission is a good indicator of postoperative complications and recovery from surgery. We have previously reported on primary TKA outcomes.^{14,15,,18,22,23} In a study using an NSQIP (National Surgical Quality Improvement Program) database, 11,814 primary TKAs had a 30-day readmission rate of 4.2%.¹⁸ In an outcomes study of 17,994 patients who underwent primary TKA in a single fiscal year, the 30-day readmission rate was 5.9%.⁹ In addition, in a single-institution cohort study of 1032 primary TKA patients, Schairer and colleagues²³ found a 30-day unplanned readmission rate of 3.4%. Compared with primary TKA, revision TKA traditionally has had a higher postoperative complication rate.^20,21 There is also concern that shorter hospital stays may indicate that significant complications of revision TKAs are being missed. In this study, however, we established that the equal outcomes obtained in the perioperative period carry over to the 30-day postoperative period in our revision TKA group. Good postoperative follow-up and planning are important factors in readmission reduction. Readmissions also have significant overall cost implications.²⁴There was no statistical difference in 30-day reoperation rates between our primary and revision TKA patients. The primary TKA patients had no 30-day reoperations. Previous studies have found reoperation rates ranging from 1.8% to 4.7%.^25,26 Revision TKA patients are up to 6 times more likely than primary TKA patients to require reoperation.²⁰ Our study found no significant difference in outcomes between primary and revision TKAs.

Comparison of the outcomes of primary TKA and revision TKA in TJR-PSH showed no difference in acute recovery from surgery. LOS and discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and 30-day return to the operating room were the same for primary and revision TKAs. The morbidity gap between primary and revision TKA patients has been closed in our research cohort. This outcome is important, as indications for primary TKA continue to expand and more primary TKAs are performed in younger patients.^18,23 The implication is that, in the future, more knees will need to be revised as patients outlive their prostheses.

Our study had some limitations. First, it involved a small sample of patients, operated on by a single surgeon in a well-organized TJR-PSH at a large academic center. This population might not represent the US patient population, but that should not have adversely affected data analysis, because patients were compared with a similar population. Second, the data might be incomplete because some patients with complications might have sought care at other medical facilities, and we might not have been aware of these cases. Third, we focused on objective clinical outcomes in order to measure the success of TKAs. We did not include any subjective, patient-reported data, such as rehabilitation advances and functioning levels. Fourth, multiple parameters can be used to address complication outcomes, but we used LOS, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and 30-day reoperation rate because current payers and institutions often consider these variables when assessing quality of care. These parameters can be influenced by factors such as inpatient physical therapy goals, facility discharge practices, individual social support structure, and hospital pay-for-performance model. The implication is that different facilities have different outcomes in terms of LOS, discharge disposition, readmissions, and reoperations. However, we expect proportionate similarities in these parameters as patient perioperative outcomes become more complicated. Nevertheless, a multicenter study would be able to answer questions raised by this limitation. Fifth, our statistical analysis might have been affected by decreased power of some of the outcome variables.

TJR-PSH has succeeded in closing the perioperative morbidity and outcomes gap between primary and revision TKAs. Outcome parameters used to measure the success of TJR-PSH are standard measures of the immediate postoperative recovery and short-term outcomes of TKA patients. These measures are linked to complication rates and overall outcomes in many TKA studies.^14,15,17,19 Also important is that hospital costs can be drastically cut by reducing LOS, readmissions, and reoperations. Presence of any complication of primary or revision TKA raises the cost up to 34%. This increase can go as high as 64% in the 90 days after surgery.²⁷

 

Conclusion

The major challenge of the changing medical landscape is to integrate quality care and a continually improving healthcare system with the goal of cost-effective delivery of healthcare. Surgical care costs can be significantly increased by evitable hospital stays, complications that lead to readmissions, and unplanned returns to the operating room after index surgery. The new perioperative surgical home created for TJA has helped drastically reduce LOS, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate, and 30-day reoperation rate in revision TKA. This study demonstrates similar outcomes in our revision TKA patients relative to their primary TKA counterparts.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E458-E464. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

The incidence of midsubstance Achilles tendon ruptures is increasing in patients 30 years to 50 years of age, and more than 50% of these injuries occur during recreational basketball.^1,2 Achilles ruptures occur more in deconditioned individuals engaged in explosive push-off and jumping activities. Management of these injuries has been controversial over the past decade; there is no consensus on nonoperative treatment, surgical repair, or optimal repair technique.^1,3-7 According to American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines, limited-incision approaches have fewer overall complications relative to traditional open repair.^3,4

Modern repair techniques, such as the Percutaneous Achilles Repair System (PARS; Arthrex), combine limited soft-tissue dissection with percutaneous suture insertion and knot tying.^1,8 This limited-incision technique, employed since 2010, uses a 2-cm transverse incision and nondisposable metal jig with divergent needle passes and locking suture fixation options to secure and fix both tendon ends with minimal dissection of skin, subcutaneous tissue, and paratenon. A review of 270 surgically treated Achilles tendon ruptures (101 PARS, 169 traditional open repair) found that, compared with the open repair group, the PARS group had significantly shorter operative times and more patients returning to baseline physical activities within 5 months after surgery.¹ Although the difference was not statistically significant, the overall postoperative complication rate was 5% for the PARS group and 11% for the open repair group. The PARS group had no cases of sural neuritis or deep infection requiring reoperation.

Although the PARS technique has had good outcomes with few complications, care must be taken during surgery to prevent sutures from pulling through the tendon near the rupture site, which can result from overtensioning and from suture knot irritation against superficial soft tissues. Given these potential issues, the PARS procedure was modified (Achilles Midsubstance SpeedBridge; Arthrex) to provide knotless restoration of musculotendinous length in a reliable, reproducible fashion and direct fixation of tendon to bone for early mobilization.⁹ This new procedure bypasses suture fixation in the compromised tendon ends adjacent to the rupture site, thereby reducing suture slippage and allowing for potential early range of motion and weight-bearing relative to previous techniques. Preliminary results from a cohort of 34 patients treated with this technique are promising: Average return to baseline activities was 18.2 weeks (range, 9-26 weeks), and there were no wound complications, nerve injuries, or reruptures.⁹Indications are overall health and an acute midsubstance Achilles rupture that presents within 3 weeks after injury (the time limit is used to ensure that both tendon ends can be mobilized and repaired to appropriate length). A relative contraindication is delayed presentation (≥4 weeks), which may require open reconstruction in combination with V-Y lengthening or other adjuvant procedures. Other relative contraindications are insertional rupture, Achilles tendinopathy, and a significant medical comorbidity that prohibits surgical intervention.

Surgical Technique

Operating Room Setup and Approach

The patient is positioned prone with chest rolls and kneepads and with arms at <90° of abduction (Figures 1A-1E).

A thigh tourniquet is placed on the operative extremity, and the feet are placed slightly hanging off the end of the bed with a small bump underneath to adjust the degree of ankle plantarflexion and Achilles tension during the case. It is important that the operative leg be in neutral rotation to allow for central positioning of the PARS jig. After sterile preparation and draping, the extremity is exsanguinated and the tourniquet inflated. The defect within the Achilles tendon is palpated and marked out, and a 2-cm transverse skin incision is made along the proximal aspect of the rupture site.

A “no-touch” technique is used without pickups, and soft tissues are carefully dissected with small scissors down to the paratenon. The sural nerve typically is not visible in the operative field, but, if it is, it can be dissected out and retracted out of the way. A transverse incision is made through the paratenon, and expression of rupture hematoma often follows. Paratenon preservation is key in minimizing disruption of the native vascular supply of the tendon and allowing for repair at the end of the case. A freer can be placed within the wound to confirm that the center of the rupture has been identified.

An Allis clamp is inserted into the wound, and the proximal tendon stump is secured and then pulled about 1 cm through the wound. A freer is circumferentially run along the sides of the proximal tendon to release any potential adhesions that may limit distal excursion.

PARS Jig Insertion and Suture Passing

The PARS jig is inserted into the wound with the inner prongs in the narrowest position possible. The curved jig is inserted proximally, and the center turn wheel is used to widen the inner prongs so they can slide along the sides of the tendon in the paratenon. Proper jig placement should be smooth and encounter little resistance. The proximal tendon is in a superficial location and can be palpated within the prongs of the jig to double-check that the tendon is centered within the jig. A frequent error is to insert the jig too deep, which subsequently causes needles and sutures to miss the tendon and pull through.

 

Keeping the jig centralized in neutral rotation minimizes improper suture passing and avoids iatrogenic injury to the medial and lateral neurovascular structures. During suture passing, all needles (1.6 mm) with nitinol loops are first used unloaded without suture. The first 2 needles are inserted into their respective, numbered holes, through the tendon, and then through the opposite side of the jig. Each needle is checked to make sure that it does not pass outside the jig. Having 2 needles within the jig and tendon at all times during suture passing helps stabilize the jig and avoids adjacent suture piercing with the subsequent needle.

A No. 2 FiberWire suture (Arthrex) is then passed through the first hole using the needle suture passer and made even in length on both sides. The specific colors of the suture are not important, but the order of the sutures placed is. An assistant can write down the colors and order of the sutures passed. Before the second suture is passed, the first needle is inserted back through the jig and tendon into the third hole. The third and fourth sutures (green-striped) differ from the other sutures in that one end has a loop and the other has a tail, and they are passed in an oblique, crossing pattern. These sutures later help create a locking suture on either side of the tendon.

After these sutures are passed, the final result should be 1 green-striped loop and 1 green-striped tail on either side of the tendon. The fifth suture is passed straight across the tendon in a trajectory similar to that of the first suture. In large laborers, obese patients, and elite athletes, 2 additional green-striped sutures can be passed through the optional sixth and seventh holes to create an additional locking suture.

PARS Jig Removal and Suture Management

After all sutures are passed, the turn wheel is used to narrow the inner prongs while gentle, controlled tension is applied to the jig to remove it from the wound (Figures 2A-2C).

All sutures from both sides of the tendon should emerge from the wound. Before the jig is completely pulled out, a hemostat is used through each loop of sutures to guide them out of the wound and reduce tangling. Both pairs of sutures are pulled distally to ensure adequate proximal fixation.

Pullout of any suture from the tendon indicates that the tendon was not centered in the jig or was not proximal enough along the tendon during suture passing. If a suture pulls out, it is removed, and the previous steps are repeated with close attention paid to tendon positioning within the jig. It is not advised to extend the incision longitudinally on either end of the transverse incision, as doing so can lead to potential wound-healing complications. After proximal fixation is achieved, all sutures on each side of the tendon are neatly spread apart in the following order from proximal to distal: first suture, second suture, looped green-striped (third) suture, tail green-striped (fourth) suture, fifth suture. The second suture on both sides is then looped around the 2 green-striped sutures and back proximally through the looped end of the green-striped suture.

The green-striped suture tail is pulled through the tendon to the opposite side to create a locking suture on both sides of the tendon. In the end, there are 2 nonlocking sutures and 1 locking suture on either side of the tendon. Each pair of sutures is pulled distally to confirm fixation and remove any initial suture creep from the system. A hemostat is placed on each group of 3 sutures to keep them out of the way during distal anchor preparation.

Distal Anchor Preparation and Banana SutureLasso Passing

Two longitudinal 5-mm incisions are made along the posterior aspect of the heel just distal to the area of maximal heel convexity. Incisions are spaced 1.5 cm apart along the sides of the Achilles tendon insertion. A 3.5-mm drill and a drill guide are used through each incision and placed flush against bone (Figures 3A-3E).

The drill is inserted into bone oriented slightly proximally and toward midline until it bottoms out against the guide. Each drill hole is then tapped to receive a 4.75-mm SwiveLock anchor (Arthrex).

A Banana SutureLasso (Arthrex) with inner nitinol wire is passed through the center of the distal Achilles tendon stump and out the proximal incision to retrieve one side of the proximal sutures. SutureLasso passage through tendon can be facilitated with tactile feedback. The surgeon’s nondominant thumb is placed directly against the distal tendon while the dominant hand grasps the SutureLasso with the thumb near the tip. As the SutureLasso is advanced proximally through the tendon, the surgeon can feel its tip meeting mild resistance. Confirm that the tip of the SutureLasso is in the center of the distal tendon by direct visual inspection through the wound.

The inner nitinol wire is advanced 2 cm to 3 cm out of the tip of the SutureLasso, and sutures are passed through the distal Achilles tendon. During suture passing, the nitinol wire is drawn back to the tip of the SutureLasso, and then the entire SutureLasso is removed from the distal incision. Trying to pass the sutures only through the inner nitinol wire can result in suture tangling and increased resistance. The process is then repeated for the sutures on the opposite side. Suture pairs are placed under maximal tension and cycled multiple times (5-10) to remove any residual proximal suture creep.¹⁰

 

Achilles Tensioning and Anchor Insertion

The ankle is plantar flexed to tension the Achilles tendon relative to the contralateral limb and is held in place by an assistant (Figures 4A-4E).

At the same time, the assistant holds tension on the opposite pair of sutures to ensure that Achilles length and tension do not change before initial anchor insertion. The rupture site can be palpated to confirm there is no residual gap or excessive overlap of the tendon ends. Sutures are passed through the eyelet of the SwiveLock anchor, and then the anchor is gently malleted into the calcaneal drill hole and hand-tightened until flush with bone. Often, squeaking can be heard as the anchor reaches its final depth in bone.

Position of the drill holes can be rechecked with a Kirschner wire before anchor insertion, as their relative position changes with ankle plantar flexion. It is not necessary to premeasure and adjust suture length at the tip of the anchor as in other blind tunnel anchor insertion techniques (eg, InternalBrace; Arthrex). Once the anchor tip is malleted into bone, the free suture ends are released to avoid overtensioning the tendon. Before the anchor insertion handle is completely removed, the tip of a mosquito clamp can be used to feel the bony surface and confirm the anchor is completely seated.

With the ankle still held in the appropriate amount of plantarflexion, the process is repeated and the other SwiveLock anchor inserted. Sutures are cut flush with the anchor, and the surgeon performs wound irrigation and layered closure, with absorbable suture, of the paratenon and subcutaneous tissues. After skin closure with nylon suture, resting ankle plantarflexion is assessed and the Thompson test performed. The patient is placed in a well-padded non-weight-bearing plantar flexion splint for incision and initial tendon healing during the first 2 weeks after surgery.

Discussion

A key aspect of recovery is the balance achieved between skin and tendon healing and early mobilization, as outcomes of surgical repair of Achilles ruptures are improved with early weight-bearing and functional rehabilitation.^11-13 Some surgeons recommend weight-bearing immediately after surgery, given the direct tendon-to-bone fixation achieved with repair.⁹ I prefer 2 weeks of non-weight-bearing, which allows the skin to heal adequately and the initial soft-tissue inflammation to subside. If the incision is healed at 2 weeks, sutures are removed, and the patient is transitioned to a tall, non-weight-bearing CAM (controlled ankle motion) boot, worn for 1 to 2 weeks with initiation of gentle ankle range-of-motion exercises. If there is any concern about wound healing, sutures are maintained for another 1 to 2 weeks.

Between 3 and 8 weeks after surgery, progressive weight-bearing is initiated with a peel-away heel lift (~2 cm thick total, 3 layers). Each lift layer is removed as pain allows, every 2 to 3 days. The goal is full weight-bearing with the foot flat 5 to 6 weeks after surgery. Physical therapy focusing on ankle motion and gentle Achilles stretching and strengthening is started 5 to 6 weeks after surgery, depending on progression and functional needs. Between 8 and 12 weeks after surgery, the patient is transitioned to normal shoe wear with increased activities. Running and jumping are allowed, as pain and swelling allow, starting at 12 weeks.

Although preliminary outcomes and experience with the Achilles Midsubstance SpeedBridge have been favorable, long-term clinical and functional studies are needed to determine the specific advantages and disadvantages of this new technique relative to other repairs. The main benefits observed thus far are reduced subjective knot tying and tensioning, decreased reliance on suture fixation in compromised tissue at the rupture site, reduced risk of FiberWire knot irritation of superficial soft tissues, lower risk of distal suture pullout, and earlier mobilization owing to bony fixation of the tendon. Potential complications include anchor-site heel pain caused by prominent anchors or by the bone edema that occurs when a patient increases physical activity by a significant amount at 12 weeks.⁹ Heel pain caused by bone edema resolves by 20 weeks without intervention.

Stress shielding of the distal Achilles tendon is a theoretical concern given the tendon–bone construct, but there have been no reports of tendon atrophy or repair failure caused by stress shielding. The original PARS technique was often used to create Achilles tension with the ankle maximally plantar flexed—the idea being that the tendon would gradually stretch over time.¹ Overtensioning the Achilles repair is a potential complication with the SpeedBridge, as the distal anchors provide a more rigid point of distal fixation. Surgeons can avoid this complication by cycling the sutures to remove any residual creep and then tensioning the Achilles according to the contralateral limb and/or palpating tendon opposition at the rupture site.

Overall, this new limited-incision knotless Achilles tendon repair technique allows for minimal soft-tissue dissection, restoration of Achilles musculotendinous length, and direct tendon-to-bone fixation. Early results are promising, but long-term clinical outcomes and comparative analysis are needed. In addition, many details of this technique must be clarified—including incidence of short- and long-term complications in larger cohorts, optimal suture material and configuration, and risks and benefits of immediate (<2 weeks) and delayed (2-4 weeks) weight-bearing.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E487-E492. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

The incidence of midsubstance Achilles tendon ruptures is increasing in patients 30 years to 50 years of age, and more than 50% of these injuries occur during recreational basketball.^1,2 Achilles ruptures occur more in deconditioned individuals engaged in explosive push-off and jumping activities. Management of these injuries has been controversial over the past decade; there is no consensus on nonoperative treatment, surgical repair, or optimal repair technique.^1,3-7 According to American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines, limited-incision approaches have fewer overall complications relative to traditional open repair.^3,4

Modern repair techniques, such as the Percutaneous Achilles Repair System (PARS; Arthrex), combine limited soft-tissue dissection with percutaneous suture insertion and knot tying.^1,8 This limited-incision technique, employed since 2010, uses a 2-cm transverse incision and nondisposable metal jig with divergent needle passes and locking suture fixation options to secure and fix both tendon ends with minimal dissection of skin, subcutaneous tissue, and paratenon. A review of 270 surgically treated Achilles tendon ruptures (101 PARS, 169 traditional open repair) found that, compared with the open repair group, the PARS group had significantly shorter operative times and more patients returning to baseline physical activities within 5 months after surgery.¹ Although the difference was not statistically significant, the overall postoperative complication rate was 5% for the PARS group and 11% for the open repair group. The PARS group had no cases of sural neuritis or deep infection requiring reoperation.

Although the PARS technique has had good outcomes with few complications, care must be taken during surgery to prevent sutures from pulling through the tendon near the rupture site, which can result from overtensioning and from suture knot irritation against superficial soft tissues. Given these potential issues, the PARS procedure was modified (Achilles Midsubstance SpeedBridge; Arthrex) to provide knotless restoration of musculotendinous length in a reliable, reproducible fashion and direct fixation of tendon to bone for early mobilization.⁹ This new procedure bypasses suture fixation in the compromised tendon ends adjacent to the rupture site, thereby reducing suture slippage and allowing for potential early range of motion and weight-bearing relative to previous techniques. Preliminary results from a cohort of 34 patients treated with this technique are promising: Average return to baseline activities was 18.2 weeks (range, 9-26 weeks), and there were no wound complications, nerve injuries, or reruptures.⁹Indications are overall health and an acute midsubstance Achilles rupture that presents within 3 weeks after injury (the time limit is used to ensure that both tendon ends can be mobilized and repaired to appropriate length). A relative contraindication is delayed presentation (≥4 weeks), which may require open reconstruction in combination with V-Y lengthening or other adjuvant procedures. Other relative contraindications are insertional rupture, Achilles tendinopathy, and a significant medical comorbidity that prohibits surgical intervention.

Surgical Technique

Operating Room Setup and Approach

The patient is positioned prone with chest rolls and kneepads and with arms at <90° of abduction (Figures 1A-1E).

A thigh tourniquet is placed on the operative extremity, and the feet are placed slightly hanging off the end of the bed with a small bump underneath to adjust the degree of ankle plantarflexion and Achilles tension during the case. It is important that the operative leg be in neutral rotation to allow for central positioning of the PARS jig. After sterile preparation and draping, the extremity is exsanguinated and the tourniquet inflated. The defect within the Achilles tendon is palpated and marked out, and a 2-cm transverse skin incision is made along the proximal aspect of the rupture site.

A “no-touch” technique is used without pickups, and soft tissues are carefully dissected with small scissors down to the paratenon. The sural nerve typically is not visible in the operative field, but, if it is, it can be dissected out and retracted out of the way. A transverse incision is made through the paratenon, and expression of rupture hematoma often follows. Paratenon preservation is key in minimizing disruption of the native vascular supply of the tendon and allowing for repair at the end of the case. A freer can be placed within the wound to confirm that the center of the rupture has been identified.

An Allis clamp is inserted into the wound, and the proximal tendon stump is secured and then pulled about 1 cm through the wound. A freer is circumferentially run along the sides of the proximal tendon to release any potential adhesions that may limit distal excursion.

PARS Jig Insertion and Suture Passing

The PARS jig is inserted into the wound with the inner prongs in the narrowest position possible. The curved jig is inserted proximally, and the center turn wheel is used to widen the inner prongs so they can slide along the sides of the tendon in the paratenon. Proper jig placement should be smooth and encounter little resistance. The proximal tendon is in a superficial location and can be palpated within the prongs of the jig to double-check that the tendon is centered within the jig. A frequent error is to insert the jig too deep, which subsequently causes needles and sutures to miss the tendon and pull through.

 

Keeping the jig centralized in neutral rotation minimizes improper suture passing and avoids iatrogenic injury to the medial and lateral neurovascular structures. During suture passing, all needles (1.6 mm) with nitinol loops are first used unloaded without suture. The first 2 needles are inserted into their respective, numbered holes, through the tendon, and then through the opposite side of the jig. Each needle is checked to make sure that it does not pass outside the jig. Having 2 needles within the jig and tendon at all times during suture passing helps stabilize the jig and avoids adjacent suture piercing with the subsequent needle.

A No. 2 FiberWire suture (Arthrex) is then passed through the first hole using the needle suture passer and made even in length on both sides. The specific colors of the suture are not important, but the order of the sutures placed is. An assistant can write down the colors and order of the sutures passed. Before the second suture is passed, the first needle is inserted back through the jig and tendon into the third hole. The third and fourth sutures (green-striped) differ from the other sutures in that one end has a loop and the other has a tail, and they are passed in an oblique, crossing pattern. These sutures later help create a locking suture on either side of the tendon.

After these sutures are passed, the final result should be 1 green-striped loop and 1 green-striped tail on either side of the tendon. The fifth suture is passed straight across the tendon in a trajectory similar to that of the first suture. In large laborers, obese patients, and elite athletes, 2 additional green-striped sutures can be passed through the optional sixth and seventh holes to create an additional locking suture.

PARS Jig Removal and Suture Management

After all sutures are passed, the turn wheel is used to narrow the inner prongs while gentle, controlled tension is applied to the jig to remove it from the wound (Figures 2A-2C).

All sutures from both sides of the tendon should emerge from the wound. Before the jig is completely pulled out, a hemostat is used through each loop of sutures to guide them out of the wound and reduce tangling. Both pairs of sutures are pulled distally to ensure adequate proximal fixation.

Pullout of any suture from the tendon indicates that the tendon was not centered in the jig or was not proximal enough along the tendon during suture passing. If a suture pulls out, it is removed, and the previous steps are repeated with close attention paid to tendon positioning within the jig. It is not advised to extend the incision longitudinally on either end of the transverse incision, as doing so can lead to potential wound-healing complications. After proximal fixation is achieved, all sutures on each side of the tendon are neatly spread apart in the following order from proximal to distal: first suture, second suture, looped green-striped (third) suture, tail green-striped (fourth) suture, fifth suture. The second suture on both sides is then looped around the 2 green-striped sutures and back proximally through the looped end of the green-striped suture.

The green-striped suture tail is pulled through the tendon to the opposite side to create a locking suture on both sides of the tendon. In the end, there are 2 nonlocking sutures and 1 locking suture on either side of the tendon. Each pair of sutures is pulled distally to confirm fixation and remove any initial suture creep from the system. A hemostat is placed on each group of 3 sutures to keep them out of the way during distal anchor preparation.

Distal Anchor Preparation and Banana SutureLasso Passing

Two longitudinal 5-mm incisions are made along the posterior aspect of the heel just distal to the area of maximal heel convexity. Incisions are spaced 1.5 cm apart along the sides of the Achilles tendon insertion. A 3.5-mm drill and a drill guide are used through each incision and placed flush against bone (Figures 3A-3E).

The drill is inserted into bone oriented slightly proximally and toward midline until it bottoms out against the guide. Each drill hole is then tapped to receive a 4.75-mm SwiveLock anchor (Arthrex).

A Banana SutureLasso (Arthrex) with inner nitinol wire is passed through the center of the distal Achilles tendon stump and out the proximal incision to retrieve one side of the proximal sutures. SutureLasso passage through tendon can be facilitated with tactile feedback. The surgeon’s nondominant thumb is placed directly against the distal tendon while the dominant hand grasps the SutureLasso with the thumb near the tip. As the SutureLasso is advanced proximally through the tendon, the surgeon can feel its tip meeting mild resistance. Confirm that the tip of the SutureLasso is in the center of the distal tendon by direct visual inspection through the wound.

The inner nitinol wire is advanced 2 cm to 3 cm out of the tip of the SutureLasso, and sutures are passed through the distal Achilles tendon. During suture passing, the nitinol wire is drawn back to the tip of the SutureLasso, and then the entire SutureLasso is removed from the distal incision. Trying to pass the sutures only through the inner nitinol wire can result in suture tangling and increased resistance. The process is then repeated for the sutures on the opposite side. Suture pairs are placed under maximal tension and cycled multiple times (5-10) to remove any residual proximal suture creep.¹⁰

 

Achilles Tensioning and Anchor Insertion

The ankle is plantar flexed to tension the Achilles tendon relative to the contralateral limb and is held in place by an assistant (Figures 4A-4E).

At the same time, the assistant holds tension on the opposite pair of sutures to ensure that Achilles length and tension do not change before initial anchor insertion. The rupture site can be palpated to confirm there is no residual gap or excessive overlap of the tendon ends. Sutures are passed through the eyelet of the SwiveLock anchor, and then the anchor is gently malleted into the calcaneal drill hole and hand-tightened until flush with bone. Often, squeaking can be heard as the anchor reaches its final depth in bone.

Position of the drill holes can be rechecked with a Kirschner wire before anchor insertion, as their relative position changes with ankle plantar flexion. It is not necessary to premeasure and adjust suture length at the tip of the anchor as in other blind tunnel anchor insertion techniques (eg, InternalBrace; Arthrex). Once the anchor tip is malleted into bone, the free suture ends are released to avoid overtensioning the tendon. Before the anchor insertion handle is completely removed, the tip of a mosquito clamp can be used to feel the bony surface and confirm the anchor is completely seated.

With the ankle still held in the appropriate amount of plantarflexion, the process is repeated and the other SwiveLock anchor inserted. Sutures are cut flush with the anchor, and the surgeon performs wound irrigation and layered closure, with absorbable suture, of the paratenon and subcutaneous tissues. After skin closure with nylon suture, resting ankle plantarflexion is assessed and the Thompson test performed. The patient is placed in a well-padded non-weight-bearing plantar flexion splint for incision and initial tendon healing during the first 2 weeks after surgery.

Discussion

A key aspect of recovery is the balance achieved between skin and tendon healing and early mobilization, as outcomes of surgical repair of Achilles ruptures are improved with early weight-bearing and functional rehabilitation.^11-13 Some surgeons recommend weight-bearing immediately after surgery, given the direct tendon-to-bone fixation achieved with repair.⁹ I prefer 2 weeks of non-weight-bearing, which allows the skin to heal adequately and the initial soft-tissue inflammation to subside. If the incision is healed at 2 weeks, sutures are removed, and the patient is transitioned to a tall, non-weight-bearing CAM (controlled ankle motion) boot, worn for 1 to 2 weeks with initiation of gentle ankle range-of-motion exercises. If there is any concern about wound healing, sutures are maintained for another 1 to 2 weeks.

Between 3 and 8 weeks after surgery, progressive weight-bearing is initiated with a peel-away heel lift (~2 cm thick total, 3 layers). Each lift layer is removed as pain allows, every 2 to 3 days. The goal is full weight-bearing with the foot flat 5 to 6 weeks after surgery. Physical therapy focusing on ankle motion and gentle Achilles stretching and strengthening is started 5 to 6 weeks after surgery, depending on progression and functional needs. Between 8 and 12 weeks after surgery, the patient is transitioned to normal shoe wear with increased activities. Running and jumping are allowed, as pain and swelling allow, starting at 12 weeks.

Although preliminary outcomes and experience with the Achilles Midsubstance SpeedBridge have been favorable, long-term clinical and functional studies are needed to determine the specific advantages and disadvantages of this new technique relative to other repairs. The main benefits observed thus far are reduced subjective knot tying and tensioning, decreased reliance on suture fixation in compromised tissue at the rupture site, reduced risk of FiberWire knot irritation of superficial soft tissues, lower risk of distal suture pullout, and earlier mobilization owing to bony fixation of the tendon. Potential complications include anchor-site heel pain caused by prominent anchors or by the bone edema that occurs when a patient increases physical activity by a significant amount at 12 weeks.⁹ Heel pain caused by bone edema resolves by 20 weeks without intervention.

Stress shielding of the distal Achilles tendon is a theoretical concern given the tendon–bone construct, but there have been no reports of tendon atrophy or repair failure caused by stress shielding. The original PARS technique was often used to create Achilles tension with the ankle maximally plantar flexed—the idea being that the tendon would gradually stretch over time.¹ Overtensioning the Achilles repair is a potential complication with the SpeedBridge, as the distal anchors provide a more rigid point of distal fixation. Surgeons can avoid this complication by cycling the sutures to remove any residual creep and then tensioning the Achilles according to the contralateral limb and/or palpating tendon opposition at the rupture site.

Overall, this new limited-incision knotless Achilles tendon repair technique allows for minimal soft-tissue dissection, restoration of Achilles musculotendinous length, and direct tendon-to-bone fixation. Early results are promising, but long-term clinical outcomes and comparative analysis are needed. In addition, many details of this technique must be clarified—including incidence of short- and long-term complications in larger cohorts, optimal suture material and configuration, and risks and benefits of immediate (<2 weeks) and delayed (2-4 weeks) weight-bearing.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E487-E492. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

The incidence of midsubstance Achilles tendon ruptures is increasing in patients 30 years to 50 years of age, and more than 50% of these injuries occur during recreational basketball.^1,2 Achilles ruptures occur more in deconditioned individuals engaged in explosive push-off and jumping activities. Management of these injuries has been controversial over the past decade; there is no consensus on nonoperative treatment, surgical repair, or optimal repair technique.^1,3-7 According to American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines, limited-incision approaches have fewer overall complications relative to traditional open repair.^3,4

Modern repair techniques, such as the Percutaneous Achilles Repair System (PARS; Arthrex), combine limited soft-tissue dissection with percutaneous suture insertion and knot tying.^1,8 This limited-incision technique, employed since 2010, uses a 2-cm transverse incision and nondisposable metal jig with divergent needle passes and locking suture fixation options to secure and fix both tendon ends with minimal dissection of skin, subcutaneous tissue, and paratenon. A review of 270 surgically treated Achilles tendon ruptures (101 PARS, 169 traditional open repair) found that, compared with the open repair group, the PARS group had significantly shorter operative times and more patients returning to baseline physical activities within 5 months after surgery.¹ Although the difference was not statistically significant, the overall postoperative complication rate was 5% for the PARS group and 11% for the open repair group. The PARS group had no cases of sural neuritis or deep infection requiring reoperation.

Although the PARS technique has had good outcomes with few complications, care must be taken during surgery to prevent sutures from pulling through the tendon near the rupture site, which can result from overtensioning and from suture knot irritation against superficial soft tissues. Given these potential issues, the PARS procedure was modified (Achilles Midsubstance SpeedBridge; Arthrex) to provide knotless restoration of musculotendinous length in a reliable, reproducible fashion and direct fixation of tendon to bone for early mobilization.⁹ This new procedure bypasses suture fixation in the compromised tendon ends adjacent to the rupture site, thereby reducing suture slippage and allowing for potential early range of motion and weight-bearing relative to previous techniques. Preliminary results from a cohort of 34 patients treated with this technique are promising: Average return to baseline activities was 18.2 weeks (range, 9-26 weeks), and there were no wound complications, nerve injuries, or reruptures.⁹Indications are overall health and an acute midsubstance Achilles rupture that presents within 3 weeks after injury (the time limit is used to ensure that both tendon ends can be mobilized and repaired to appropriate length). A relative contraindication is delayed presentation (≥4 weeks), which may require open reconstruction in combination with V-Y lengthening or other adjuvant procedures. Other relative contraindications are insertional rupture, Achilles tendinopathy, and a significant medical comorbidity that prohibits surgical intervention.

Surgical Technique

Operating Room Setup and Approach

The patient is positioned prone with chest rolls and kneepads and with arms at <90° of abduction (Figures 1A-1E).

A thigh tourniquet is placed on the operative extremity, and the feet are placed slightly hanging off the end of the bed with a small bump underneath to adjust the degree of ankle plantarflexion and Achilles tension during the case. It is important that the operative leg be in neutral rotation to allow for central positioning of the PARS jig. After sterile preparation and draping, the extremity is exsanguinated and the tourniquet inflated. The defect within the Achilles tendon is palpated and marked out, and a 2-cm transverse skin incision is made along the proximal aspect of the rupture site.

A “no-touch” technique is used without pickups, and soft tissues are carefully dissected with small scissors down to the paratenon. The sural nerve typically is not visible in the operative field, but, if it is, it can be dissected out and retracted out of the way. A transverse incision is made through the paratenon, and expression of rupture hematoma often follows. Paratenon preservation is key in minimizing disruption of the native vascular supply of the tendon and allowing for repair at the end of the case. A freer can be placed within the wound to confirm that the center of the rupture has been identified.

An Allis clamp is inserted into the wound, and the proximal tendon stump is secured and then pulled about 1 cm through the wound. A freer is circumferentially run along the sides of the proximal tendon to release any potential adhesions that may limit distal excursion.

PARS Jig Insertion and Suture Passing

The PARS jig is inserted into the wound with the inner prongs in the narrowest position possible. The curved jig is inserted proximally, and the center turn wheel is used to widen the inner prongs so they can slide along the sides of the tendon in the paratenon. Proper jig placement should be smooth and encounter little resistance. The proximal tendon is in a superficial location and can be palpated within the prongs of the jig to double-check that the tendon is centered within the jig. A frequent error is to insert the jig too deep, which subsequently causes needles and sutures to miss the tendon and pull through.

 

Keeping the jig centralized in neutral rotation minimizes improper suture passing and avoids iatrogenic injury to the medial and lateral neurovascular structures. During suture passing, all needles (1.6 mm) with nitinol loops are first used unloaded without suture. The first 2 needles are inserted into their respective, numbered holes, through the tendon, and then through the opposite side of the jig. Each needle is checked to make sure that it does not pass outside the jig. Having 2 needles within the jig and tendon at all times during suture passing helps stabilize the jig and avoids adjacent suture piercing with the subsequent needle.

A No. 2 FiberWire suture (Arthrex) is then passed through the first hole using the needle suture passer and made even in length on both sides. The specific colors of the suture are not important, but the order of the sutures placed is. An assistant can write down the colors and order of the sutures passed. Before the second suture is passed, the first needle is inserted back through the jig and tendon into the third hole. The third and fourth sutures (green-striped) differ from the other sutures in that one end has a loop and the other has a tail, and they are passed in an oblique, crossing pattern. These sutures later help create a locking suture on either side of the tendon.

After these sutures are passed, the final result should be 1 green-striped loop and 1 green-striped tail on either side of the tendon. The fifth suture is passed straight across the tendon in a trajectory similar to that of the first suture. In large laborers, obese patients, and elite athletes, 2 additional green-striped sutures can be passed through the optional sixth and seventh holes to create an additional locking suture.

PARS Jig Removal and Suture Management

After all sutures are passed, the turn wheel is used to narrow the inner prongs while gentle, controlled tension is applied to the jig to remove it from the wound (Figures 2A-2C).

All sutures from both sides of the tendon should emerge from the wound. Before the jig is completely pulled out, a hemostat is used through each loop of sutures to guide them out of the wound and reduce tangling. Both pairs of sutures are pulled distally to ensure adequate proximal fixation.

Pullout of any suture from the tendon indicates that the tendon was not centered in the jig or was not proximal enough along the tendon during suture passing. If a suture pulls out, it is removed, and the previous steps are repeated with close attention paid to tendon positioning within the jig. It is not advised to extend the incision longitudinally on either end of the transverse incision, as doing so can lead to potential wound-healing complications. After proximal fixation is achieved, all sutures on each side of the tendon are neatly spread apart in the following order from proximal to distal: first suture, second suture, looped green-striped (third) suture, tail green-striped (fourth) suture, fifth suture. The second suture on both sides is then looped around the 2 green-striped sutures and back proximally through the looped end of the green-striped suture.

The green-striped suture tail is pulled through the tendon to the opposite side to create a locking suture on both sides of the tendon. In the end, there are 2 nonlocking sutures and 1 locking suture on either side of the tendon. Each pair of sutures is pulled distally to confirm fixation and remove any initial suture creep from the system. A hemostat is placed on each group of 3 sutures to keep them out of the way during distal anchor preparation.

Distal Anchor Preparation and Banana SutureLasso Passing

Two longitudinal 5-mm incisions are made along the posterior aspect of the heel just distal to the area of maximal heel convexity. Incisions are spaced 1.5 cm apart along the sides of the Achilles tendon insertion. A 3.5-mm drill and a drill guide are used through each incision and placed flush against bone (Figures 3A-3E).

The drill is inserted into bone oriented slightly proximally and toward midline until it bottoms out against the guide. Each drill hole is then tapped to receive a 4.75-mm SwiveLock anchor (Arthrex).

A Banana SutureLasso (Arthrex) with inner nitinol wire is passed through the center of the distal Achilles tendon stump and out the proximal incision to retrieve one side of the proximal sutures. SutureLasso passage through tendon can be facilitated with tactile feedback. The surgeon’s nondominant thumb is placed directly against the distal tendon while the dominant hand grasps the SutureLasso with the thumb near the tip. As the SutureLasso is advanced proximally through the tendon, the surgeon can feel its tip meeting mild resistance. Confirm that the tip of the SutureLasso is in the center of the distal tendon by direct visual inspection through the wound.

The inner nitinol wire is advanced 2 cm to 3 cm out of the tip of the SutureLasso, and sutures are passed through the distal Achilles tendon. During suture passing, the nitinol wire is drawn back to the tip of the SutureLasso, and then the entire SutureLasso is removed from the distal incision. Trying to pass the sutures only through the inner nitinol wire can result in suture tangling and increased resistance. The process is then repeated for the sutures on the opposite side. Suture pairs are placed under maximal tension and cycled multiple times (5-10) to remove any residual proximal suture creep.¹⁰

 

Achilles Tensioning and Anchor Insertion

The ankle is plantar flexed to tension the Achilles tendon relative to the contralateral limb and is held in place by an assistant (Figures 4A-4E).

At the same time, the assistant holds tension on the opposite pair of sutures to ensure that Achilles length and tension do not change before initial anchor insertion. The rupture site can be palpated to confirm there is no residual gap or excessive overlap of the tendon ends. Sutures are passed through the eyelet of the SwiveLock anchor, and then the anchor is gently malleted into the calcaneal drill hole and hand-tightened until flush with bone. Often, squeaking can be heard as the anchor reaches its final depth in bone.

Position of the drill holes can be rechecked with a Kirschner wire before anchor insertion, as their relative position changes with ankle plantar flexion. It is not necessary to premeasure and adjust suture length at the tip of the anchor as in other blind tunnel anchor insertion techniques (eg, InternalBrace; Arthrex). Once the anchor tip is malleted into bone, the free suture ends are released to avoid overtensioning the tendon. Before the anchor insertion handle is completely removed, the tip of a mosquito clamp can be used to feel the bony surface and confirm the anchor is completely seated.

With the ankle still held in the appropriate amount of plantarflexion, the process is repeated and the other SwiveLock anchor inserted. Sutures are cut flush with the anchor, and the surgeon performs wound irrigation and layered closure, with absorbable suture, of the paratenon and subcutaneous tissues. After skin closure with nylon suture, resting ankle plantarflexion is assessed and the Thompson test performed. The patient is placed in a well-padded non-weight-bearing plantar flexion splint for incision and initial tendon healing during the first 2 weeks after surgery.

Discussion

A key aspect of recovery is the balance achieved between skin and tendon healing and early mobilization, as outcomes of surgical repair of Achilles ruptures are improved with early weight-bearing and functional rehabilitation.^11-13 Some surgeons recommend weight-bearing immediately after surgery, given the direct tendon-to-bone fixation achieved with repair.⁹ I prefer 2 weeks of non-weight-bearing, which allows the skin to heal adequately and the initial soft-tissue inflammation to subside. If the incision is healed at 2 weeks, sutures are removed, and the patient is transitioned to a tall, non-weight-bearing CAM (controlled ankle motion) boot, worn for 1 to 2 weeks with initiation of gentle ankle range-of-motion exercises. If there is any concern about wound healing, sutures are maintained for another 1 to 2 weeks.

Between 3 and 8 weeks after surgery, progressive weight-bearing is initiated with a peel-away heel lift (~2 cm thick total, 3 layers). Each lift layer is removed as pain allows, every 2 to 3 days. The goal is full weight-bearing with the foot flat 5 to 6 weeks after surgery. Physical therapy focusing on ankle motion and gentle Achilles stretching and strengthening is started 5 to 6 weeks after surgery, depending on progression and functional needs. Between 8 and 12 weeks after surgery, the patient is transitioned to normal shoe wear with increased activities. Running and jumping are allowed, as pain and swelling allow, starting at 12 weeks.

Although preliminary outcomes and experience with the Achilles Midsubstance SpeedBridge have been favorable, long-term clinical and functional studies are needed to determine the specific advantages and disadvantages of this new technique relative to other repairs. The main benefits observed thus far are reduced subjective knot tying and tensioning, decreased reliance on suture fixation in compromised tissue at the rupture site, reduced risk of FiberWire knot irritation of superficial soft tissues, lower risk of distal suture pullout, and earlier mobilization owing to bony fixation of the tendon. Potential complications include anchor-site heel pain caused by prominent anchors or by the bone edema that occurs when a patient increases physical activity by a significant amount at 12 weeks.⁹ Heel pain caused by bone edema resolves by 20 weeks without intervention.

Stress shielding of the distal Achilles tendon is a theoretical concern given the tendon–bone construct, but there have been no reports of tendon atrophy or repair failure caused by stress shielding. The original PARS technique was often used to create Achilles tension with the ankle maximally plantar flexed—the idea being that the tendon would gradually stretch over time.¹ Overtensioning the Achilles repair is a potential complication with the SpeedBridge, as the distal anchors provide a more rigid point of distal fixation. Surgeons can avoid this complication by cycling the sutures to remove any residual creep and then tensioning the Achilles according to the contralateral limb and/or palpating tendon opposition at the rupture site.

Overall, this new limited-incision knotless Achilles tendon repair technique allows for minimal soft-tissue dissection, restoration of Achilles musculotendinous length, and direct tendon-to-bone fixation. Early results are promising, but long-term clinical outcomes and comparative analysis are needed. In addition, many details of this technique must be clarified—including incidence of short- and long-term complications in larger cohorts, optimal suture material and configuration, and risks and benefits of immediate (<2 weeks) and delayed (2-4 weeks) weight-bearing.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E487-E492. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be associated with significant blood loss that in some cases requires transfusion. The incidence of transfusion ranges from 16% to 37% in patients who undergo THA and from 11% to 21% in patients who undergo TKA.^1-3 Allogeneic blood transfusions have been associated with several risks (transfusion-related acute lung injury, hemolytic reactions, immunologic reactions, fluid overload, renal failure, infections), increased cost, and longer hospital length of stay (LOS).^4-7 With improved patient outcomes the ultimate goal, blood-conserving strategies designed to decrease blood loss and transfusions have been adopted as a standard in successful joint replacement programs.

Tranexamic acid (TXA), an antifibrinolytic agent, has become a major component of blood conservation management after THA and TKA. TXA stabilizes clots at the surgical site by inhibiting plasminogen activation and thereby blocking fibrinolysis.⁸ The literature supports intravenous (IV) TXA as effective in significantly reducing blood loss and transfusion rates in elective THA and TKA.^9,10 However, data on increased risk of thrombotic events with IV TXA in both THA and TKA are conflicting.^11,12 Topical TXA is thought to have an advantage over IV TXA in that it provides a higher concentration of drug at the surgical site and is associated with little systemic absorption.^2,13Recent prospective randomized studies have compared the efficacy and safety of IV and topical TXA in THA and TKA.^9,14 However, controversy remains because relatively few studies have compared these 2 routes of administration. In addition, healthcare–associated costs have come under increased scrutiny, and the cost of these treatments should be considered. More research is needed to determine which application is most efficacious and cost-conscious and poses the least risk to patients. Therefore, we conducted a study to compare the cost, efficacy, and safety of IV and topical TXA in primary THA and TKA.

Materials and Methods

Our Institutional Review Board approved this study. Patients who were age 18 years or older, underwent primary THA or TKA, and received IV or topical TXA between August 2013 and September 2014 were considered eligible for the study. For both groups, exclusion criteria were trauma service admission, TXA hypersensitivity, pregnancy, and concomitant use of IV and topical TXA.

We collected demographic data (age, sex, weight, height, body mass index), noted all transfusions of packed red blood cells, and recorded preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin (Hgb) levels and surgical drain outputs. We also recorded any complications that occurred within 90 days after surgery: deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), cardiac events, cerebrovascular events, and wound drainage. Wound drainage was defined as readmission to hospital or return to operating room for wound drainage caused by infection or hematoma. Postoperative care (disposition, LOS, follow-up) was documented. Average cost of both IV and topical TXA administration was calculated using average wholesale price.

Use of IV TXA and use of topical TXA were compared in both THA and TKA. Patients in the IV TXA group received TXA in two 10-mg/kg doses with a maximum of 1 g per dose. The first IV dose was given before the incision, and the second was given 3 hours after the first. Patients in the topical TXA group underwent direct irrigation with 3 g of TXA in 100 mL of normal saline at the surgical site after closure of the deep fascia in THA and after closure of the knee arthrotomy in TKA. The drain remained occluded for 30 minutes after surgery. The wound was irrigated with topical TXA before wound closure in the THA group and before tourniquet release in the TKA group. TXA dosing was based on institutional formulary dosing restrictions and was consistent with best practices and current literature.^3,9,14,15Primary outcomes measured for each cohort and treatment arm were Hgb levels (difference between preoperative levels and lowest postoperative levels 24 hours after surgery), blood loss, transfusion rates, and cost. Secondary outcomes were LOS and complications that occurred within 90 days after surgery (DVT, PE, cardiac events, cerebrovascular events, wound drainage).

Calculated blood loss was determined with equations described by Konig and colleagues,³ Good and colleagues,¹⁶ and Nadler and colleagues.¹⁷ Total calculated blood loss was based on the difference in Hgb levels before surgery and the lowest Hgb levels 24 hours after surgery:

Blood loss (mL) = 100 mL/dL × Hgb_loss/Hgb_i

Hgb_loss = BV × (Hgb_i – Hgb_e) × 10 dL/L + Hgb_t

= 0.3669 × Height³ (m) + 0.03219 × Weight (kg) + 0.6041 (for men)

= 0.3561 × Height³ (m) + 0.03308 × Weight (kg) + 0.1833 (for women)

 

where Hgb_i is the Hgb concentration (g/dL) before surgery, Hgb_e is the lowest Hgb concentration (g/dL) 24 hours after surgery, Hgb_t is the total amount (g) of allogeneic Hgb transfused, and BV is the estimated total body blood volume (L).¹⁷ As Hgb concentrations after blood transfusions were compared in this study, the Hgb_t variable was removed from the equation. Based on Hgb decrease data in a study that compared IV and topical TXA in TKA,¹⁴ we determined that a sample size of least 140 patients (70 in each cohort) was needed in order to have 80% power to detect a difference in Hgb decrease of 0.36 g/dL in IV and topical TXA.

All data were reported with descriptive statistics. Frequencies and percentages were reported for categorical variables. Means and standard deviations were reported for continuous variables. The groups of continuous data were compared with unpaired Student t tests and 1-way analysis of variance. Comparisons among groups of categorical data were analyzed with Fisher exact tests. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Data were collected on 291 patients (156 THA, 135 TKA). There was a significant (P = .044) sex difference in the THA group: more men in the topical TXA subgroup and more women in the IV TXA subgroup. Other patient demographics were similarly matched with respect to age, height, weight, and body mass index (Table 1).

The primary outcomes (differences in cost, Hgb decrease, estimated blood loss, calculated blood loss, and transfusions) are listed in Table 2.

In the THA group, mean (SD) Hgb change was significantly (P = .031) higher with IV TXA, 3.33 (1.02) g/dL, than with topical TXA, 2.89 (1.44) g/dL, and the cost of topical TXA ($2100) was significantly (P ≤ .0001) higher than the cost of IV TXA ($1161). There were no differences in calculated blood loss, estimated blood loss, or transfusion rates. In the TKA group, calculated blood loss was significantly (P = .019) higher with IV TXA (1084.2 mL) than with topical TXA (859.6 mL), mean (SD) Hgb change was significantly (P = .015) higher with IV TXA, 2.35 (0.99) g/dL, than with topical TXA, 1.93 (0.90) g/dL, and the cost of topical TXA ($2100) was significantly (P ≤ .0001) higher than the cost of IV TXA ($1271). There were no differences in estimated blood loss or transfusion rates.

The secondary outcomes (differences in complications and LOS) are listed in Table 3.

In the THA group, postoperative cardiac events occurred in 3 (6%) of the 48 patients in the topical TXA subgroup and in none of the patients in the IV TXA subgroup (P = .007). There were no differences in other complications (DVT, PE, cerebrovascular events, wound drainage) or LOS. In the TKA group, there were no differences in postoperative complications or LOS between the IV and topical TXA subgroups.

Discussion

TXA, an analog of the amino acid lysine, is an antifibrinolytic agent that has been used for many years to inhibit fibrin degradation.^3,18 TXA works by competitively inhibiting tissue plasminogen activation, which is elevated by the trauma of surgery, and blocking plasmin binding to fibrin.^3,19 The mechanism of action is not procoagulant, as TXA prevents fibrin breakdown and supports coagulation that is underway rather than increasing clot formation. These characteristics make the drug attractive for orthopedic joint surgery—TXA reduces postoperative blood loss in patients who need fibrinolysis suppressed in order to maintain homeostasis without increasing the risk of venous thromboembolism. IV TXA has been well studied, which supports its efficacy profile for reducing blood loss and transfusions; there are no reports of increased risk of thromboembolic events.^20-22 Despite these studies, the risk of adverse events is still a major concern, especially in patients with medical conditions that predispose them to venothrombotic events. Topical TXA has become a viable option, especially in high-risk patients, as studies have shown 70% lower systemic absorption relative to IV TXA plasma concentration.²³ Still, too few studies have compared the efficacy, safety, and cost of IV and topical TXA in both THA and TKA.

Topical TXA costs an average of $2100 per case, primarily because standard dosing is 3 g per case. Despite repeat dosing for IV TXA (first dose at incision, second dose 3 hours after first), IV TXA costs were much lower on average: $939 less for THA and $829 less for TKA. As numerous studies have outlined results similar to ours, cost-effectiveness should be considered in decisions about treatment options.

Patel and colleagues¹⁴ reported that the efficacy of topical TXA was similar to that of IV TXA and that there were no significant differences in Hgb decrease, wound drainage, or need for transfusions after TKA. Their report conflicts with our finding significant differences favoring topical TXA for Hgb change (P = .015) and reduced calculated blood loss (P = .019) in TKA. A potential reason for these differing results is that the topical TXA doses were different (2 g in the study by Patel and colleagues,¹⁴ 3 g in our study). Martin and colleagues²⁴ compared the effects of topical TXA and placebo and found a nonsignificant difference in reduced blood loss and postoperative transfusions when the drug was dosed at 2 g. Konig and colleagues³ found that topical TXA dosed at 3 g (vs placebo) could reduce blood loss and transfusions after THA and TKA. These studies support our 3-g dose protocol for topical TXA rather than the 2-g protocol used in the study by Patel and colleagues.¹⁴ Our results are congruent with those of Seo and colleagues,²⁵ who found topical TXA superior in decreasing blood loss in TKA. Furthermore, our study is unique in that it compared costs and found topical TXA to be more expensive by almost $1000 on average.

Wei and Wei⁹ concluded that IV TXA 3 g and topical TXA 3 g were equally effective in reducing total blood loss, change in hematocrit, and need for transfusion after THA. In contrast, we found a significant (P = .031) difference favoring topical TXA for Hgb change. The 2 studies differed in their dosing protocols: Wei and Wei⁹ infused a 3-g dose, whereas we gave a maximum of two 1-g IV doses. The higher IV dose used by Wei and Wei⁹ could explain why they found no difference between IV and topical TXA, whereas we did find a difference. Our study was unique in that it measured Hgb change, blood loss, and cost.

Our study included an in-depth analysis of blood loss: estimated blood loss, drain outputs, calculated blood loss, and Hgb change. The equation we used for calculated blood loss is well established and has been used in multiple studies.^3,16,17 To thoroughly assess the safety of TXA, we reviewed and documented complications that occurred within 90 days after surgery and that could be attributed to TXA. This study was adequately powered and exceeded the required sample size to detect a difference in one primary outcome measure, perioperative Hgb change, as calculated by the prestudy statistical power analysis.

Our study had several limitations. First, it was a retrospective chart review; documentation could have been incomplete or missing. Second, the study was not randomized and thus subject to drug selection bias. Third, patients were selected for topical TXA on the basis of perceived risk factors, such as prior or family history of DVT, PE, cardiac events, or cerebrovascular events. It was thought that, given the decrease in systemic absorption with topical TXA, these high-risk patients would be less likely to have a thromboembolic event. Their complex past medical histories may explain why the topical TXA group had more cardiac events. Furthermore, 1 orthopedic surgeon used topical TXA exclusively, and the other 3 used it selectively, according to risk factors. In addition, unlike TKA patients, not all THA patients received drains. This study was powered to measure a difference in perioperative Hgb change but may not have been powered to detect the statistically significant difference favoring topical TXA for calculated blood loss in TKA. In the THA group, a statistically significant difference was found for reduced Hgb decrease but not for estimated or calculated blood loss. This finding reinforces some of the disparities in measurements of the effects of blood conservation strategies. The study also lacked a placebo or control group. However, several other studies have found that both IV TXA and topical TXA are superior to placebo in decreasing blood loss, Hgb change, and transfusion requirements.^10,12,20,22 In addition, the effects of TXA are based on estimates of blood conservation and are not without their disparities.

 

Conclusion

The present study found that both IV TXA and topical TXA were effective in decreasing blood loss, Hgb levels, and need for transfusion after THA and TKA. Topical TXA appears to be more effective than IV TXA in preventing Hgb decrease during THA and TKA and calculated blood loss during TKA. This increased efficacy comes with a higher cost. Thromboembolic complications were similar between groups. More studies are needed to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of topical TXA against the routine standard of IV TXA, especially in patients with perceived contraindications to IV TXA.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E439-E443. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be associated with significant blood loss that in some cases requires transfusion. The incidence of transfusion ranges from 16% to 37% in patients who undergo THA and from 11% to 21% in patients who undergo TKA.^1-3 Allogeneic blood transfusions have been associated with several risks (transfusion-related acute lung injury, hemolytic reactions, immunologic reactions, fluid overload, renal failure, infections), increased cost, and longer hospital length of stay (LOS).^4-7 With improved patient outcomes the ultimate goal, blood-conserving strategies designed to decrease blood loss and transfusions have been adopted as a standard in successful joint replacement programs.

Tranexamic acid (TXA), an antifibrinolytic agent, has become a major component of blood conservation management after THA and TKA. TXA stabilizes clots at the surgical site by inhibiting plasminogen activation and thereby blocking fibrinolysis.⁸ The literature supports intravenous (IV) TXA as effective in significantly reducing blood loss and transfusion rates in elective THA and TKA.^9,10 However, data on increased risk of thrombotic events with IV TXA in both THA and TKA are conflicting.^11,12 Topical TXA is thought to have an advantage over IV TXA in that it provides a higher concentration of drug at the surgical site and is associated with little systemic absorption.^2,13Recent prospective randomized studies have compared the efficacy and safety of IV and topical TXA in THA and TKA.^9,14 However, controversy remains because relatively few studies have compared these 2 routes of administration. In addition, healthcare–associated costs have come under increased scrutiny, and the cost of these treatments should be considered. More research is needed to determine which application is most efficacious and cost-conscious and poses the least risk to patients. Therefore, we conducted a study to compare the cost, efficacy, and safety of IV and topical TXA in primary THA and TKA.

Materials and Methods

Our Institutional Review Board approved this study. Patients who were age 18 years or older, underwent primary THA or TKA, and received IV or topical TXA between August 2013 and September 2014 were considered eligible for the study. For both groups, exclusion criteria were trauma service admission, TXA hypersensitivity, pregnancy, and concomitant use of IV and topical TXA.

We collected demographic data (age, sex, weight, height, body mass index), noted all transfusions of packed red blood cells, and recorded preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin (Hgb) levels and surgical drain outputs. We also recorded any complications that occurred within 90 days after surgery: deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), cardiac events, cerebrovascular events, and wound drainage. Wound drainage was defined as readmission to hospital or return to operating room for wound drainage caused by infection or hematoma. Postoperative care (disposition, LOS, follow-up) was documented. Average cost of both IV and topical TXA administration was calculated using average wholesale price.

Use of IV TXA and use of topical TXA were compared in both THA and TKA. Patients in the IV TXA group received TXA in two 10-mg/kg doses with a maximum of 1 g per dose. The first IV dose was given before the incision, and the second was given 3 hours after the first. Patients in the topical TXA group underwent direct irrigation with 3 g of TXA in 100 mL of normal saline at the surgical site after closure of the deep fascia in THA and after closure of the knee arthrotomy in TKA. The drain remained occluded for 30 minutes after surgery. The wound was irrigated with topical TXA before wound closure in the THA group and before tourniquet release in the TKA group. TXA dosing was based on institutional formulary dosing restrictions and was consistent with best practices and current literature.^3,9,14,15Primary outcomes measured for each cohort and treatment arm were Hgb levels (difference between preoperative levels and lowest postoperative levels 24 hours after surgery), blood loss, transfusion rates, and cost. Secondary outcomes were LOS and complications that occurred within 90 days after surgery (DVT, PE, cardiac events, cerebrovascular events, wound drainage).

Calculated blood loss was determined with equations described by Konig and colleagues,³ Good and colleagues,¹⁶ and Nadler and colleagues.¹⁷ Total calculated blood loss was based on the difference in Hgb levels before surgery and the lowest Hgb levels 24 hours after surgery:

Blood loss (mL) = 100 mL/dL × Hgb_loss/Hgb_i

Hgb_loss = BV × (Hgb_i – Hgb_e) × 10 dL/L + Hgb_t

= 0.3669 × Height³ (m) + 0.03219 × Weight (kg) + 0.6041 (for men)

= 0.3561 × Height³ (m) + 0.03308 × Weight (kg) + 0.1833 (for women)

 

where Hgb_i is the Hgb concentration (g/dL) before surgery, Hgb_e is the lowest Hgb concentration (g/dL) 24 hours after surgery, Hgb_t is the total amount (g) of allogeneic Hgb transfused, and BV is the estimated total body blood volume (L).¹⁷ As Hgb concentrations after blood transfusions were compared in this study, the Hgb_t variable was removed from the equation. Based on Hgb decrease data in a study that compared IV and topical TXA in TKA,¹⁴ we determined that a sample size of least 140 patients (70 in each cohort) was needed in order to have 80% power to detect a difference in Hgb decrease of 0.36 g/dL in IV and topical TXA.

All data were reported with descriptive statistics. Frequencies and percentages were reported for categorical variables. Means and standard deviations were reported for continuous variables. The groups of continuous data were compared with unpaired Student t tests and 1-way analysis of variance. Comparisons among groups of categorical data were analyzed with Fisher exact tests. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Data were collected on 291 patients (156 THA, 135 TKA). There was a significant (P = .044) sex difference in the THA group: more men in the topical TXA subgroup and more women in the IV TXA subgroup. Other patient demographics were similarly matched with respect to age, height, weight, and body mass index (Table 1).

The primary outcomes (differences in cost, Hgb decrease, estimated blood loss, calculated blood loss, and transfusions) are listed in Table 2.

In the THA group, mean (SD) Hgb change was significantly (P = .031) higher with IV TXA, 3.33 (1.02) g/dL, than with topical TXA, 2.89 (1.44) g/dL, and the cost of topical TXA ($2100) was significantly (P ≤ .0001) higher than the cost of IV TXA ($1161). There were no differences in calculated blood loss, estimated blood loss, or transfusion rates. In the TKA group, calculated blood loss was significantly (P = .019) higher with IV TXA (1084.2 mL) than with topical TXA (859.6 mL), mean (SD) Hgb change was significantly (P = .015) higher with IV TXA, 2.35 (0.99) g/dL, than with topical TXA, 1.93 (0.90) g/dL, and the cost of topical TXA ($2100) was significantly (P ≤ .0001) higher than the cost of IV TXA ($1271). There were no differences in estimated blood loss or transfusion rates.

The secondary outcomes (differences in complications and LOS) are listed in Table 3.

In the THA group, postoperative cardiac events occurred in 3 (6%) of the 48 patients in the topical TXA subgroup and in none of the patients in the IV TXA subgroup (P = .007). There were no differences in other complications (DVT, PE, cerebrovascular events, wound drainage) or LOS. In the TKA group, there were no differences in postoperative complications or LOS between the IV and topical TXA subgroups.

Discussion

TXA, an analog of the amino acid lysine, is an antifibrinolytic agent that has been used for many years to inhibit fibrin degradation.^3,18 TXA works by competitively inhibiting tissue plasminogen activation, which is elevated by the trauma of surgery, and blocking plasmin binding to fibrin.^3,19 The mechanism of action is not procoagulant, as TXA prevents fibrin breakdown and supports coagulation that is underway rather than increasing clot formation. These characteristics make the drug attractive for orthopedic joint surgery—TXA reduces postoperative blood loss in patients who need fibrinolysis suppressed in order to maintain homeostasis without increasing the risk of venous thromboembolism. IV TXA has been well studied, which supports its efficacy profile for reducing blood loss and transfusions; there are no reports of increased risk of thromboembolic events.^20-22 Despite these studies, the risk of adverse events is still a major concern, especially in patients with medical conditions that predispose them to venothrombotic events. Topical TXA has become a viable option, especially in high-risk patients, as studies have shown 70% lower systemic absorption relative to IV TXA plasma concentration.²³ Still, too few studies have compared the efficacy, safety, and cost of IV and topical TXA in both THA and TKA.

Topical TXA costs an average of $2100 per case, primarily because standard dosing is 3 g per case. Despite repeat dosing for IV TXA (first dose at incision, second dose 3 hours after first), IV TXA costs were much lower on average: $939 less for THA and $829 less for TKA. As numerous studies have outlined results similar to ours, cost-effectiveness should be considered in decisions about treatment options.

Patel and colleagues¹⁴ reported that the efficacy of topical TXA was similar to that of IV TXA and that there were no significant differences in Hgb decrease, wound drainage, or need for transfusions after TKA. Their report conflicts with our finding significant differences favoring topical TXA for Hgb change (P = .015) and reduced calculated blood loss (P = .019) in TKA. A potential reason for these differing results is that the topical TXA doses were different (2 g in the study by Patel and colleagues,¹⁴ 3 g in our study). Martin and colleagues²⁴ compared the effects of topical TXA and placebo and found a nonsignificant difference in reduced blood loss and postoperative transfusions when the drug was dosed at 2 g. Konig and colleagues³ found that topical TXA dosed at 3 g (vs placebo) could reduce blood loss and transfusions after THA and TKA. These studies support our 3-g dose protocol for topical TXA rather than the 2-g protocol used in the study by Patel and colleagues.¹⁴ Our results are congruent with those of Seo and colleagues,²⁵ who found topical TXA superior in decreasing blood loss in TKA. Furthermore, our study is unique in that it compared costs and found topical TXA to be more expensive by almost $1000 on average.

Wei and Wei⁹ concluded that IV TXA 3 g and topical TXA 3 g were equally effective in reducing total blood loss, change in hematocrit, and need for transfusion after THA. In contrast, we found a significant (P = .031) difference favoring topical TXA for Hgb change. The 2 studies differed in their dosing protocols: Wei and Wei⁹ infused a 3-g dose, whereas we gave a maximum of two 1-g IV doses. The higher IV dose used by Wei and Wei⁹ could explain why they found no difference between IV and topical TXA, whereas we did find a difference. Our study was unique in that it measured Hgb change, blood loss, and cost.

Our study included an in-depth analysis of blood loss: estimated blood loss, drain outputs, calculated blood loss, and Hgb change. The equation we used for calculated blood loss is well established and has been used in multiple studies.^3,16,17 To thoroughly assess the safety of TXA, we reviewed and documented complications that occurred within 90 days after surgery and that could be attributed to TXA. This study was adequately powered and exceeded the required sample size to detect a difference in one primary outcome measure, perioperative Hgb change, as calculated by the prestudy statistical power analysis.

Our study had several limitations. First, it was a retrospective chart review; documentation could have been incomplete or missing. Second, the study was not randomized and thus subject to drug selection bias. Third, patients were selected for topical TXA on the basis of perceived risk factors, such as prior or family history of DVT, PE, cardiac events, or cerebrovascular events. It was thought that, given the decrease in systemic absorption with topical TXA, these high-risk patients would be less likely to have a thromboembolic event. Their complex past medical histories may explain why the topical TXA group had more cardiac events. Furthermore, 1 orthopedic surgeon used topical TXA exclusively, and the other 3 used it selectively, according to risk factors. In addition, unlike TKA patients, not all THA patients received drains. This study was powered to measure a difference in perioperative Hgb change but may not have been powered to detect the statistically significant difference favoring topical TXA for calculated blood loss in TKA. In the THA group, a statistically significant difference was found for reduced Hgb decrease but not for estimated or calculated blood loss. This finding reinforces some of the disparities in measurements of the effects of blood conservation strategies. The study also lacked a placebo or control group. However, several other studies have found that both IV TXA and topical TXA are superior to placebo in decreasing blood loss, Hgb change, and transfusion requirements.^10,12,20,22 In addition, the effects of TXA are based on estimates of blood conservation and are not without their disparities.

 

Conclusion

The present study found that both IV TXA and topical TXA were effective in decreasing blood loss, Hgb levels, and need for transfusion after THA and TKA. Topical TXA appears to be more effective than IV TXA in preventing Hgb decrease during THA and TKA and calculated blood loss during TKA. This increased efficacy comes with a higher cost. Thromboembolic complications were similar between groups. More studies are needed to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of topical TXA against the routine standard of IV TXA, especially in patients with perceived contraindications to IV TXA.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E439-E443. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be associated with significant blood loss that in some cases requires transfusion. The incidence of transfusion ranges from 16% to 37% in patients who undergo THA and from 11% to 21% in patients who undergo TKA.^1-3 Allogeneic blood transfusions have been associated with several risks (transfusion-related acute lung injury, hemolytic reactions, immunologic reactions, fluid overload, renal failure, infections), increased cost, and longer hospital length of stay (LOS).^4-7 With improved patient outcomes the ultimate goal, blood-conserving strategies designed to decrease blood loss and transfusions have been adopted as a standard in successful joint replacement programs.

Tranexamic acid (TXA), an antifibrinolytic agent, has become a major component of blood conservation management after THA and TKA. TXA stabilizes clots at the surgical site by inhibiting plasminogen activation and thereby blocking fibrinolysis.⁸ The literature supports intravenous (IV) TXA as effective in significantly reducing blood loss and transfusion rates in elective THA and TKA.^9,10 However, data on increased risk of thrombotic events with IV TXA in both THA and TKA are conflicting.^11,12 Topical TXA is thought to have an advantage over IV TXA in that it provides a higher concentration of drug at the surgical site and is associated with little systemic absorption.^2,13Recent prospective randomized studies have compared the efficacy and safety of IV and topical TXA in THA and TKA.^9,14 However, controversy remains because relatively few studies have compared these 2 routes of administration. In addition, healthcare–associated costs have come under increased scrutiny, and the cost of these treatments should be considered. More research is needed to determine which application is most efficacious and cost-conscious and poses the least risk to patients. Therefore, we conducted a study to compare the cost, efficacy, and safety of IV and topical TXA in primary THA and TKA.

Materials and Methods

Our Institutional Review Board approved this study. Patients who were age 18 years or older, underwent primary THA or TKA, and received IV or topical TXA between August 2013 and September 2014 were considered eligible for the study. For both groups, exclusion criteria were trauma service admission, TXA hypersensitivity, pregnancy, and concomitant use of IV and topical TXA.

We collected demographic data (age, sex, weight, height, body mass index), noted all transfusions of packed red blood cells, and recorded preoperative and postoperative hemoglobin (Hgb) levels and surgical drain outputs. We also recorded any complications that occurred within 90 days after surgery: deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), cardiac events, cerebrovascular events, and wound drainage. Wound drainage was defined as readmission to hospital or return to operating room for wound drainage caused by infection or hematoma. Postoperative care (disposition, LOS, follow-up) was documented. Average cost of both IV and topical TXA administration was calculated using average wholesale price.

Use of IV TXA and use of topical TXA were compared in both THA and TKA. Patients in the IV TXA group received TXA in two 10-mg/kg doses with a maximum of 1 g per dose. The first IV dose was given before the incision, and the second was given 3 hours after the first. Patients in the topical TXA group underwent direct irrigation with 3 g of TXA in 100 mL of normal saline at the surgical site after closure of the deep fascia in THA and after closure of the knee arthrotomy in TKA. The drain remained occluded for 30 minutes after surgery. The wound was irrigated with topical TXA before wound closure in the THA group and before tourniquet release in the TKA group. TXA dosing was based on institutional formulary dosing restrictions and was consistent with best practices and current literature.^3,9,14,15Primary outcomes measured for each cohort and treatment arm were Hgb levels (difference between preoperative levels and lowest postoperative levels 24 hours after surgery), blood loss, transfusion rates, and cost. Secondary outcomes were LOS and complications that occurred within 90 days after surgery (DVT, PE, cardiac events, cerebrovascular events, wound drainage).

Calculated blood loss was determined with equations described by Konig and colleagues,³ Good and colleagues,¹⁶ and Nadler and colleagues.¹⁷ Total calculated blood loss was based on the difference in Hgb levels before surgery and the lowest Hgb levels 24 hours after surgery:

Blood loss (mL) = 100 mL/dL × Hgb_loss/Hgb_i

Hgb_loss = BV × (Hgb_i – Hgb_e) × 10 dL/L + Hgb_t

= 0.3669 × Height³ (m) + 0.03219 × Weight (kg) + 0.6041 (for men)

= 0.3561 × Height³ (m) + 0.03308 × Weight (kg) + 0.1833 (for women)

 

where Hgb_i is the Hgb concentration (g/dL) before surgery, Hgb_e is the lowest Hgb concentration (g/dL) 24 hours after surgery, Hgb_t is the total amount (g) of allogeneic Hgb transfused, and BV is the estimated total body blood volume (L).¹⁷ As Hgb concentrations after blood transfusions were compared in this study, the Hgb_t variable was removed from the equation. Based on Hgb decrease data in a study that compared IV and topical TXA in TKA,¹⁴ we determined that a sample size of least 140 patients (70 in each cohort) was needed in order to have 80% power to detect a difference in Hgb decrease of 0.36 g/dL in IV and topical TXA.

All data were reported with descriptive statistics. Frequencies and percentages were reported for categorical variables. Means and standard deviations were reported for continuous variables. The groups of continuous data were compared with unpaired Student t tests and 1-way analysis of variance. Comparisons among groups of categorical data were analyzed with Fisher exact tests. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Data were collected on 291 patients (156 THA, 135 TKA). There was a significant (P = .044) sex difference in the THA group: more men in the topical TXA subgroup and more women in the IV TXA subgroup. Other patient demographics were similarly matched with respect to age, height, weight, and body mass index (Table 1).

The primary outcomes (differences in cost, Hgb decrease, estimated blood loss, calculated blood loss, and transfusions) are listed in Table 2.

In the THA group, mean (SD) Hgb change was significantly (P = .031) higher with IV TXA, 3.33 (1.02) g/dL, than with topical TXA, 2.89 (1.44) g/dL, and the cost of topical TXA ($2100) was significantly (P ≤ .0001) higher than the cost of IV TXA ($1161). There were no differences in calculated blood loss, estimated blood loss, or transfusion rates. In the TKA group, calculated blood loss was significantly (P = .019) higher with IV TXA (1084.2 mL) than with topical TXA (859.6 mL), mean (SD) Hgb change was significantly (P = .015) higher with IV TXA, 2.35 (0.99) g/dL, than with topical TXA, 1.93 (0.90) g/dL, and the cost of topical TXA ($2100) was significantly (P ≤ .0001) higher than the cost of IV TXA ($1271). There were no differences in estimated blood loss or transfusion rates.

The secondary outcomes (differences in complications and LOS) are listed in Table 3.

In the THA group, postoperative cardiac events occurred in 3 (6%) of the 48 patients in the topical TXA subgroup and in none of the patients in the IV TXA subgroup (P = .007). There were no differences in other complications (DVT, PE, cerebrovascular events, wound drainage) or LOS. In the TKA group, there were no differences in postoperative complications or LOS between the IV and topical TXA subgroups.

Discussion

TXA, an analog of the amino acid lysine, is an antifibrinolytic agent that has been used for many years to inhibit fibrin degradation.^3,18 TXA works by competitively inhibiting tissue plasminogen activation, which is elevated by the trauma of surgery, and blocking plasmin binding to fibrin.^3,19 The mechanism of action is not procoagulant, as TXA prevents fibrin breakdown and supports coagulation that is underway rather than increasing clot formation. These characteristics make the drug attractive for orthopedic joint surgery—TXA reduces postoperative blood loss in patients who need fibrinolysis suppressed in order to maintain homeostasis without increasing the risk of venous thromboembolism. IV TXA has been well studied, which supports its efficacy profile for reducing blood loss and transfusions; there are no reports of increased risk of thromboembolic events.^20-22 Despite these studies, the risk of adverse events is still a major concern, especially in patients with medical conditions that predispose them to venothrombotic events. Topical TXA has become a viable option, especially in high-risk patients, as studies have shown 70% lower systemic absorption relative to IV TXA plasma concentration.²³ Still, too few studies have compared the efficacy, safety, and cost of IV and topical TXA in both THA and TKA.

Topical TXA costs an average of $2100 per case, primarily because standard dosing is 3 g per case. Despite repeat dosing for IV TXA (first dose at incision, second dose 3 hours after first), IV TXA costs were much lower on average: $939 less for THA and $829 less for TKA. As numerous studies have outlined results similar to ours, cost-effectiveness should be considered in decisions about treatment options.

Patel and colleagues¹⁴ reported that the efficacy of topical TXA was similar to that of IV TXA and that there were no significant differences in Hgb decrease, wound drainage, or need for transfusions after TKA. Their report conflicts with our finding significant differences favoring topical TXA for Hgb change (P = .015) and reduced calculated blood loss (P = .019) in TKA. A potential reason for these differing results is that the topical TXA doses were different (2 g in the study by Patel and colleagues,¹⁴ 3 g in our study). Martin and colleagues²⁴ compared the effects of topical TXA and placebo and found a nonsignificant difference in reduced blood loss and postoperative transfusions when the drug was dosed at 2 g. Konig and colleagues³ found that topical TXA dosed at 3 g (vs placebo) could reduce blood loss and transfusions after THA and TKA. These studies support our 3-g dose protocol for topical TXA rather than the 2-g protocol used in the study by Patel and colleagues.¹⁴ Our results are congruent with those of Seo and colleagues,²⁵ who found topical TXA superior in decreasing blood loss in TKA. Furthermore, our study is unique in that it compared costs and found topical TXA to be more expensive by almost $1000 on average.

Wei and Wei⁹ concluded that IV TXA 3 g and topical TXA 3 g were equally effective in reducing total blood loss, change in hematocrit, and need for transfusion after THA. In contrast, we found a significant (P = .031) difference favoring topical TXA for Hgb change. The 2 studies differed in their dosing protocols: Wei and Wei⁹ infused a 3-g dose, whereas we gave a maximum of two 1-g IV doses. The higher IV dose used by Wei and Wei⁹ could explain why they found no difference between IV and topical TXA, whereas we did find a difference. Our study was unique in that it measured Hgb change, blood loss, and cost.

Our study included an in-depth analysis of blood loss: estimated blood loss, drain outputs, calculated blood loss, and Hgb change. The equation we used for calculated blood loss is well established and has been used in multiple studies.^3,16,17 To thoroughly assess the safety of TXA, we reviewed and documented complications that occurred within 90 days after surgery and that could be attributed to TXA. This study was adequately powered and exceeded the required sample size to detect a difference in one primary outcome measure, perioperative Hgb change, as calculated by the prestudy statistical power analysis.

Our study had several limitations. First, it was a retrospective chart review; documentation could have been incomplete or missing. Second, the study was not randomized and thus subject to drug selection bias. Third, patients were selected for topical TXA on the basis of perceived risk factors, such as prior or family history of DVT, PE, cardiac events, or cerebrovascular events. It was thought that, given the decrease in systemic absorption with topical TXA, these high-risk patients would be less likely to have a thromboembolic event. Their complex past medical histories may explain why the topical TXA group had more cardiac events. Furthermore, 1 orthopedic surgeon used topical TXA exclusively, and the other 3 used it selectively, according to risk factors. In addition, unlike TKA patients, not all THA patients received drains. This study was powered to measure a difference in perioperative Hgb change but may not have been powered to detect the statistically significant difference favoring topical TXA for calculated blood loss in TKA. In the THA group, a statistically significant difference was found for reduced Hgb decrease but not for estimated or calculated blood loss. This finding reinforces some of the disparities in measurements of the effects of blood conservation strategies. The study also lacked a placebo or control group. However, several other studies have found that both IV TXA and topical TXA are superior to placebo in decreasing blood loss, Hgb change, and transfusion requirements.^10,12,20,22 In addition, the effects of TXA are based on estimates of blood conservation and are not without their disparities.

 

Conclusion

The present study found that both IV TXA and topical TXA were effective in decreasing blood loss, Hgb levels, and need for transfusion after THA and TKA. Topical TXA appears to be more effective than IV TXA in preventing Hgb decrease during THA and TKA and calculated blood loss during TKA. This increased efficacy comes with a higher cost. Thromboembolic complications were similar between groups. More studies are needed to compare the efficacy and safety profiles of topical TXA against the routine standard of IV TXA, especially in patients with perceived contraindications to IV TXA.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E439-E443. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Technique

The patient is positioned on a radiolucent table, and a mobile fluoroscopy unit is available. A tourniquet is applied to the upper thigh but typically is not inflated during the percutaneous hardware removal portion of the operation. It is crucial to have information on retained implants so the correct screwdrivers for screw removal can be selected. In addition, provisions for stripped screws should be made. In each of the 3 cases we managed, the Synthes Screw Removal Set was available. Presence of an implant system known to have problems with cold welding of screws (eg, Less Invasive Stabilization System; Synthes) may necessitate additional preparations, such as making conical extraction devices available.¹

After preoperative administration of antibiotics, the surgeon typically removes only those proximal tibia screws that are preventing insertion of the tibial base plate. Fluoroscopic guidance is used to locate these screws and then remove them with percutaneous stab incisions. (Retained plates are not removed.) The exact method of localizing and removing the screws percutaneously is crucial. A small stab incision is made in the dermal layer. The number of stab incisions to be made depends on the number of screws to be removed. One small incision is needed for each screw hole. Occasionally mobilizing the skin and redirecting the screwdriver in the deep tissues can allow 2 screws to be removed through a single skin wound. The screwdriver head can be inserted through the muscle and fascial layers without the need for deep dissection. The plate is then felt with the screwdriver and the screw head located. It is very important that the screw head be adequately engaged to prevent stripping. The surgeon should not rush this step. The C-arm can be helpful here. Fluoroscopy not only can guide the screwdriver to the screw hole but can confirm the screwdriver is at right angles to the plate, not oblique. Only when the surgeon is completely satisfied that the screw head is well engaged should the attempt to back out the screw be made. If the screw strips, the screwdriver can be removed, and an attempt can be made to insert a percutaneous stripped screw removal device.¹ If this fails, then the technique must be abandoned for a more traditional approach.

Plating complex tibial plateau fractures through a separate posteromedial approach is now popular.² The deep location and screw orientation of posteromedial hardware make percutaneous removal unfeasible. In these cases, a separate posteromedial incision may be needed—usually posterior enough so it minimally compromises the anterior soft tissues. The incision typically uses the old posteromedial surgical scar but may not need to be as large as the original approach, as only selected screws need be removed. The saphenous neurovascular bundle may still be at risk, depending on the location of these incisions. The plate is not removed.

After the necessary screws are removed, the tourniquet can be inflated, if desired. The total knee arthroplasty (TKA) then proceeds in usual fashion through a single incision and a medial parapatellar arthrotomy.

Results

Between January 2009 and February 2014, Dr. Georgiadis converted 3 cases of retained tibial hardware and severe knee arthrosis to a TKA in a single operation. These cases were reviewed after Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. One patient underwent a closing-wedge high tibial osteotomy 14 years earlier, and the other 2 sustained tibial plateau fractures. Clinical details of the 3 cases are presented in the Table.

The data were derived from a review of inpatient electronic healthcare records. We did not specifically record the time needed for percutaneous implant removal or TKA. Follow-up consisted of a retrospective chart review of wound status, range of motion, and radiographs; knee function scores were not obtained.

In 2 of the cases, anterolateral surgical scars were present. New, separate percutaneous stab incisions were used to remove screws, which meant less of the original skin incision could be used for the TKA (Figures 1A, 1B).

The medial parapatellar arthrotomy was then performed with less lateral dissection and no exposure of the anterolateral plate.

In the third case, involving multiple plates, a similar strategy was used, but an additional small posteromedial incision was required (Figures 2-5). The TKA then proceeded through a new midline incision. This case was performed for tibiofemoral arthrosis in the setting of an acute distal femur fracture, but this had no bearing on the technique.

After the proximal tibial screws were removed, the case proceeded in the usual manner, though a stripped screw required insertion of a conical extraction device for percutaneous removal.

Tibial base plates were inserted in the usual manner. Length and type of tibial stem were left to the discretion of the surgeon. There were no changes from the usual surgical technique. All patients went on to routine, uneventful wound healing. Follow-up ranged from 10 months to 59 months.

 

Discussion

If the decision is made to proceed with TKA after previous knee surgery, careful preoperative planning is needed.

The most common reasons for retained implants are previous proximal tibial osteotomy and previous fracture.

For young patients with knee arthrosis and angular deformity, it has been recommended that proximal tibial osteotomy be performed to delay the need for joint replacement.^3,4 Although a wide variety of osteotomy techniques is available, plates and screws are often used. With long-term follow-up, knee arthrosis can be expected to progress, and some of these cases will be converted to knee arthroplasty.^3,4Displaced tibial plateau fractures are intra-articular injuries. Treatment requires surgery.

Treatment principles include restoration of articular anatomy, mechanical alignment, early motion, and, usually, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and screws. In the past, complex bicondylar fractures were often treated with medial and lateral plating through a single anterior approach. The resulting high infection rate was attributable to the initial soft-tissue injury and the additional surgical stripping.^5-8 In the more fragment-specific approach that was subsequently developed, combined anterolateral and posteromedial plating decreased but did not eliminate the risk of infection.^9-11Posttraumatic arthrosis is not an uncommon radiographic finding after ORIF of tibial plateau fractures.^12,13 However, only a relatively small percentage of these patients go on to TKA.^14,15In the presence of previous incisions and retained hardware, TKA is expected to be more technically difficult. Satisfactory outcomes of tibial osteotomy have been reported,¹⁶ as have poorer outcomes.^17,18 In many cases, lateral staples and not plate–screw constructs had been retained. Rates of complications (wounds, infections) after conversion of tibial plateau fractures to TKAs were higher in numerous studies.^19-21

Blood work for inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein level) should be performed before surgery. In the event of an elevated laboratory value or clinical suspicion (joint effusion), the joint should be aspirated before any arthroplasty procedure.

Preoperative planning for hardware removal is essential.²² The correct screwdriver and a metal cutting burr (for stripped screws) should be available. These needs may be anticipated with certain types of locking plates.¹

In such situations, minimally invasive hardware removal may not be possible. Meticulous planning regarding type of prosthesis is needed as well. Revision implants with long tibial stems are often needed to bypass previous tibial hardware or stress risers. We did not encounter any soft-tissue or bony difficulties in implanting a tibial base plate with a retained lateral tibial fracture plate in this 3-case series.

Surgical incision planning is also crucial in preventing wound problems that can lead to deep prosthetic infection.^23,24 Blood supply to the skin of the anterior knee is primarily medially derived; incisions that are more medial put lateral skin flaps at risk.²⁵ Use of the most recently healed or previous lateral-based scars has been recommended. In cases of adherent skin or poor soft-tissue envelope, plastic surgery (eg, soft-tissue expansion, gastrocnemius muscle, fasciocutaneous flaps) may be necessary.^26-28Surgeons must decide to perform either a single operation or a multiple-stage operation. Naturally, most patients prefer a single procedure. All previous hardware can be removed, or only the hardware that is preventing insertion of the tibial base plate. Removing the least amount of hardware is advantageous in that surgical stripping and soft-tissue damage are reduced.

In this initial series, we successfully converted 3 tibial implants to TKAs (each as a single operation) by removing only screws in percutaneous or minimally invasive fashion—the prosthetic joint approach did not involve additional soft-tissue stripping. We did not specifically record the time needed for implant removal separately from the time needed for TKA. As the Table shows, this technique can lengthen surgery. Operative time and blood loss can be more variable because of numerous factors, including scar tissue and an altered surgical field from previous surgery, in addition to hardware removal difficulties. Therefore, surgeons should budget more operative time for these procedures. Although longer operations theoretically may increase infection rates, we think the risk is mitigated by the percutaneous aspects of the described technique.

We do not think that most orthopedic surgeons addressing retained plate–screw constructs consider minimally invasive screw removal and plate retention. To our knowledge, the literature includes only 1 case report of a similar technique.²⁹This technique has many potential drawbacks, the foremost being use of intraoperative fluoroscopy. For more complex fractures, fluoroscopy time can be significant if the surgeon is committed to a true percutaneous approach (Table). In addition, use of a mobile fluoroscopy unit adds personnel to the operating theater, which potentially increases the infection rate. There may be cases in which tibial hardware interferes with tibial cuts, necessitating plate removal, but we did not encounter this in our series. This technique is potentially time-consuming. Operating room time can be expected to increase relative to wide exposures that allow quick access to existing implants. For this reason, some surgeons may decide to forgo this technique. Most modern proximal tibial fracture plates are contoured to fit well over the bone. However, some may still be prominent, and surgeons may choose to perform an open approach to remove them. Last, the clinical impact of plates retained without screws in the proximal tibia is not known. Theoretically, they may still act as a nidus for occult infection, and may act as a stress riser for peri-implant fracture. Therefore, for each patient, the surgeon must decide if the extra surgical time, fluoroscopy exposure, and plate retention are worthwhile.

In this 3-case series, screws were removed percutaneously over the proximal tibia. There were no neurovascular injuries in these cases, though there is potential for nerve and artery injuries with percutaneous screw removal, as in the anterolateral area of the distal third of the tibia.^30,31 Thus, our technique may not be applicable in such cases. Most patients with plates and screws retained after proximal tibial surgery do not need to have the screws removed from the distal tibia. There also is the potential for saphenous nerve injury if a small medial or posteromedial incision is made. No such injury occurred in our small series.

Surgeons must consider many factors when deciding whether to proceed with TKA in the setting of existing tibial hardware. If staged reconstruction is not planned, consideration can be given to percutaneous screw removal without plate removal in an attempt to minimize further soft-tissue stripping. This has the theoretical advantage of decreasing wound complications. We have been pleased with our initial patient experience and continue to use this technique.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E481-E486. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Technique

The patient is positioned on a radiolucent table, and a mobile fluoroscopy unit is available. A tourniquet is applied to the upper thigh but typically is not inflated during the percutaneous hardware removal portion of the operation. It is crucial to have information on retained implants so the correct screwdrivers for screw removal can be selected. In addition, provisions for stripped screws should be made. In each of the 3 cases we managed, the Synthes Screw Removal Set was available. Presence of an implant system known to have problems with cold welding of screws (eg, Less Invasive Stabilization System; Synthes) may necessitate additional preparations, such as making conical extraction devices available.¹

After preoperative administration of antibiotics, the surgeon typically removes only those proximal tibia screws that are preventing insertion of the tibial base plate. Fluoroscopic guidance is used to locate these screws and then remove them with percutaneous stab incisions. (Retained plates are not removed.) The exact method of localizing and removing the screws percutaneously is crucial. A small stab incision is made in the dermal layer. The number of stab incisions to be made depends on the number of screws to be removed. One small incision is needed for each screw hole. Occasionally mobilizing the skin and redirecting the screwdriver in the deep tissues can allow 2 screws to be removed through a single skin wound. The screwdriver head can be inserted through the muscle and fascial layers without the need for deep dissection. The plate is then felt with the screwdriver and the screw head located. It is very important that the screw head be adequately engaged to prevent stripping. The surgeon should not rush this step. The C-arm can be helpful here. Fluoroscopy not only can guide the screwdriver to the screw hole but can confirm the screwdriver is at right angles to the plate, not oblique. Only when the surgeon is completely satisfied that the screw head is well engaged should the attempt to back out the screw be made. If the screw strips, the screwdriver can be removed, and an attempt can be made to insert a percutaneous stripped screw removal device.¹ If this fails, then the technique must be abandoned for a more traditional approach.

Plating complex tibial plateau fractures through a separate posteromedial approach is now popular.² The deep location and screw orientation of posteromedial hardware make percutaneous removal unfeasible. In these cases, a separate posteromedial incision may be needed—usually posterior enough so it minimally compromises the anterior soft tissues. The incision typically uses the old posteromedial surgical scar but may not need to be as large as the original approach, as only selected screws need be removed. The saphenous neurovascular bundle may still be at risk, depending on the location of these incisions. The plate is not removed.

After the necessary screws are removed, the tourniquet can be inflated, if desired. The total knee arthroplasty (TKA) then proceeds in usual fashion through a single incision and a medial parapatellar arthrotomy.

Results

Between January 2009 and February 2014, Dr. Georgiadis converted 3 cases of retained tibial hardware and severe knee arthrosis to a TKA in a single operation. These cases were reviewed after Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. One patient underwent a closing-wedge high tibial osteotomy 14 years earlier, and the other 2 sustained tibial plateau fractures. Clinical details of the 3 cases are presented in the Table.

The data were derived from a review of inpatient electronic healthcare records. We did not specifically record the time needed for percutaneous implant removal or TKA. Follow-up consisted of a retrospective chart review of wound status, range of motion, and radiographs; knee function scores were not obtained.

In 2 of the cases, anterolateral surgical scars were present. New, separate percutaneous stab incisions were used to remove screws, which meant less of the original skin incision could be used for the TKA (Figures 1A, 1B).

The medial parapatellar arthrotomy was then performed with less lateral dissection and no exposure of the anterolateral plate.

In the third case, involving multiple plates, a similar strategy was used, but an additional small posteromedial incision was required (Figures 2-5). The TKA then proceeded through a new midline incision. This case was performed for tibiofemoral arthrosis in the setting of an acute distal femur fracture, but this had no bearing on the technique.

After the proximal tibial screws were removed, the case proceeded in the usual manner, though a stripped screw required insertion of a conical extraction device for percutaneous removal.

Tibial base plates were inserted in the usual manner. Length and type of tibial stem were left to the discretion of the surgeon. There were no changes from the usual surgical technique. All patients went on to routine, uneventful wound healing. Follow-up ranged from 10 months to 59 months.

 

Discussion

If the decision is made to proceed with TKA after previous knee surgery, careful preoperative planning is needed.

The most common reasons for retained implants are previous proximal tibial osteotomy and previous fracture.

For young patients with knee arthrosis and angular deformity, it has been recommended that proximal tibial osteotomy be performed to delay the need for joint replacement.^3,4 Although a wide variety of osteotomy techniques is available, plates and screws are often used. With long-term follow-up, knee arthrosis can be expected to progress, and some of these cases will be converted to knee arthroplasty.^3,4Displaced tibial plateau fractures are intra-articular injuries. Treatment requires surgery.

Treatment principles include restoration of articular anatomy, mechanical alignment, early motion, and, usually, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and screws. In the past, complex bicondylar fractures were often treated with medial and lateral plating through a single anterior approach. The resulting high infection rate was attributable to the initial soft-tissue injury and the additional surgical stripping.^5-8 In the more fragment-specific approach that was subsequently developed, combined anterolateral and posteromedial plating decreased but did not eliminate the risk of infection.^9-11Posttraumatic arthrosis is not an uncommon radiographic finding after ORIF of tibial plateau fractures.^12,13 However, only a relatively small percentage of these patients go on to TKA.^14,15In the presence of previous incisions and retained hardware, TKA is expected to be more technically difficult. Satisfactory outcomes of tibial osteotomy have been reported,¹⁶ as have poorer outcomes.^17,18 In many cases, lateral staples and not plate–screw constructs had been retained. Rates of complications (wounds, infections) after conversion of tibial plateau fractures to TKAs were higher in numerous studies.^19-21

Blood work for inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein level) should be performed before surgery. In the event of an elevated laboratory value or clinical suspicion (joint effusion), the joint should be aspirated before any arthroplasty procedure.

Preoperative planning for hardware removal is essential.²² The correct screwdriver and a metal cutting burr (for stripped screws) should be available. These needs may be anticipated with certain types of locking plates.¹

In such situations, minimally invasive hardware removal may not be possible. Meticulous planning regarding type of prosthesis is needed as well. Revision implants with long tibial stems are often needed to bypass previous tibial hardware or stress risers. We did not encounter any soft-tissue or bony difficulties in implanting a tibial base plate with a retained lateral tibial fracture plate in this 3-case series.

Surgical incision planning is also crucial in preventing wound problems that can lead to deep prosthetic infection.^23,24 Blood supply to the skin of the anterior knee is primarily medially derived; incisions that are more medial put lateral skin flaps at risk.²⁵ Use of the most recently healed or previous lateral-based scars has been recommended. In cases of adherent skin or poor soft-tissue envelope, plastic surgery (eg, soft-tissue expansion, gastrocnemius muscle, fasciocutaneous flaps) may be necessary.^26-28Surgeons must decide to perform either a single operation or a multiple-stage operation. Naturally, most patients prefer a single procedure. All previous hardware can be removed, or only the hardware that is preventing insertion of the tibial base plate. Removing the least amount of hardware is advantageous in that surgical stripping and soft-tissue damage are reduced.

In this initial series, we successfully converted 3 tibial implants to TKAs (each as a single operation) by removing only screws in percutaneous or minimally invasive fashion—the prosthetic joint approach did not involve additional soft-tissue stripping. We did not specifically record the time needed for implant removal separately from the time needed for TKA. As the Table shows, this technique can lengthen surgery. Operative time and blood loss can be more variable because of numerous factors, including scar tissue and an altered surgical field from previous surgery, in addition to hardware removal difficulties. Therefore, surgeons should budget more operative time for these procedures. Although longer operations theoretically may increase infection rates, we think the risk is mitigated by the percutaneous aspects of the described technique.

We do not think that most orthopedic surgeons addressing retained plate–screw constructs consider minimally invasive screw removal and plate retention. To our knowledge, the literature includes only 1 case report of a similar technique.²⁹This technique has many potential drawbacks, the foremost being use of intraoperative fluoroscopy. For more complex fractures, fluoroscopy time can be significant if the surgeon is committed to a true percutaneous approach (Table). In addition, use of a mobile fluoroscopy unit adds personnel to the operating theater, which potentially increases the infection rate. There may be cases in which tibial hardware interferes with tibial cuts, necessitating plate removal, but we did not encounter this in our series. This technique is potentially time-consuming. Operating room time can be expected to increase relative to wide exposures that allow quick access to existing implants. For this reason, some surgeons may decide to forgo this technique. Most modern proximal tibial fracture plates are contoured to fit well over the bone. However, some may still be prominent, and surgeons may choose to perform an open approach to remove them. Last, the clinical impact of plates retained without screws in the proximal tibia is not known. Theoretically, they may still act as a nidus for occult infection, and may act as a stress riser for peri-implant fracture. Therefore, for each patient, the surgeon must decide if the extra surgical time, fluoroscopy exposure, and plate retention are worthwhile.

In this 3-case series, screws were removed percutaneously over the proximal tibia. There were no neurovascular injuries in these cases, though there is potential for nerve and artery injuries with percutaneous screw removal, as in the anterolateral area of the distal third of the tibia.^30,31 Thus, our technique may not be applicable in such cases. Most patients with plates and screws retained after proximal tibial surgery do not need to have the screws removed from the distal tibia. There also is the potential for saphenous nerve injury if a small medial or posteromedial incision is made. No such injury occurred in our small series.

Surgeons must consider many factors when deciding whether to proceed with TKA in the setting of existing tibial hardware. If staged reconstruction is not planned, consideration can be given to percutaneous screw removal without plate removal in an attempt to minimize further soft-tissue stripping. This has the theoretical advantage of decreasing wound complications. We have been pleased with our initial patient experience and continue to use this technique.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E481-E486. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Technique

The patient is positioned on a radiolucent table, and a mobile fluoroscopy unit is available. A tourniquet is applied to the upper thigh but typically is not inflated during the percutaneous hardware removal portion of the operation. It is crucial to have information on retained implants so the correct screwdrivers for screw removal can be selected. In addition, provisions for stripped screws should be made. In each of the 3 cases we managed, the Synthes Screw Removal Set was available. Presence of an implant system known to have problems with cold welding of screws (eg, Less Invasive Stabilization System; Synthes) may necessitate additional preparations, such as making conical extraction devices available.¹

After preoperative administration of antibiotics, the surgeon typically removes only those proximal tibia screws that are preventing insertion of the tibial base plate. Fluoroscopic guidance is used to locate these screws and then remove them with percutaneous stab incisions. (Retained plates are not removed.) The exact method of localizing and removing the screws percutaneously is crucial. A small stab incision is made in the dermal layer. The number of stab incisions to be made depends on the number of screws to be removed. One small incision is needed for each screw hole. Occasionally mobilizing the skin and redirecting the screwdriver in the deep tissues can allow 2 screws to be removed through a single skin wound. The screwdriver head can be inserted through the muscle and fascial layers without the need for deep dissection. The plate is then felt with the screwdriver and the screw head located. It is very important that the screw head be adequately engaged to prevent stripping. The surgeon should not rush this step. The C-arm can be helpful here. Fluoroscopy not only can guide the screwdriver to the screw hole but can confirm the screwdriver is at right angles to the plate, not oblique. Only when the surgeon is completely satisfied that the screw head is well engaged should the attempt to back out the screw be made. If the screw strips, the screwdriver can be removed, and an attempt can be made to insert a percutaneous stripped screw removal device.¹ If this fails, then the technique must be abandoned for a more traditional approach.

Plating complex tibial plateau fractures through a separate posteromedial approach is now popular.² The deep location and screw orientation of posteromedial hardware make percutaneous removal unfeasible. In these cases, a separate posteromedial incision may be needed—usually posterior enough so it minimally compromises the anterior soft tissues. The incision typically uses the old posteromedial surgical scar but may not need to be as large as the original approach, as only selected screws need be removed. The saphenous neurovascular bundle may still be at risk, depending on the location of these incisions. The plate is not removed.

After the necessary screws are removed, the tourniquet can be inflated, if desired. The total knee arthroplasty (TKA) then proceeds in usual fashion through a single incision and a medial parapatellar arthrotomy.

Results

Between January 2009 and February 2014, Dr. Georgiadis converted 3 cases of retained tibial hardware and severe knee arthrosis to a TKA in a single operation. These cases were reviewed after Institutional Review Board approval was obtained. One patient underwent a closing-wedge high tibial osteotomy 14 years earlier, and the other 2 sustained tibial plateau fractures. Clinical details of the 3 cases are presented in the Table.

The data were derived from a review of inpatient electronic healthcare records. We did not specifically record the time needed for percutaneous implant removal or TKA. Follow-up consisted of a retrospective chart review of wound status, range of motion, and radiographs; knee function scores were not obtained.

In 2 of the cases, anterolateral surgical scars were present. New, separate percutaneous stab incisions were used to remove screws, which meant less of the original skin incision could be used for the TKA (Figures 1A, 1B).

The medial parapatellar arthrotomy was then performed with less lateral dissection and no exposure of the anterolateral plate.

In the third case, involving multiple plates, a similar strategy was used, but an additional small posteromedial incision was required (Figures 2-5). The TKA then proceeded through a new midline incision. This case was performed for tibiofemoral arthrosis in the setting of an acute distal femur fracture, but this had no bearing on the technique.

After the proximal tibial screws were removed, the case proceeded in the usual manner, though a stripped screw required insertion of a conical extraction device for percutaneous removal.

Tibial base plates were inserted in the usual manner. Length and type of tibial stem were left to the discretion of the surgeon. There were no changes from the usual surgical technique. All patients went on to routine, uneventful wound healing. Follow-up ranged from 10 months to 59 months.

 

Discussion

If the decision is made to proceed with TKA after previous knee surgery, careful preoperative planning is needed.

The most common reasons for retained implants are previous proximal tibial osteotomy and previous fracture.

For young patients with knee arthrosis and angular deformity, it has been recommended that proximal tibial osteotomy be performed to delay the need for joint replacement.^3,4 Although a wide variety of osteotomy techniques is available, plates and screws are often used. With long-term follow-up, knee arthrosis can be expected to progress, and some of these cases will be converted to knee arthroplasty.^3,4Displaced tibial plateau fractures are intra-articular injuries. Treatment requires surgery.

Treatment principles include restoration of articular anatomy, mechanical alignment, early motion, and, usually, open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and screws. In the past, complex bicondylar fractures were often treated with medial and lateral plating through a single anterior approach. The resulting high infection rate was attributable to the initial soft-tissue injury and the additional surgical stripping.^5-8 In the more fragment-specific approach that was subsequently developed, combined anterolateral and posteromedial plating decreased but did not eliminate the risk of infection.^9-11Posttraumatic arthrosis is not an uncommon radiographic finding after ORIF of tibial plateau fractures.^12,13 However, only a relatively small percentage of these patients go on to TKA.^14,15In the presence of previous incisions and retained hardware, TKA is expected to be more technically difficult. Satisfactory outcomes of tibial osteotomy have been reported,¹⁶ as have poorer outcomes.^17,18 In many cases, lateral staples and not plate–screw constructs had been retained. Rates of complications (wounds, infections) after conversion of tibial plateau fractures to TKAs were higher in numerous studies.^19-21

Blood work for inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein level) should be performed before surgery. In the event of an elevated laboratory value or clinical suspicion (joint effusion), the joint should be aspirated before any arthroplasty procedure.

Preoperative planning for hardware removal is essential.²² The correct screwdriver and a metal cutting burr (for stripped screws) should be available. These needs may be anticipated with certain types of locking plates.¹

In such situations, minimally invasive hardware removal may not be possible. Meticulous planning regarding type of prosthesis is needed as well. Revision implants with long tibial stems are often needed to bypass previous tibial hardware or stress risers. We did not encounter any soft-tissue or bony difficulties in implanting a tibial base plate with a retained lateral tibial fracture plate in this 3-case series.

Surgical incision planning is also crucial in preventing wound problems that can lead to deep prosthetic infection.^23,24 Blood supply to the skin of the anterior knee is primarily medially derived; incisions that are more medial put lateral skin flaps at risk.²⁵ Use of the most recently healed or previous lateral-based scars has been recommended. In cases of adherent skin or poor soft-tissue envelope, plastic surgery (eg, soft-tissue expansion, gastrocnemius muscle, fasciocutaneous flaps) may be necessary.^26-28Surgeons must decide to perform either a single operation or a multiple-stage operation. Naturally, most patients prefer a single procedure. All previous hardware can be removed, or only the hardware that is preventing insertion of the tibial base plate. Removing the least amount of hardware is advantageous in that surgical stripping and soft-tissue damage are reduced.

In this initial series, we successfully converted 3 tibial implants to TKAs (each as a single operation) by removing only screws in percutaneous or minimally invasive fashion—the prosthetic joint approach did not involve additional soft-tissue stripping. We did not specifically record the time needed for implant removal separately from the time needed for TKA. As the Table shows, this technique can lengthen surgery. Operative time and blood loss can be more variable because of numerous factors, including scar tissue and an altered surgical field from previous surgery, in addition to hardware removal difficulties. Therefore, surgeons should budget more operative time for these procedures. Although longer operations theoretically may increase infection rates, we think the risk is mitigated by the percutaneous aspects of the described technique.

We do not think that most orthopedic surgeons addressing retained plate–screw constructs consider minimally invasive screw removal and plate retention. To our knowledge, the literature includes only 1 case report of a similar technique.²⁹This technique has many potential drawbacks, the foremost being use of intraoperative fluoroscopy. For more complex fractures, fluoroscopy time can be significant if the surgeon is committed to a true percutaneous approach (Table). In addition, use of a mobile fluoroscopy unit adds personnel to the operating theater, which potentially increases the infection rate. There may be cases in which tibial hardware interferes with tibial cuts, necessitating plate removal, but we did not encounter this in our series. This technique is potentially time-consuming. Operating room time can be expected to increase relative to wide exposures that allow quick access to existing implants. For this reason, some surgeons may decide to forgo this technique. Most modern proximal tibial fracture plates are contoured to fit well over the bone. However, some may still be prominent, and surgeons may choose to perform an open approach to remove them. Last, the clinical impact of plates retained without screws in the proximal tibia is not known. Theoretically, they may still act as a nidus for occult infection, and may act as a stress riser for peri-implant fracture. Therefore, for each patient, the surgeon must decide if the extra surgical time, fluoroscopy exposure, and plate retention are worthwhile.

In this 3-case series, screws were removed percutaneously over the proximal tibia. There were no neurovascular injuries in these cases, though there is potential for nerve and artery injuries with percutaneous screw removal, as in the anterolateral area of the distal third of the tibia.^30,31 Thus, our technique may not be applicable in such cases. Most patients with plates and screws retained after proximal tibial surgery do not need to have the screws removed from the distal tibia. There also is the potential for saphenous nerve injury if a small medial or posteromedial incision is made. No such injury occurred in our small series.

Surgeons must consider many factors when deciding whether to proceed with TKA in the setting of existing tibial hardware. If staged reconstruction is not planned, consideration can be given to percutaneous screw removal without plate removal in an attempt to minimize further soft-tissue stripping. This has the theoretical advantage of decreasing wound complications. We have been pleased with our initial patient experience and continue to use this technique.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E481-E486. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is considered a less invasive approach for the treatment of unicompartmental knee arthritis when compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with optimal preservation of kinematics.¹ Despite excellent functional outcomes, conversion to TKA may be necessary if the UKA fails, or in patients with progressive knee arthritis. Some studies have found UKA conversion to TKA to be comparable with primary TKA,^2,3 whereas others have found that conversion often requires bone graft, augments, and stemmed components and has increased complications and inferior results compared to primary TKA.^4-7 While some studies report that <10% of UKA conversions to TKA require augments,² others have found that as many as 76% require augments.^4-8

Schwarzkopf and colleagues⁹ recently demonstrated that UKA conversion to TKA is comparable with primary TKA when a conservative tibial resection is performed during the index procedure. However, they reported increased complexity when greater tibial resection was performed and thicker polyethylene inserts were used at the time of the index UKA. The odds ratio of needing an augment or stem during the conversion to TKA was 26.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.71-194) when an aggressive tibial resection was performed during the UKA.⁹ Tibial resection thickness may thus be predictive of anticipated complexity of UKA revision to TKA and may aid in preoperative planning.

Robotic assistance has been shown to enhance the accuracy of bone preparation, implant component alignment, and soft tissue balance in UKA.^10-15 It has yet to be determined whether this improved accuracy translates to improved clinical performance or longevity of the UKA implant. However, the enhanced accuracy of robotic technology may result in more conservative tibial resection when compared to conventional UKA and may be advantageous if conversion to TKA becomes necessary.

The purpose of this study was to compare the distribution of polyethylene insert sizes implanted during conventional and robotic-assisted UKA. We hypothesized that robotic assistance would demonstrate more conservative tibial resection compared to conventional methods of bone preparation.

Methods

We retrospectively compared the distribution of polyethylene insert sizes implanted during consecutive conventional and robotic-assisted UKA procedures. Several manufacturers were queried to provide a listing of the polyethylene insert sizes utilized, ranging from 8 mm to 14 mm. The analysis included 8421 robotic-assisted UKA cases and 27,989 conventional UKA cases. Data were provided by Zimmer Biomet and Smith & Nephew regarding conventional cases, as well as Blue Belt Technologies (now part of Smith & Nephew) and MAKO Surgical (now part of Stryker) regarding robotic-assisted cases. (Dr. Lonner has an ongoing relationship as a consultant with Blue Belt Technologies, whose data was utilized in this study.) Using tibial insert thickness as a surrogate measure of the extent of tibial resection, an insert size of ≥10 mm was defined as aggressive while <10 mm was considered conservative. This cutoff was established based on its corresponding resection level with primary TKA and the anticipated need for augments. Statistical analysis was performed using a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. Significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Tibial resection thickness was found to be most commonly conservative in nature, with sizes 8-mm and 9-mm polyethylene inserts utilized in the majority of both robotic-assisted and conventional UKA cases. However, statistically more 8-mm and 9-mm polyethylene inserts were used in the robotic group (93.6%) than in the conventional group (84.5%) (P < .0001; Figure). Aggressive tibial resection, requiring tibial inserts ≥10 mm, was performed in 6.4% of robotic-assisted cases and 15.5% of conventional cases.

Only .29% of robotic-assisted cases required tibial inserts ≥10 mm, whereas 5.7% of patients undergoing conventional UKA had tibial inserts ≥10 mm. In this analysis, the maximum tibial component thickness was 11 mm in robotic-assisted UKA and 14 mm in conventional UKA. The distribution of conventional UKA tibial resection thicknesses is significantly greater in comparison to robotic-assisted UKA, which more reproducibly achieved accurate and precise conservative resection. No significant differences were noted in the percentages of polyethylene sizes between Blue Belt Technologies or MAKO cases.

Discussion

Robotic assistance enhances the accuracy of bone preparation, implant component alignment, and soft tissue balance in UKA.^10-15 It has yet to be determined whether this improved accuracy translates to improved clinical performance or longevity of the UKA implant. However, we demonstrate that the enhanced accuracy of robotic technology results in more conservative tibial resection when compared to conventional techniques with a potential benefit suggested in the literature upon conversion to TKA.

The findings of this study have important implications for patients undergoing conversion of UKA to TKA, potentially optimizing the ease of revision and clinical outcomes. The outcomes of UKA conversion to TKA are often considered inferior to those of primary TKA, compromised by bone loss, need for augmentation, and challenges of restoring the joint line and rotation.^9,16-22 Barrett and Scott¹⁸ reported only 66% of patients had good or excellent results at an average of 4.6 years of follow-up after UKA conversion to TKA. Over 50% required stemmed implants and bone graft or bone cement augmentation to address osseous insufficiency. The authors suggested that the primary determinant of the complexity of the conversion to TKA was the surgical technique used in the index procedure. They concluded that UKA conversion to TKA can be as successful as a primary TKA and primary TKA implants can be used without bone augmentation or stems during the revision procedure if minimal tibial bone is resected at the time of the index UKA.¹⁸ Schwarzkopf and colleagues⁹ supported this conclusion when they found that aggressive tibial resection during UKA resulted in the need for bone graft, stem, wedge, or augment in 70% of cases when converted to TKA. Similarly, Khan and colleagues²³ found that 26% of patients required bone grafting and 26% required some form of augmentation, and Springer and colleagues³ reported that 68% required a graft, augment, or stem.^3,22 Using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry, Pearse and colleagues⁵ reported that revision TKA components were necessary in 28% of patients and concluded that converting a UKA to TKA gives a less reliable result than primary TKA, and with functional results that are not significantly better than a revision from a TKA.

Conservative tibial resection during UKA minimizes the complexity and concerns of bone loss upon conversion to TKA. Schwarzkopf and colleagues⁹ found 96.6% of patients with conservative tibial resection received a primary TKA implant, without augments or stems. Furthermore, patients with a primary TKA implant showed improved tibial survivorship, with revision as an end point, compared with patients who received a TKA implant that required stems and augments or bone graft for support.⁹ Also emphasizing the importance of minimal tibial resection, O’Donnell and colleagues⁸ compared a cohort of patients undergoing conversion of a minimal resection resurfacing onlay-type UKA to TKA with a cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. They found that 40% of patients required bone grafting for contained defects, 3.6% required metal augments, and 1.8% required stems.⁸ There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of range of motion, functional outcome, or radiologic outcomes. The authors concluded that revision of minimal resection resurfacing implants to TKA is associated with similar results to primary TKA and is superior to revision of UKA with greater bone loss. Prior studies have shown that one of the advantages of robotic-assisted UKA is the accuracy and precision of bone resection. The present study supports this premise by showing that tibial resection is significantly more conservative using robotic-assisted techniques when using tibial component thickness as a surrogate for extent of bone resection. While our study did not address implant durability or the impact of conservative resection on conversion to TKA, studies referenced above suggest that the conservative nature of bone preparation would have a relevant impact on the revision of the implant to TKA.

Our study is a retrospective case series that reports tibial component thickness as a surrogate for volume of tibial resection during UKA. While the implication is that more conservative tibial resection may optimize durability and ease of conversion to TKA, future study will be needed to compare robotic-assisted and conventional cases of UKA upon conversion to TKA in order to ascertain whether the more conventional resections of robotic-assisted UKA in fact lead to revision that is comparable with primary TKA in terms of bone loss at the time of revision, components utilized, the need for bone graft, augments, or stems, and clinical outcomes. Given the method of data collection in this study, we could not control for clinical deformity, selection bias, surgeon experience, or medial vs lateral knee compartments. These potential confounders represent weaknesses of this study.

In conclusion, conversion of UKA to TKA may be associated with significant osseous insufficiency, which may compromise patient outcomes in comparison to primary TKA. Studies have shown that UKA conversion to TKA is comparable to primary TKA when minimal tibial resection is performed during the UKA, and the need for augmentation, grafting or stems is increased with more aggressive tibial resection. This study has shown that when robotic assistance is utilized, tibial resection is more precise, less variable, and more conservative compared to conventional techniques.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E465-E468. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is considered a less invasive approach for the treatment of unicompartmental knee arthritis when compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with optimal preservation of kinematics.¹ Despite excellent functional outcomes, conversion to TKA may be necessary if the UKA fails, or in patients with progressive knee arthritis. Some studies have found UKA conversion to TKA to be comparable with primary TKA,^2,3 whereas others have found that conversion often requires bone graft, augments, and stemmed components and has increased complications and inferior results compared to primary TKA.^4-7 While some studies report that <10% of UKA conversions to TKA require augments,² others have found that as many as 76% require augments.^4-8

Schwarzkopf and colleagues⁹ recently demonstrated that UKA conversion to TKA is comparable with primary TKA when a conservative tibial resection is performed during the index procedure. However, they reported increased complexity when greater tibial resection was performed and thicker polyethylene inserts were used at the time of the index UKA. The odds ratio of needing an augment or stem during the conversion to TKA was 26.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.71-194) when an aggressive tibial resection was performed during the UKA.⁹ Tibial resection thickness may thus be predictive of anticipated complexity of UKA revision to TKA and may aid in preoperative planning.

Robotic assistance has been shown to enhance the accuracy of bone preparation, implant component alignment, and soft tissue balance in UKA.^10-15 It has yet to be determined whether this improved accuracy translates to improved clinical performance or longevity of the UKA implant. However, the enhanced accuracy of robotic technology may result in more conservative tibial resection when compared to conventional UKA and may be advantageous if conversion to TKA becomes necessary.

The purpose of this study was to compare the distribution of polyethylene insert sizes implanted during conventional and robotic-assisted UKA. We hypothesized that robotic assistance would demonstrate more conservative tibial resection compared to conventional methods of bone preparation.

Methods

We retrospectively compared the distribution of polyethylene insert sizes implanted during consecutive conventional and robotic-assisted UKA procedures. Several manufacturers were queried to provide a listing of the polyethylene insert sizes utilized, ranging from 8 mm to 14 mm. The analysis included 8421 robotic-assisted UKA cases and 27,989 conventional UKA cases. Data were provided by Zimmer Biomet and Smith & Nephew regarding conventional cases, as well as Blue Belt Technologies (now part of Smith & Nephew) and MAKO Surgical (now part of Stryker) regarding robotic-assisted cases. (Dr. Lonner has an ongoing relationship as a consultant with Blue Belt Technologies, whose data was utilized in this study.) Using tibial insert thickness as a surrogate measure of the extent of tibial resection, an insert size of ≥10 mm was defined as aggressive while <10 mm was considered conservative. This cutoff was established based on its corresponding resection level with primary TKA and the anticipated need for augments. Statistical analysis was performed using a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. Significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Tibial resection thickness was found to be most commonly conservative in nature, with sizes 8-mm and 9-mm polyethylene inserts utilized in the majority of both robotic-assisted and conventional UKA cases. However, statistically more 8-mm and 9-mm polyethylene inserts were used in the robotic group (93.6%) than in the conventional group (84.5%) (P < .0001; Figure). Aggressive tibial resection, requiring tibial inserts ≥10 mm, was performed in 6.4% of robotic-assisted cases and 15.5% of conventional cases.

Only .29% of robotic-assisted cases required tibial inserts ≥10 mm, whereas 5.7% of patients undergoing conventional UKA had tibial inserts ≥10 mm. In this analysis, the maximum tibial component thickness was 11 mm in robotic-assisted UKA and 14 mm in conventional UKA. The distribution of conventional UKA tibial resection thicknesses is significantly greater in comparison to robotic-assisted UKA, which more reproducibly achieved accurate and precise conservative resection. No significant differences were noted in the percentages of polyethylene sizes between Blue Belt Technologies or MAKO cases.

Discussion

Robotic assistance enhances the accuracy of bone preparation, implant component alignment, and soft tissue balance in UKA.^10-15 It has yet to be determined whether this improved accuracy translates to improved clinical performance or longevity of the UKA implant. However, we demonstrate that the enhanced accuracy of robotic technology results in more conservative tibial resection when compared to conventional techniques with a potential benefit suggested in the literature upon conversion to TKA.

The findings of this study have important implications for patients undergoing conversion of UKA to TKA, potentially optimizing the ease of revision and clinical outcomes. The outcomes of UKA conversion to TKA are often considered inferior to those of primary TKA, compromised by bone loss, need for augmentation, and challenges of restoring the joint line and rotation.^9,16-22 Barrett and Scott¹⁸ reported only 66% of patients had good or excellent results at an average of 4.6 years of follow-up after UKA conversion to TKA. Over 50% required stemmed implants and bone graft or bone cement augmentation to address osseous insufficiency. The authors suggested that the primary determinant of the complexity of the conversion to TKA was the surgical technique used in the index procedure. They concluded that UKA conversion to TKA can be as successful as a primary TKA and primary TKA implants can be used without bone augmentation or stems during the revision procedure if minimal tibial bone is resected at the time of the index UKA.¹⁸ Schwarzkopf and colleagues⁹ supported this conclusion when they found that aggressive tibial resection during UKA resulted in the need for bone graft, stem, wedge, or augment in 70% of cases when converted to TKA. Similarly, Khan and colleagues²³ found that 26% of patients required bone grafting and 26% required some form of augmentation, and Springer and colleagues³ reported that 68% required a graft, augment, or stem.^3,22 Using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry, Pearse and colleagues⁵ reported that revision TKA components were necessary in 28% of patients and concluded that converting a UKA to TKA gives a less reliable result than primary TKA, and with functional results that are not significantly better than a revision from a TKA.

Conservative tibial resection during UKA minimizes the complexity and concerns of bone loss upon conversion to TKA. Schwarzkopf and colleagues⁹ found 96.6% of patients with conservative tibial resection received a primary TKA implant, without augments or stems. Furthermore, patients with a primary TKA implant showed improved tibial survivorship, with revision as an end point, compared with patients who received a TKA implant that required stems and augments or bone graft for support.⁹ Also emphasizing the importance of minimal tibial resection, O’Donnell and colleagues⁸ compared a cohort of patients undergoing conversion of a minimal resection resurfacing onlay-type UKA to TKA with a cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. They found that 40% of patients required bone grafting for contained defects, 3.6% required metal augments, and 1.8% required stems.⁸ There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of range of motion, functional outcome, or radiologic outcomes. The authors concluded that revision of minimal resection resurfacing implants to TKA is associated with similar results to primary TKA and is superior to revision of UKA with greater bone loss. Prior studies have shown that one of the advantages of robotic-assisted UKA is the accuracy and precision of bone resection. The present study supports this premise by showing that tibial resection is significantly more conservative using robotic-assisted techniques when using tibial component thickness as a surrogate for extent of bone resection. While our study did not address implant durability or the impact of conservative resection on conversion to TKA, studies referenced above suggest that the conservative nature of bone preparation would have a relevant impact on the revision of the implant to TKA.

Our study is a retrospective case series that reports tibial component thickness as a surrogate for volume of tibial resection during UKA. While the implication is that more conservative tibial resection may optimize durability and ease of conversion to TKA, future study will be needed to compare robotic-assisted and conventional cases of UKA upon conversion to TKA in order to ascertain whether the more conventional resections of robotic-assisted UKA in fact lead to revision that is comparable with primary TKA in terms of bone loss at the time of revision, components utilized, the need for bone graft, augments, or stems, and clinical outcomes. Given the method of data collection in this study, we could not control for clinical deformity, selection bias, surgeon experience, or medial vs lateral knee compartments. These potential confounders represent weaknesses of this study.

In conclusion, conversion of UKA to TKA may be associated with significant osseous insufficiency, which may compromise patient outcomes in comparison to primary TKA. Studies have shown that UKA conversion to TKA is comparable to primary TKA when minimal tibial resection is performed during the UKA, and the need for augmentation, grafting or stems is increased with more aggressive tibial resection. This study has shown that when robotic assistance is utilized, tibial resection is more precise, less variable, and more conservative compared to conventional techniques.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E465-E468. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is considered a less invasive approach for the treatment of unicompartmental knee arthritis when compared with total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with optimal preservation of kinematics.¹ Despite excellent functional outcomes, conversion to TKA may be necessary if the UKA fails, or in patients with progressive knee arthritis. Some studies have found UKA conversion to TKA to be comparable with primary TKA,^2,3 whereas others have found that conversion often requires bone graft, augments, and stemmed components and has increased complications and inferior results compared to primary TKA.^4-7 While some studies report that <10% of UKA conversions to TKA require augments,² others have found that as many as 76% require augments.^4-8

Schwarzkopf and colleagues⁹ recently demonstrated that UKA conversion to TKA is comparable with primary TKA when a conservative tibial resection is performed during the index procedure. However, they reported increased complexity when greater tibial resection was performed and thicker polyethylene inserts were used at the time of the index UKA. The odds ratio of needing an augment or stem during the conversion to TKA was 26.8 (95% confidence interval, 3.71-194) when an aggressive tibial resection was performed during the UKA.⁹ Tibial resection thickness may thus be predictive of anticipated complexity of UKA revision to TKA and may aid in preoperative planning.

Robotic assistance has been shown to enhance the accuracy of bone preparation, implant component alignment, and soft tissue balance in UKA.^10-15 It has yet to be determined whether this improved accuracy translates to improved clinical performance or longevity of the UKA implant. However, the enhanced accuracy of robotic technology may result in more conservative tibial resection when compared to conventional UKA and may be advantageous if conversion to TKA becomes necessary.

The purpose of this study was to compare the distribution of polyethylene insert sizes implanted during conventional and robotic-assisted UKA. We hypothesized that robotic assistance would demonstrate more conservative tibial resection compared to conventional methods of bone preparation.

Methods

We retrospectively compared the distribution of polyethylene insert sizes implanted during consecutive conventional and robotic-assisted UKA procedures. Several manufacturers were queried to provide a listing of the polyethylene insert sizes utilized, ranging from 8 mm to 14 mm. The analysis included 8421 robotic-assisted UKA cases and 27,989 conventional UKA cases. Data were provided by Zimmer Biomet and Smith & Nephew regarding conventional cases, as well as Blue Belt Technologies (now part of Smith & Nephew) and MAKO Surgical (now part of Stryker) regarding robotic-assisted cases. (Dr. Lonner has an ongoing relationship as a consultant with Blue Belt Technologies, whose data was utilized in this study.) Using tibial insert thickness as a surrogate measure of the extent of tibial resection, an insert size of ≥10 mm was defined as aggressive while <10 mm was considered conservative. This cutoff was established based on its corresponding resection level with primary TKA and the anticipated need for augments. Statistical analysis was performed using a Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. Significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Tibial resection thickness was found to be most commonly conservative in nature, with sizes 8-mm and 9-mm polyethylene inserts utilized in the majority of both robotic-assisted and conventional UKA cases. However, statistically more 8-mm and 9-mm polyethylene inserts were used in the robotic group (93.6%) than in the conventional group (84.5%) (P < .0001; Figure). Aggressive tibial resection, requiring tibial inserts ≥10 mm, was performed in 6.4% of robotic-assisted cases and 15.5% of conventional cases.

Only .29% of robotic-assisted cases required tibial inserts ≥10 mm, whereas 5.7% of patients undergoing conventional UKA had tibial inserts ≥10 mm. In this analysis, the maximum tibial component thickness was 11 mm in robotic-assisted UKA and 14 mm in conventional UKA. The distribution of conventional UKA tibial resection thicknesses is significantly greater in comparison to robotic-assisted UKA, which more reproducibly achieved accurate and precise conservative resection. No significant differences were noted in the percentages of polyethylene sizes between Blue Belt Technologies or MAKO cases.

Discussion

Robotic assistance enhances the accuracy of bone preparation, implant component alignment, and soft tissue balance in UKA.^10-15 It has yet to be determined whether this improved accuracy translates to improved clinical performance or longevity of the UKA implant. However, we demonstrate that the enhanced accuracy of robotic technology results in more conservative tibial resection when compared to conventional techniques with a potential benefit suggested in the literature upon conversion to TKA.

The findings of this study have important implications for patients undergoing conversion of UKA to TKA, potentially optimizing the ease of revision and clinical outcomes. The outcomes of UKA conversion to TKA are often considered inferior to those of primary TKA, compromised by bone loss, need for augmentation, and challenges of restoring the joint line and rotation.^9,16-22 Barrett and Scott¹⁸ reported only 66% of patients had good or excellent results at an average of 4.6 years of follow-up after UKA conversion to TKA. Over 50% required stemmed implants and bone graft or bone cement augmentation to address osseous insufficiency. The authors suggested that the primary determinant of the complexity of the conversion to TKA was the surgical technique used in the index procedure. They concluded that UKA conversion to TKA can be as successful as a primary TKA and primary TKA implants can be used without bone augmentation or stems during the revision procedure if minimal tibial bone is resected at the time of the index UKA.¹⁸ Schwarzkopf and colleagues⁹ supported this conclusion when they found that aggressive tibial resection during UKA resulted in the need for bone graft, stem, wedge, or augment in 70% of cases when converted to TKA. Similarly, Khan and colleagues²³ found that 26% of patients required bone grafting and 26% required some form of augmentation, and Springer and colleagues³ reported that 68% required a graft, augment, or stem.^3,22 Using data from the New Zealand Joint Registry, Pearse and colleagues⁵ reported that revision TKA components were necessary in 28% of patients and concluded that converting a UKA to TKA gives a less reliable result than primary TKA, and with functional results that are not significantly better than a revision from a TKA.

Conservative tibial resection during UKA minimizes the complexity and concerns of bone loss upon conversion to TKA. Schwarzkopf and colleagues⁹ found 96.6% of patients with conservative tibial resection received a primary TKA implant, without augments or stems. Furthermore, patients with a primary TKA implant showed improved tibial survivorship, with revision as an end point, compared with patients who received a TKA implant that required stems and augments or bone graft for support.⁹ Also emphasizing the importance of minimal tibial resection, O’Donnell and colleagues⁸ compared a cohort of patients undergoing conversion of a minimal resection resurfacing onlay-type UKA to TKA with a cohort of patients undergoing primary TKA. They found that 40% of patients required bone grafting for contained defects, 3.6% required metal augments, and 1.8% required stems.⁸ There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of range of motion, functional outcome, or radiologic outcomes. The authors concluded that revision of minimal resection resurfacing implants to TKA is associated with similar results to primary TKA and is superior to revision of UKA with greater bone loss. Prior studies have shown that one of the advantages of robotic-assisted UKA is the accuracy and precision of bone resection. The present study supports this premise by showing that tibial resection is significantly more conservative using robotic-assisted techniques when using tibial component thickness as a surrogate for extent of bone resection. While our study did not address implant durability or the impact of conservative resection on conversion to TKA, studies referenced above suggest that the conservative nature of bone preparation would have a relevant impact on the revision of the implant to TKA.

Our study is a retrospective case series that reports tibial component thickness as a surrogate for volume of tibial resection during UKA. While the implication is that more conservative tibial resection may optimize durability and ease of conversion to TKA, future study will be needed to compare robotic-assisted and conventional cases of UKA upon conversion to TKA in order to ascertain whether the more conventional resections of robotic-assisted UKA in fact lead to revision that is comparable with primary TKA in terms of bone loss at the time of revision, components utilized, the need for bone graft, augments, or stems, and clinical outcomes. Given the method of data collection in this study, we could not control for clinical deformity, selection bias, surgeon experience, or medial vs lateral knee compartments. These potential confounders represent weaknesses of this study.

In conclusion, conversion of UKA to TKA may be associated with significant osseous insufficiency, which may compromise patient outcomes in comparison to primary TKA. Studies have shown that UKA conversion to TKA is comparable to primary TKA when minimal tibial resection is performed during the UKA, and the need for augmentation, grafting or stems is increased with more aggressive tibial resection. This study has shown that when robotic assistance is utilized, tibial resection is more precise, less variable, and more conservative compared to conventional techniques.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E465-E468. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

The modern term orthopedics stems from the older word orthopedia, which was the title of a book published in 1741 by Nicholas Andry, a professor of medicine at the University of Paris.¹ The term orthopedia is a composite of 2 Greek words: orthos, meaning “straight and free from deformity,” and paidios, meaning “child.” Together, orthopedics literally means straight child, suggesting the importance of pediatric injuries and deformities in the development of this field. Interestingly, Andry’s book also depicted a crooked young tree attached to a straight and strong staff, which has become the universal symbol of orthopedic surgery and underscores the focus on correcting deformities in the young (Figure).¹

While the history of the term is relatively recent, the practice of orthopedics is an ancient art.

Orthopedic surgery is a rapidly advancing medical field with several recent advances noted within orthopedic subspecialties,^2-4 basic science,⁵ and clinical research.⁶ It is important to recognize the role of history with regards to innovation and research, especially for young trainees and medical students interested in a particular medical specialty. More specifically, it is important to understand the successes and failures of the past in order to advance research and practice, and ultimately improve patient care and outcomes.

In the recent literature, there is no concise yet comprehensive article focusing on the history of orthopedic surgery. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of the history and development of orthopedic surgery from ancient practices to the modern era.

Ancient Orthopedics

While the evidence is limited, the practice of orthopedics dates back to the primitive man.⁷ Fossil evidence suggests that the orthopedic pathology of today, such as fractures and traumatic amputations, existed in primitive times.⁸ The union of fractures in fair alignment has also been observed, which emphasizes the efficacy of nonoperative orthopedics and suggests the early use of splints and rehabilitation practices.^8,9 Since procedures such as trepanation and crude amputations occurred during the New Stone Age, it is feasible that sophisticated techniques had also been developed for the treatment of injuries.^7-9 However, evidence continues to remain limited.⁷

Later civilizations also developed creative ways to manage orthopedic injuries. For example, the Shoshone Indians, who were known to exist around 700-2000 BCE, made a splint of fresh rawhide that had been soaked in water.^9,10 Similarly, some South Australian tribes made splints of clay, which when dried were as good as plaster of Paris.⁹ Furthermore, bone-setting or reductions was practiced as a profession in many tribes, underscoring the importance of orthopedic injuries in early civilizations.^8,9

Ancient Egypt

The ancient Egyptians seemed to have carried on the practices of splinting. For example, 2 splinted specimens were discovered during the Hearst Egyptian Expedition in 1903.⁷ More specifically, these specimens included a femur and forearm and dated to approximately 300 BCE.⁷ Other examples of splints made of bamboo and reed padded with linen have been found on mummies as well.⁸ Similarly, crutches were also used by this civilization, as depicted on a carving made on an Egyptian tomb in 2830 BCE.⁸

One of the earliest and most significant documents on medicine was discovered in 1862, known as the Edwin Smith papyrus. This document is thought to have been composed by Imhotep, a prominent Egyptian physician, astrologer, architect, and politician, and it specifically categorizes diseases and treatments. Many scholars recognize this medical document as the oldest surgical textbook.^11,12 With regards to orthopedic conditions, this document describes the reduction of a dislocated mandible, signs of spinal or vertebral injuries, description of torticollis, and the treatment of fractures such as clavicle fractures.⁸ This document also discusses ryt, which refers to the purulent discharge from osteomyelitis.⁸ The following is an excerpt from this ancient document:⁹

“Instructions on erring a break in his upper arm…Thou shouldst spread out with his two shoulders in order to stretch apart his upper arm until that break falls into its place. Thou shouldst make for him two splints of linen, and thou shouldst apply for him one of them both on the inside of his arm, and the other of them both on the underside of his arm.”

This account illustrates the methodical and meticulous nature of this textbook, and it highlights some of the essentials of medical practice from diagnosis to medical decision-making to treatment.

There are various other contributions to the field of medicine from the Far East; however, many of these pertain to the fields of plastic surgery and general surgery.⁹

Greeks and Romans

The Greeks are considered to be the first to systematically employ the scientific approach to medicine.⁸ In the period between 430 BCE to 330 BCE, the Corpus Hippocrates was compiled, which is a Greek text on medicine. It is named for Hippocrates (460 BCE-370 BCE), the father of medicine, and it contains text that applies specifically to the field of orthopedic surgery. For example, this text discuses shoulder dislocations and describes various reduction maneuvers. Hippocrates had a keen understanding of the principles of traction and countertraction, especially as it pertains to the musculoskeletal system.⁸ In fact, the Hippocratic method is still used for reducing anterior shoulder dislocations, and its description can be found in several modern orthopedic texts, including recent articles.¹³ The Corpus Hippocrates also describes the correction of clubfoot deformity, and the treatment of infected open fractures with pitch cerate and wine compresses.⁸

 

Hippocrates also described the treatment of fractures, the principles of traction, and the implications of malunions. For example, Hippocrates wrote, “For the arm, when shortened, might be concealed and the mistake will not be great, but a shortened thigh bone will leave a man maimed.”¹ In addition, spinal deformities were recognized by the Greeks, and Hippocrates devised an extension bench for the correction of such deformities.¹ From their contributions to anatomy and surgical practice, the Greeks have made significant contributions to the field of surgery.⁹

During the Roman period, another Greek surgeon by the name of Galen described the musculoskeletal and nervous systems. He served as a gladiatorial surgeon in Rome, and today, he is considered to be the father of sports medicine.⁸ He is also credited with coining the terms scoliosis, kyphosis, and lordosis to denote the spinal deformities that were first described by Hippocrates.¹ In the Roman period, amputations were also performed, and primitive prostheses were developed.⁹

The Middle Ages

There was relatively little progress in the study of medicine for a thousand years after the fall of the Roman Empire.⁹ This stagnation was predominantly due to the early Christian Church inhibiting freedom of thought and observation, as well as prohibiting human dissection and the study of anatomy. The first medical school in Europe was established in Salerno, Italy, during the ninth century. This school provided primarily pedantic teaching to its students and perpetuated the theories of the elements and humors. Later on, the University of Bologna became one of the first academic institutions to offer hands-on surgical training.⁹ One of the most famous surgeons of the Middle Ages was Guy de Chuauliac, who studied at Montpellier and Bologna. He was a leader in the ethical principles of surgery as well as the practice of surgery, and wrote the following with regards to femur fractures:⁹

“After the application of splints, I attach to the foot a mass of lead as a weight, taking care to pass the cord which supports the weight over a small pulley in such a manner that it shall pull on the leg in a horizontal direction.”

This description is strikingly similar to the modern-day nonoperative management of femur fractures, and underscores the importance of traction, which as mentioned above, was first described by Hippocrates.

Eventually, medicine began to separate from the Church, most likely due to an increase in the complexity of medical theories, the rise of secular universities, and an increase in medical knowledge from Eastern and Middle-Eastern groups.⁹

The Renaissance and the Foundations of Modern Orthopedics

Until the 16^th century, the majority of medical theories were heavily influenced by the work of Hippocrates.⁸ The scientific study of anatomy gained prominence during this time, especially due to the work done by great artists, such as Leonardo Di Vinci.⁹ The Table

provides a list of some of the most prominent figures in the field of orthopedic surgery from across the world, as well as their contributions to the field. Collectively, these scholar and surgeons provided a strong foundation for the field of modern orthopedics.⁸ Additional discoveries by Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Robert Koch, and Ignaz Semmelweis relating to antisepsis appeared to revolutionize the surgical management of orthopedic injuries.⁷

After a period of rapid expansion of the field of orthopedics, and following the Renaissance, many hospitals were built focusing on the sick and disabled, which solidified orthopedics’ position as a major medical specialty.¹ For example, in 1863, James Knight founded the Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled in New York City. This hospital became the oldest orthopedic hospital in the United States, and it later became known as the Hospital for Special Surgery.^14,15 Several additional orthopedic institutions were formed, including the New York Orthopedic Dispensary in 1886 and Hospital for Deformities and Joint Diseases in 1917. Orthopedic surgery residency programs also began to be developed in the late 1800s.¹⁴ More specifically, Virgil Gibney at Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled began the first orthopedic training program in the United States in 1888. Young doctors in this program trained for 1 year as junior assistant, senior assistant, and house surgeon, and began to be known as resident doctors.¹⁴

The Modern Era

In the 20th century, rapid development continued to better control infections as well as develop and introduce novel technology. For example, the invention of x-ray in 1895 by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen improved our ability to diagnose and manage orthopedic conditions ranging from fractures to avascular necrosis of the femoral head to osteoarthritis.^8,14 Spinal surgery also developed rapidly with Russell Hibbs describing a technique for spinal fusion at the New York Orthopedic Hospital.⁸ Similarly, the World Wars served as a catalyst in the development of the subspecialty of orthopedic trauma, with increasing attention placed on open wounds and proficiency with amputations, internal fixation, and wound care. In 1942, Austin Moore performed the first metal hip arthroplasty, and the field of joint replacement was subsequently advanced by the work of Sir John Charnley in the 1960s.⁸

 

Conclusion

Despite its relatively recent specialization, orthopedic surgery has a rich history rooted in ancient practices dating back to the primitive man. Over time, there has been significant development in the field in terms of surgical and nonsurgical treatment of orthopedic pathology and disease. Various cultures have played an instrumental role in developing this field, and it is remarkable to see that several practices have persisted since the time of these ancient civilizations. During the Renaissance, there was a considerable emphasis placed on pediatric deformity, but orthopedic surgeons have now branched out to subspecialty practice ranging from orthopedic trauma to joint replacement to oncology.¹ For students of medicine and orthopedics, it is important to learn about the origins of this field and to appreciate its gradual development. Orthopedic surgery is a diverse and fascinating field that will most likely continue to develop with increased subspecialization and improved research at the molecular and population level. With a growing emphasis placed on outcomes and healthcare cost by today’s society, it will be fascinating to see how this field continues to evolve in the future.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E434-E438. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

The modern term orthopedics stems from the older word orthopedia, which was the title of a book published in 1741 by Nicholas Andry, a professor of medicine at the University of Paris.¹ The term orthopedia is a composite of 2 Greek words: orthos, meaning “straight and free from deformity,” and paidios, meaning “child.” Together, orthopedics literally means straight child, suggesting the importance of pediatric injuries and deformities in the development of this field. Interestingly, Andry’s book also depicted a crooked young tree attached to a straight and strong staff, which has become the universal symbol of orthopedic surgery and underscores the focus on correcting deformities in the young (Figure).¹

While the history of the term is relatively recent, the practice of orthopedics is an ancient art.

Orthopedic surgery is a rapidly advancing medical field with several recent advances noted within orthopedic subspecialties,^2-4 basic science,⁵ and clinical research.⁶ It is important to recognize the role of history with regards to innovation and research, especially for young trainees and medical students interested in a particular medical specialty. More specifically, it is important to understand the successes and failures of the past in order to advance research and practice, and ultimately improve patient care and outcomes.

In the recent literature, there is no concise yet comprehensive article focusing on the history of orthopedic surgery. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of the history and development of orthopedic surgery from ancient practices to the modern era.

Ancient Orthopedics

While the evidence is limited, the practice of orthopedics dates back to the primitive man.⁷ Fossil evidence suggests that the orthopedic pathology of today, such as fractures and traumatic amputations, existed in primitive times.⁸ The union of fractures in fair alignment has also been observed, which emphasizes the efficacy of nonoperative orthopedics and suggests the early use of splints and rehabilitation practices.^8,9 Since procedures such as trepanation and crude amputations occurred during the New Stone Age, it is feasible that sophisticated techniques had also been developed for the treatment of injuries.^7-9 However, evidence continues to remain limited.⁷

Later civilizations also developed creative ways to manage orthopedic injuries. For example, the Shoshone Indians, who were known to exist around 700-2000 BCE, made a splint of fresh rawhide that had been soaked in water.^9,10 Similarly, some South Australian tribes made splints of clay, which when dried were as good as plaster of Paris.⁹ Furthermore, bone-setting or reductions was practiced as a profession in many tribes, underscoring the importance of orthopedic injuries in early civilizations.^8,9

Ancient Egypt

The ancient Egyptians seemed to have carried on the practices of splinting. For example, 2 splinted specimens were discovered during the Hearst Egyptian Expedition in 1903.⁷ More specifically, these specimens included a femur and forearm and dated to approximately 300 BCE.⁷ Other examples of splints made of bamboo and reed padded with linen have been found on mummies as well.⁸ Similarly, crutches were also used by this civilization, as depicted on a carving made on an Egyptian tomb in 2830 BCE.⁸

One of the earliest and most significant documents on medicine was discovered in 1862, known as the Edwin Smith papyrus. This document is thought to have been composed by Imhotep, a prominent Egyptian physician, astrologer, architect, and politician, and it specifically categorizes diseases and treatments. Many scholars recognize this medical document as the oldest surgical textbook.^11,12 With regards to orthopedic conditions, this document describes the reduction of a dislocated mandible, signs of spinal or vertebral injuries, description of torticollis, and the treatment of fractures such as clavicle fractures.⁸ This document also discusses ryt, which refers to the purulent discharge from osteomyelitis.⁸ The following is an excerpt from this ancient document:⁹

“Instructions on erring a break in his upper arm…Thou shouldst spread out with his two shoulders in order to stretch apart his upper arm until that break falls into its place. Thou shouldst make for him two splints of linen, and thou shouldst apply for him one of them both on the inside of his arm, and the other of them both on the underside of his arm.”

This account illustrates the methodical and meticulous nature of this textbook, and it highlights some of the essentials of medical practice from diagnosis to medical decision-making to treatment.

There are various other contributions to the field of medicine from the Far East; however, many of these pertain to the fields of plastic surgery and general surgery.⁹

Greeks and Romans

The Greeks are considered to be the first to systematically employ the scientific approach to medicine.⁸ In the period between 430 BCE to 330 BCE, the Corpus Hippocrates was compiled, which is a Greek text on medicine. It is named for Hippocrates (460 BCE-370 BCE), the father of medicine, and it contains text that applies specifically to the field of orthopedic surgery. For example, this text discuses shoulder dislocations and describes various reduction maneuvers. Hippocrates had a keen understanding of the principles of traction and countertraction, especially as it pertains to the musculoskeletal system.⁸ In fact, the Hippocratic method is still used for reducing anterior shoulder dislocations, and its description can be found in several modern orthopedic texts, including recent articles.¹³ The Corpus Hippocrates also describes the correction of clubfoot deformity, and the treatment of infected open fractures with pitch cerate and wine compresses.⁸

 

Hippocrates also described the treatment of fractures, the principles of traction, and the implications of malunions. For example, Hippocrates wrote, “For the arm, when shortened, might be concealed and the mistake will not be great, but a shortened thigh bone will leave a man maimed.”¹ In addition, spinal deformities were recognized by the Greeks, and Hippocrates devised an extension bench for the correction of such deformities.¹ From their contributions to anatomy and surgical practice, the Greeks have made significant contributions to the field of surgery.⁹

During the Roman period, another Greek surgeon by the name of Galen described the musculoskeletal and nervous systems. He served as a gladiatorial surgeon in Rome, and today, he is considered to be the father of sports medicine.⁸ He is also credited with coining the terms scoliosis, kyphosis, and lordosis to denote the spinal deformities that were first described by Hippocrates.¹ In the Roman period, amputations were also performed, and primitive prostheses were developed.⁹

The Middle Ages

There was relatively little progress in the study of medicine for a thousand years after the fall of the Roman Empire.⁹ This stagnation was predominantly due to the early Christian Church inhibiting freedom of thought and observation, as well as prohibiting human dissection and the study of anatomy. The first medical school in Europe was established in Salerno, Italy, during the ninth century. This school provided primarily pedantic teaching to its students and perpetuated the theories of the elements and humors. Later on, the University of Bologna became one of the first academic institutions to offer hands-on surgical training.⁹ One of the most famous surgeons of the Middle Ages was Guy de Chuauliac, who studied at Montpellier and Bologna. He was a leader in the ethical principles of surgery as well as the practice of surgery, and wrote the following with regards to femur fractures:⁹

“After the application of splints, I attach to the foot a mass of lead as a weight, taking care to pass the cord which supports the weight over a small pulley in such a manner that it shall pull on the leg in a horizontal direction.”

This description is strikingly similar to the modern-day nonoperative management of femur fractures, and underscores the importance of traction, which as mentioned above, was first described by Hippocrates.

Eventually, medicine began to separate from the Church, most likely due to an increase in the complexity of medical theories, the rise of secular universities, and an increase in medical knowledge from Eastern and Middle-Eastern groups.⁹

The Renaissance and the Foundations of Modern Orthopedics

Until the 16^th century, the majority of medical theories were heavily influenced by the work of Hippocrates.⁸ The scientific study of anatomy gained prominence during this time, especially due to the work done by great artists, such as Leonardo Di Vinci.⁹ The Table

provides a list of some of the most prominent figures in the field of orthopedic surgery from across the world, as well as their contributions to the field. Collectively, these scholar and surgeons provided a strong foundation for the field of modern orthopedics.⁸ Additional discoveries by Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Robert Koch, and Ignaz Semmelweis relating to antisepsis appeared to revolutionize the surgical management of orthopedic injuries.⁷

After a period of rapid expansion of the field of orthopedics, and following the Renaissance, many hospitals were built focusing on the sick and disabled, which solidified orthopedics’ position as a major medical specialty.¹ For example, in 1863, James Knight founded the Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled in New York City. This hospital became the oldest orthopedic hospital in the United States, and it later became known as the Hospital for Special Surgery.^14,15 Several additional orthopedic institutions were formed, including the New York Orthopedic Dispensary in 1886 and Hospital for Deformities and Joint Diseases in 1917. Orthopedic surgery residency programs also began to be developed in the late 1800s.¹⁴ More specifically, Virgil Gibney at Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled began the first orthopedic training program in the United States in 1888. Young doctors in this program trained for 1 year as junior assistant, senior assistant, and house surgeon, and began to be known as resident doctors.¹⁴

The Modern Era

In the 20th century, rapid development continued to better control infections as well as develop and introduce novel technology. For example, the invention of x-ray in 1895 by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen improved our ability to diagnose and manage orthopedic conditions ranging from fractures to avascular necrosis of the femoral head to osteoarthritis.^8,14 Spinal surgery also developed rapidly with Russell Hibbs describing a technique for spinal fusion at the New York Orthopedic Hospital.⁸ Similarly, the World Wars served as a catalyst in the development of the subspecialty of orthopedic trauma, with increasing attention placed on open wounds and proficiency with amputations, internal fixation, and wound care. In 1942, Austin Moore performed the first metal hip arthroplasty, and the field of joint replacement was subsequently advanced by the work of Sir John Charnley in the 1960s.⁸

 

Conclusion

Despite its relatively recent specialization, orthopedic surgery has a rich history rooted in ancient practices dating back to the primitive man. Over time, there has been significant development in the field in terms of surgical and nonsurgical treatment of orthopedic pathology and disease. Various cultures have played an instrumental role in developing this field, and it is remarkable to see that several practices have persisted since the time of these ancient civilizations. During the Renaissance, there was a considerable emphasis placed on pediatric deformity, but orthopedic surgeons have now branched out to subspecialty practice ranging from orthopedic trauma to joint replacement to oncology.¹ For students of medicine and orthopedics, it is important to learn about the origins of this field and to appreciate its gradual development. Orthopedic surgery is a diverse and fascinating field that will most likely continue to develop with increased subspecialization and improved research at the molecular and population level. With a growing emphasis placed on outcomes and healthcare cost by today’s society, it will be fascinating to see how this field continues to evolve in the future.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E434-E438. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

The modern term orthopedics stems from the older word orthopedia, which was the title of a book published in 1741 by Nicholas Andry, a professor of medicine at the University of Paris.¹ The term orthopedia is a composite of 2 Greek words: orthos, meaning “straight and free from deformity,” and paidios, meaning “child.” Together, orthopedics literally means straight child, suggesting the importance of pediatric injuries and deformities in the development of this field. Interestingly, Andry’s book also depicted a crooked young tree attached to a straight and strong staff, which has become the universal symbol of orthopedic surgery and underscores the focus on correcting deformities in the young (Figure).¹

While the history of the term is relatively recent, the practice of orthopedics is an ancient art.

Orthopedic surgery is a rapidly advancing medical field with several recent advances noted within orthopedic subspecialties,^2-4 basic science,⁵ and clinical research.⁶ It is important to recognize the role of history with regards to innovation and research, especially for young trainees and medical students interested in a particular medical specialty. More specifically, it is important to understand the successes and failures of the past in order to advance research and practice, and ultimately improve patient care and outcomes.

In the recent literature, there is no concise yet comprehensive article focusing on the history of orthopedic surgery. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of the history and development of orthopedic surgery from ancient practices to the modern era.

Ancient Orthopedics

While the evidence is limited, the practice of orthopedics dates back to the primitive man.⁷ Fossil evidence suggests that the orthopedic pathology of today, such as fractures and traumatic amputations, existed in primitive times.⁸ The union of fractures in fair alignment has also been observed, which emphasizes the efficacy of nonoperative orthopedics and suggests the early use of splints and rehabilitation practices.^8,9 Since procedures such as trepanation and crude amputations occurred during the New Stone Age, it is feasible that sophisticated techniques had also been developed for the treatment of injuries.^7-9 However, evidence continues to remain limited.⁷

Later civilizations also developed creative ways to manage orthopedic injuries. For example, the Shoshone Indians, who were known to exist around 700-2000 BCE, made a splint of fresh rawhide that had been soaked in water.^9,10 Similarly, some South Australian tribes made splints of clay, which when dried were as good as plaster of Paris.⁹ Furthermore, bone-setting or reductions was practiced as a profession in many tribes, underscoring the importance of orthopedic injuries in early civilizations.^8,9

Ancient Egypt

The ancient Egyptians seemed to have carried on the practices of splinting. For example, 2 splinted specimens were discovered during the Hearst Egyptian Expedition in 1903.⁷ More specifically, these specimens included a femur and forearm and dated to approximately 300 BCE.⁷ Other examples of splints made of bamboo and reed padded with linen have been found on mummies as well.⁸ Similarly, crutches were also used by this civilization, as depicted on a carving made on an Egyptian tomb in 2830 BCE.⁸

One of the earliest and most significant documents on medicine was discovered in 1862, known as the Edwin Smith papyrus. This document is thought to have been composed by Imhotep, a prominent Egyptian physician, astrologer, architect, and politician, and it specifically categorizes diseases and treatments. Many scholars recognize this medical document as the oldest surgical textbook.^11,12 With regards to orthopedic conditions, this document describes the reduction of a dislocated mandible, signs of spinal or vertebral injuries, description of torticollis, and the treatment of fractures such as clavicle fractures.⁸ This document also discusses ryt, which refers to the purulent discharge from osteomyelitis.⁸ The following is an excerpt from this ancient document:⁹

“Instructions on erring a break in his upper arm…Thou shouldst spread out with his two shoulders in order to stretch apart his upper arm until that break falls into its place. Thou shouldst make for him two splints of linen, and thou shouldst apply for him one of them both on the inside of his arm, and the other of them both on the underside of his arm.”

This account illustrates the methodical and meticulous nature of this textbook, and it highlights some of the essentials of medical practice from diagnosis to medical decision-making to treatment.

There are various other contributions to the field of medicine from the Far East; however, many of these pertain to the fields of plastic surgery and general surgery.⁹

Greeks and Romans

The Greeks are considered to be the first to systematically employ the scientific approach to medicine.⁸ In the period between 430 BCE to 330 BCE, the Corpus Hippocrates was compiled, which is a Greek text on medicine. It is named for Hippocrates (460 BCE-370 BCE), the father of medicine, and it contains text that applies specifically to the field of orthopedic surgery. For example, this text discuses shoulder dislocations and describes various reduction maneuvers. Hippocrates had a keen understanding of the principles of traction and countertraction, especially as it pertains to the musculoskeletal system.⁸ In fact, the Hippocratic method is still used for reducing anterior shoulder dislocations, and its description can be found in several modern orthopedic texts, including recent articles.¹³ The Corpus Hippocrates also describes the correction of clubfoot deformity, and the treatment of infected open fractures with pitch cerate and wine compresses.⁸

 

Hippocrates also described the treatment of fractures, the principles of traction, and the implications of malunions. For example, Hippocrates wrote, “For the arm, when shortened, might be concealed and the mistake will not be great, but a shortened thigh bone will leave a man maimed.”¹ In addition, spinal deformities were recognized by the Greeks, and Hippocrates devised an extension bench for the correction of such deformities.¹ From their contributions to anatomy and surgical practice, the Greeks have made significant contributions to the field of surgery.⁹

During the Roman period, another Greek surgeon by the name of Galen described the musculoskeletal and nervous systems. He served as a gladiatorial surgeon in Rome, and today, he is considered to be the father of sports medicine.⁸ He is also credited with coining the terms scoliosis, kyphosis, and lordosis to denote the spinal deformities that were first described by Hippocrates.¹ In the Roman period, amputations were also performed, and primitive prostheses were developed.⁹

The Middle Ages

There was relatively little progress in the study of medicine for a thousand years after the fall of the Roman Empire.⁹ This stagnation was predominantly due to the early Christian Church inhibiting freedom of thought and observation, as well as prohibiting human dissection and the study of anatomy. The first medical school in Europe was established in Salerno, Italy, during the ninth century. This school provided primarily pedantic teaching to its students and perpetuated the theories of the elements and humors. Later on, the University of Bologna became one of the first academic institutions to offer hands-on surgical training.⁹ One of the most famous surgeons of the Middle Ages was Guy de Chuauliac, who studied at Montpellier and Bologna. He was a leader in the ethical principles of surgery as well as the practice of surgery, and wrote the following with regards to femur fractures:⁹

“After the application of splints, I attach to the foot a mass of lead as a weight, taking care to pass the cord which supports the weight over a small pulley in such a manner that it shall pull on the leg in a horizontal direction.”

This description is strikingly similar to the modern-day nonoperative management of femur fractures, and underscores the importance of traction, which as mentioned above, was first described by Hippocrates.

Eventually, medicine began to separate from the Church, most likely due to an increase in the complexity of medical theories, the rise of secular universities, and an increase in medical knowledge from Eastern and Middle-Eastern groups.⁹

The Renaissance and the Foundations of Modern Orthopedics

Until the 16^th century, the majority of medical theories were heavily influenced by the work of Hippocrates.⁸ The scientific study of anatomy gained prominence during this time, especially due to the work done by great artists, such as Leonardo Di Vinci.⁹ The Table

provides a list of some of the most prominent figures in the field of orthopedic surgery from across the world, as well as their contributions to the field. Collectively, these scholar and surgeons provided a strong foundation for the field of modern orthopedics.⁸ Additional discoveries by Joseph Lister, Louis Pasteur, Robert Koch, and Ignaz Semmelweis relating to antisepsis appeared to revolutionize the surgical management of orthopedic injuries.⁷

After a period of rapid expansion of the field of orthopedics, and following the Renaissance, many hospitals were built focusing on the sick and disabled, which solidified orthopedics’ position as a major medical specialty.¹ For example, in 1863, James Knight founded the Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled in New York City. This hospital became the oldest orthopedic hospital in the United States, and it later became known as the Hospital for Special Surgery.^14,15 Several additional orthopedic institutions were formed, including the New York Orthopedic Dispensary in 1886 and Hospital for Deformities and Joint Diseases in 1917. Orthopedic surgery residency programs also began to be developed in the late 1800s.¹⁴ More specifically, Virgil Gibney at Hospital for the Ruptured and Crippled began the first orthopedic training program in the United States in 1888. Young doctors in this program trained for 1 year as junior assistant, senior assistant, and house surgeon, and began to be known as resident doctors.¹⁴

The Modern Era

In the 20th century, rapid development continued to better control infections as well as develop and introduce novel technology. For example, the invention of x-ray in 1895 by Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen improved our ability to diagnose and manage orthopedic conditions ranging from fractures to avascular necrosis of the femoral head to osteoarthritis.^8,14 Spinal surgery also developed rapidly with Russell Hibbs describing a technique for spinal fusion at the New York Orthopedic Hospital.⁸ Similarly, the World Wars served as a catalyst in the development of the subspecialty of orthopedic trauma, with increasing attention placed on open wounds and proficiency with amputations, internal fixation, and wound care. In 1942, Austin Moore performed the first metal hip arthroplasty, and the field of joint replacement was subsequently advanced by the work of Sir John Charnley in the 1960s.⁸

 

Conclusion

Despite its relatively recent specialization, orthopedic surgery has a rich history rooted in ancient practices dating back to the primitive man. Over time, there has been significant development in the field in terms of surgical and nonsurgical treatment of orthopedic pathology and disease. Various cultures have played an instrumental role in developing this field, and it is remarkable to see that several practices have persisted since the time of these ancient civilizations. During the Renaissance, there was a considerable emphasis placed on pediatric deformity, but orthopedic surgeons have now branched out to subspecialty practice ranging from orthopedic trauma to joint replacement to oncology.¹ For students of medicine and orthopedics, it is important to learn about the origins of this field and to appreciate its gradual development. Orthopedic surgery is a diverse and fascinating field that will most likely continue to develop with increased subspecialization and improved research at the molecular and population level. With a growing emphasis placed on outcomes and healthcare cost by today’s society, it will be fascinating to see how this field continues to evolve in the future.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E434-E438. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

A fracture occurring after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is rare, and rarer still when it involves the harvest site of a bone—patellar tendon—bone (BPTB) autograft. The vast majority of fractures described in the literature are patellar, with the weak point along the patellar bone cut. A number of fractures generally also occur through the bone tunnels in both hamstring and BPTB grafts. However, only 2 cases of tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB graft have been published, and we expound on them in this case report.^1,2 The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

Eight years after undergoing successful left ACL reconstruction with ipsilateral BPTB graft, a 45-year-old man developed a graft rupture and demonstrated recurrent instability. He requested revision reconstruction, again with a BPTB construct. In the operating room, he was prepared and draped in the usual sterile fashion, and left ACL reconstruction was performed with right-knee central-third BPTB graft.

During surgery, the left knee was arthroscopically examined, and residual ACL graft from the initial reconstruction was removed. Notchplasty was performed, and the residual femoral interference screw was removed from the 12:30 position. A transtibial approach was used, with a 10-mm reamer brought through the proximal tibia, the posterior tibial ACL footprint, and the 2:00 distal femoral position, with 30 mm of femoral condyle drilled, leaving 1 mm of posterior femoral cortex.

After the right leg was exsanguinated, a central-third patellar tendon graft was harvested through a longitudinal incision with a 22-mm × 10-mm patellar plug, a 10-mm patellar graft, and a 22-mm × 11-mm tibial plug. The graft was prepared, the left tibia was overreamed, and the graft was passed. The graft was fixed with a 7-mm × 23-mm biointerference screw in the femur, trialed, and fixed with an 8-mm × 23-mm interference screw in the tibia. Excess bone graft was packed in the patellar defect in the right knee. The rent in the patellar tendon was closed. The rest of the incision was closed, and the patient was placed in an immobilizer and a cold therapy device (Polar Care; Breg, Inc).

At 2-week follow-up, the patient reported having slipped on ice and flexed the right knee, causing a pop, pain, and limitation in range of motion (ROM; 0°-70°).

The left knee was doing well; straight-leg raise was possible, ROM ranged from 0° to 120°, and the Lachman test revealed a firm endpoint.

Radiographs (Figures 1A, 1B) and computed tomography (Figures 2A, 2B) showed a right tibial tubercle avulsion fracture.

The patient returned to the operating room 5 days later and underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the tibial tubercle avulsion. After sterile preparation and draping, the previous incision was used. The bony fragment was isolated and the hematoma débrided. Repair was performed with two No. 2 running locked FiberWire sutures (Arthrex) placed through bony drill holes in the fragment (1 medial, 1 lateral). The fragment was reduced and the sutures tied, with further fixation provided with a DePuy Synthes small-fragment 3.5-mm cortical screw with washer. A No. 5 Ethibond suture (Ethicon) was then placed as a secondary cerclage figure-of-8 stitch to protect the repair.

Postreduction radiographs were obtained (Figures 3A, 3B). The wound was closed in sequential fashion, and dressing was applied. A ROM brace locked in extension was then placed.

The patient was seen in follow-up 6 weeks after right ACL reconstruction and 4 weeks after left tibial tubercle ORIF. He continued with right knee restrictions, with the weight-bearing brace locked in extension. Left knee ROM was more than 0° to 90° even before any formal physical therapy. At this point, the patient began physical therapy on both knees with ROM limited to 0° to 30° and weight-bearing as tolerated on the right knee (no restrictions on the left knee).

He progressed well, and, by 6 months after the right-knee ORIF, he was back to full ROM and full weight-bearing on both knees (Figures 4A, 4B).

Discussion

Cases of tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB autograft harvest are extremely rare in the published literature. PubMed and Cochrane Review searches revealed only 2—1 in the ipsilateral knee as ACL fixation¹ and 1 in the contralateral knee.² The middle third of the patellar tendon has been used for ACL reconstruction for more than 50 years, which supports the extreme rarity of this complication.³ Tibial tubercle fractures are so rare that they are not even mentioned in reviews of ACL complications.⁴ These fractures are universally treated with ORIF.^1,2

 

Far more common but still rare, fracture-type complications involve the extensor mechanism and the tibial plateau. Patellar fractures have been documented as occurring in 0.2% to 2.3% of cases.^5-7 One paper reported a fracture in 1.3% of cases at a mean of 57 days, with roughly half caused by trauma and the other half having atraumatic causes.⁸ Lee and colleagues⁹ found a 0.2% complication rate for all BPTB grafts in 1725 consecutive patients. Although some patients were treated nonoperatively, others underwent operative fixation. Time to clinical and radiographic healing was 7 and 10 weeks, respectively.

Tibial plateau fracture after BPTB harvest is a rare complication, with 11 cases reported in the literature.¹⁰ In 4 of those cases, the proposed mechanism of fracture was a stress riser resulting from the synergistic weakness of the tibial harvest site combined with the tibial tunnel reducing proximal tibial bone strength.^11-14 The mechanism of injury varied from traumatic to insufficiency fracture, with fixation varying with fracture displacement.

Tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB harvest is extremely rare, with the present case being only the third published in the literature. Like most reported post-ACL reconstruction extensor mechanism disruptions, our case resulted from a traumatic event at an interval after surgery. All other tibial tubercle fracture post-ACL reconstruction disruptions occurred within 2 weeks after surgery.^1,2 Sudden tension on the extensor mechanism secondary to hyperflexion caused a fracture through a weakened tibial tubercle with avulsion of the remaining tendon in 2 of the 3 cases, with the third being a lower stress popping noise that occurred during a pivot to stand.¹

The residual defect after tibial bone block harvest could represent a weakening of the tubercle by loss of structural bone and by development of stress risers. The previous reports of tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB harvest documented a similar methodology: Use a bone saw and osteotomes to harvest a trapezoidal tibial bone plug 10 mm to 11 mm wide and 22 cm to 35 cm long. As previously documented, we suggest taking care with saw cuts and osteotomes so as not to weaken the proximal tibia or distal patella more than is necessary.^1,2 Before surgery, patients should be warned about the possibility of extensor mechanism injuries with use of BPTB grafts.

Conclusion

Tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB harvest for ACL reconstruction is an extremely rare complication. Treatment is ORIF of the tubercle fragment, with a delay in ACL rehabilitation in cases involving the ipsilateral knee.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E469-E471. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

A fracture occurring after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is rare, and rarer still when it involves the harvest site of a bone—patellar tendon—bone (BPTB) autograft. The vast majority of fractures described in the literature are patellar, with the weak point along the patellar bone cut. A number of fractures generally also occur through the bone tunnels in both hamstring and BPTB grafts. However, only 2 cases of tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB graft have been published, and we expound on them in this case report.^1,2 The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

Eight years after undergoing successful left ACL reconstruction with ipsilateral BPTB graft, a 45-year-old man developed a graft rupture and demonstrated recurrent instability. He requested revision reconstruction, again with a BPTB construct. In the operating room, he was prepared and draped in the usual sterile fashion, and left ACL reconstruction was performed with right-knee central-third BPTB graft.

During surgery, the left knee was arthroscopically examined, and residual ACL graft from the initial reconstruction was removed. Notchplasty was performed, and the residual femoral interference screw was removed from the 12:30 position. A transtibial approach was used, with a 10-mm reamer brought through the proximal tibia, the posterior tibial ACL footprint, and the 2:00 distal femoral position, with 30 mm of femoral condyle drilled, leaving 1 mm of posterior femoral cortex.

After the right leg was exsanguinated, a central-third patellar tendon graft was harvested through a longitudinal incision with a 22-mm × 10-mm patellar plug, a 10-mm patellar graft, and a 22-mm × 11-mm tibial plug. The graft was prepared, the left tibia was overreamed, and the graft was passed. The graft was fixed with a 7-mm × 23-mm biointerference screw in the femur, trialed, and fixed with an 8-mm × 23-mm interference screw in the tibia. Excess bone graft was packed in the patellar defect in the right knee. The rent in the patellar tendon was closed. The rest of the incision was closed, and the patient was placed in an immobilizer and a cold therapy device (Polar Care; Breg, Inc).

At 2-week follow-up, the patient reported having slipped on ice and flexed the right knee, causing a pop, pain, and limitation in range of motion (ROM; 0°-70°).

The left knee was doing well; straight-leg raise was possible, ROM ranged from 0° to 120°, and the Lachman test revealed a firm endpoint.

Radiographs (Figures 1A, 1B) and computed tomography (Figures 2A, 2B) showed a right tibial tubercle avulsion fracture.

The patient returned to the operating room 5 days later and underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the tibial tubercle avulsion. After sterile preparation and draping, the previous incision was used. The bony fragment was isolated and the hematoma débrided. Repair was performed with two No. 2 running locked FiberWire sutures (Arthrex) placed through bony drill holes in the fragment (1 medial, 1 lateral). The fragment was reduced and the sutures tied, with further fixation provided with a DePuy Synthes small-fragment 3.5-mm cortical screw with washer. A No. 5 Ethibond suture (Ethicon) was then placed as a secondary cerclage figure-of-8 stitch to protect the repair.

Postreduction radiographs were obtained (Figures 3A, 3B). The wound was closed in sequential fashion, and dressing was applied. A ROM brace locked in extension was then placed.

The patient was seen in follow-up 6 weeks after right ACL reconstruction and 4 weeks after left tibial tubercle ORIF. He continued with right knee restrictions, with the weight-bearing brace locked in extension. Left knee ROM was more than 0° to 90° even before any formal physical therapy. At this point, the patient began physical therapy on both knees with ROM limited to 0° to 30° and weight-bearing as tolerated on the right knee (no restrictions on the left knee).

He progressed well, and, by 6 months after the right-knee ORIF, he was back to full ROM and full weight-bearing on both knees (Figures 4A, 4B).

Discussion

Cases of tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB autograft harvest are extremely rare in the published literature. PubMed and Cochrane Review searches revealed only 2—1 in the ipsilateral knee as ACL fixation¹ and 1 in the contralateral knee.² The middle third of the patellar tendon has been used for ACL reconstruction for more than 50 years, which supports the extreme rarity of this complication.³ Tibial tubercle fractures are so rare that they are not even mentioned in reviews of ACL complications.⁴ These fractures are universally treated with ORIF.^1,2

 

Far more common but still rare, fracture-type complications involve the extensor mechanism and the tibial plateau. Patellar fractures have been documented as occurring in 0.2% to 2.3% of cases.^5-7 One paper reported a fracture in 1.3% of cases at a mean of 57 days, with roughly half caused by trauma and the other half having atraumatic causes.⁸ Lee and colleagues⁹ found a 0.2% complication rate for all BPTB grafts in 1725 consecutive patients. Although some patients were treated nonoperatively, others underwent operative fixation. Time to clinical and radiographic healing was 7 and 10 weeks, respectively.

Tibial plateau fracture after BPTB harvest is a rare complication, with 11 cases reported in the literature.¹⁰ In 4 of those cases, the proposed mechanism of fracture was a stress riser resulting from the synergistic weakness of the tibial harvest site combined with the tibial tunnel reducing proximal tibial bone strength.^11-14 The mechanism of injury varied from traumatic to insufficiency fracture, with fixation varying with fracture displacement.

Tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB harvest is extremely rare, with the present case being only the third published in the literature. Like most reported post-ACL reconstruction extensor mechanism disruptions, our case resulted from a traumatic event at an interval after surgery. All other tibial tubercle fracture post-ACL reconstruction disruptions occurred within 2 weeks after surgery.^1,2 Sudden tension on the extensor mechanism secondary to hyperflexion caused a fracture through a weakened tibial tubercle with avulsion of the remaining tendon in 2 of the 3 cases, with the third being a lower stress popping noise that occurred during a pivot to stand.¹

The residual defect after tibial bone block harvest could represent a weakening of the tubercle by loss of structural bone and by development of stress risers. The previous reports of tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB harvest documented a similar methodology: Use a bone saw and osteotomes to harvest a trapezoidal tibial bone plug 10 mm to 11 mm wide and 22 cm to 35 cm long. As previously documented, we suggest taking care with saw cuts and osteotomes so as not to weaken the proximal tibia or distal patella more than is necessary.^1,2 Before surgery, patients should be warned about the possibility of extensor mechanism injuries with use of BPTB grafts.

Conclusion

Tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB harvest for ACL reconstruction is an extremely rare complication. Treatment is ORIF of the tubercle fragment, with a delay in ACL rehabilitation in cases involving the ipsilateral knee.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E469-E471. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

A fracture occurring after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is rare, and rarer still when it involves the harvest site of a bone—patellar tendon—bone (BPTB) autograft. The vast majority of fractures described in the literature are patellar, with the weak point along the patellar bone cut. A number of fractures generally also occur through the bone tunnels in both hamstring and BPTB grafts. However, only 2 cases of tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB graft have been published, and we expound on them in this case report.^1,2 The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

Eight years after undergoing successful left ACL reconstruction with ipsilateral BPTB graft, a 45-year-old man developed a graft rupture and demonstrated recurrent instability. He requested revision reconstruction, again with a BPTB construct. In the operating room, he was prepared and draped in the usual sterile fashion, and left ACL reconstruction was performed with right-knee central-third BPTB graft.

During surgery, the left knee was arthroscopically examined, and residual ACL graft from the initial reconstruction was removed. Notchplasty was performed, and the residual femoral interference screw was removed from the 12:30 position. A transtibial approach was used, with a 10-mm reamer brought through the proximal tibia, the posterior tibial ACL footprint, and the 2:00 distal femoral position, with 30 mm of femoral condyle drilled, leaving 1 mm of posterior femoral cortex.

After the right leg was exsanguinated, a central-third patellar tendon graft was harvested through a longitudinal incision with a 22-mm × 10-mm patellar plug, a 10-mm patellar graft, and a 22-mm × 11-mm tibial plug. The graft was prepared, the left tibia was overreamed, and the graft was passed. The graft was fixed with a 7-mm × 23-mm biointerference screw in the femur, trialed, and fixed with an 8-mm × 23-mm interference screw in the tibia. Excess bone graft was packed in the patellar defect in the right knee. The rent in the patellar tendon was closed. The rest of the incision was closed, and the patient was placed in an immobilizer and a cold therapy device (Polar Care; Breg, Inc).

At 2-week follow-up, the patient reported having slipped on ice and flexed the right knee, causing a pop, pain, and limitation in range of motion (ROM; 0°-70°).

The left knee was doing well; straight-leg raise was possible, ROM ranged from 0° to 120°, and the Lachman test revealed a firm endpoint.

Radiographs (Figures 1A, 1B) and computed tomography (Figures 2A, 2B) showed a right tibial tubercle avulsion fracture.

The patient returned to the operating room 5 days later and underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of the tibial tubercle avulsion. After sterile preparation and draping, the previous incision was used. The bony fragment was isolated and the hematoma débrided. Repair was performed with two No. 2 running locked FiberWire sutures (Arthrex) placed through bony drill holes in the fragment (1 medial, 1 lateral). The fragment was reduced and the sutures tied, with further fixation provided with a DePuy Synthes small-fragment 3.5-mm cortical screw with washer. A No. 5 Ethibond suture (Ethicon) was then placed as a secondary cerclage figure-of-8 stitch to protect the repair.

Postreduction radiographs were obtained (Figures 3A, 3B). The wound was closed in sequential fashion, and dressing was applied. A ROM brace locked in extension was then placed.

The patient was seen in follow-up 6 weeks after right ACL reconstruction and 4 weeks after left tibial tubercle ORIF. He continued with right knee restrictions, with the weight-bearing brace locked in extension. Left knee ROM was more than 0° to 90° even before any formal physical therapy. At this point, the patient began physical therapy on both knees with ROM limited to 0° to 30° and weight-bearing as tolerated on the right knee (no restrictions on the left knee).

He progressed well, and, by 6 months after the right-knee ORIF, he was back to full ROM and full weight-bearing on both knees (Figures 4A, 4B).

Discussion

Cases of tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB autograft harvest are extremely rare in the published literature. PubMed and Cochrane Review searches revealed only 2—1 in the ipsilateral knee as ACL fixation¹ and 1 in the contralateral knee.² The middle third of the patellar tendon has been used for ACL reconstruction for more than 50 years, which supports the extreme rarity of this complication.³ Tibial tubercle fractures are so rare that they are not even mentioned in reviews of ACL complications.⁴ These fractures are universally treated with ORIF.^1,2

 

Far more common but still rare, fracture-type complications involve the extensor mechanism and the tibial plateau. Patellar fractures have been documented as occurring in 0.2% to 2.3% of cases.^5-7 One paper reported a fracture in 1.3% of cases at a mean of 57 days, with roughly half caused by trauma and the other half having atraumatic causes.⁸ Lee and colleagues⁹ found a 0.2% complication rate for all BPTB grafts in 1725 consecutive patients. Although some patients were treated nonoperatively, others underwent operative fixation. Time to clinical and radiographic healing was 7 and 10 weeks, respectively.

Tibial plateau fracture after BPTB harvest is a rare complication, with 11 cases reported in the literature.¹⁰ In 4 of those cases, the proposed mechanism of fracture was a stress riser resulting from the synergistic weakness of the tibial harvest site combined with the tibial tunnel reducing proximal tibial bone strength.^11-14 The mechanism of injury varied from traumatic to insufficiency fracture, with fixation varying with fracture displacement.

Tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB harvest is extremely rare, with the present case being only the third published in the literature. Like most reported post-ACL reconstruction extensor mechanism disruptions, our case resulted from a traumatic event at an interval after surgery. All other tibial tubercle fracture post-ACL reconstruction disruptions occurred within 2 weeks after surgery.^1,2 Sudden tension on the extensor mechanism secondary to hyperflexion caused a fracture through a weakened tibial tubercle with avulsion of the remaining tendon in 2 of the 3 cases, with the third being a lower stress popping noise that occurred during a pivot to stand.¹

The residual defect after tibial bone block harvest could represent a weakening of the tubercle by loss of structural bone and by development of stress risers. The previous reports of tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB harvest documented a similar methodology: Use a bone saw and osteotomes to harvest a trapezoidal tibial bone plug 10 mm to 11 mm wide and 22 cm to 35 cm long. As previously documented, we suggest taking care with saw cuts and osteotomes so as not to weaken the proximal tibia or distal patella more than is necessary.^1,2 Before surgery, patients should be warned about the possibility of extensor mechanism injuries with use of BPTB grafts.

Conclusion

Tibial tubercle fracture after BPTB harvest for ACL reconstruction is an extremely rare complication. Treatment is ORIF of the tubercle fragment, with a delay in ACL rehabilitation in cases involving the ipsilateral knee.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E469-E471. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Leg-length discrepancy (LLD) is common in the general population¹ and particularly in patients with degenerative joint diseases of the hip and knee.² Common complications of LLD include femoral, sciatic, and peroneal nerve palsy; lower back pain; gait abnormalities³; and general dissatisfaction. LLD is a concern for orthopedic surgeons who perform total knee arthroplasty (TKA) because limb lengthening is common after this procedure.^4,5 Surgeons are aware of the limb lengthening that occurs during TKA,^4,5 and studies have confirmed that LLD usually decreases after TKA.^4,5

Despite surgeons’ best efforts, some patients still perceive LLD after surgery, though the incidence of perceived LLD in patients who have had TKA has not been well documented. Aside from actual, objectively measured LLD, there may be other factors that lead patients to perceive LLD. Study results have suggested that preoperative varus–valgus alignment of the knee joint may correlate with how much an operative leg is lengthened after TKA^4,5; however, the outcome investigated was objective LLD measurements, not perceived LLD. Understanding the factors that may influence patients’ ability to perceive LLD would allow surgeons to preoperatively identify patients who are at higher risk for postoperative perceived LLD. This information, along with expected time to resolution of postoperative perceived LLD, would allow surgeons to educate their patients accordingly.

We conducted a study to determine the incidence of perceived LLD before and after primary TKA in patients with unilateral osteoarthritis and to determine the correlation between mechanical axis of the knee and perceived LLD before and after surgery. Given that surgery may correct mechanical axis misalignment, we investigated the correlation between this correction and its ability to change patients’ preoperative and postoperative perceived LLD. We hypothesized that a large correction of mechanical axis would lead patients to perceive LLD after surgery. The relationship of body mass index (BMI) and age to patients’ perceived LLD was also assessed. The incidence and time frame of resolution of postoperative perceived LLD were determined.

Methods

Approval for this study was received from the Institutional Review Board at our institution, Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois. Seventy-three patients undergoing primary TKA performed by 3 surgeons at 2 institutions between February 2010 and January 2013 were prospectively enrolled. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years to 90 years and primary TKA for unilateral osteoarthritis; exclusion criteria were allergy or intolerance to the study materials, operative treatment of affected joint or its underlying etiology within prior month, previous surgeries (other than arthroscopy) on affected joint, previous surgeries (on unaffected lower extremity) that may influence preoperative and postoperative leg lengths, and any substance abuse or dependence within the past 6 months. Patients provided written informed consent for total knee arthroplasty.

All surgeries were performed by Dr. Levine, Dr. Della Valle, and Dr. Sporer using the medial parapatellar or midvastus approach with tourniquet. Similar standard postoperative rehabilitation protocols with early mobilization were used in all cases.

During clinical evaluation, patient demographic data were collected and LLD surveys administered. Patients were asked, before surgery and 3 to 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery, if they perceived LLD. A patient who no longer perceived LLD after surgery was no longer followed for this study.

At the preoperative clinic visit and at the 3-month or 6-week postoperative visit, standing mechanical axis radiographs were viewed by 2 of the authors (not the primary surgeons) using PACS (picture archiving and communication system software). The mechanical axis of the operative leg was measured with ImageJ software by taking the angle from the center of the femur to the middle of the ankle joint, with the vertex assigned to the middle of the knee joint.

We used a 2-tailed unpaired t test to determine the relationship of preoperative mechanical axis to perceived LLD (or lack thereof) before surgery. The data were analyzed for separate varus and valgus deformities. Then we determined the relationship of postoperative mechanical axis to perceived LLD (or lack thereof) after surgery. The McNemar test was used to determine the effect of surgery on patients’ LLD perceptions.

To determine the relationship between preoperative-to-postoperative change in mechanical axis and change in LLD perceptions, we divided patients into 4 groups. Group 1 had both preoperative and postoperative perceived LLD, group 2 had no preoperative or postoperative perceived LLD, group 3 had preoperative perceived LLD but no postoperative perceived LLD, and group 4 had postoperative perceived LLD but no preoperative perceived LLD. The absolute value of the difference between preoperative and postoperative mechanical axis was then determined, relative to 180°, to account for changes in varus to valgus deformity before and after surgery and vice versa. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect differences between groups. This analysis was then stratified based on BMI and age.

 

Results

Of the 73 enrolled patients, 2 were excluded from results analysis because of inadequate data—one did not complete the postoperative LLD survey, and the other did not have postoperative standing mechanical axis radiographs—leaving 71 patients (27 men, 44 women) with adequate data. Mean (SD) age of all patients was 65 (8.4) years (range, 47-89 years). Mean (SD) BMI was 35.1 (9.9; range, 20.2-74.8).

Of the 71 patients with adequate data, 18 had preoperative perceived LLD and 53 did not; in addition, 7 had postoperative perceived LLD and 64 did not. All 7 patients with postoperative perceived LLD noted resolution of LLD, at a mean of 8.5 weeks (range, 3 weeks-3 months). There was a significant difference between the 18 patients with preoperative perceived LLD and the 7 with postoperative perceived LLD (P = .035, analyzed with the McNemar test).

Table 1 lists the mean preoperative mechanical axis measurements for patients with and without preoperative perceived LLD.

There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .27). There was also no significant difference in preoperative mechanical axis when cases were separated and analyzed as varus and valgus deformities (varus P = .53, valgus P = .20).

Table 2 lists the mean postoperative mechanical axis measurements for patients with and without postoperative perceived LLD.

There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .42). There was also no significant difference in postoperative mechanical axis for separate varus (P = .29) and valgus (P = .52) deformities.

Table 3 lists the mean absolute values of mechanical axis correction (preoperative to postoperative) for the 4 patient groups described in the Methods section.

ANOVA revealed no significant statistical difference in these values among the groups (P = .9229). There were also no significant statistical differences when the groups were stratified by age (40-59.9 years, P = .5973; 60-69.9 years, P = .6263; 70 years or older, P = .3779) or when ANOVA was used to compare the groups’ mean ages (P = .3183). In addition, the 4 groups were not significantly statistically different in BMI: obese (BMI >30; P = .3891) and nonobese (BMI <29.9; P = .9862).

Discussion

In this study, 18 patients (25%) had preoperative perceived LLD, proving that perceived LLD is common in patients who undergo TKA for unilateral osteoarthritis. Surgeons should give their patients a preoperative survey on perceived LLD, as survey responses may inform and influence surgical decisions and strategies.

Of the 18 patients with preoperative perceived LLD, only 1 had postoperative perceived LLD. That perceived LLD decreased after surgery makes sense given the widely accepted notion that actual LLD is common before primary TKA but in most cases is corrected during surgery.^4,5 As LLD correction during surgery is so successful, surgeons should tell their patients with preoperative perceived LLD that in most cases it will be fixed after TKA.

Although the incidence of perceived LLD decreased after TKA (as mentioned earlier), the decrease seemed to be restricted mostly to patients with preoperative perceived LLD, and the underlying LLD was most probably corrected by the surgery. However, surgery introduced perceived LLD in 6 cases, supporting the notion that it is crucial to understand which patients are at higher risk for postoperative perceived LLD and what if any time frame can be expected for resolution in these cases. In our study, all cases of perceived LLD had resolved by a mean follow-up of 8.5 weeks (range, 3 weeks-3 months). This phenomenon of resolution may be attributed to some of the physical, objective LLD corrections that naturally occur throughout the postoperative course,⁴ though psychological factors may also be involved. Our study results suggest patients should be counseled that, though about 10% of patients perceive LLD after primary TKA, the vast majority of perceived LLD cases resolve within 3 months.

One study goal was to determine the relationship between the mechanical axis of the knee and perceived LLD both before and after surgery. There were no significant relationships. This was also true when cases of varus and valgus deformity were analyzed separately.

Another study goal was to determine if a surgical change in the mechanical alignment of the knee would influence preoperative-to-postoperative LLD perceptions. In our analysis, patients were divided into 4 groups based on their preoperative and postoperative LLD perceptions (see Methods section). ANOVA revealed no significant differences in absolute values of mechanical axis correction among the 4 groups. Likewise, there were no correlations between BMI and age and mechanical axis correction among the groups, suggesting LLD perception is unrelated to any of these variables. Ideally, if a relationship between a threshold knee alignment value and perceived LLD existed, surgeons would be able to counsel patients at higher risk for perceived LLD about how their knee alignment may contribute to their perception. Unfortunately, our study results did not show any significant statistical relationships in this regard.

The problem of LLD in patients undergoing TKA is not new, and much research is needed to determine the correlation between perceived versus actual discrepancies, and why they occur. Our study results confirmed that TKA corrects most cases of preoperative perceived LLD but introduces perceived LLD in other cases. Whether preoperative or postoperative LLD is merely perceived or is in fact an actual discrepancy remains to be seen.

One limitation of this study was its lack of leg-length measurements. Although we studied knee alignment specifically, it would have been useful to compare perceived LLD with measured leg lengths, either clinically or radiographically, especially since leg lengths obviously play a role in any perceived LLD. We used mechanical alignment as a surrogate for actual LLD because we hypothesized that alignment may contribute to patients’ perceived discrepancies.

Another limitation was the relatively small sample. Only 24 cases of perceived LLD were analyzed. Given our low rates of perceived LLD (25% before surgery, 10% after surgery), it is difficult to study a large enough TKA group to establish a statistically significant number of cases. Nevertheless, investigators may use larger groups to establish more meaningful relationships.

A third limitation was that alignment was measured on the operative side but not the contralateral side. As we were focusing on perceived discrepancy, contralateral knee alignment may play an important role. Our study involved patients with unilateral osteoarthritis, so it would be reasonable to assume the nonoperative knee was almost neutral in alignment in most cases. However, given that varus/valgus misalignment is a known risk factor for osteoarthritis,⁶ many of our patients with unilateral disease may very well have had preexisting misalignment of both knees. The undetermined alignment of the nonoperative side may be a confounding variable in the relationship between operative knee alignment and perceived LLD.

Fourth, not all patients were surveyed 3 weeks after surgery. Some were first surveyed at 6 weeks, and it is possible there were cases of transient postoperative LLD that resolved before that point. Therefore, our reported incidence of postoperative LLD could have missed some cases. In addition, our mean 8.5-week period for LLD resolution may not have accounted for these resolved cases of transient perceived LLD.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E429-E433. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Leg-length discrepancy (LLD) is common in the general population¹ and particularly in patients with degenerative joint diseases of the hip and knee.² Common complications of LLD include femoral, sciatic, and peroneal nerve palsy; lower back pain; gait abnormalities³; and general dissatisfaction. LLD is a concern for orthopedic surgeons who perform total knee arthroplasty (TKA) because limb lengthening is common after this procedure.^4,5 Surgeons are aware of the limb lengthening that occurs during TKA,^4,5 and studies have confirmed that LLD usually decreases after TKA.^4,5

Despite surgeons’ best efforts, some patients still perceive LLD after surgery, though the incidence of perceived LLD in patients who have had TKA has not been well documented. Aside from actual, objectively measured LLD, there may be other factors that lead patients to perceive LLD. Study results have suggested that preoperative varus–valgus alignment of the knee joint may correlate with how much an operative leg is lengthened after TKA^4,5; however, the outcome investigated was objective LLD measurements, not perceived LLD. Understanding the factors that may influence patients’ ability to perceive LLD would allow surgeons to preoperatively identify patients who are at higher risk for postoperative perceived LLD. This information, along with expected time to resolution of postoperative perceived LLD, would allow surgeons to educate their patients accordingly.

We conducted a study to determine the incidence of perceived LLD before and after primary TKA in patients with unilateral osteoarthritis and to determine the correlation between mechanical axis of the knee and perceived LLD before and after surgery. Given that surgery may correct mechanical axis misalignment, we investigated the correlation between this correction and its ability to change patients’ preoperative and postoperative perceived LLD. We hypothesized that a large correction of mechanical axis would lead patients to perceive LLD after surgery. The relationship of body mass index (BMI) and age to patients’ perceived LLD was also assessed. The incidence and time frame of resolution of postoperative perceived LLD were determined.

Methods

Approval for this study was received from the Institutional Review Board at our institution, Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois. Seventy-three patients undergoing primary TKA performed by 3 surgeons at 2 institutions between February 2010 and January 2013 were prospectively enrolled. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years to 90 years and primary TKA for unilateral osteoarthritis; exclusion criteria were allergy or intolerance to the study materials, operative treatment of affected joint or its underlying etiology within prior month, previous surgeries (other than arthroscopy) on affected joint, previous surgeries (on unaffected lower extremity) that may influence preoperative and postoperative leg lengths, and any substance abuse or dependence within the past 6 months. Patients provided written informed consent for total knee arthroplasty.

All surgeries were performed by Dr. Levine, Dr. Della Valle, and Dr. Sporer using the medial parapatellar or midvastus approach with tourniquet. Similar standard postoperative rehabilitation protocols with early mobilization were used in all cases.

During clinical evaluation, patient demographic data were collected and LLD surveys administered. Patients were asked, before surgery and 3 to 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery, if they perceived LLD. A patient who no longer perceived LLD after surgery was no longer followed for this study.

At the preoperative clinic visit and at the 3-month or 6-week postoperative visit, standing mechanical axis radiographs were viewed by 2 of the authors (not the primary surgeons) using PACS (picture archiving and communication system software). The mechanical axis of the operative leg was measured with ImageJ software by taking the angle from the center of the femur to the middle of the ankle joint, with the vertex assigned to the middle of the knee joint.

We used a 2-tailed unpaired t test to determine the relationship of preoperative mechanical axis to perceived LLD (or lack thereof) before surgery. The data were analyzed for separate varus and valgus deformities. Then we determined the relationship of postoperative mechanical axis to perceived LLD (or lack thereof) after surgery. The McNemar test was used to determine the effect of surgery on patients’ LLD perceptions.

To determine the relationship between preoperative-to-postoperative change in mechanical axis and change in LLD perceptions, we divided patients into 4 groups. Group 1 had both preoperative and postoperative perceived LLD, group 2 had no preoperative or postoperative perceived LLD, group 3 had preoperative perceived LLD but no postoperative perceived LLD, and group 4 had postoperative perceived LLD but no preoperative perceived LLD. The absolute value of the difference between preoperative and postoperative mechanical axis was then determined, relative to 180°, to account for changes in varus to valgus deformity before and after surgery and vice versa. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect differences between groups. This analysis was then stratified based on BMI and age.

 

Results

Of the 73 enrolled patients, 2 were excluded from results analysis because of inadequate data—one did not complete the postoperative LLD survey, and the other did not have postoperative standing mechanical axis radiographs—leaving 71 patients (27 men, 44 women) with adequate data. Mean (SD) age of all patients was 65 (8.4) years (range, 47-89 years). Mean (SD) BMI was 35.1 (9.9; range, 20.2-74.8).

Of the 71 patients with adequate data, 18 had preoperative perceived LLD and 53 did not; in addition, 7 had postoperative perceived LLD and 64 did not. All 7 patients with postoperative perceived LLD noted resolution of LLD, at a mean of 8.5 weeks (range, 3 weeks-3 months). There was a significant difference between the 18 patients with preoperative perceived LLD and the 7 with postoperative perceived LLD (P = .035, analyzed with the McNemar test).

Table 1 lists the mean preoperative mechanical axis measurements for patients with and without preoperative perceived LLD.

There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .27). There was also no significant difference in preoperative mechanical axis when cases were separated and analyzed as varus and valgus deformities (varus P = .53, valgus P = .20).

Table 2 lists the mean postoperative mechanical axis measurements for patients with and without postoperative perceived LLD.

There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .42). There was also no significant difference in postoperative mechanical axis for separate varus (P = .29) and valgus (P = .52) deformities.

Table 3 lists the mean absolute values of mechanical axis correction (preoperative to postoperative) for the 4 patient groups described in the Methods section.

ANOVA revealed no significant statistical difference in these values among the groups (P = .9229). There were also no significant statistical differences when the groups were stratified by age (40-59.9 years, P = .5973; 60-69.9 years, P = .6263; 70 years or older, P = .3779) or when ANOVA was used to compare the groups’ mean ages (P = .3183). In addition, the 4 groups were not significantly statistically different in BMI: obese (BMI >30; P = .3891) and nonobese (BMI <29.9; P = .9862).

Discussion

In this study, 18 patients (25%) had preoperative perceived LLD, proving that perceived LLD is common in patients who undergo TKA for unilateral osteoarthritis. Surgeons should give their patients a preoperative survey on perceived LLD, as survey responses may inform and influence surgical decisions and strategies.

Of the 18 patients with preoperative perceived LLD, only 1 had postoperative perceived LLD. That perceived LLD decreased after surgery makes sense given the widely accepted notion that actual LLD is common before primary TKA but in most cases is corrected during surgery.^4,5 As LLD correction during surgery is so successful, surgeons should tell their patients with preoperative perceived LLD that in most cases it will be fixed after TKA.

Although the incidence of perceived LLD decreased after TKA (as mentioned earlier), the decrease seemed to be restricted mostly to patients with preoperative perceived LLD, and the underlying LLD was most probably corrected by the surgery. However, surgery introduced perceived LLD in 6 cases, supporting the notion that it is crucial to understand which patients are at higher risk for postoperative perceived LLD and what if any time frame can be expected for resolution in these cases. In our study, all cases of perceived LLD had resolved by a mean follow-up of 8.5 weeks (range, 3 weeks-3 months). This phenomenon of resolution may be attributed to some of the physical, objective LLD corrections that naturally occur throughout the postoperative course,⁴ though psychological factors may also be involved. Our study results suggest patients should be counseled that, though about 10% of patients perceive LLD after primary TKA, the vast majority of perceived LLD cases resolve within 3 months.

One study goal was to determine the relationship between the mechanical axis of the knee and perceived LLD both before and after surgery. There were no significant relationships. This was also true when cases of varus and valgus deformity were analyzed separately.

Another study goal was to determine if a surgical change in the mechanical alignment of the knee would influence preoperative-to-postoperative LLD perceptions. In our analysis, patients were divided into 4 groups based on their preoperative and postoperative LLD perceptions (see Methods section). ANOVA revealed no significant differences in absolute values of mechanical axis correction among the 4 groups. Likewise, there were no correlations between BMI and age and mechanical axis correction among the groups, suggesting LLD perception is unrelated to any of these variables. Ideally, if a relationship between a threshold knee alignment value and perceived LLD existed, surgeons would be able to counsel patients at higher risk for perceived LLD about how their knee alignment may contribute to their perception. Unfortunately, our study results did not show any significant statistical relationships in this regard.

The problem of LLD in patients undergoing TKA is not new, and much research is needed to determine the correlation between perceived versus actual discrepancies, and why they occur. Our study results confirmed that TKA corrects most cases of preoperative perceived LLD but introduces perceived LLD in other cases. Whether preoperative or postoperative LLD is merely perceived or is in fact an actual discrepancy remains to be seen.

One limitation of this study was its lack of leg-length measurements. Although we studied knee alignment specifically, it would have been useful to compare perceived LLD with measured leg lengths, either clinically or radiographically, especially since leg lengths obviously play a role in any perceived LLD. We used mechanical alignment as a surrogate for actual LLD because we hypothesized that alignment may contribute to patients’ perceived discrepancies.

Another limitation was the relatively small sample. Only 24 cases of perceived LLD were analyzed. Given our low rates of perceived LLD (25% before surgery, 10% after surgery), it is difficult to study a large enough TKA group to establish a statistically significant number of cases. Nevertheless, investigators may use larger groups to establish more meaningful relationships.

A third limitation was that alignment was measured on the operative side but not the contralateral side. As we were focusing on perceived discrepancy, contralateral knee alignment may play an important role. Our study involved patients with unilateral osteoarthritis, so it would be reasonable to assume the nonoperative knee was almost neutral in alignment in most cases. However, given that varus/valgus misalignment is a known risk factor for osteoarthritis,⁶ many of our patients with unilateral disease may very well have had preexisting misalignment of both knees. The undetermined alignment of the nonoperative side may be a confounding variable in the relationship between operative knee alignment and perceived LLD.

Fourth, not all patients were surveyed 3 weeks after surgery. Some were first surveyed at 6 weeks, and it is possible there were cases of transient postoperative LLD that resolved before that point. Therefore, our reported incidence of postoperative LLD could have missed some cases. In addition, our mean 8.5-week period for LLD resolution may not have accounted for these resolved cases of transient perceived LLD.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E429-E433. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Leg-length discrepancy (LLD) is common in the general population¹ and particularly in patients with degenerative joint diseases of the hip and knee.² Common complications of LLD include femoral, sciatic, and peroneal nerve palsy; lower back pain; gait abnormalities³; and general dissatisfaction. LLD is a concern for orthopedic surgeons who perform total knee arthroplasty (TKA) because limb lengthening is common after this procedure.^4,5 Surgeons are aware of the limb lengthening that occurs during TKA,^4,5 and studies have confirmed that LLD usually decreases after TKA.^4,5

Despite surgeons’ best efforts, some patients still perceive LLD after surgery, though the incidence of perceived LLD in patients who have had TKA has not been well documented. Aside from actual, objectively measured LLD, there may be other factors that lead patients to perceive LLD. Study results have suggested that preoperative varus–valgus alignment of the knee joint may correlate with how much an operative leg is lengthened after TKA^4,5; however, the outcome investigated was objective LLD measurements, not perceived LLD. Understanding the factors that may influence patients’ ability to perceive LLD would allow surgeons to preoperatively identify patients who are at higher risk for postoperative perceived LLD. This information, along with expected time to resolution of postoperative perceived LLD, would allow surgeons to educate their patients accordingly.

We conducted a study to determine the incidence of perceived LLD before and after primary TKA in patients with unilateral osteoarthritis and to determine the correlation between mechanical axis of the knee and perceived LLD before and after surgery. Given that surgery may correct mechanical axis misalignment, we investigated the correlation between this correction and its ability to change patients’ preoperative and postoperative perceived LLD. We hypothesized that a large correction of mechanical axis would lead patients to perceive LLD after surgery. The relationship of body mass index (BMI) and age to patients’ perceived LLD was also assessed. The incidence and time frame of resolution of postoperative perceived LLD were determined.

Methods

Approval for this study was received from the Institutional Review Board at our institution, Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, Illinois. Seventy-three patients undergoing primary TKA performed by 3 surgeons at 2 institutions between February 2010 and January 2013 were prospectively enrolled. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years to 90 years and primary TKA for unilateral osteoarthritis; exclusion criteria were allergy or intolerance to the study materials, operative treatment of affected joint or its underlying etiology within prior month, previous surgeries (other than arthroscopy) on affected joint, previous surgeries (on unaffected lower extremity) that may influence preoperative and postoperative leg lengths, and any substance abuse or dependence within the past 6 months. Patients provided written informed consent for total knee arthroplasty.

All surgeries were performed by Dr. Levine, Dr. Della Valle, and Dr. Sporer using the medial parapatellar or midvastus approach with tourniquet. Similar standard postoperative rehabilitation protocols with early mobilization were used in all cases.

During clinical evaluation, patient demographic data were collected and LLD surveys administered. Patients were asked, before surgery and 3 to 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after surgery, if they perceived LLD. A patient who no longer perceived LLD after surgery was no longer followed for this study.

At the preoperative clinic visit and at the 3-month or 6-week postoperative visit, standing mechanical axis radiographs were viewed by 2 of the authors (not the primary surgeons) using PACS (picture archiving and communication system software). The mechanical axis of the operative leg was measured with ImageJ software by taking the angle from the center of the femur to the middle of the ankle joint, with the vertex assigned to the middle of the knee joint.

We used a 2-tailed unpaired t test to determine the relationship of preoperative mechanical axis to perceived LLD (or lack thereof) before surgery. The data were analyzed for separate varus and valgus deformities. Then we determined the relationship of postoperative mechanical axis to perceived LLD (or lack thereof) after surgery. The McNemar test was used to determine the effect of surgery on patients’ LLD perceptions.

To determine the relationship between preoperative-to-postoperative change in mechanical axis and change in LLD perceptions, we divided patients into 4 groups. Group 1 had both preoperative and postoperative perceived LLD, group 2 had no preoperative or postoperative perceived LLD, group 3 had preoperative perceived LLD but no postoperative perceived LLD, and group 4 had postoperative perceived LLD but no preoperative perceived LLD. The absolute value of the difference between preoperative and postoperative mechanical axis was then determined, relative to 180°, to account for changes in varus to valgus deformity before and after surgery and vice versa. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to detect differences between groups. This analysis was then stratified based on BMI and age.

 

Results

Of the 73 enrolled patients, 2 were excluded from results analysis because of inadequate data—one did not complete the postoperative LLD survey, and the other did not have postoperative standing mechanical axis radiographs—leaving 71 patients (27 men, 44 women) with adequate data. Mean (SD) age of all patients was 65 (8.4) years (range, 47-89 years). Mean (SD) BMI was 35.1 (9.9; range, 20.2-74.8).

Of the 71 patients with adequate data, 18 had preoperative perceived LLD and 53 did not; in addition, 7 had postoperative perceived LLD and 64 did not. All 7 patients with postoperative perceived LLD noted resolution of LLD, at a mean of 8.5 weeks (range, 3 weeks-3 months). There was a significant difference between the 18 patients with preoperative perceived LLD and the 7 with postoperative perceived LLD (P = .035, analyzed with the McNemar test).

Table 1 lists the mean preoperative mechanical axis measurements for patients with and without preoperative perceived LLD.

There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .27). There was also no significant difference in preoperative mechanical axis when cases were separated and analyzed as varus and valgus deformities (varus P = .53, valgus P = .20).

Table 2 lists the mean postoperative mechanical axis measurements for patients with and without postoperative perceived LLD.

There was no significant difference between the 2 groups (P = .42). There was also no significant difference in postoperative mechanical axis for separate varus (P = .29) and valgus (P = .52) deformities.

Table 3 lists the mean absolute values of mechanical axis correction (preoperative to postoperative) for the 4 patient groups described in the Methods section.

ANOVA revealed no significant statistical difference in these values among the groups (P = .9229). There were also no significant statistical differences when the groups were stratified by age (40-59.9 years, P = .5973; 60-69.9 years, P = .6263; 70 years or older, P = .3779) or when ANOVA was used to compare the groups’ mean ages (P = .3183). In addition, the 4 groups were not significantly statistically different in BMI: obese (BMI >30; P = .3891) and nonobese (BMI <29.9; P = .9862).

Discussion

In this study, 18 patients (25%) had preoperative perceived LLD, proving that perceived LLD is common in patients who undergo TKA for unilateral osteoarthritis. Surgeons should give their patients a preoperative survey on perceived LLD, as survey responses may inform and influence surgical decisions and strategies.

Of the 18 patients with preoperative perceived LLD, only 1 had postoperative perceived LLD. That perceived LLD decreased after surgery makes sense given the widely accepted notion that actual LLD is common before primary TKA but in most cases is corrected during surgery.^4,5 As LLD correction during surgery is so successful, surgeons should tell their patients with preoperative perceived LLD that in most cases it will be fixed after TKA.

Although the incidence of perceived LLD decreased after TKA (as mentioned earlier), the decrease seemed to be restricted mostly to patients with preoperative perceived LLD, and the underlying LLD was most probably corrected by the surgery. However, surgery introduced perceived LLD in 6 cases, supporting the notion that it is crucial to understand which patients are at higher risk for postoperative perceived LLD and what if any time frame can be expected for resolution in these cases. In our study, all cases of perceived LLD had resolved by a mean follow-up of 8.5 weeks (range, 3 weeks-3 months). This phenomenon of resolution may be attributed to some of the physical, objective LLD corrections that naturally occur throughout the postoperative course,⁴ though psychological factors may also be involved. Our study results suggest patients should be counseled that, though about 10% of patients perceive LLD after primary TKA, the vast majority of perceived LLD cases resolve within 3 months.

One study goal was to determine the relationship between the mechanical axis of the knee and perceived LLD both before and after surgery. There were no significant relationships. This was also true when cases of varus and valgus deformity were analyzed separately.

Another study goal was to determine if a surgical change in the mechanical alignment of the knee would influence preoperative-to-postoperative LLD perceptions. In our analysis, patients were divided into 4 groups based on their preoperative and postoperative LLD perceptions (see Methods section). ANOVA revealed no significant differences in absolute values of mechanical axis correction among the 4 groups. Likewise, there were no correlations between BMI and age and mechanical axis correction among the groups, suggesting LLD perception is unrelated to any of these variables. Ideally, if a relationship between a threshold knee alignment value and perceived LLD existed, surgeons would be able to counsel patients at higher risk for perceived LLD about how their knee alignment may contribute to their perception. Unfortunately, our study results did not show any significant statistical relationships in this regard.

The problem of LLD in patients undergoing TKA is not new, and much research is needed to determine the correlation between perceived versus actual discrepancies, and why they occur. Our study results confirmed that TKA corrects most cases of preoperative perceived LLD but introduces perceived LLD in other cases. Whether preoperative or postoperative LLD is merely perceived or is in fact an actual discrepancy remains to be seen.

One limitation of this study was its lack of leg-length measurements. Although we studied knee alignment specifically, it would have been useful to compare perceived LLD with measured leg lengths, either clinically or radiographically, especially since leg lengths obviously play a role in any perceived LLD. We used mechanical alignment as a surrogate for actual LLD because we hypothesized that alignment may contribute to patients’ perceived discrepancies.

Another limitation was the relatively small sample. Only 24 cases of perceived LLD were analyzed. Given our low rates of perceived LLD (25% before surgery, 10% after surgery), it is difficult to study a large enough TKA group to establish a statistically significant number of cases. Nevertheless, investigators may use larger groups to establish more meaningful relationships.

A third limitation was that alignment was measured on the operative side but not the contralateral side. As we were focusing on perceived discrepancy, contralateral knee alignment may play an important role. Our study involved patients with unilateral osteoarthritis, so it would be reasonable to assume the nonoperative knee was almost neutral in alignment in most cases. However, given that varus/valgus misalignment is a known risk factor for osteoarthritis,⁶ many of our patients with unilateral disease may very well have had preexisting misalignment of both knees. The undetermined alignment of the nonoperative side may be a confounding variable in the relationship between operative knee alignment and perceived LLD.

Fourth, not all patients were surveyed 3 weeks after surgery. Some were first surveyed at 6 weeks, and it is possible there were cases of transient postoperative LLD that resolved before that point. Therefore, our reported incidence of postoperative LLD could have missed some cases. In addition, our mean 8.5-week period for LLD resolution may not have accounted for these resolved cases of transient perceived LLD.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E429-E433. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.