CMS to Congress: We might delay MACRA start

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 03/28/2019 - 15:05
Display Headline
CMS to Congress: We might delay MACRA start

Implementation of some MACRA provisions could be delayed, CMS Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt told committee members at a July 13 hearing of the Senate Finance Committee.

Officials at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are considering “alternative start dates, looking at whether shorter periods could be used, and finding other ways for physicians to get experience with the program before the impact of it really hits them,” Mr. Slavitt testified.

Andy Slavitt

Many of the comments that were submitted by physicians and other stakeholders on the proposed MACRA rule called for delayed implementation, Mr. Slavitt said. Other key themes included ensuring that patients are the focus, simplifying the rules, creating more pathways to advanced payment models, and providing a greater consideration of the needs of small and solo practices, particularly rural ones.

“We need to launch this program so that it begins on the right foot. That means that every physician in the country needs to feel like they are set up for success,” Mr. Slavitt said. He added that CMS may release an interim final rule to allow for more comment on changes stemming from the feedback received on the initial proposal.

Many Senators on the committee asked Mr. Slavitt how the proposed regulations would impact solo and small practices, especially ones in rural areas.

“The focus on small independent practices and their ability to continue to practice independently is a very high priority for us,” Mr. Slavitt said. “I would add that it’s not just small practices, it’s all also any physician that practices in a rural location. They have a very different set of dynamics than other physicians do. ... We need every physician set up for success and the challenges in small practices are far greater.”

He noted that for many small or solo practices, even a small amount of additional paperwork could affect how much time the physician can spend with patients.

Another area of concern in the MACRA regulation comments was the delay in the development of virtual groups that would allow physicians to virtually pool reporting requirements to allow for greater participation in value-based programs. The proposed MACRA rule calls for these groups to be delayed for 1 year .

“I think this going to be a high priority for us, and I think it’s going to be something that is going to need a lot more input from physicians to make sure we get it right,” Mr. Slavitt said. Virtual groups are “a whole new way of reporting, and we need to make a number of decisions, and physicians would need to make a number of decisions and they are not yet used to practicing that way.”

He added that CMS is asking physicians how they want to go about it, and the feedback so far is promising that physicians want to participate, but there needs to be operational and technology infrastructure to make it happen.

“I don’t think this is something that can’t be solved with just a little bit more time, but it’s certainly not something that’s ready to be launched in months,” he said, adding that the agency aims to launch virtual group reporting in the second year of the MACRA implementation.

[email protected]

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
MACRA
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Implementation of some MACRA provisions could be delayed, CMS Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt told committee members at a July 13 hearing of the Senate Finance Committee.

Officials at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are considering “alternative start dates, looking at whether shorter periods could be used, and finding other ways for physicians to get experience with the program before the impact of it really hits them,” Mr. Slavitt testified.

Andy Slavitt

Many of the comments that were submitted by physicians and other stakeholders on the proposed MACRA rule called for delayed implementation, Mr. Slavitt said. Other key themes included ensuring that patients are the focus, simplifying the rules, creating more pathways to advanced payment models, and providing a greater consideration of the needs of small and solo practices, particularly rural ones.

“We need to launch this program so that it begins on the right foot. That means that every physician in the country needs to feel like they are set up for success,” Mr. Slavitt said. He added that CMS may release an interim final rule to allow for more comment on changes stemming from the feedback received on the initial proposal.

Many Senators on the committee asked Mr. Slavitt how the proposed regulations would impact solo and small practices, especially ones in rural areas.

“The focus on small independent practices and their ability to continue to practice independently is a very high priority for us,” Mr. Slavitt said. “I would add that it’s not just small practices, it’s all also any physician that practices in a rural location. They have a very different set of dynamics than other physicians do. ... We need every physician set up for success and the challenges in small practices are far greater.”

He noted that for many small or solo practices, even a small amount of additional paperwork could affect how much time the physician can spend with patients.

Another area of concern in the MACRA regulation comments was the delay in the development of virtual groups that would allow physicians to virtually pool reporting requirements to allow for greater participation in value-based programs. The proposed MACRA rule calls for these groups to be delayed for 1 year .

“I think this going to be a high priority for us, and I think it’s going to be something that is going to need a lot more input from physicians to make sure we get it right,” Mr. Slavitt said. Virtual groups are “a whole new way of reporting, and we need to make a number of decisions, and physicians would need to make a number of decisions and they are not yet used to practicing that way.”

He added that CMS is asking physicians how they want to go about it, and the feedback so far is promising that physicians want to participate, but there needs to be operational and technology infrastructure to make it happen.

“I don’t think this is something that can’t be solved with just a little bit more time, but it’s certainly not something that’s ready to be launched in months,” he said, adding that the agency aims to launch virtual group reporting in the second year of the MACRA implementation.

[email protected]

Implementation of some MACRA provisions could be delayed, CMS Acting Administrator Andy Slavitt told committee members at a July 13 hearing of the Senate Finance Committee.

Officials at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are considering “alternative start dates, looking at whether shorter periods could be used, and finding other ways for physicians to get experience with the program before the impact of it really hits them,” Mr. Slavitt testified.

Andy Slavitt

Many of the comments that were submitted by physicians and other stakeholders on the proposed MACRA rule called for delayed implementation, Mr. Slavitt said. Other key themes included ensuring that patients are the focus, simplifying the rules, creating more pathways to advanced payment models, and providing a greater consideration of the needs of small and solo practices, particularly rural ones.

“We need to launch this program so that it begins on the right foot. That means that every physician in the country needs to feel like they are set up for success,” Mr. Slavitt said. He added that CMS may release an interim final rule to allow for more comment on changes stemming from the feedback received on the initial proposal.

Many Senators on the committee asked Mr. Slavitt how the proposed regulations would impact solo and small practices, especially ones in rural areas.

“The focus on small independent practices and their ability to continue to practice independently is a very high priority for us,” Mr. Slavitt said. “I would add that it’s not just small practices, it’s all also any physician that practices in a rural location. They have a very different set of dynamics than other physicians do. ... We need every physician set up for success and the challenges in small practices are far greater.”

He noted that for many small or solo practices, even a small amount of additional paperwork could affect how much time the physician can spend with patients.

Another area of concern in the MACRA regulation comments was the delay in the development of virtual groups that would allow physicians to virtually pool reporting requirements to allow for greater participation in value-based programs. The proposed MACRA rule calls for these groups to be delayed for 1 year .

“I think this going to be a high priority for us, and I think it’s going to be something that is going to need a lot more input from physicians to make sure we get it right,” Mr. Slavitt said. Virtual groups are “a whole new way of reporting, and we need to make a number of decisions, and physicians would need to make a number of decisions and they are not yet used to practicing that way.”

He added that CMS is asking physicians how they want to go about it, and the feedback so far is promising that physicians want to participate, but there needs to be operational and technology infrastructure to make it happen.

“I don’t think this is something that can’t be solved with just a little bit more time, but it’s certainly not something that’s ready to be launched in months,” he said, adding that the agency aims to launch virtual group reporting in the second year of the MACRA implementation.

[email protected]

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
CMS to Congress: We might delay MACRA start
Display Headline
CMS to Congress: We might delay MACRA start
Legacy Keywords
MACRA
Legacy Keywords
MACRA
Article Source

FROM A SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE HEARING

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

The ‘guilty’ associates of silent thoracic aneurysm fingered

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/18/2019 - 16:03
Display Headline
The ‘guilty’ associates of silent thoracic aneurysm fingered

NEW YORK – Aortic aneurysm ranks as one of the top 20 causes of death in the United States. Most of these aneurysms are clinically silent until they rupture, but Yale cardiovascular surgeon John A. Elefteriades, MD, has developed a clinical paradigm that identifies eight markers that physicians can use to detect the disease before it strikes.

Dr. Elefteriades calls his paradigm “Guilt by Association.” It is based on an article he published online last year in the journal Open Heart (2015;2:e000169).

Dr. John A. Elefteriades

“What we need is for our colleagues in affiliated disciplines to recognize the importance of these offenders in indicating the presence of thoracic aortic aneurysm,” he said, reporting on the paradigm at the meeting sponsored by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery. He noted that studies from Japan of people who had died from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest found that 8% of them had a type A aortic dissection (Am J Cardiol 2016;117:1826-30).

He outlined eight “associates” of thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA): intracranial aneurysm; bovine aortic arch; abdominal aortic aneurysm; simple renal cysts; bicuspid aortic valve; family history; positive thumb-palm test; and temporal arteritis and other autoimmune disorders.

A patient with TAA has a 10% likelihood of harboring an intracranial aneurysm (Am J Cardiol 2010;105:417-20). “It’s even more common in the descending, compared to the ascending group in examples that we’ve identified,” Dr. Elefteriades said. Particularly vulnerable are patients over age 70 and those with an intracranial aneurysm larger than 4 mm: the former has a 9% chance of harboring a TAA, the latter a 6% chance, he said.

The bovine arch had been thought to be benign, but, Dr. Elefteriades said, “We don’t think it is.”

Bovine arch refers to a group of congenital aortic arch vessels with an aberrant origin of the left common carotid artery. “We recently looked at this as a marker for thoracic aortic disease, and please note that 20% of our TAA patients have a bovine arch,” he said. “This is much higher than in the general population.”

Abdominal aortic aneurysm has long been associated with TAA, he said. “When these aneurysms are identified by ultrasound, it’s important that the thoracic aorta be checked as well,” he said.

“This is a message for internists and our vascular colleagues.”

Simple renal cysts have been found in patients with TAA at a “much higher” rate than the general population, as high as 57% of those with descending aortic aneurysms vs. 11%-13.7% of the general population, Dr. Elefteriades said (J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2016;5:e002248). Simple renal cysts are detected by abdominal CT scan. “It’s just a matter of a few more slices with the CT scan to get the entirety of the thoracic aorta evaluated,” he said.

Courtesy Dr. Elefteriades
The thumb-palm sign: Note the extension of the thumb beyond the border of the flat palm. This indicates connective tissue disease and should prompt an aneurysm investigation.

“We encourage our radiology colleagues to do this when a renal cyst is detected.”

Bicuspid aortic valve mandates “support from our cardiac colleagues when they find one of these to let the patient know he has to be monitored lifelong for later development of this aneurysm,” Dr. Elefteriades said.

Family history of TAA has been known as a strong predictor, but genetic studies have provided clarity on the association (Arch Surg. 1999;134:361‐7). “If the proband has a thoracic aortic aneurysm, there’s 21% likelihood there’s a family member who is affected with an aneurysm somewhere in the body,” he said.

Location of aneurysms in family members is also important, Dr. Elefteriades said. “If the proband has a ascending aortic aneurysm, the kindred also have an ascending aortic aneurysm; but if the proband has a descending aneurysm, the likelihood is that the kindred will have an abdominal aortic aneurysm,” he said. “To identify silent disease, it’s very important we check siblings and children, and now, of course, we’re using whole-exome sequencing.” So far, Dr. Elefteriades has obtained whole-exome sequencing in 200 patients.

The thumb-palm test involves the patient touching the thumb to the palm; the thumb crossing the edge of the flat palm is an indicator of connective tissue disease. “It doesn’t cost anything,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “It is a very simple thing for internists to do to identify those connective tissue diseases.”

Temporal arteritis has become increasingly common in elderly women. “They have a markedly increased likelihood of having a thoracic aortic aneurysm – about 8% in some studies,’ Dr. Elefteriades said. “So we want our neurology colleagues to be aware of this and to look for thoracic aortic aneurysm.”

 

 

Dr. Elefteriades disclosed he has received consulting fees from Baxter, Covidien, Datascope, and CryoLife, and a research grant from Medtronic.

References

Meeting/Event
Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Meeting/Event
Meeting/Event

NEW YORK – Aortic aneurysm ranks as one of the top 20 causes of death in the United States. Most of these aneurysms are clinically silent until they rupture, but Yale cardiovascular surgeon John A. Elefteriades, MD, has developed a clinical paradigm that identifies eight markers that physicians can use to detect the disease before it strikes.

Dr. Elefteriades calls his paradigm “Guilt by Association.” It is based on an article he published online last year in the journal Open Heart (2015;2:e000169).

Dr. John A. Elefteriades

“What we need is for our colleagues in affiliated disciplines to recognize the importance of these offenders in indicating the presence of thoracic aortic aneurysm,” he said, reporting on the paradigm at the meeting sponsored by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery. He noted that studies from Japan of people who had died from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest found that 8% of them had a type A aortic dissection (Am J Cardiol 2016;117:1826-30).

He outlined eight “associates” of thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA): intracranial aneurysm; bovine aortic arch; abdominal aortic aneurysm; simple renal cysts; bicuspid aortic valve; family history; positive thumb-palm test; and temporal arteritis and other autoimmune disorders.

A patient with TAA has a 10% likelihood of harboring an intracranial aneurysm (Am J Cardiol 2010;105:417-20). “It’s even more common in the descending, compared to the ascending group in examples that we’ve identified,” Dr. Elefteriades said. Particularly vulnerable are patients over age 70 and those with an intracranial aneurysm larger than 4 mm: the former has a 9% chance of harboring a TAA, the latter a 6% chance, he said.

The bovine arch had been thought to be benign, but, Dr. Elefteriades said, “We don’t think it is.”

Bovine arch refers to a group of congenital aortic arch vessels with an aberrant origin of the left common carotid artery. “We recently looked at this as a marker for thoracic aortic disease, and please note that 20% of our TAA patients have a bovine arch,” he said. “This is much higher than in the general population.”

Abdominal aortic aneurysm has long been associated with TAA, he said. “When these aneurysms are identified by ultrasound, it’s important that the thoracic aorta be checked as well,” he said.

“This is a message for internists and our vascular colleagues.”

Simple renal cysts have been found in patients with TAA at a “much higher” rate than the general population, as high as 57% of those with descending aortic aneurysms vs. 11%-13.7% of the general population, Dr. Elefteriades said (J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2016;5:e002248). Simple renal cysts are detected by abdominal CT scan. “It’s just a matter of a few more slices with the CT scan to get the entirety of the thoracic aorta evaluated,” he said.

Courtesy Dr. Elefteriades
The thumb-palm sign: Note the extension of the thumb beyond the border of the flat palm. This indicates connective tissue disease and should prompt an aneurysm investigation.

“We encourage our radiology colleagues to do this when a renal cyst is detected.”

Bicuspid aortic valve mandates “support from our cardiac colleagues when they find one of these to let the patient know he has to be monitored lifelong for later development of this aneurysm,” Dr. Elefteriades said.

Family history of TAA has been known as a strong predictor, but genetic studies have provided clarity on the association (Arch Surg. 1999;134:361‐7). “If the proband has a thoracic aortic aneurysm, there’s 21% likelihood there’s a family member who is affected with an aneurysm somewhere in the body,” he said.

Location of aneurysms in family members is also important, Dr. Elefteriades said. “If the proband has a ascending aortic aneurysm, the kindred also have an ascending aortic aneurysm; but if the proband has a descending aneurysm, the likelihood is that the kindred will have an abdominal aortic aneurysm,” he said. “To identify silent disease, it’s very important we check siblings and children, and now, of course, we’re using whole-exome sequencing.” So far, Dr. Elefteriades has obtained whole-exome sequencing in 200 patients.

The thumb-palm test involves the patient touching the thumb to the palm; the thumb crossing the edge of the flat palm is an indicator of connective tissue disease. “It doesn’t cost anything,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “It is a very simple thing for internists to do to identify those connective tissue diseases.”

Temporal arteritis has become increasingly common in elderly women. “They have a markedly increased likelihood of having a thoracic aortic aneurysm – about 8% in some studies,’ Dr. Elefteriades said. “So we want our neurology colleagues to be aware of this and to look for thoracic aortic aneurysm.”

 

 

Dr. Elefteriades disclosed he has received consulting fees from Baxter, Covidien, Datascope, and CryoLife, and a research grant from Medtronic.

NEW YORK – Aortic aneurysm ranks as one of the top 20 causes of death in the United States. Most of these aneurysms are clinically silent until they rupture, but Yale cardiovascular surgeon John A. Elefteriades, MD, has developed a clinical paradigm that identifies eight markers that physicians can use to detect the disease before it strikes.

Dr. Elefteriades calls his paradigm “Guilt by Association.” It is based on an article he published online last year in the journal Open Heart (2015;2:e000169).

Dr. John A. Elefteriades

“What we need is for our colleagues in affiliated disciplines to recognize the importance of these offenders in indicating the presence of thoracic aortic aneurysm,” he said, reporting on the paradigm at the meeting sponsored by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery. He noted that studies from Japan of people who had died from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest found that 8% of them had a type A aortic dissection (Am J Cardiol 2016;117:1826-30).

He outlined eight “associates” of thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA): intracranial aneurysm; bovine aortic arch; abdominal aortic aneurysm; simple renal cysts; bicuspid aortic valve; family history; positive thumb-palm test; and temporal arteritis and other autoimmune disorders.

A patient with TAA has a 10% likelihood of harboring an intracranial aneurysm (Am J Cardiol 2010;105:417-20). “It’s even more common in the descending, compared to the ascending group in examples that we’ve identified,” Dr. Elefteriades said. Particularly vulnerable are patients over age 70 and those with an intracranial aneurysm larger than 4 mm: the former has a 9% chance of harboring a TAA, the latter a 6% chance, he said.

The bovine arch had been thought to be benign, but, Dr. Elefteriades said, “We don’t think it is.”

Bovine arch refers to a group of congenital aortic arch vessels with an aberrant origin of the left common carotid artery. “We recently looked at this as a marker for thoracic aortic disease, and please note that 20% of our TAA patients have a bovine arch,” he said. “This is much higher than in the general population.”

Abdominal aortic aneurysm has long been associated with TAA, he said. “When these aneurysms are identified by ultrasound, it’s important that the thoracic aorta be checked as well,” he said.

“This is a message for internists and our vascular colleagues.”

Simple renal cysts have been found in patients with TAA at a “much higher” rate than the general population, as high as 57% of those with descending aortic aneurysms vs. 11%-13.7% of the general population, Dr. Elefteriades said (J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2016;5:e002248). Simple renal cysts are detected by abdominal CT scan. “It’s just a matter of a few more slices with the CT scan to get the entirety of the thoracic aorta evaluated,” he said.

Courtesy Dr. Elefteriades
The thumb-palm sign: Note the extension of the thumb beyond the border of the flat palm. This indicates connective tissue disease and should prompt an aneurysm investigation.

“We encourage our radiology colleagues to do this when a renal cyst is detected.”

Bicuspid aortic valve mandates “support from our cardiac colleagues when they find one of these to let the patient know he has to be monitored lifelong for later development of this aneurysm,” Dr. Elefteriades said.

Family history of TAA has been known as a strong predictor, but genetic studies have provided clarity on the association (Arch Surg. 1999;134:361‐7). “If the proband has a thoracic aortic aneurysm, there’s 21% likelihood there’s a family member who is affected with an aneurysm somewhere in the body,” he said.

Location of aneurysms in family members is also important, Dr. Elefteriades said. “If the proband has a ascending aortic aneurysm, the kindred also have an ascending aortic aneurysm; but if the proband has a descending aneurysm, the likelihood is that the kindred will have an abdominal aortic aneurysm,” he said. “To identify silent disease, it’s very important we check siblings and children, and now, of course, we’re using whole-exome sequencing.” So far, Dr. Elefteriades has obtained whole-exome sequencing in 200 patients.

The thumb-palm test involves the patient touching the thumb to the palm; the thumb crossing the edge of the flat palm is an indicator of connective tissue disease. “It doesn’t cost anything,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “It is a very simple thing for internists to do to identify those connective tissue diseases.”

Temporal arteritis has become increasingly common in elderly women. “They have a markedly increased likelihood of having a thoracic aortic aneurysm – about 8% in some studies,’ Dr. Elefteriades said. “So we want our neurology colleagues to be aware of this and to look for thoracic aortic aneurysm.”

 

 

Dr. Elefteriades disclosed he has received consulting fees from Baxter, Covidien, Datascope, and CryoLife, and a research grant from Medtronic.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The ‘guilty’ associates of silent thoracic aneurysm fingered
Display Headline
The ‘guilty’ associates of silent thoracic aneurysm fingered
Sections
Article Source

EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM AATS AORTIC SYMPOSIUM 2016

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: Eight markers may detect silent thoracic aneurysms before rupture.

Major finding: The eight “associates” of TAA include intracranial aneurysm; bovine aortic arch; abdominal aortic aneurysm; simple renal cysts; and bicuspid aortic valve.

Data source: The “Guilt by Association” paradigm was based upon a review of the literature by Dr. Elefteriades and his own published reports.

Disclosures: Dr. Elefteriades disclosed he has received consulting fees from Baxter, Covidien, Datascope, and CryoLife, and a research grant from Medtroni

Metabolic Health Declining Among the Obese, Despite Improvements in BP and Lipids

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/03/2022 - 15:33
Display Headline
Metabolic Health Declining Among the Obese, Despite Improvements in BP and Lipids

Despite achieving significant improvements in blood pressure and cholesterol levels, obese Americans continue to grow fatter, with worsening blood glucose and an increasing incidence of diabetes.

From 1998 to 2014, national health data showed that mean diastolic and systolic blood pressures decreased in obese men and women in all racial and ethnic groups. Mean lipid measurements improved as well, including a “marked” 21-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol and a significant increase in HDL cholesterol.

Dr. W. Timothy Garvey

But markers of blood glucose health continued to decline over the same period, contributing to an overall worsening of metabolic health and a increase from 11% to 19% in the rate of diabetes, Fangjian Guo, MD, and W. Timothy Garvey, MD, reported in July 13 issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jul 13. 5:e003619 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003619).

The rate of obese adults free of these three cardiovascular disease risk factors – diabetes, elevated cholesterol, and blood pressure – remained stable over the study period at about 15%. But the rate of obese adults with all three risk factors increased by 37% over the same period. By 2014, 22% reported having all three of those risk factors.

“The deteriorated blood glucose health among obese adults in the United States calls for lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise) on a national scale,” wrote Dr. Garvey, chair of nutrition science at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. “Community-based public health intervention programs may help increase physical activity and diet quality to alleviate the problem.”

The investigators examined trends in cardiometabolic health among 18,626 obese adults who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1988 to 2014. Over this period, mean body mass index increased significantly, from 34.7 to 36 kg/m2. Waist circumference increased as well, from 110 to 114.8 cm.

The picture was much better for blood pressure. Mean systolic pressures decreased about 2 points – from 126.1 to 124.4 mm Hg – in all age, racial and ethnic groups, and in both sexes. Mean diastolic blood pressure also decreased, dropping from 76.6 to 72.5 mm Hg. By 2014, 44% of the men and 51% of the women were below the blood pressure risk threshold.

Lipids also improved over the years, the investigators noted, with significant decreases in mean total cholesterol, from 214.5 to 193.7 mg/dL, and increases in HDL cholesterol, from 45.4 to 47.4 mg/dL.

Blood glucose worsened significantly, however. The mean hemoglobin A1c increased from 5.7% to 5.9%. The measurement rose in all ages, both sexes, and in all racial and ethnic groups except for non-Hispanic blacks.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the incidence of diabetes (a self-reported HbA1c of 6.5% or more) increased from 11% to 19% from 1988 to 2014. The increase occurred in all age groups and both sexes except for young adults aged 20-39 years. No racial or ethnic group was exempt from the increase.

The number of people having all three risk factors (hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and hyperglycemia) increased from 16% in 1988 to 22% in 2014.

“The increase occurred in parallel with a decline in the prevalence of healthy blood glucose, which is the predominant explanation accounting for the rise in the prevalence of presence of all three risk factors,” the investigators said.

Only 15% of the study population was free from all of these risk factors – a percentage that remained unchanged during 1988-2014.

The findings should be a wake-up call for physicians and their patients, and a national call for action to improve cardiovascular health among obese adults, the team wrote.

“The increasing trend of obese people with all three cardiovascular risk factors, commensurate with a decline in those with one or two risk factors, suggests an overall deterioration in health among people with obesity. ... These patterns of worsening metabolic health constitute an increase in risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and underlie increasing prevalence rates for diabetes mellitus,” the investigators wrote.

Aggressive treatment will be necessary to reverse these trends. This might include treatment with weight-loss medications in conjunction with lifestyle interventions, which should be especially targeted at obese individuals who are already metabolically unhealthy and in those who have complications or are at risk for developing them.

“In the context of the current data, those obese adults who are metabolically unhealthy or perhaps those with suboptimal metabolic health represent patients who will benefit most from intensive obesity management … coordinated efforts aligning cardiovascular disease prevention and control activities across the public and private sectors in the United States are needed reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease among the obese population,” Dr. Garvey concluded.

 

 

The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Alabama Diabetes Research Center.

Dr. Guo had no financial disclosures. Dr. Garvey disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Michele G. Sullivan, Family Practice News Digital Network

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
cardiovascular risk, metabolic risk, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, blood pressure
Author and Disclosure Information

Michele G. Sullivan, Family Practice News Digital Network

Author and Disclosure Information

Michele G. Sullivan, Family Practice News Digital Network

Despite achieving significant improvements in blood pressure and cholesterol levels, obese Americans continue to grow fatter, with worsening blood glucose and an increasing incidence of diabetes.

From 1998 to 2014, national health data showed that mean diastolic and systolic blood pressures decreased in obese men and women in all racial and ethnic groups. Mean lipid measurements improved as well, including a “marked” 21-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol and a significant increase in HDL cholesterol.

Dr. W. Timothy Garvey

But markers of blood glucose health continued to decline over the same period, contributing to an overall worsening of metabolic health and a increase from 11% to 19% in the rate of diabetes, Fangjian Guo, MD, and W. Timothy Garvey, MD, reported in July 13 issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jul 13. 5:e003619 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003619).

The rate of obese adults free of these three cardiovascular disease risk factors – diabetes, elevated cholesterol, and blood pressure – remained stable over the study period at about 15%. But the rate of obese adults with all three risk factors increased by 37% over the same period. By 2014, 22% reported having all three of those risk factors.

“The deteriorated blood glucose health among obese adults in the United States calls for lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise) on a national scale,” wrote Dr. Garvey, chair of nutrition science at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. “Community-based public health intervention programs may help increase physical activity and diet quality to alleviate the problem.”

The investigators examined trends in cardiometabolic health among 18,626 obese adults who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1988 to 2014. Over this period, mean body mass index increased significantly, from 34.7 to 36 kg/m2. Waist circumference increased as well, from 110 to 114.8 cm.

The picture was much better for blood pressure. Mean systolic pressures decreased about 2 points – from 126.1 to 124.4 mm Hg – in all age, racial and ethnic groups, and in both sexes. Mean diastolic blood pressure also decreased, dropping from 76.6 to 72.5 mm Hg. By 2014, 44% of the men and 51% of the women were below the blood pressure risk threshold.

Lipids also improved over the years, the investigators noted, with significant decreases in mean total cholesterol, from 214.5 to 193.7 mg/dL, and increases in HDL cholesterol, from 45.4 to 47.4 mg/dL.

Blood glucose worsened significantly, however. The mean hemoglobin A1c increased from 5.7% to 5.9%. The measurement rose in all ages, both sexes, and in all racial and ethnic groups except for non-Hispanic blacks.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the incidence of diabetes (a self-reported HbA1c of 6.5% or more) increased from 11% to 19% from 1988 to 2014. The increase occurred in all age groups and both sexes except for young adults aged 20-39 years. No racial or ethnic group was exempt from the increase.

The number of people having all three risk factors (hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and hyperglycemia) increased from 16% in 1988 to 22% in 2014.

“The increase occurred in parallel with a decline in the prevalence of healthy blood glucose, which is the predominant explanation accounting for the rise in the prevalence of presence of all three risk factors,” the investigators said.

Only 15% of the study population was free from all of these risk factors – a percentage that remained unchanged during 1988-2014.

The findings should be a wake-up call for physicians and their patients, and a national call for action to improve cardiovascular health among obese adults, the team wrote.

“The increasing trend of obese people with all three cardiovascular risk factors, commensurate with a decline in those with one or two risk factors, suggests an overall deterioration in health among people with obesity. ... These patterns of worsening metabolic health constitute an increase in risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and underlie increasing prevalence rates for diabetes mellitus,” the investigators wrote.

Aggressive treatment will be necessary to reverse these trends. This might include treatment with weight-loss medications in conjunction with lifestyle interventions, which should be especially targeted at obese individuals who are already metabolically unhealthy and in those who have complications or are at risk for developing them.

“In the context of the current data, those obese adults who are metabolically unhealthy or perhaps those with suboptimal metabolic health represent patients who will benefit most from intensive obesity management … coordinated efforts aligning cardiovascular disease prevention and control activities across the public and private sectors in the United States are needed reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease among the obese population,” Dr. Garvey concluded.

 

 

The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Alabama Diabetes Research Center.

Dr. Guo had no financial disclosures. Dr. Garvey disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Despite achieving significant improvements in blood pressure and cholesterol levels, obese Americans continue to grow fatter, with worsening blood glucose and an increasing incidence of diabetes.

From 1998 to 2014, national health data showed that mean diastolic and systolic blood pressures decreased in obese men and women in all racial and ethnic groups. Mean lipid measurements improved as well, including a “marked” 21-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol and a significant increase in HDL cholesterol.

Dr. W. Timothy Garvey

But markers of blood glucose health continued to decline over the same period, contributing to an overall worsening of metabolic health and a increase from 11% to 19% in the rate of diabetes, Fangjian Guo, MD, and W. Timothy Garvey, MD, reported in July 13 issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jul 13. 5:e003619 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003619).

The rate of obese adults free of these three cardiovascular disease risk factors – diabetes, elevated cholesterol, and blood pressure – remained stable over the study period at about 15%. But the rate of obese adults with all three risk factors increased by 37% over the same period. By 2014, 22% reported having all three of those risk factors.

“The deteriorated blood glucose health among obese adults in the United States calls for lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise) on a national scale,” wrote Dr. Garvey, chair of nutrition science at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. “Community-based public health intervention programs may help increase physical activity and diet quality to alleviate the problem.”

The investigators examined trends in cardiometabolic health among 18,626 obese adults who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1988 to 2014. Over this period, mean body mass index increased significantly, from 34.7 to 36 kg/m2. Waist circumference increased as well, from 110 to 114.8 cm.

The picture was much better for blood pressure. Mean systolic pressures decreased about 2 points – from 126.1 to 124.4 mm Hg – in all age, racial and ethnic groups, and in both sexes. Mean diastolic blood pressure also decreased, dropping from 76.6 to 72.5 mm Hg. By 2014, 44% of the men and 51% of the women were below the blood pressure risk threshold.

Lipids also improved over the years, the investigators noted, with significant decreases in mean total cholesterol, from 214.5 to 193.7 mg/dL, and increases in HDL cholesterol, from 45.4 to 47.4 mg/dL.

Blood glucose worsened significantly, however. The mean hemoglobin A1c increased from 5.7% to 5.9%. The measurement rose in all ages, both sexes, and in all racial and ethnic groups except for non-Hispanic blacks.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the incidence of diabetes (a self-reported HbA1c of 6.5% or more) increased from 11% to 19% from 1988 to 2014. The increase occurred in all age groups and both sexes except for young adults aged 20-39 years. No racial or ethnic group was exempt from the increase.

The number of people having all three risk factors (hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and hyperglycemia) increased from 16% in 1988 to 22% in 2014.

“The increase occurred in parallel with a decline in the prevalence of healthy blood glucose, which is the predominant explanation accounting for the rise in the prevalence of presence of all three risk factors,” the investigators said.

Only 15% of the study population was free from all of these risk factors – a percentage that remained unchanged during 1988-2014.

The findings should be a wake-up call for physicians and their patients, and a national call for action to improve cardiovascular health among obese adults, the team wrote.

“The increasing trend of obese people with all three cardiovascular risk factors, commensurate with a decline in those with one or two risk factors, suggests an overall deterioration in health among people with obesity. ... These patterns of worsening metabolic health constitute an increase in risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and underlie increasing prevalence rates for diabetes mellitus,” the investigators wrote.

Aggressive treatment will be necessary to reverse these trends. This might include treatment with weight-loss medications in conjunction with lifestyle interventions, which should be especially targeted at obese individuals who are already metabolically unhealthy and in those who have complications or are at risk for developing them.

“In the context of the current data, those obese adults who are metabolically unhealthy or perhaps those with suboptimal metabolic health represent patients who will benefit most from intensive obesity management … coordinated efforts aligning cardiovascular disease prevention and control activities across the public and private sectors in the United States are needed reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease among the obese population,” Dr. Garvey concluded.

 

 

The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Alabama Diabetes Research Center.

Dr. Guo had no financial disclosures. Dr. Garvey disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Metabolic Health Declining Among the Obese, Despite Improvements in BP and Lipids
Display Headline
Metabolic Health Declining Among the Obese, Despite Improvements in BP and Lipids
Legacy Keywords
cardiovascular risk, metabolic risk, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, blood pressure
Legacy Keywords
cardiovascular risk, metabolic risk, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, blood pressure
Article Source

FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION

PURLs Copyright

Metabolic health declining among the obese, despite improvements in BP and lipids

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/03/2022 - 15:33
Display Headline
Metabolic health declining among the obese, despite improvements in BP and lipids

Despite achieving significant improvements in blood pressure and cholesterol levels, obese Americans continue to grow fatter, with worsening blood glucose and an increasing incidence of diabetes.

From 1998 to 2014, national health data showed that mean diastolic and systolic blood pressures decreased in obese men and women in all racial and ethnic groups. Mean lipid measurements improved as well, including a “marked” 21-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol and a significant increase in HDL cholesterol.

Dr. W. Timothy Garvey

But markers of blood glucose health continued to decline over the same period, contributing to an overall worsening of metabolic health and a increase from 11% to 19% in the rate of diabetes, Fangjian Guo, MD, and W. Timothy Garvey, MD, reported in July 13 issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jul 13. 5:e003619 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003619).

The rate of obese adults free of these three cardiovascular disease risk factors – diabetes, elevated cholesterol, and blood pressure – remained stable over the study period at about 15%. But the rate of obese adults with all three risk factors increased by 37% over the same period. By 2014, 22% reported having all three of those risk factors.

“The deteriorated blood glucose health among obese adults in the United States calls for lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise) on a national scale,” wrote Dr. Garvey, chair of nutrition science at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. “Community-based public health intervention programs may help increase physical activity and diet quality to alleviate the problem.”

The investigators examined trends in cardiometabolic health among 18,626 obese adults who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1988 to 2014. Over this period, mean body mass index increased significantly, from 34.7 to 36 kg/m2. Waist circumference increased as well, from 110 to 114.8 cm.

The picture was much better for blood pressure. Mean systolic pressures decreased about 2 points – from 126.1 to 124.4 mm Hg – in all age, racial and ethnic groups, and in both sexes. Mean diastolic blood pressure also decreased, dropping from 76.6 to 72.5 mm Hg. By 2014, 44% of the men and 51% of the women were below the blood pressure risk threshold.

Lipids also improved over the years, the investigators noted, with significant decreases in mean total cholesterol, from 214.5 to 193.7 mg/dL, and increases in HDL cholesterol, from 45.4 to 47.4 mg/dL.

Blood glucose worsened significantly, however. The mean hemoglobin A1c increased from 5.7% to 5.9%. The measurement rose in all ages, both sexes, and in all racial and ethnic groups except for non-Hispanic blacks.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the incidence of diabetes (a self-reported HbA1c of 6.5% or more) increased from 11% to 19% from 1988 to 2014. The increase occurred in all age groups and both sexes except for young adults aged 20-39 years. No racial or ethnic group was exempt from the increase.

The number of people having all three risk factors (hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and hyperglycemia) increased from 16% in 1988 to 22% in 2014.

“The increase occurred in parallel with a decline in the prevalence of healthy blood glucose, which is the predominant explanation accounting for the rise in the prevalence of presence of all three risk factors,” the investigators said.

Only 15% of the study population was free from all of these risk factors – a percentage that remained unchanged during 1988-2014.

The findings should be a wake-up call for physicians and their patients, and a national call for action to improve cardiovascular health among obese adults, the team wrote.

“The increasing trend of obese people with all three cardiovascular risk factors, commensurate with a decline in those with one or two risk factors, suggests an overall deterioration in health among people with obesity. ... These patterns of worsening metabolic health constitute an increase in risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and underlie increasing prevalence rates for diabetes mellitus,” the investigators wrote.

Aggressive treatment will be necessary to reverse these trends. This might include treatment with weight-loss medications in conjunction with lifestyle interventions, which should be especially targeted at obese individuals who are already metabolically unhealthy and in those who have complications or are at risk for developing them.

“In the context of the current data, those obese adults who are metabolically unhealthy or perhaps those with suboptimal metabolic health represent patients who will benefit most from intensive obesity management … coordinated efforts aligning cardiovascular disease prevention and control activities across the public and private sectors in the United States are needed reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease among the obese population,” Dr. Garvey concluded.

 

 

The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Alabama Diabetes Research Center.

Dr. Guo had no financial disclosures. Dr. Garvey disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Legacy Keywords
cardiovascular risk, metabolic risk, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, blood pressure
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

Despite achieving significant improvements in blood pressure and cholesterol levels, obese Americans continue to grow fatter, with worsening blood glucose and an increasing incidence of diabetes.

From 1998 to 2014, national health data showed that mean diastolic and systolic blood pressures decreased in obese men and women in all racial and ethnic groups. Mean lipid measurements improved as well, including a “marked” 21-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol and a significant increase in HDL cholesterol.

Dr. W. Timothy Garvey

But markers of blood glucose health continued to decline over the same period, contributing to an overall worsening of metabolic health and a increase from 11% to 19% in the rate of diabetes, Fangjian Guo, MD, and W. Timothy Garvey, MD, reported in July 13 issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jul 13. 5:e003619 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003619).

The rate of obese adults free of these three cardiovascular disease risk factors – diabetes, elevated cholesterol, and blood pressure – remained stable over the study period at about 15%. But the rate of obese adults with all three risk factors increased by 37% over the same period. By 2014, 22% reported having all three of those risk factors.

“The deteriorated blood glucose health among obese adults in the United States calls for lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise) on a national scale,” wrote Dr. Garvey, chair of nutrition science at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. “Community-based public health intervention programs may help increase physical activity and diet quality to alleviate the problem.”

The investigators examined trends in cardiometabolic health among 18,626 obese adults who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1988 to 2014. Over this period, mean body mass index increased significantly, from 34.7 to 36 kg/m2. Waist circumference increased as well, from 110 to 114.8 cm.

The picture was much better for blood pressure. Mean systolic pressures decreased about 2 points – from 126.1 to 124.4 mm Hg – in all age, racial and ethnic groups, and in both sexes. Mean diastolic blood pressure also decreased, dropping from 76.6 to 72.5 mm Hg. By 2014, 44% of the men and 51% of the women were below the blood pressure risk threshold.

Lipids also improved over the years, the investigators noted, with significant decreases in mean total cholesterol, from 214.5 to 193.7 mg/dL, and increases in HDL cholesterol, from 45.4 to 47.4 mg/dL.

Blood glucose worsened significantly, however. The mean hemoglobin A1c increased from 5.7% to 5.9%. The measurement rose in all ages, both sexes, and in all racial and ethnic groups except for non-Hispanic blacks.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the incidence of diabetes (a self-reported HbA1c of 6.5% or more) increased from 11% to 19% from 1988 to 2014. The increase occurred in all age groups and both sexes except for young adults aged 20-39 years. No racial or ethnic group was exempt from the increase.

The number of people having all three risk factors (hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and hyperglycemia) increased from 16% in 1988 to 22% in 2014.

“The increase occurred in parallel with a decline in the prevalence of healthy blood glucose, which is the predominant explanation accounting for the rise in the prevalence of presence of all three risk factors,” the investigators said.

Only 15% of the study population was free from all of these risk factors – a percentage that remained unchanged during 1988-2014.

The findings should be a wake-up call for physicians and their patients, and a national call for action to improve cardiovascular health among obese adults, the team wrote.

“The increasing trend of obese people with all three cardiovascular risk factors, commensurate with a decline in those with one or two risk factors, suggests an overall deterioration in health among people with obesity. ... These patterns of worsening metabolic health constitute an increase in risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and underlie increasing prevalence rates for diabetes mellitus,” the investigators wrote.

Aggressive treatment will be necessary to reverse these trends. This might include treatment with weight-loss medications in conjunction with lifestyle interventions, which should be especially targeted at obese individuals who are already metabolically unhealthy and in those who have complications or are at risk for developing them.

“In the context of the current data, those obese adults who are metabolically unhealthy or perhaps those with suboptimal metabolic health represent patients who will benefit most from intensive obesity management … coordinated efforts aligning cardiovascular disease prevention and control activities across the public and private sectors in the United States are needed reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease among the obese population,” Dr. Garvey concluded.

 

 

The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Alabama Diabetes Research Center.

Dr. Guo had no financial disclosures. Dr. Garvey disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Despite achieving significant improvements in blood pressure and cholesterol levels, obese Americans continue to grow fatter, with worsening blood glucose and an increasing incidence of diabetes.

From 1998 to 2014, national health data showed that mean diastolic and systolic blood pressures decreased in obese men and women in all racial and ethnic groups. Mean lipid measurements improved as well, including a “marked” 21-mg/dL decrease in total cholesterol and a significant increase in HDL cholesterol.

Dr. W. Timothy Garvey

But markers of blood glucose health continued to decline over the same period, contributing to an overall worsening of metabolic health and a increase from 11% to 19% in the rate of diabetes, Fangjian Guo, MD, and W. Timothy Garvey, MD, reported in July 13 issue of the Journal of the American Heart Association (J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Jul 13. 5:e003619 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003619).

The rate of obese adults free of these three cardiovascular disease risk factors – diabetes, elevated cholesterol, and blood pressure – remained stable over the study period at about 15%. But the rate of obese adults with all three risk factors increased by 37% over the same period. By 2014, 22% reported having all three of those risk factors.

“The deteriorated blood glucose health among obese adults in the United States calls for lifestyle interventions (diet and exercise) on a national scale,” wrote Dr. Garvey, chair of nutrition science at the University of Alabama, Birmingham. “Community-based public health intervention programs may help increase physical activity and diet quality to alleviate the problem.”

The investigators examined trends in cardiometabolic health among 18,626 obese adults who participated in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys from 1988 to 2014. Over this period, mean body mass index increased significantly, from 34.7 to 36 kg/m2. Waist circumference increased as well, from 110 to 114.8 cm.

The picture was much better for blood pressure. Mean systolic pressures decreased about 2 points – from 126.1 to 124.4 mm Hg – in all age, racial and ethnic groups, and in both sexes. Mean diastolic blood pressure also decreased, dropping from 76.6 to 72.5 mm Hg. By 2014, 44% of the men and 51% of the women were below the blood pressure risk threshold.

Lipids also improved over the years, the investigators noted, with significant decreases in mean total cholesterol, from 214.5 to 193.7 mg/dL, and increases in HDL cholesterol, from 45.4 to 47.4 mg/dL.

Blood glucose worsened significantly, however. The mean hemoglobin A1c increased from 5.7% to 5.9%. The measurement rose in all ages, both sexes, and in all racial and ethnic groups except for non-Hispanic blacks.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the incidence of diabetes (a self-reported HbA1c of 6.5% or more) increased from 11% to 19% from 1988 to 2014. The increase occurred in all age groups and both sexes except for young adults aged 20-39 years. No racial or ethnic group was exempt from the increase.

The number of people having all three risk factors (hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and hyperglycemia) increased from 16% in 1988 to 22% in 2014.

“The increase occurred in parallel with a decline in the prevalence of healthy blood glucose, which is the predominant explanation accounting for the rise in the prevalence of presence of all three risk factors,” the investigators said.

Only 15% of the study population was free from all of these risk factors – a percentage that remained unchanged during 1988-2014.

The findings should be a wake-up call for physicians and their patients, and a national call for action to improve cardiovascular health among obese adults, the team wrote.

“The increasing trend of obese people with all three cardiovascular risk factors, commensurate with a decline in those with one or two risk factors, suggests an overall deterioration in health among people with obesity. ... These patterns of worsening metabolic health constitute an increase in risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus and underlie increasing prevalence rates for diabetes mellitus,” the investigators wrote.

Aggressive treatment will be necessary to reverse these trends. This might include treatment with weight-loss medications in conjunction with lifestyle interventions, which should be especially targeted at obese individuals who are already metabolically unhealthy and in those who have complications or are at risk for developing them.

“In the context of the current data, those obese adults who are metabolically unhealthy or perhaps those with suboptimal metabolic health represent patients who will benefit most from intensive obesity management … coordinated efforts aligning cardiovascular disease prevention and control activities across the public and private sectors in the United States are needed reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease among the obese population,” Dr. Garvey concluded.

 

 

The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Alabama Diabetes Research Center.

Dr. Guo had no financial disclosures. Dr. Garvey disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Metabolic health declining among the obese, despite improvements in BP and lipids
Display Headline
Metabolic health declining among the obese, despite improvements in BP and lipids
Legacy Keywords
cardiovascular risk, metabolic risk, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, blood pressure
Legacy Keywords
cardiovascular risk, metabolic risk, diabetes, hypertension, cholesterol, blood pressure
Article Source

FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Vitals

Key clinical point: Blood glucose and diabetes are on the rise among America’s obese.

Major finding: Twenty-two percent of obese Americans now have three serious cardiovascular risk factors: hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and hyperglycemia.

Data source: The 26-year observational study comprised more than 18,600 people.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the University of Alabama Diabetes Research Center. Dr. Guo had no financial disclosures. Dr. Garvey disclosed relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip and Knee

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:25
Display Headline
Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip and Knee

Nearly 2% of patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) develop a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) within 20 years of surgery, and 41% of these infections occur within the first 2 years.1 PJI is the most common cause of TKA failure and the third leading complication of THA.2 The estimated total hospital cost of treating PJI increased from $320 million in 2001 to $566 million in 2009, which can be extrapolated to $1.62 billion in 2020.3 By 2030, the projected increase in demand for TKA and THA will be 673% and 174% of what it was in 2005, respectively.4 Treatment of PJI of the knee is estimated to cost 3 to 4 times more than a primary TKA, and the cost of revision THA for PJI is almost $6000 more than that of revision TKA for PJI.3

In this article, we review the numerous preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative methods of decreasing PJI incidence after total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

Preoperative Risk Prevention

Medical Comorbidities

Preoperative medical optimization is a key element in PJI prevention (Table 1). An American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score of 3 or more has been associated with doubled risk for surgical site infections (SSIs) after THA.5 Autoimmune conditions confer a particularly higher risk. In a retrospective double-cohort study of 924 subjects, Bongartz and colleagues6 found that, compared with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis tripled the risk of PJI. Small case series originally suggested a higher risk of PJI in patients with psoriasis,7,8 but more recent studies have contradicted that finding.9,10 Nevertheless, psoriatic plaques have elevated bacterial counts,11 and planned incisions should circumvent these areas.

Diabetes mellitus is a clear risk factor for PJI.12-16 Regarding whether preoperative glucose control affects risk, findings have been mixed. Mraovic and colleagues17 showed preoperative hyperglycemia to be an independent risk factor; Jämsen and colleagues,15 in a single-center analysis of more than 7000 TJAs, suggested preoperative blood glucose levels were not independently associated with PJI; and Iorio and colleagues16 found no association between surgical infections and hemoglobin A1c levels.

TJA incidence is higher in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) than in the general population.18 Dialysis users have a post-THA PJI rate as high as 13% to 19%.19,20 Early clinical data suggested that outcomes are improved in dialysis users who undergo renal transplant, but this finding recently has been questioned.19,21 Deegan and colleagues22 found an increased PJA rate of 3.5% even in low-level CKD (stage 1, 2, or 3), but this may be confounded by the increased association of CKD with other PJI-predisposing comorbidities.

Given a higher incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) among patients with PJI, some surgeons think UTIs predispose to PJIs by hematogenous seeding.12,23,24 Symptomatic UTIs should be cleared before surgery and confirmed on urinalysis. Obstructive symptoms should prompt urologic evaluation. As asymptomatic pyuria and bacteriuria (colony counts, >1 × 105/mL) do not predispose to PJI, patients without symptoms do not require intervention.25,26 Past history of malignancy may also have a role in PJI. In a case-control study of the Mayo Clinic arthroplasty experience from 1969 to 1991, Berbari and colleagues1 found an association between malignancy and PJI (odds ratio, 2.4). They theorized the immunosuppressive effects of cancer treatment might be responsible for this increased risk.

 

 

 

Immunocompromising Medications

Immunocompromising medications are modifiable and should be adjusted before surgery. Stopping any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) more than 4 weeks before surgery is not recommended.27

Corticosteroid use can lead to immunosuppression and increased protein catabolism, which impairs soft-tissue healing. To avoid flares or adrenal insufficiency, however, chronic corticosteroid users should continue their regular doses perioperatively.28 On the day of surgery, they should also receive a stress dose of hydrocortisone 50 to 75 mg (for primary arthroplasty) or 100 to 150 mg (for revision arthroplasty), followed by expeditious tapering over 1 to 2 days.29 DMARDs are increasingly used by rheumatologists. One of the most effective DMARDs is methotrexate. Despite its immunocompromising activity, methotrexate should be continued perioperatively, as stopping for even 2 days may increase flare-related complications.30 Hydroxychloroquine can be continued perioperatively and has even been shown, by Johnson and Charnley,31 to prevent deep vein thromboses. Sulfasalazine can also be continued perioperatively—but with caution, as it may elevate international normalized ratio (INR) levels in patients receiving warfarin.29 Most other DMARDs should be temporarily discontinued. Leflunomide and interleukin 1 antagonists, such as anakinra, should be stopped 1 to 2 days before surgery and restarted 10 to 14 days after surgery.29 Rituximab should be stopped 1 week before surgery and restarted 10 to 14 days after surgery. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors should be discontinued for 2 half-lives before and after surgery.32 Etanercept has a half-life of 3 to 5 days; infliximab, 8 to 10 days; and adalimumab, 10 to 13 days. Most surgeons schedule surgery for the end of a dosing cycle and discontinue these biologic agents for another 10 to 14 days after surgery.

Metabolic Factors

Obese patients are susceptible to longer surgeries, more extensive dissection, poorly vascularized subcutaneous tissue, and higher requirements of weight-adjusted antibiotic dosing.13 Body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m2 or more (morbid obesity) and BMI over 50 kg/m2 have been associated with 9 times and 21.3 times increased risk of PJI, respectively.13,14 Delaying surgery with dietary consultation has been suggested,33,34 and bariatric surgery before TKA may decrease infection rates by 3.5 times.35

Nutritional markers are considered before arthroplasty. According to most laboratories, a serum transferrin level under 200 mg/dL, albumin level under 3.5 g/dL, and total lymphocyte count under 1500 cells/mm3 indicate malnourishment, which can increase the incidence of wound complications by 5 to 7 times.36 Patients should also have sufficient protein, vitamin, and mineral supplementation, particularly vitamins A and C, zinc, and copper.37Smokers who cease smoking at least 4 to 6 weeks before surgery lower their wound complication rate by up to 26%.38,39 When nicotine leaves the bloodstream, vasodilation occurs, oxygenation improves, and the immune system recovers.39 Studies have found more SSIs in patients who abuse alcohol,40 and numerous authors have confirmed this finding in the arthroplasty population.24,41,42 Alcohol inhibits platelet function and may predispose to a postoperative hematoma. In contrast to smoking cessation evidence, evidence regarding alcohol interventions in preventing postoperative infections is less conclusive.43,44

MRSA Colonization

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a particularly difficult bacterium to eradicate in PJI. As the mean cost of treating a single case of MRSA-related prosthetic infection is $107,264 vs $68,053 for susceptible strains,45,46 many infection-containment strategies focus on addressing benign MRSA colonization before surgery.

MRSA is present in the nares of 25 million people in the United States. Nasal colonization increases the risk of bacteremia 4-fold47 and SSI 2- to 9-fold.48,49 Nasal swabs are analyzed with either a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, which provides results in 2 hours, or a bacterial culture, which provides results in 1 to 4 days. The PCR test is more expensive.

Eradication of MRSA colonization is increasingly prevalent. Several Scandinavian countries have instituted strict practices by which patients are denied elective surgery until negative nasal swabs are obtained.49 Nasal decontamination is one method of colonization reduction. Topical mupirocin, which yields eradication in 91% of nasal carriers immediately after treatment and in 87% after 4 weeks,50 is effective in reducing SSI rates only when used in conjunction with a body wash, which is used to clean the axilla and groin.51 There is no consensus on optimal timing, but Bode and colleagues52 found a significant decrease in deep SSIs when decontamination occurred just 24 hours before surgery.

 

 

 

Povidone-iodine showers went out of favor with the realization that chlorhexidine gluconate acts longer on the skin surface.53,54 Preoperative showers involve rinsing with liquid chlorhexidine soap 24 to 48 hours before surgery. However, chlorhexidine binds preferentially to the cotton in washcloths instead of the skin. Edmiston and colleagues54,55 found that 4% chlorhexidine liquid soaps achieve much lower skin chlorhexidine concentrations than 2% polyester cloths do. Use of these “chlorhexidine wipes” the night before and the day of surgery has decreased PJI after TKA from 2.2% to 0.6%.56,57

Intraoperative Risk Prevention

Preparation

Which preoperative antibiotic to use is one of the first operative considerations in PJI prophylaxis (Table 2). Cefazolin is recommended as a first-line agent for its excellent soft-tissue penetration, long half-life, and activity against gram-positive bacteria such as skin flora.58 Clindamycin may be considered for patients allergic to β-lactam antibiotics. Vancomycin may be considered for adjunctive use with cephalosporins in cases of known MRSA colonization. Vancomycin infusion should be started earlier than infusion with other antibiotics, as vancomycin must be infused slowly and takes longer to become therapeutic.

Antibiotic dosing should be based on local antibiograms, adjusted dosing weight, or BMI.59 For revision arthroplasty, preoperative prophylaxis should not be stopped out of fear of affecting operative cultures.60 Some surgeons pause antibiotic use if a preoperative joint aspirate has not been obtained. Infusion within 1 hour of incision is part of the pay-for-performance guidelines established by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.61 An antibiotic should be redosed if the operation will take longer than 2 half-lives of the drug.59 Surgeons should consider administering a dose every 4 hours or whenever blood loss exceeds 1000 mL.62 Engesæter and colleagues63 found that antibiotic prophylaxis was most effective given 4 times perioperatively (1 time before surgery, 3 times after surgery). Postoperative antibiotics should not be administered longer than 24 hours, as prolonged dosing confers no benefit.58 Operating room conditions must be optimized for prophylaxis. More people and operating room traffic in nonsterile corridors increase contamination of instruments open to air.64 Laminar airflow systems are commonly used. Although there is little dispute that laminar flow decreases the bacterial load of air, there are mixed results regarding its benefit in preventing PJI.65-68 Skin preparation may address patient risk factors. Hair clipping is preferred to shaving, which may cause microabrasions and increased susceptibility to skin flora.69 Patients should be prepared with antiseptic solution. One randomized controlled trial found that 2% chlorhexidine gluconate mixed with 70% isopropyl alcohol was superior to 10% povidone-iodine in preventing SSIs.70 However, a recent cohort study showed a lower rate of superficial wound infections when 1% povidone-iodine (vs 0.5% chlorhexidine) was used with alcohol.71 This finding may indicate the need for alcohol preparation, higher concentrations of chlorhexidine, or both.

Proper scrubbing and protective gear are needed to reduce surgeon risk factors. Hand washing is a routine part of any surgery. Alcohol-based hand scrubs are as effective as hand scrubbing.65 They reduce local skin flora by 95% immediately and by 99% with repeated applications.72 Lidwell and colleagues73 found a 75% reduction in infection when body exhaust suits were used in combination with laminar flow in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 8052 patients. Sterile draping with impermeable drapes should be done over properly prepared skin. Ioban drapes (3M) are often used as a protective barrier. Interestingly, a Cochrane review found no benefit in using plastic adhesives impregnated with iodine over sterilely prepared skin.74

 

 

 

Operative Considerations

Surgical gloves become contaminated in almost one third of cases, half the time during draping.75 For this reason, many surgeons change gloves after draping. In addition, double gloving prevents a breech of aseptic technique should the outer glove become perforated.76 Demircay and colleagues77 assessed double latex gloving in arthroplasty and found the outer and inner gloves perforated in 18.4% and 8.4% of cases, respectively. Punctures are most common along the nondominant index finger, and then the dominant thumb.77,78 Perforation is more common when 2 latex gloves are worn—vs 1 latex glove plus an outer cloth glove—and the chance of perforation increases with surgery duration. The inner glove may become punctured in up to 100% of operations that last over 3 hours.79 Although Dodds and colleagues80 found no change in bacterial counts on surgeons’ hands or gloves after perforation, precautions are still recommended. Al-Maiyah and colleagues81 went as far as to recommend glove changes at 20-minute intervals and before cementation.

Surgical instruments can be sources of contamination. Some authors change the suction tip every hour to minimize the risk of deep wound infection.82-85 Others change it before femoral canal preparation and prosthesis insertion during THA.86 The splash basin is frequently contaminated, and instruments placed in it should not be returned to the operative field.87 Hargrove and colleagues88 suggested pulsatile lavage decreases PJI more than bulb syringe irrigation does, whereas others argued that high-pressure lavage allows bacteria to penetrate more deeply, which could lead to retention of more bacteria.89 Minimizing operating room time was found by Kurtz and colleagues90 and Peersman and colleagues91 to decrease PJI incidence. Carroll and colleagues71 correlated longer tourniquet use with a higher rate of infection after TKA; proposed mechanisms include local tissue hypoxia and lowered concentrations of prophylactic antibiotics.

Similarly, minimizing blood loss and transfusion needs is another strategy for preventing infection. Allogenic transfusion may increase the risk of PJI 2 times.23,71,92 The mechanism seems to be immune system modulation by allogenic blood, which impairs microcirculation and oxygen delivery at the surgical site.23,75 Transfusions should be approached with caution, and consideration given to preoperative optimization and autologous blood donation. Cherian and colleagues93 reviewed different blood management strategies and found preoperative iron therapy, intravenous erythropoietin, and autologous blood donation to be equally effective in reducing the need for allogenic transfusions. Numerous studies of tranexamic acid, thrombin-based hemostatic matrix (Floseal; Baxter Inc), and bipolar sealer with radiofrequency ablation (Aquamantys; Medtronic Inc) have found no alterations in infection rates, but most have used calculated blood loss, not PJI, as the primary endpoint.94-105 Antibiotic cement also can be used to block infection.63,106-110 Although liquid gentamicin may weaken bone cement,111 most antibiotics, including powdered tobramycin and vancomycin, do not weaken its fatigue strength.111-114 A recent meta-analysis by Parvizi and colleagues115 revealed that deep infection rates dropped from 2.3% to 1.2% with use of antibiotic cement for primary THAs. Cummins and colleagues,116 however, reported the limited cost-effectiveness of antibiotic cement in primary arthroplasty. Performing povidone-iodine lavage at the end of the case may be a more inexpensive alternative. Brown and colleagues117 found that rinsing with dilute povidone-iodine (.35%) for 3 minutes significantly decreased the incidence of PJI.

Closure techniques and sutures have been a focus of much of the recent literature. Winiarsky and colleagues34 advocated using a longer incision for obese patients and augmenting closure in fattier areas with vertical mattress retention sutures, which are removed after 5 days. A barbed monofilament suture (Quill; Angiotech Inc) is gaining in popularity. Laboratory research has shown that bacteria adhere less to barbed monofilament sutures than to braided sutures.118 Smith and colleagues119 found a statistically nonsignificant higher rate of wound complications with barbed monofilament sutures, whereas Ting and colleagues120 found no difference in complications. These studies were powered to detect differences in time and cost, not postoperative complications. Skin adhesive (Dermabond; Ethicon Inc), also used in closure, may be superior to staples in avoiding superficial skin abscesses.121 Although expensive, silver-impregnated dressing has antimicrobial activity that reduces PJI incidence by up to 74%.122 One brand of this dressing (Aquacel; ConvaTec Inc) has a polyurethane waterproof barrier that allows it to be worn for 7 days.

 

 

 

Three factors commonly mentioned in PJI prevention show little supporting evidence. Drains, which are often used, may create a passage for postoperative infection and are associated with increased transfusion needs.123,124 Adding antibiotics to irrigation solution125 and routinely changing scalpel blades126-129 also have little supporting evidence. In 2014, the utility of changing scalpel blades after incision was studied by Lee and colleagues,130 who reported persistence of Propionibacterium acnes in the dermal layer after skin preparation. Their study, however, was isolated to the upper back region, not the hip or knee.

Postoperative Risk Prevention

Most arthroplasty patients receive anticoagulation after surgery, but it must be used with caution. Large hematomas can predispose to wound complications. Parvizi and colleagues131 associated wound drainage, hematoma, and subsequent PJI with an INR above 1.5 in the early postoperative period. Therefore, balanced anticoagulation is crucial. Postoperative glucose control is also essential, particularly for patients with diabetes. Although preoperative blood glucose levels may or may not affect PJI risk,15,17,132 postoperative blood glucose levels of 126 mg/dL or higher are strongly associated with joint infections.133 Even nondiabetic patients with postoperative morning levels over 140 mg/dL are 3 times more likely to develop an infection.17

Efforts should be made to discharge patients as soon as it is safe to do so. With longer hospital stays, patients are more exposed to nosocomial organisms and increased antibiotic resistance.5,23,134 Outpatient antibiotics should be considered for dental, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary procedures. Oral antibiotic prophylaxis is controversial, as there is some evidence that dental procedures increase the risk of PJI only minimally.10,135-138

Conclusion

PJI is a potentially devastating complication of TJA. For this reason, much research has been devoted to proper diagnosis and treatment. Although the literature on PJI prophylaxis is abundant, there is relatively little consensus on appropriate PJI precautions. Preoperative considerations should include medical comorbidities, use of immunocompromising medications, obesity, nutritional factors, smoking, alcohol use, and MRSA colonization. Surgeons must have a consistent intraoperative method of antibiotic administration, skin preparation, scrubbing, draping, gloving, instrument exchange, blood loss management, cementing, and closure. In addition, monitoring of postoperative anticoagulation and blood glucose management is important. Having a thorough understanding of PJI risk factors may help reduce the incidence of this devastating complication.

References

 

 

1.    Berbari EF, Hanssen AD, Duffy MC, et al. Risk factors for prosthetic joint infection: case–control study. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27(5):1247-1254.

2.    Adeli B, Parvizi J. Strategies for the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(11 suppl A):42-46.

3.    Kurtz SM, Lau E, Watson H, Schmier JK, Parvizi J. Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8 suppl):61-65.e1.

4.    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785.

5.    Ridgeway S. Infection of the surgical site after arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(6):844-850.

6.    Bongartz T, Halligan CS, Osmon DR, et al. Incidence and risk factors of prosthetic joint infection after total hip or knee replacement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(12):1713-1720.

7.    Menon TJ, Wroblewski BM. Charnley low-friction arthroplasty in patients with psoriasis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;(176):127-128.

8.    Stern SH, Insall JN, Windsor RE, Inglis AE, Dines DM. Total knee arthroplasty in patients with psoriasis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(248):108-100.

9.    Beyer CA, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG, Pittelkow MR. Primary total knee arthroplasty in patients with psoriasis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(2):258-259.

10.  Berbari EF, Osmon DR, Carr A, et al. Dental procedures as risk factors for prosthetic hip or knee infection: a hospital-based prospective case–control study. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(1):8-16.

11.  Singh G, Rao DJ. Bacteriology of psoriatic plaques. Dermatologica. 1978;157(1):21-27.

12.  Bozic KJ, Ong K, Lau E, et al. Estimating risk in Medicare patients with THA: an electronic risk calculator for periprosthetic joint infection and mortality. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):574-583.

13.  Malinzak RA, Ritter MA, Berend ME, Meding JB, Olberding EM, Davis KE. Morbidly obese, diabetic, younger, and unilateral joint arthroplasty patients have elevated total joint arthroplasty infection rates. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6 suppl):84-88.

14.  Dowsey MM, Choong PFM. Obese diabetic patients are at substantial risk for deep infection after primary TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(6):1577-1581.

15.  Jämsen E, Nevalainen P, Eskelinen A, Huotari K, Kalliovalkama J, Moilanen T. Obesity, diabetes, and preoperative hyperglycemia as predictors of periprosthetic joint infection: a single-center analysis of 7181 primary hip and knee replacements for osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(14):e101.

16.  Iorio R, Williams KM, Marcantonio AJ, Specht LM, Tilzey JF, Healy WL. Diabetes mellitus, hemoglobin A1C, and the incidence of total joint arthroplasty infection. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(5):726-729.e1.

17.  Mraovic B, Suh D, Jacovides C. Perioperative hyperglycemia and postoperative infection after lower limb arthroplasty. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(2):412-418.

18.  Abbott KC, Bucci JR, Agodoa LY. Total hip arthroplasty in chronic dialysis patients in the United States. J Nephrol. 2003;16(1):34-39.

19.  Lieberman JR, Fuchs MD, Haas SB, et al. Hip arthroplasty in patients with chronic renal failure. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(2):191-195.

20.  Sakalkale DP, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH. Total hip arthroplasty in patients on long-term renal dialysis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(5):571-575.

21.  Shrader MW, Schall D, Parvizi J, McCarthy JT, Lewallen DG. Total hip arthroplasty in patients with renal failure: a comparison between transplant and dialysis patients. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(3):324-329.

22.  Deegan BF, Richard RD, Bowen TR, Perkins RM, Graham JH, Foltzer MA. Impact of chronic kidney disease stage on lower-extremity arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2014;37(7):e613-e618.

23.  Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J. Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(7):1710-1715.

24.  Tomás T. Patient-related risk factors for infected total arthroplasty. Acta Chir Orthop. 2008;75(6):451-456.

25.  Ritter MA, Fechtman RW. Urinary tract sequelae: possible influence on joint infections following total joint replacement. Orthopedics. 1987;10(3):467-469.

26.   Gou W, Chen J, Jia Y, Wang Y. Preoperative asymptomatic leucocyturia and early prosthetic joint infections in patients undergoing joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(3):473-476.

27.  Goodman SM, Paget S. Perioperative drug safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2012;38(4):747-759.

28.  Salem M, Tainsh RE Jr, Bromberg J, Loriaux DL, Chernow B. Perioperative glucocorticoid coverage. A reassessment 42 years after emergence of a problem. Ann Surg. 1994;219(4):416-425.

29.  Howe CR, Gardner GC, Kadel NJ. Perioperative medication management for the patient with rheumatoid arthritis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(9):544-551.

30.   Grennan DM. Methotrexate and early postoperative complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001;60(3):214-217.

31.  Johnson R, Charnley J. Hydroxychloroquine in prophylaxis of pulmonary embolism following hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;(144):174-177.

32.  Mushtaq S, Goodman SM, Scanzello CR. Perioperative management of biologic agents used in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Ther. 2011;18(5):426-434.

33.  Namba RS, Paxton L, Fithian DC, Stone ML. Obesity and perioperative morbidity in total hip and total knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(7 suppl 3):46-50.

34.  Winiarsky R, Barth P, Lotke PA. Total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(12):1770-1774.

35.   Kulkarni A, Jameson SS, James P, Woodcock S, Muller S, Reed MR. Does bariatric surgery prior to lower limb joint replacement reduce complications? Surgeon. 2011;9(1):18-21.

36.   Greene KA, Wilde AH, Stulberg BN. Preoperative nutritional status of total joint patients. J Arthroplasty. 1991;6(4):321-325.

37.  Fairfield KM, Fletcher RH. Vitamins for chronic disease prevention in adults. JAMA. 2002;287(23):3116.

38.  Kwiatkowski TC, Hanley EN Jr, Ramp WK. Cigarette smoking and its orthopedic consequences. Am J Orthop. 1996;25(9):590-597.

39.   Møller AM, Villebro N, Pedersen T, Tønnesen H. Effect of preoperative smoking intervention on postoperative complications: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9301):114-117.

40.  Rantala A, Lehtonen OP, Niinikoski J. Alcohol abuse: a risk factor for surgical wound infections? Am J Infect Control. 1997;25(5):381-386.

41.  Wu C, Qu X, Liu F, Li H, Mao Y, Zhu Z. Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in Chinese patients. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e95300.

42.  Cordero-Ampuero J, de Dios M. What are the risk factors for infection in hemiarthroplasties and total hip arthroplasties? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(12):3268-3277.

43.  Tønnesen H, Rosenberg J, Nielsen HJ, et al. Effect of preoperative abstinence on poor postoperative outcome in alcohol misusers: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1999;318(7194):1311-1316.

44.  Shourie S, Conigrave KM, Proude EM, Ward JE, Wutzke SE, Haber PS. The effectiveness of a tailored intervention for excessive alcohol consumption prior to elective surgery. Alcohol Alcohol. 2006;41(6):643-649.

45.  Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):128-133.

46.  Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):45-51.

47.  Safdar N, Bradley EA. The risk of infection after nasal colonization with Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Med. 2008;121(4):310-315.

48.  American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Patient Safety Committee, Evans RP. Surgical site infection prevention and control: an emerging paradigm. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(suppl 6):2-9.

49.  Goyal N, Aggarwal V, Parvizi J. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening in total joint arthroplasty: a worthwhile endeavor. J Knee Surg. 2012;25(1):37-43.

50.  Kluytmans J, van Belkum A, Verbrugh H. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1997;10(3):505-520.

51.  Wilcox MH, Hall J, Pike H, et al. Use of perioperative mupirocin to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) orthopaedic surgical site infections. J Hosp Infect. 2003;54(3):196-201.

52.  Bode LG, Kluytmans JA, Wertheim HF, et al. Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):9-17.

53.  Association of Operating Room Nurses. Recommended practices for skin preparation of patients. AORN J. 2002;75(1):184-187.

54.  Edmiston CE Jr, Seabrook GR, Johnson CP, Paulson DS, Beausoleil CM. Comparative of a new and innovative 2% chlorhexidine gluconate–impregnated cloth with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as topical antiseptic for preparation of the skin prior to surgery. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(2):89-96.

55.  Edmiston CE Jr, Krepel CJ, Seabrook GR, Lewis BD, Brown KR, Towne JB. Preoperative shower revisited: can high topical antiseptic levels be achieved on the skin surface before surgical admission? J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(2):233-239.

56.  Johnson AJ, Kapadia BH, Daley JA, Molina CB, Mont MA. Chlorhexidine reduces infections in knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2013;26(3):213-218.

57.  Johnson AJ, Daley JA, Zywiel MG, Delanois RE, Mont MA. Preoperative chlorhexidine preparation and the incidence of surgical site infections after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(6 suppl):98-102.

58.  Mauerhan DR, Nelson CL, Smith DL, et al. Prophylaxis against infection in total joint arthroplasty. One day of cefuroxime compared with three days of cefazolin. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76(1):39-45.

59.  Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am J Surg. 2005;189(4):395-404.

60.  Tetreault MW, Wetters NG, Aggarwal V, Mont M, Parvizi J, Della Valle CJ. The Chitranjan Ranawat Award: should prophylactic antibiotics be withheld before revision surgery to obtain appropriate cultures? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):52-56.

61.  Illingworth KD, Mihalko WM, Parvizi J, et al. How to minimize infection and thereby maximize patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty: a multicenter approach: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(8):e50.

62.  Bannister GC, Auchincloss JM, Johnson DP, Newman JH. The timing of tourniquet application in relation to prophylactic antibiotic administration. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(2):322-324.

63.  Engesæter LB, Lie SA, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Vollset SE, Havelin LI. Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty: effects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0-14 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(6):644-651.

64.  Ritter MA. Operating room environment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(369):103-109.

65.  Brandt C, Hott U, Sohr D, Daschner F, Gastmeier P, Rüden H. Operating room ventilation with laminar airflow shows no protective effect on the surgical site infection rate in orthopedic and abdominal surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248(5):695-700.

66.  Dharan S, Pittet D. Environmental controls in operating theatres. J Hosp Infect. 2002;51(2):79-84.

67.  Hamilton HW, Booth AD, Lone FJ, Clark N. Penetration of gown material by organisms from the surgical team. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;(141):237-246.

68.   Da Costa AR, Kothari A, Bannister GC, Blom AW. Investigating bacterial growth in surgical theatres: establishing the effect of laminar airflow on bacterial growth on plastic, metal and wood surfaces. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90(5):417-419.

69.  Tanner J, Woodings D, Moncaster K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD004122.

70.  Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18-26.

71.  Carroll K, Dowsey M, Choong P, Peel T. Risk factors for superficial wound complications in hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;20(2):130-135.

72.  Ayliffe GA. Surgical scrub and skin disinfection. Infect Control. 1984;5(1):23-27.

73.   Lidwell OM, Lowbury EJ, Whyte W, Blowers R, Lowe D. Extended follow-up of patients suspected of having joint sepsis after total joint replacement. J Hyg (Lond). 1985;95(3):655-664.

74.  Webster J, Alghamdi AA. Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(4):CD006353.

75.  Alijanipour P, Heller S, Parvizi J. Prevention of periprosthetic joint infection: what are the effective strategies? J Knee Surg. 2014;27(4):251-258.

76.  Tanner J, Parkinson H. Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(3):CD003087.

77.   Demircay E, Unay K, Bilgili MG, Alataca G. Glove perforation in hip and knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci. 2010;15(6):790-794.

78.  Ersozlu S, Sahin O, Ozgur AF, Akkaya T, Tuncay C. Glove punctures in major and minor orthopaedic surgery with double gloving. Acta Orthop Belg. 2007;73(6):760-764.

79.  Sanders R, Fortin P, Ross E, Helfet D. Outer gloves in orthopaedic procedures. Cloth compared with latex. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72(6):914-917.

80.  Dodds RD, Guy PJ, Peacock AM, Duffy SR, Barker SG, Thomas MH. Surgical glove perforation. Br J Surg. 1988;75(10):966-968.

81.  Al-Maiyah M, Bajwa A, Mackenney P, et al. Glove perforation and contamination in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(4):556-559.

82.   Insull PJ, Hudson J. Suction tip: a potential source of infection in clean orthopaedic procedures. ANZ J Surg. 2012;82(3):185-186.

83.   Givissis P, Karataglis D, Antonarakos P, Symeonidis PD, Christodoulou A. Suction during orthopaedic surgery. How safe is the suction tip? Acta Orthop Belg. 2008;74(4):531-533.

84.  Meals RA, Knoke L. The surgical suction top—a contaminated instrument. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(3):409-410.

85.  Strange-Vognsen MH, Klareskov B. Bacteriologic contamination of suction tips during hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand. 1988;59(4):410-411.

86.  Greenough CG. An investigation into contamination of operative suction. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986;68(1):151-153.

87.  Baird RA, Nickel FR, Thrupp LD, Rucker S, Hawkins B. Splash basin contamination in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;(187):129-133.

88.  Hargrove R, Ridgeway S, Russell R, Norris M, Packham I, Levy B. Does pulse lavage reduce hip hemiarthroplasty infection rates? J Hosp Infect. 2006;62(4):446-449.

89.  Hassinger SM, Harding G, Wongworawat MD. High-pressure pulsatile lavage propagates bacteria into soft tissue. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;(439):27-31.

90.  Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ, Berry D, Parvizi J. Prosthetic joint infection risk after TKA in the Medicare population. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):52-56.

91.  Peersman G, Laskin R, Davis J, Peterson M. Infection in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(392):15-23.

92.  Bierbaum BE, Callaghan JJ, Galante JO, Rubash HE, Tooms RE, Welch RB. An analysis of blood management in patients having a total hip or knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(1):2-10.

93.  Cherian JJ, Kapadia BH, Issa K, et al. Preoperative blood management strategies for total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2013;23:261-266.

94.   Issa K, Banerjee S, Rifai A, et al. Blood management strategies in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty for Jehovah’s Witness patients. J Knee Surg. 2013;26(6):401-404.

95.  Sukeik M, Alshryda S, Haddad FS, Mason JM. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of tranexamic acid in total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;93(1):39-46.

96.  Berger V, Alperson S. A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2009;4(2):79-88.

97.  Chimento GF, Huff T, Ochsner JL, Meyer M, Brandner L, Babin S. An evaluation of the use of topical tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(8 suppl):74-77.

98.  Karam JA, Bloomfield MR, DiIorio TM, Irizarry AM, Sharkey PF. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid for reducing blood loss in bilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(3):501-503.

99.  Kim HJ, Fraser MR, Kahn B, Lyman S, Figgie MP. The efficacy of a thrombin-based hemostatic agent in unilateral total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(13):1160-1165.

100. Suarez JC, Slotkin EM, Alvarez AM, Szubski CR, Barsoum WK, Patel PD. Prospective, randomized trial to evaluate efficacy of a thrombin-based hemostatic agent in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(10):1950-1955.

101. Romanò CL, Monti L, Logoluso N, Romanò D, Drago L. Does a thrombin-based topical haemostatic agent reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements after total knee revision surgery? A randomized, controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(11):3337-3342.

102. Falez F, Meo A, Panegrossi G, Favetti F, Cava F, Casella F. Blood loss reduction in cementless total hip replacement with fibrin spray or bipolar sealer: a randomised controlled trial on ninety five patients. Int Orthop. 2013;37(7):1213-1217.

103. Morris MJ, Barrett M, Lombardi AV, Tucker TL, Berend KR. Randomized blinded study comparing a bipolar sealer and standard electrocautery in reducing transfusion requirements in anterior supine intermuscular total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(9):1614-1617.

104. Barsoum WK, Klika AK, Murray TG, Higuera C, Lee HH, Krebs VE. Prospective randomized evaluation of the need for blood transfusion during primary total hip arthroplasty with use of a bipolar sealer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(6):513-518.

105.  Zeh A, Messer J, Davis J, Vasarhelyi A, Wohlrab D. The Aquamantys system—an alternative to reduce blood loss in primary total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(7):1072-1077.

106. Heck D, Rosenberg A, Schink-Ascani M, Garbus S, Kiewitt T. Use of antibiotic-impregnated cement during hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(4):470-475.

107. Srivastav A, Nadkarni B, Srivastav S, Mittal V, Agarwal S. Prophylactic use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in primary total knee arthroplasty: justified or not? Indian J Orthop. 2009;43(3):259-263.

108. Dunbar MJ. Antibiotic bone cements: their use in routine primary total joint arthroplasty is justified. Orthopedics. 2009;32(9).

109. Merollini KM, Zheng H, Graves N. Most relevant strategies for preventing surgical site infection after total hip arthroplasty: guideline recommendations and expert opinion. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(3):221-226.

110. Jämsen E, Huhtala H, Puolakka T, Moilanen T. Risk factors for infection after knee arthroplasty. A register-based analysis of 43,149 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):38-47.

111. Seldes RM, Winiarsky R, Jordan LC, et al. Liquid gentamicin in bone cement: a laboratory study of a potentially more cost-effective cement spacer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(2):268-272.

112. Wright TM, Sullivan DJ, Arnoczky SP. The effect of antibiotic additions on the fracture properties of bone cements. Acta Orthop Scand. 1984;55(4):414-418.

113. Baleani M, Persson C, Zolezzi C, Andollina A, Borrelli AM, Tigani D. Biological and biomechanical effects of vancomycin and meropenem in acrylic bone cement. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(8):1232-1238.

114. Baleani M, Cristofolini L, Minari C, Toni A. Fatigue strength of PMMA bone cement mixed with gentamicin and barium sulphate vs pure PMMA. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2005;217(1):9-12.

115. Parvizi J, Saleh KJ, Ragland PS, Pour AE, Mont MA. Efficacy of antibiotic-impregnated cement in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop Scand. 2008;79(3):335-341.

116. Cummins JS, Tomek IM, Kantor SR, Furnes O, Engesæter LB, Finlayson SRG. Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement used in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(3):634-641.

117. Brown NM, Cipriano CA, Moric M, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ. Dilute Betadine lavage before closure for the prevention of acute postoperative deep periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(1):27-30.

118. Fowler JR, Perkins TA, Buttaro BA, Truant AL. Bacteria adhere less to barbed monofilament than braided sutures in a contaminated wound model. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):665-671.

119.  Smith EL, DiSegna ST, Shukla PY, Matzkin EG. Barbed versus traditional sutures: closure time, cost, and wound related outcomes in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(2):283-287.

120. Ting NT, Moric MM, Della Valle CJ, Levine BR. Use of knotless suture for closure of total hip and knee arthroplasties: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(10):1783-1788.

121. Miller AG, Swank ML. Dermabond efficacy in total joint arthroplasty wounds. Am J Orthop. 2010;39(10):476-478.

122. Cai J, Karam JA, Parvizi J, Smith EB, Sharkey PF. Aquacel surgical dressing reduces the rate of acute PJI following total joint arthroplasty: a case–control study. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(6):1098-1100.

123. Drinkwater CJ, Neil MJ. Optimal timing of wound drain removal following total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(2):185-189.

124. Parker MJ, Roberts CP, Hay D. Closed suction drainage for hip and knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(6):1146-1152.

125. Matar WY, Jafari SM, Restrepo C, Austin M, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J. Preventing infection in total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(suppl 2):36-46.

126. Ritter MA, French ML, Eitzen HE. Bacterial contamination of the surgical knife. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;(108):158-160.

127. Fairclough JA, Mackie IG, Mintowt-Czyz W, Phillips GE. The contaminated skin-knife. A surgical myth. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1983;65(2):210.

128. Ramón R, García S, Combalía A, Puig de la Bellacasa J, Segur JM. Bacteriological study of surgical knives: is the use of two blades necessary? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1994;113(3):157-158.

129. Hasselgren PO, Hagberg E, Malmer H, Säljö A, Seeman T. One instead of two knives for surgical incision. Does it increase the risk of postoperative wound infection? Arch Surg. 1984;119(8):917-920.

130. Lee MJ, Pottinger PS, Butler-Wu S, Bumgarner RE, Russ SM, Matsen FA 3rd. Propionibacterium persists in the skin despite standard surgical preparation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(17):1447-1450.

131. Parvizi J, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH. Does “excessive” anticoagulation predispose to periprosthetic infection? J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6 suppl 2):24-28.

132. Marchant MH, Viens NA, Cook C, Vail TP, Bolognesi MP. The impact of glycemic control and diabetes mellitus on perioperative outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(7):1621-1629.

133. Reátegui D, Sanchez-Etayo G, Núñez E, et al. Perioperative hyperglycaemia and incidence of post-operative complications in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(7):2026-2031.

134. Urquhart DM, Hanna FS, Brennan SL, et al. Incidence and risk factors for deep surgical site infection after primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(8):1216-1222.e1-e3.

135. Friedlander AH. Oral cavity staphylococci are a potential source of prosthetic joint infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(12):1682-1683.

136. Zimmerli W, Sendi P. Antibiotics for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection following dentistry: time to focus on data. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(1):17-19.

137. Young H, Hirsh J, Hammerberg EM, Price CS. Dental disease and periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(2):162-168.

138. Simmons NA, Ball AP, Cawson RA, et al. Case against antibiotic prophylaxis for dental treatment of

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

 

David M. Levy, MD, Nathan G. Wetters, MD, and Brett R. Levine, MD, MS

 

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(5)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E299-E307
Legacy Keywords
review paper, review, online exclusive, prevention, periprosthetic, joint, infection, hip, knee, PJI, periprosthetic joint infection, arthroplasty, TKA, THA, total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, levy, wetters, levine
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

 

David M. Levy, MD, Nathan G. Wetters, MD, and Brett R. Levine, MD, MS

 

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

 

David M. Levy, MD, Nathan G. Wetters, MD, and Brett R. Levine, MD, MS

 

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Nearly 2% of patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) develop a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) within 20 years of surgery, and 41% of these infections occur within the first 2 years.1 PJI is the most common cause of TKA failure and the third leading complication of THA.2 The estimated total hospital cost of treating PJI increased from $320 million in 2001 to $566 million in 2009, which can be extrapolated to $1.62 billion in 2020.3 By 2030, the projected increase in demand for TKA and THA will be 673% and 174% of what it was in 2005, respectively.4 Treatment of PJI of the knee is estimated to cost 3 to 4 times more than a primary TKA, and the cost of revision THA for PJI is almost $6000 more than that of revision TKA for PJI.3

In this article, we review the numerous preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative methods of decreasing PJI incidence after total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

Preoperative Risk Prevention

Medical Comorbidities

Preoperative medical optimization is a key element in PJI prevention (Table 1). An American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score of 3 or more has been associated with doubled risk for surgical site infections (SSIs) after THA.5 Autoimmune conditions confer a particularly higher risk. In a retrospective double-cohort study of 924 subjects, Bongartz and colleagues6 found that, compared with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis tripled the risk of PJI. Small case series originally suggested a higher risk of PJI in patients with psoriasis,7,8 but more recent studies have contradicted that finding.9,10 Nevertheless, psoriatic plaques have elevated bacterial counts,11 and planned incisions should circumvent these areas.

Diabetes mellitus is a clear risk factor for PJI.12-16 Regarding whether preoperative glucose control affects risk, findings have been mixed. Mraovic and colleagues17 showed preoperative hyperglycemia to be an independent risk factor; Jämsen and colleagues,15 in a single-center analysis of more than 7000 TJAs, suggested preoperative blood glucose levels were not independently associated with PJI; and Iorio and colleagues16 found no association between surgical infections and hemoglobin A1c levels.

TJA incidence is higher in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) than in the general population.18 Dialysis users have a post-THA PJI rate as high as 13% to 19%.19,20 Early clinical data suggested that outcomes are improved in dialysis users who undergo renal transplant, but this finding recently has been questioned.19,21 Deegan and colleagues22 found an increased PJA rate of 3.5% even in low-level CKD (stage 1, 2, or 3), but this may be confounded by the increased association of CKD with other PJI-predisposing comorbidities.

Given a higher incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) among patients with PJI, some surgeons think UTIs predispose to PJIs by hematogenous seeding.12,23,24 Symptomatic UTIs should be cleared before surgery and confirmed on urinalysis. Obstructive symptoms should prompt urologic evaluation. As asymptomatic pyuria and bacteriuria (colony counts, >1 × 105/mL) do not predispose to PJI, patients without symptoms do not require intervention.25,26 Past history of malignancy may also have a role in PJI. In a case-control study of the Mayo Clinic arthroplasty experience from 1969 to 1991, Berbari and colleagues1 found an association between malignancy and PJI (odds ratio, 2.4). They theorized the immunosuppressive effects of cancer treatment might be responsible for this increased risk.

 

 

 

Immunocompromising Medications

Immunocompromising medications are modifiable and should be adjusted before surgery. Stopping any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) more than 4 weeks before surgery is not recommended.27

Corticosteroid use can lead to immunosuppression and increased protein catabolism, which impairs soft-tissue healing. To avoid flares or adrenal insufficiency, however, chronic corticosteroid users should continue their regular doses perioperatively.28 On the day of surgery, they should also receive a stress dose of hydrocortisone 50 to 75 mg (for primary arthroplasty) or 100 to 150 mg (for revision arthroplasty), followed by expeditious tapering over 1 to 2 days.29 DMARDs are increasingly used by rheumatologists. One of the most effective DMARDs is methotrexate. Despite its immunocompromising activity, methotrexate should be continued perioperatively, as stopping for even 2 days may increase flare-related complications.30 Hydroxychloroquine can be continued perioperatively and has even been shown, by Johnson and Charnley,31 to prevent deep vein thromboses. Sulfasalazine can also be continued perioperatively—but with caution, as it may elevate international normalized ratio (INR) levels in patients receiving warfarin.29 Most other DMARDs should be temporarily discontinued. Leflunomide and interleukin 1 antagonists, such as anakinra, should be stopped 1 to 2 days before surgery and restarted 10 to 14 days after surgery.29 Rituximab should be stopped 1 week before surgery and restarted 10 to 14 days after surgery. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors should be discontinued for 2 half-lives before and after surgery.32 Etanercept has a half-life of 3 to 5 days; infliximab, 8 to 10 days; and adalimumab, 10 to 13 days. Most surgeons schedule surgery for the end of a dosing cycle and discontinue these biologic agents for another 10 to 14 days after surgery.

Metabolic Factors

Obese patients are susceptible to longer surgeries, more extensive dissection, poorly vascularized subcutaneous tissue, and higher requirements of weight-adjusted antibiotic dosing.13 Body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m2 or more (morbid obesity) and BMI over 50 kg/m2 have been associated with 9 times and 21.3 times increased risk of PJI, respectively.13,14 Delaying surgery with dietary consultation has been suggested,33,34 and bariatric surgery before TKA may decrease infection rates by 3.5 times.35

Nutritional markers are considered before arthroplasty. According to most laboratories, a serum transferrin level under 200 mg/dL, albumin level under 3.5 g/dL, and total lymphocyte count under 1500 cells/mm3 indicate malnourishment, which can increase the incidence of wound complications by 5 to 7 times.36 Patients should also have sufficient protein, vitamin, and mineral supplementation, particularly vitamins A and C, zinc, and copper.37Smokers who cease smoking at least 4 to 6 weeks before surgery lower their wound complication rate by up to 26%.38,39 When nicotine leaves the bloodstream, vasodilation occurs, oxygenation improves, and the immune system recovers.39 Studies have found more SSIs in patients who abuse alcohol,40 and numerous authors have confirmed this finding in the arthroplasty population.24,41,42 Alcohol inhibits platelet function and may predispose to a postoperative hematoma. In contrast to smoking cessation evidence, evidence regarding alcohol interventions in preventing postoperative infections is less conclusive.43,44

MRSA Colonization

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a particularly difficult bacterium to eradicate in PJI. As the mean cost of treating a single case of MRSA-related prosthetic infection is $107,264 vs $68,053 for susceptible strains,45,46 many infection-containment strategies focus on addressing benign MRSA colonization before surgery.

MRSA is present in the nares of 25 million people in the United States. Nasal colonization increases the risk of bacteremia 4-fold47 and SSI 2- to 9-fold.48,49 Nasal swabs are analyzed with either a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, which provides results in 2 hours, or a bacterial culture, which provides results in 1 to 4 days. The PCR test is more expensive.

Eradication of MRSA colonization is increasingly prevalent. Several Scandinavian countries have instituted strict practices by which patients are denied elective surgery until negative nasal swabs are obtained.49 Nasal decontamination is one method of colonization reduction. Topical mupirocin, which yields eradication in 91% of nasal carriers immediately after treatment and in 87% after 4 weeks,50 is effective in reducing SSI rates only when used in conjunction with a body wash, which is used to clean the axilla and groin.51 There is no consensus on optimal timing, but Bode and colleagues52 found a significant decrease in deep SSIs when decontamination occurred just 24 hours before surgery.

 

 

 

Povidone-iodine showers went out of favor with the realization that chlorhexidine gluconate acts longer on the skin surface.53,54 Preoperative showers involve rinsing with liquid chlorhexidine soap 24 to 48 hours before surgery. However, chlorhexidine binds preferentially to the cotton in washcloths instead of the skin. Edmiston and colleagues54,55 found that 4% chlorhexidine liquid soaps achieve much lower skin chlorhexidine concentrations than 2% polyester cloths do. Use of these “chlorhexidine wipes” the night before and the day of surgery has decreased PJI after TKA from 2.2% to 0.6%.56,57

Intraoperative Risk Prevention

Preparation

Which preoperative antibiotic to use is one of the first operative considerations in PJI prophylaxis (Table 2). Cefazolin is recommended as a first-line agent for its excellent soft-tissue penetration, long half-life, and activity against gram-positive bacteria such as skin flora.58 Clindamycin may be considered for patients allergic to β-lactam antibiotics. Vancomycin may be considered for adjunctive use with cephalosporins in cases of known MRSA colonization. Vancomycin infusion should be started earlier than infusion with other antibiotics, as vancomycin must be infused slowly and takes longer to become therapeutic.

Antibiotic dosing should be based on local antibiograms, adjusted dosing weight, or BMI.59 For revision arthroplasty, preoperative prophylaxis should not be stopped out of fear of affecting operative cultures.60 Some surgeons pause antibiotic use if a preoperative joint aspirate has not been obtained. Infusion within 1 hour of incision is part of the pay-for-performance guidelines established by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.61 An antibiotic should be redosed if the operation will take longer than 2 half-lives of the drug.59 Surgeons should consider administering a dose every 4 hours or whenever blood loss exceeds 1000 mL.62 Engesæter and colleagues63 found that antibiotic prophylaxis was most effective given 4 times perioperatively (1 time before surgery, 3 times after surgery). Postoperative antibiotics should not be administered longer than 24 hours, as prolonged dosing confers no benefit.58 Operating room conditions must be optimized for prophylaxis. More people and operating room traffic in nonsterile corridors increase contamination of instruments open to air.64 Laminar airflow systems are commonly used. Although there is little dispute that laminar flow decreases the bacterial load of air, there are mixed results regarding its benefit in preventing PJI.65-68 Skin preparation may address patient risk factors. Hair clipping is preferred to shaving, which may cause microabrasions and increased susceptibility to skin flora.69 Patients should be prepared with antiseptic solution. One randomized controlled trial found that 2% chlorhexidine gluconate mixed with 70% isopropyl alcohol was superior to 10% povidone-iodine in preventing SSIs.70 However, a recent cohort study showed a lower rate of superficial wound infections when 1% povidone-iodine (vs 0.5% chlorhexidine) was used with alcohol.71 This finding may indicate the need for alcohol preparation, higher concentrations of chlorhexidine, or both.

Proper scrubbing and protective gear are needed to reduce surgeon risk factors. Hand washing is a routine part of any surgery. Alcohol-based hand scrubs are as effective as hand scrubbing.65 They reduce local skin flora by 95% immediately and by 99% with repeated applications.72 Lidwell and colleagues73 found a 75% reduction in infection when body exhaust suits were used in combination with laminar flow in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 8052 patients. Sterile draping with impermeable drapes should be done over properly prepared skin. Ioban drapes (3M) are often used as a protective barrier. Interestingly, a Cochrane review found no benefit in using plastic adhesives impregnated with iodine over sterilely prepared skin.74

 

 

 

Operative Considerations

Surgical gloves become contaminated in almost one third of cases, half the time during draping.75 For this reason, many surgeons change gloves after draping. In addition, double gloving prevents a breech of aseptic technique should the outer glove become perforated.76 Demircay and colleagues77 assessed double latex gloving in arthroplasty and found the outer and inner gloves perforated in 18.4% and 8.4% of cases, respectively. Punctures are most common along the nondominant index finger, and then the dominant thumb.77,78 Perforation is more common when 2 latex gloves are worn—vs 1 latex glove plus an outer cloth glove—and the chance of perforation increases with surgery duration. The inner glove may become punctured in up to 100% of operations that last over 3 hours.79 Although Dodds and colleagues80 found no change in bacterial counts on surgeons’ hands or gloves after perforation, precautions are still recommended. Al-Maiyah and colleagues81 went as far as to recommend glove changes at 20-minute intervals and before cementation.

Surgical instruments can be sources of contamination. Some authors change the suction tip every hour to minimize the risk of deep wound infection.82-85 Others change it before femoral canal preparation and prosthesis insertion during THA.86 The splash basin is frequently contaminated, and instruments placed in it should not be returned to the operative field.87 Hargrove and colleagues88 suggested pulsatile lavage decreases PJI more than bulb syringe irrigation does, whereas others argued that high-pressure lavage allows bacteria to penetrate more deeply, which could lead to retention of more bacteria.89 Minimizing operating room time was found by Kurtz and colleagues90 and Peersman and colleagues91 to decrease PJI incidence. Carroll and colleagues71 correlated longer tourniquet use with a higher rate of infection after TKA; proposed mechanisms include local tissue hypoxia and lowered concentrations of prophylactic antibiotics.

Similarly, minimizing blood loss and transfusion needs is another strategy for preventing infection. Allogenic transfusion may increase the risk of PJI 2 times.23,71,92 The mechanism seems to be immune system modulation by allogenic blood, which impairs microcirculation and oxygen delivery at the surgical site.23,75 Transfusions should be approached with caution, and consideration given to preoperative optimization and autologous blood donation. Cherian and colleagues93 reviewed different blood management strategies and found preoperative iron therapy, intravenous erythropoietin, and autologous blood donation to be equally effective in reducing the need for allogenic transfusions. Numerous studies of tranexamic acid, thrombin-based hemostatic matrix (Floseal; Baxter Inc), and bipolar sealer with radiofrequency ablation (Aquamantys; Medtronic Inc) have found no alterations in infection rates, but most have used calculated blood loss, not PJI, as the primary endpoint.94-105 Antibiotic cement also can be used to block infection.63,106-110 Although liquid gentamicin may weaken bone cement,111 most antibiotics, including powdered tobramycin and vancomycin, do not weaken its fatigue strength.111-114 A recent meta-analysis by Parvizi and colleagues115 revealed that deep infection rates dropped from 2.3% to 1.2% with use of antibiotic cement for primary THAs. Cummins and colleagues,116 however, reported the limited cost-effectiveness of antibiotic cement in primary arthroplasty. Performing povidone-iodine lavage at the end of the case may be a more inexpensive alternative. Brown and colleagues117 found that rinsing with dilute povidone-iodine (.35%) for 3 minutes significantly decreased the incidence of PJI.

Closure techniques and sutures have been a focus of much of the recent literature. Winiarsky and colleagues34 advocated using a longer incision for obese patients and augmenting closure in fattier areas with vertical mattress retention sutures, which are removed after 5 days. A barbed monofilament suture (Quill; Angiotech Inc) is gaining in popularity. Laboratory research has shown that bacteria adhere less to barbed monofilament sutures than to braided sutures.118 Smith and colleagues119 found a statistically nonsignificant higher rate of wound complications with barbed monofilament sutures, whereas Ting and colleagues120 found no difference in complications. These studies were powered to detect differences in time and cost, not postoperative complications. Skin adhesive (Dermabond; Ethicon Inc), also used in closure, may be superior to staples in avoiding superficial skin abscesses.121 Although expensive, silver-impregnated dressing has antimicrobial activity that reduces PJI incidence by up to 74%.122 One brand of this dressing (Aquacel; ConvaTec Inc) has a polyurethane waterproof barrier that allows it to be worn for 7 days.

 

 

 

Three factors commonly mentioned in PJI prevention show little supporting evidence. Drains, which are often used, may create a passage for postoperative infection and are associated with increased transfusion needs.123,124 Adding antibiotics to irrigation solution125 and routinely changing scalpel blades126-129 also have little supporting evidence. In 2014, the utility of changing scalpel blades after incision was studied by Lee and colleagues,130 who reported persistence of Propionibacterium acnes in the dermal layer after skin preparation. Their study, however, was isolated to the upper back region, not the hip or knee.

Postoperative Risk Prevention

Most arthroplasty patients receive anticoagulation after surgery, but it must be used with caution. Large hematomas can predispose to wound complications. Parvizi and colleagues131 associated wound drainage, hematoma, and subsequent PJI with an INR above 1.5 in the early postoperative period. Therefore, balanced anticoagulation is crucial. Postoperative glucose control is also essential, particularly for patients with diabetes. Although preoperative blood glucose levels may or may not affect PJI risk,15,17,132 postoperative blood glucose levels of 126 mg/dL or higher are strongly associated with joint infections.133 Even nondiabetic patients with postoperative morning levels over 140 mg/dL are 3 times more likely to develop an infection.17

Efforts should be made to discharge patients as soon as it is safe to do so. With longer hospital stays, patients are more exposed to nosocomial organisms and increased antibiotic resistance.5,23,134 Outpatient antibiotics should be considered for dental, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary procedures. Oral antibiotic prophylaxis is controversial, as there is some evidence that dental procedures increase the risk of PJI only minimally.10,135-138

Conclusion

PJI is a potentially devastating complication of TJA. For this reason, much research has been devoted to proper diagnosis and treatment. Although the literature on PJI prophylaxis is abundant, there is relatively little consensus on appropriate PJI precautions. Preoperative considerations should include medical comorbidities, use of immunocompromising medications, obesity, nutritional factors, smoking, alcohol use, and MRSA colonization. Surgeons must have a consistent intraoperative method of antibiotic administration, skin preparation, scrubbing, draping, gloving, instrument exchange, blood loss management, cementing, and closure. In addition, monitoring of postoperative anticoagulation and blood glucose management is important. Having a thorough understanding of PJI risk factors may help reduce the incidence of this devastating complication.

Nearly 2% of patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) develop a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) within 20 years of surgery, and 41% of these infections occur within the first 2 years.1 PJI is the most common cause of TKA failure and the third leading complication of THA.2 The estimated total hospital cost of treating PJI increased from $320 million in 2001 to $566 million in 2009, which can be extrapolated to $1.62 billion in 2020.3 By 2030, the projected increase in demand for TKA and THA will be 673% and 174% of what it was in 2005, respectively.4 Treatment of PJI of the knee is estimated to cost 3 to 4 times more than a primary TKA, and the cost of revision THA for PJI is almost $6000 more than that of revision TKA for PJI.3

In this article, we review the numerous preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative methods of decreasing PJI incidence after total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

Preoperative Risk Prevention

Medical Comorbidities

Preoperative medical optimization is a key element in PJI prevention (Table 1). An American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score of 3 or more has been associated with doubled risk for surgical site infections (SSIs) after THA.5 Autoimmune conditions confer a particularly higher risk. In a retrospective double-cohort study of 924 subjects, Bongartz and colleagues6 found that, compared with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis tripled the risk of PJI. Small case series originally suggested a higher risk of PJI in patients with psoriasis,7,8 but more recent studies have contradicted that finding.9,10 Nevertheless, psoriatic plaques have elevated bacterial counts,11 and planned incisions should circumvent these areas.

Diabetes mellitus is a clear risk factor for PJI.12-16 Regarding whether preoperative glucose control affects risk, findings have been mixed. Mraovic and colleagues17 showed preoperative hyperglycemia to be an independent risk factor; Jämsen and colleagues,15 in a single-center analysis of more than 7000 TJAs, suggested preoperative blood glucose levels were not independently associated with PJI; and Iorio and colleagues16 found no association between surgical infections and hemoglobin A1c levels.

TJA incidence is higher in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) than in the general population.18 Dialysis users have a post-THA PJI rate as high as 13% to 19%.19,20 Early clinical data suggested that outcomes are improved in dialysis users who undergo renal transplant, but this finding recently has been questioned.19,21 Deegan and colleagues22 found an increased PJA rate of 3.5% even in low-level CKD (stage 1, 2, or 3), but this may be confounded by the increased association of CKD with other PJI-predisposing comorbidities.

Given a higher incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) among patients with PJI, some surgeons think UTIs predispose to PJIs by hematogenous seeding.12,23,24 Symptomatic UTIs should be cleared before surgery and confirmed on urinalysis. Obstructive symptoms should prompt urologic evaluation. As asymptomatic pyuria and bacteriuria (colony counts, >1 × 105/mL) do not predispose to PJI, patients without symptoms do not require intervention.25,26 Past history of malignancy may also have a role in PJI. In a case-control study of the Mayo Clinic arthroplasty experience from 1969 to 1991, Berbari and colleagues1 found an association between malignancy and PJI (odds ratio, 2.4). They theorized the immunosuppressive effects of cancer treatment might be responsible for this increased risk.

 

 

 

Immunocompromising Medications

Immunocompromising medications are modifiable and should be adjusted before surgery. Stopping any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) more than 4 weeks before surgery is not recommended.27

Corticosteroid use can lead to immunosuppression and increased protein catabolism, which impairs soft-tissue healing. To avoid flares or adrenal insufficiency, however, chronic corticosteroid users should continue their regular doses perioperatively.28 On the day of surgery, they should also receive a stress dose of hydrocortisone 50 to 75 mg (for primary arthroplasty) or 100 to 150 mg (for revision arthroplasty), followed by expeditious tapering over 1 to 2 days.29 DMARDs are increasingly used by rheumatologists. One of the most effective DMARDs is methotrexate. Despite its immunocompromising activity, methotrexate should be continued perioperatively, as stopping for even 2 days may increase flare-related complications.30 Hydroxychloroquine can be continued perioperatively and has even been shown, by Johnson and Charnley,31 to prevent deep vein thromboses. Sulfasalazine can also be continued perioperatively—but with caution, as it may elevate international normalized ratio (INR) levels in patients receiving warfarin.29 Most other DMARDs should be temporarily discontinued. Leflunomide and interleukin 1 antagonists, such as anakinra, should be stopped 1 to 2 days before surgery and restarted 10 to 14 days after surgery.29 Rituximab should be stopped 1 week before surgery and restarted 10 to 14 days after surgery. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors should be discontinued for 2 half-lives before and after surgery.32 Etanercept has a half-life of 3 to 5 days; infliximab, 8 to 10 days; and adalimumab, 10 to 13 days. Most surgeons schedule surgery for the end of a dosing cycle and discontinue these biologic agents for another 10 to 14 days after surgery.

Metabolic Factors

Obese patients are susceptible to longer surgeries, more extensive dissection, poorly vascularized subcutaneous tissue, and higher requirements of weight-adjusted antibiotic dosing.13 Body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m2 or more (morbid obesity) and BMI over 50 kg/m2 have been associated with 9 times and 21.3 times increased risk of PJI, respectively.13,14 Delaying surgery with dietary consultation has been suggested,33,34 and bariatric surgery before TKA may decrease infection rates by 3.5 times.35

Nutritional markers are considered before arthroplasty. According to most laboratories, a serum transferrin level under 200 mg/dL, albumin level under 3.5 g/dL, and total lymphocyte count under 1500 cells/mm3 indicate malnourishment, which can increase the incidence of wound complications by 5 to 7 times.36 Patients should also have sufficient protein, vitamin, and mineral supplementation, particularly vitamins A and C, zinc, and copper.37Smokers who cease smoking at least 4 to 6 weeks before surgery lower their wound complication rate by up to 26%.38,39 When nicotine leaves the bloodstream, vasodilation occurs, oxygenation improves, and the immune system recovers.39 Studies have found more SSIs in patients who abuse alcohol,40 and numerous authors have confirmed this finding in the arthroplasty population.24,41,42 Alcohol inhibits platelet function and may predispose to a postoperative hematoma. In contrast to smoking cessation evidence, evidence regarding alcohol interventions in preventing postoperative infections is less conclusive.43,44

MRSA Colonization

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a particularly difficult bacterium to eradicate in PJI. As the mean cost of treating a single case of MRSA-related prosthetic infection is $107,264 vs $68,053 for susceptible strains,45,46 many infection-containment strategies focus on addressing benign MRSA colonization before surgery.

MRSA is present in the nares of 25 million people in the United States. Nasal colonization increases the risk of bacteremia 4-fold47 and SSI 2- to 9-fold.48,49 Nasal swabs are analyzed with either a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, which provides results in 2 hours, or a bacterial culture, which provides results in 1 to 4 days. The PCR test is more expensive.

Eradication of MRSA colonization is increasingly prevalent. Several Scandinavian countries have instituted strict practices by which patients are denied elective surgery until negative nasal swabs are obtained.49 Nasal decontamination is one method of colonization reduction. Topical mupirocin, which yields eradication in 91% of nasal carriers immediately after treatment and in 87% after 4 weeks,50 is effective in reducing SSI rates only when used in conjunction with a body wash, which is used to clean the axilla and groin.51 There is no consensus on optimal timing, but Bode and colleagues52 found a significant decrease in deep SSIs when decontamination occurred just 24 hours before surgery.

 

 

 

Povidone-iodine showers went out of favor with the realization that chlorhexidine gluconate acts longer on the skin surface.53,54 Preoperative showers involve rinsing with liquid chlorhexidine soap 24 to 48 hours before surgery. However, chlorhexidine binds preferentially to the cotton in washcloths instead of the skin. Edmiston and colleagues54,55 found that 4% chlorhexidine liquid soaps achieve much lower skin chlorhexidine concentrations than 2% polyester cloths do. Use of these “chlorhexidine wipes” the night before and the day of surgery has decreased PJI after TKA from 2.2% to 0.6%.56,57

Intraoperative Risk Prevention

Preparation

Which preoperative antibiotic to use is one of the first operative considerations in PJI prophylaxis (Table 2). Cefazolin is recommended as a first-line agent for its excellent soft-tissue penetration, long half-life, and activity against gram-positive bacteria such as skin flora.58 Clindamycin may be considered for patients allergic to β-lactam antibiotics. Vancomycin may be considered for adjunctive use with cephalosporins in cases of known MRSA colonization. Vancomycin infusion should be started earlier than infusion with other antibiotics, as vancomycin must be infused slowly and takes longer to become therapeutic.

Antibiotic dosing should be based on local antibiograms, adjusted dosing weight, or BMI.59 For revision arthroplasty, preoperative prophylaxis should not be stopped out of fear of affecting operative cultures.60 Some surgeons pause antibiotic use if a preoperative joint aspirate has not been obtained. Infusion within 1 hour of incision is part of the pay-for-performance guidelines established by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.61 An antibiotic should be redosed if the operation will take longer than 2 half-lives of the drug.59 Surgeons should consider administering a dose every 4 hours or whenever blood loss exceeds 1000 mL.62 Engesæter and colleagues63 found that antibiotic prophylaxis was most effective given 4 times perioperatively (1 time before surgery, 3 times after surgery). Postoperative antibiotics should not be administered longer than 24 hours, as prolonged dosing confers no benefit.58 Operating room conditions must be optimized for prophylaxis. More people and operating room traffic in nonsterile corridors increase contamination of instruments open to air.64 Laminar airflow systems are commonly used. Although there is little dispute that laminar flow decreases the bacterial load of air, there are mixed results regarding its benefit in preventing PJI.65-68 Skin preparation may address patient risk factors. Hair clipping is preferred to shaving, which may cause microabrasions and increased susceptibility to skin flora.69 Patients should be prepared with antiseptic solution. One randomized controlled trial found that 2% chlorhexidine gluconate mixed with 70% isopropyl alcohol was superior to 10% povidone-iodine in preventing SSIs.70 However, a recent cohort study showed a lower rate of superficial wound infections when 1% povidone-iodine (vs 0.5% chlorhexidine) was used with alcohol.71 This finding may indicate the need for alcohol preparation, higher concentrations of chlorhexidine, or both.

Proper scrubbing and protective gear are needed to reduce surgeon risk factors. Hand washing is a routine part of any surgery. Alcohol-based hand scrubs are as effective as hand scrubbing.65 They reduce local skin flora by 95% immediately and by 99% with repeated applications.72 Lidwell and colleagues73 found a 75% reduction in infection when body exhaust suits were used in combination with laminar flow in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 8052 patients. Sterile draping with impermeable drapes should be done over properly prepared skin. Ioban drapes (3M) are often used as a protective barrier. Interestingly, a Cochrane review found no benefit in using plastic adhesives impregnated with iodine over sterilely prepared skin.74

 

 

 

Operative Considerations

Surgical gloves become contaminated in almost one third of cases, half the time during draping.75 For this reason, many surgeons change gloves after draping. In addition, double gloving prevents a breech of aseptic technique should the outer glove become perforated.76 Demircay and colleagues77 assessed double latex gloving in arthroplasty and found the outer and inner gloves perforated in 18.4% and 8.4% of cases, respectively. Punctures are most common along the nondominant index finger, and then the dominant thumb.77,78 Perforation is more common when 2 latex gloves are worn—vs 1 latex glove plus an outer cloth glove—and the chance of perforation increases with surgery duration. The inner glove may become punctured in up to 100% of operations that last over 3 hours.79 Although Dodds and colleagues80 found no change in bacterial counts on surgeons’ hands or gloves after perforation, precautions are still recommended. Al-Maiyah and colleagues81 went as far as to recommend glove changes at 20-minute intervals and before cementation.

Surgical instruments can be sources of contamination. Some authors change the suction tip every hour to minimize the risk of deep wound infection.82-85 Others change it before femoral canal preparation and prosthesis insertion during THA.86 The splash basin is frequently contaminated, and instruments placed in it should not be returned to the operative field.87 Hargrove and colleagues88 suggested pulsatile lavage decreases PJI more than bulb syringe irrigation does, whereas others argued that high-pressure lavage allows bacteria to penetrate more deeply, which could lead to retention of more bacteria.89 Minimizing operating room time was found by Kurtz and colleagues90 and Peersman and colleagues91 to decrease PJI incidence. Carroll and colleagues71 correlated longer tourniquet use with a higher rate of infection after TKA; proposed mechanisms include local tissue hypoxia and lowered concentrations of prophylactic antibiotics.

Similarly, minimizing blood loss and transfusion needs is another strategy for preventing infection. Allogenic transfusion may increase the risk of PJI 2 times.23,71,92 The mechanism seems to be immune system modulation by allogenic blood, which impairs microcirculation and oxygen delivery at the surgical site.23,75 Transfusions should be approached with caution, and consideration given to preoperative optimization and autologous blood donation. Cherian and colleagues93 reviewed different blood management strategies and found preoperative iron therapy, intravenous erythropoietin, and autologous blood donation to be equally effective in reducing the need for allogenic transfusions. Numerous studies of tranexamic acid, thrombin-based hemostatic matrix (Floseal; Baxter Inc), and bipolar sealer with radiofrequency ablation (Aquamantys; Medtronic Inc) have found no alterations in infection rates, but most have used calculated blood loss, not PJI, as the primary endpoint.94-105 Antibiotic cement also can be used to block infection.63,106-110 Although liquid gentamicin may weaken bone cement,111 most antibiotics, including powdered tobramycin and vancomycin, do not weaken its fatigue strength.111-114 A recent meta-analysis by Parvizi and colleagues115 revealed that deep infection rates dropped from 2.3% to 1.2% with use of antibiotic cement for primary THAs. Cummins and colleagues,116 however, reported the limited cost-effectiveness of antibiotic cement in primary arthroplasty. Performing povidone-iodine lavage at the end of the case may be a more inexpensive alternative. Brown and colleagues117 found that rinsing with dilute povidone-iodine (.35%) for 3 minutes significantly decreased the incidence of PJI.

Closure techniques and sutures have been a focus of much of the recent literature. Winiarsky and colleagues34 advocated using a longer incision for obese patients and augmenting closure in fattier areas with vertical mattress retention sutures, which are removed after 5 days. A barbed monofilament suture (Quill; Angiotech Inc) is gaining in popularity. Laboratory research has shown that bacteria adhere less to barbed monofilament sutures than to braided sutures.118 Smith and colleagues119 found a statistically nonsignificant higher rate of wound complications with barbed monofilament sutures, whereas Ting and colleagues120 found no difference in complications. These studies were powered to detect differences in time and cost, not postoperative complications. Skin adhesive (Dermabond; Ethicon Inc), also used in closure, may be superior to staples in avoiding superficial skin abscesses.121 Although expensive, silver-impregnated dressing has antimicrobial activity that reduces PJI incidence by up to 74%.122 One brand of this dressing (Aquacel; ConvaTec Inc) has a polyurethane waterproof barrier that allows it to be worn for 7 days.

 

 

 

Three factors commonly mentioned in PJI prevention show little supporting evidence. Drains, which are often used, may create a passage for postoperative infection and are associated with increased transfusion needs.123,124 Adding antibiotics to irrigation solution125 and routinely changing scalpel blades126-129 also have little supporting evidence. In 2014, the utility of changing scalpel blades after incision was studied by Lee and colleagues,130 who reported persistence of Propionibacterium acnes in the dermal layer after skin preparation. Their study, however, was isolated to the upper back region, not the hip or knee.

Postoperative Risk Prevention

Most arthroplasty patients receive anticoagulation after surgery, but it must be used with caution. Large hematomas can predispose to wound complications. Parvizi and colleagues131 associated wound drainage, hematoma, and subsequent PJI with an INR above 1.5 in the early postoperative period. Therefore, balanced anticoagulation is crucial. Postoperative glucose control is also essential, particularly for patients with diabetes. Although preoperative blood glucose levels may or may not affect PJI risk,15,17,132 postoperative blood glucose levels of 126 mg/dL or higher are strongly associated with joint infections.133 Even nondiabetic patients with postoperative morning levels over 140 mg/dL are 3 times more likely to develop an infection.17

Efforts should be made to discharge patients as soon as it is safe to do so. With longer hospital stays, patients are more exposed to nosocomial organisms and increased antibiotic resistance.5,23,134 Outpatient antibiotics should be considered for dental, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary procedures. Oral antibiotic prophylaxis is controversial, as there is some evidence that dental procedures increase the risk of PJI only minimally.10,135-138

Conclusion

PJI is a potentially devastating complication of TJA. For this reason, much research has been devoted to proper diagnosis and treatment. Although the literature on PJI prophylaxis is abundant, there is relatively little consensus on appropriate PJI precautions. Preoperative considerations should include medical comorbidities, use of immunocompromising medications, obesity, nutritional factors, smoking, alcohol use, and MRSA colonization. Surgeons must have a consistent intraoperative method of antibiotic administration, skin preparation, scrubbing, draping, gloving, instrument exchange, blood loss management, cementing, and closure. In addition, monitoring of postoperative anticoagulation and blood glucose management is important. Having a thorough understanding of PJI risk factors may help reduce the incidence of this devastating complication.

References

 

 

1.    Berbari EF, Hanssen AD, Duffy MC, et al. Risk factors for prosthetic joint infection: case–control study. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27(5):1247-1254.

2.    Adeli B, Parvizi J. Strategies for the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(11 suppl A):42-46.

3.    Kurtz SM, Lau E, Watson H, Schmier JK, Parvizi J. Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8 suppl):61-65.e1.

4.    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785.

5.    Ridgeway S. Infection of the surgical site after arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(6):844-850.

6.    Bongartz T, Halligan CS, Osmon DR, et al. Incidence and risk factors of prosthetic joint infection after total hip or knee replacement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(12):1713-1720.

7.    Menon TJ, Wroblewski BM. Charnley low-friction arthroplasty in patients with psoriasis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;(176):127-128.

8.    Stern SH, Insall JN, Windsor RE, Inglis AE, Dines DM. Total knee arthroplasty in patients with psoriasis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(248):108-100.

9.    Beyer CA, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG, Pittelkow MR. Primary total knee arthroplasty in patients with psoriasis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(2):258-259.

10.  Berbari EF, Osmon DR, Carr A, et al. Dental procedures as risk factors for prosthetic hip or knee infection: a hospital-based prospective case–control study. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(1):8-16.

11.  Singh G, Rao DJ. Bacteriology of psoriatic plaques. Dermatologica. 1978;157(1):21-27.

12.  Bozic KJ, Ong K, Lau E, et al. Estimating risk in Medicare patients with THA: an electronic risk calculator for periprosthetic joint infection and mortality. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):574-583.

13.  Malinzak RA, Ritter MA, Berend ME, Meding JB, Olberding EM, Davis KE. Morbidly obese, diabetic, younger, and unilateral joint arthroplasty patients have elevated total joint arthroplasty infection rates. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6 suppl):84-88.

14.  Dowsey MM, Choong PFM. Obese diabetic patients are at substantial risk for deep infection after primary TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(6):1577-1581.

15.  Jämsen E, Nevalainen P, Eskelinen A, Huotari K, Kalliovalkama J, Moilanen T. Obesity, diabetes, and preoperative hyperglycemia as predictors of periprosthetic joint infection: a single-center analysis of 7181 primary hip and knee replacements for osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(14):e101.

16.  Iorio R, Williams KM, Marcantonio AJ, Specht LM, Tilzey JF, Healy WL. Diabetes mellitus, hemoglobin A1C, and the incidence of total joint arthroplasty infection. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(5):726-729.e1.

17.  Mraovic B, Suh D, Jacovides C. Perioperative hyperglycemia and postoperative infection after lower limb arthroplasty. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(2):412-418.

18.  Abbott KC, Bucci JR, Agodoa LY. Total hip arthroplasty in chronic dialysis patients in the United States. J Nephrol. 2003;16(1):34-39.

19.  Lieberman JR, Fuchs MD, Haas SB, et al. Hip arthroplasty in patients with chronic renal failure. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(2):191-195.

20.  Sakalkale DP, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH. Total hip arthroplasty in patients on long-term renal dialysis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(5):571-575.

21.  Shrader MW, Schall D, Parvizi J, McCarthy JT, Lewallen DG. Total hip arthroplasty in patients with renal failure: a comparison between transplant and dialysis patients. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(3):324-329.

22.  Deegan BF, Richard RD, Bowen TR, Perkins RM, Graham JH, Foltzer MA. Impact of chronic kidney disease stage on lower-extremity arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2014;37(7):e613-e618.

23.  Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J. Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(7):1710-1715.

24.  Tomás T. Patient-related risk factors for infected total arthroplasty. Acta Chir Orthop. 2008;75(6):451-456.

25.  Ritter MA, Fechtman RW. Urinary tract sequelae: possible influence on joint infections following total joint replacement. Orthopedics. 1987;10(3):467-469.

26.   Gou W, Chen J, Jia Y, Wang Y. Preoperative asymptomatic leucocyturia and early prosthetic joint infections in patients undergoing joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(3):473-476.

27.  Goodman SM, Paget S. Perioperative drug safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2012;38(4):747-759.

28.  Salem M, Tainsh RE Jr, Bromberg J, Loriaux DL, Chernow B. Perioperative glucocorticoid coverage. A reassessment 42 years after emergence of a problem. Ann Surg. 1994;219(4):416-425.

29.  Howe CR, Gardner GC, Kadel NJ. Perioperative medication management for the patient with rheumatoid arthritis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(9):544-551.

30.   Grennan DM. Methotrexate and early postoperative complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001;60(3):214-217.

31.  Johnson R, Charnley J. Hydroxychloroquine in prophylaxis of pulmonary embolism following hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;(144):174-177.

32.  Mushtaq S, Goodman SM, Scanzello CR. Perioperative management of biologic agents used in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Ther. 2011;18(5):426-434.

33.  Namba RS, Paxton L, Fithian DC, Stone ML. Obesity and perioperative morbidity in total hip and total knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(7 suppl 3):46-50.

34.  Winiarsky R, Barth P, Lotke PA. Total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(12):1770-1774.

35.   Kulkarni A, Jameson SS, James P, Woodcock S, Muller S, Reed MR. Does bariatric surgery prior to lower limb joint replacement reduce complications? Surgeon. 2011;9(1):18-21.

36.   Greene KA, Wilde AH, Stulberg BN. Preoperative nutritional status of total joint patients. J Arthroplasty. 1991;6(4):321-325.

37.  Fairfield KM, Fletcher RH. Vitamins for chronic disease prevention in adults. JAMA. 2002;287(23):3116.

38.  Kwiatkowski TC, Hanley EN Jr, Ramp WK. Cigarette smoking and its orthopedic consequences. Am J Orthop. 1996;25(9):590-597.

39.   Møller AM, Villebro N, Pedersen T, Tønnesen H. Effect of preoperative smoking intervention on postoperative complications: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9301):114-117.

40.  Rantala A, Lehtonen OP, Niinikoski J. Alcohol abuse: a risk factor for surgical wound infections? Am J Infect Control. 1997;25(5):381-386.

41.  Wu C, Qu X, Liu F, Li H, Mao Y, Zhu Z. Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in Chinese patients. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e95300.

42.  Cordero-Ampuero J, de Dios M. What are the risk factors for infection in hemiarthroplasties and total hip arthroplasties? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(12):3268-3277.

43.  Tønnesen H, Rosenberg J, Nielsen HJ, et al. Effect of preoperative abstinence on poor postoperative outcome in alcohol misusers: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1999;318(7194):1311-1316.

44.  Shourie S, Conigrave KM, Proude EM, Ward JE, Wutzke SE, Haber PS. The effectiveness of a tailored intervention for excessive alcohol consumption prior to elective surgery. Alcohol Alcohol. 2006;41(6):643-649.

45.  Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):128-133.

46.  Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):45-51.

47.  Safdar N, Bradley EA. The risk of infection after nasal colonization with Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Med. 2008;121(4):310-315.

48.  American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Patient Safety Committee, Evans RP. Surgical site infection prevention and control: an emerging paradigm. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(suppl 6):2-9.

49.  Goyal N, Aggarwal V, Parvizi J. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening in total joint arthroplasty: a worthwhile endeavor. J Knee Surg. 2012;25(1):37-43.

50.  Kluytmans J, van Belkum A, Verbrugh H. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1997;10(3):505-520.

51.  Wilcox MH, Hall J, Pike H, et al. Use of perioperative mupirocin to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) orthopaedic surgical site infections. J Hosp Infect. 2003;54(3):196-201.

52.  Bode LG, Kluytmans JA, Wertheim HF, et al. Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):9-17.

53.  Association of Operating Room Nurses. Recommended practices for skin preparation of patients. AORN J. 2002;75(1):184-187.

54.  Edmiston CE Jr, Seabrook GR, Johnson CP, Paulson DS, Beausoleil CM. Comparative of a new and innovative 2% chlorhexidine gluconate–impregnated cloth with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as topical antiseptic for preparation of the skin prior to surgery. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(2):89-96.

55.  Edmiston CE Jr, Krepel CJ, Seabrook GR, Lewis BD, Brown KR, Towne JB. Preoperative shower revisited: can high topical antiseptic levels be achieved on the skin surface before surgical admission? J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(2):233-239.

56.  Johnson AJ, Kapadia BH, Daley JA, Molina CB, Mont MA. Chlorhexidine reduces infections in knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2013;26(3):213-218.

57.  Johnson AJ, Daley JA, Zywiel MG, Delanois RE, Mont MA. Preoperative chlorhexidine preparation and the incidence of surgical site infections after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(6 suppl):98-102.

58.  Mauerhan DR, Nelson CL, Smith DL, et al. Prophylaxis against infection in total joint arthroplasty. One day of cefuroxime compared with three days of cefazolin. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76(1):39-45.

59.  Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am J Surg. 2005;189(4):395-404.

60.  Tetreault MW, Wetters NG, Aggarwal V, Mont M, Parvizi J, Della Valle CJ. The Chitranjan Ranawat Award: should prophylactic antibiotics be withheld before revision surgery to obtain appropriate cultures? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):52-56.

61.  Illingworth KD, Mihalko WM, Parvizi J, et al. How to minimize infection and thereby maximize patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty: a multicenter approach: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(8):e50.

62.  Bannister GC, Auchincloss JM, Johnson DP, Newman JH. The timing of tourniquet application in relation to prophylactic antibiotic administration. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(2):322-324.

63.  Engesæter LB, Lie SA, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Vollset SE, Havelin LI. Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty: effects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0-14 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(6):644-651.

64.  Ritter MA. Operating room environment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(369):103-109.

65.  Brandt C, Hott U, Sohr D, Daschner F, Gastmeier P, Rüden H. Operating room ventilation with laminar airflow shows no protective effect on the surgical site infection rate in orthopedic and abdominal surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248(5):695-700.

66.  Dharan S, Pittet D. Environmental controls in operating theatres. J Hosp Infect. 2002;51(2):79-84.

67.  Hamilton HW, Booth AD, Lone FJ, Clark N. Penetration of gown material by organisms from the surgical team. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;(141):237-246.

68.   Da Costa AR, Kothari A, Bannister GC, Blom AW. Investigating bacterial growth in surgical theatres: establishing the effect of laminar airflow on bacterial growth on plastic, metal and wood surfaces. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90(5):417-419.

69.  Tanner J, Woodings D, Moncaster K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD004122.

70.  Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18-26.

71.  Carroll K, Dowsey M, Choong P, Peel T. Risk factors for superficial wound complications in hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;20(2):130-135.

72.  Ayliffe GA. Surgical scrub and skin disinfection. Infect Control. 1984;5(1):23-27.

73.   Lidwell OM, Lowbury EJ, Whyte W, Blowers R, Lowe D. Extended follow-up of patients suspected of having joint sepsis after total joint replacement. J Hyg (Lond). 1985;95(3):655-664.

74.  Webster J, Alghamdi AA. Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(4):CD006353.

75.  Alijanipour P, Heller S, Parvizi J. Prevention of periprosthetic joint infection: what are the effective strategies? J Knee Surg. 2014;27(4):251-258.

76.  Tanner J, Parkinson H. Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(3):CD003087.

77.   Demircay E, Unay K, Bilgili MG, Alataca G. Glove perforation in hip and knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci. 2010;15(6):790-794.

78.  Ersozlu S, Sahin O, Ozgur AF, Akkaya T, Tuncay C. Glove punctures in major and minor orthopaedic surgery with double gloving. Acta Orthop Belg. 2007;73(6):760-764.

79.  Sanders R, Fortin P, Ross E, Helfet D. Outer gloves in orthopaedic procedures. Cloth compared with latex. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72(6):914-917.

80.  Dodds RD, Guy PJ, Peacock AM, Duffy SR, Barker SG, Thomas MH. Surgical glove perforation. Br J Surg. 1988;75(10):966-968.

81.  Al-Maiyah M, Bajwa A, Mackenney P, et al. Glove perforation and contamination in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(4):556-559.

82.   Insull PJ, Hudson J. Suction tip: a potential source of infection in clean orthopaedic procedures. ANZ J Surg. 2012;82(3):185-186.

83.   Givissis P, Karataglis D, Antonarakos P, Symeonidis PD, Christodoulou A. Suction during orthopaedic surgery. How safe is the suction tip? Acta Orthop Belg. 2008;74(4):531-533.

84.  Meals RA, Knoke L. The surgical suction top—a contaminated instrument. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(3):409-410.

85.  Strange-Vognsen MH, Klareskov B. Bacteriologic contamination of suction tips during hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand. 1988;59(4):410-411.

86.  Greenough CG. An investigation into contamination of operative suction. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986;68(1):151-153.

87.  Baird RA, Nickel FR, Thrupp LD, Rucker S, Hawkins B. Splash basin contamination in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;(187):129-133.

88.  Hargrove R, Ridgeway S, Russell R, Norris M, Packham I, Levy B. Does pulse lavage reduce hip hemiarthroplasty infection rates? J Hosp Infect. 2006;62(4):446-449.

89.  Hassinger SM, Harding G, Wongworawat MD. High-pressure pulsatile lavage propagates bacteria into soft tissue. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;(439):27-31.

90.  Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ, Berry D, Parvizi J. Prosthetic joint infection risk after TKA in the Medicare population. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):52-56.

91.  Peersman G, Laskin R, Davis J, Peterson M. Infection in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(392):15-23.

92.  Bierbaum BE, Callaghan JJ, Galante JO, Rubash HE, Tooms RE, Welch RB. An analysis of blood management in patients having a total hip or knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(1):2-10.

93.  Cherian JJ, Kapadia BH, Issa K, et al. Preoperative blood management strategies for total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2013;23:261-266.

94.   Issa K, Banerjee S, Rifai A, et al. Blood management strategies in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty for Jehovah’s Witness patients. J Knee Surg. 2013;26(6):401-404.

95.  Sukeik M, Alshryda S, Haddad FS, Mason JM. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of tranexamic acid in total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;93(1):39-46.

96.  Berger V, Alperson S. A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2009;4(2):79-88.

97.  Chimento GF, Huff T, Ochsner JL, Meyer M, Brandner L, Babin S. An evaluation of the use of topical tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(8 suppl):74-77.

98.  Karam JA, Bloomfield MR, DiIorio TM, Irizarry AM, Sharkey PF. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid for reducing blood loss in bilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(3):501-503.

99.  Kim HJ, Fraser MR, Kahn B, Lyman S, Figgie MP. The efficacy of a thrombin-based hemostatic agent in unilateral total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(13):1160-1165.

100. Suarez JC, Slotkin EM, Alvarez AM, Szubski CR, Barsoum WK, Patel PD. Prospective, randomized trial to evaluate efficacy of a thrombin-based hemostatic agent in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(10):1950-1955.

101. Romanò CL, Monti L, Logoluso N, Romanò D, Drago L. Does a thrombin-based topical haemostatic agent reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements after total knee revision surgery? A randomized, controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(11):3337-3342.

102. Falez F, Meo A, Panegrossi G, Favetti F, Cava F, Casella F. Blood loss reduction in cementless total hip replacement with fibrin spray or bipolar sealer: a randomised controlled trial on ninety five patients. Int Orthop. 2013;37(7):1213-1217.

103. Morris MJ, Barrett M, Lombardi AV, Tucker TL, Berend KR. Randomized blinded study comparing a bipolar sealer and standard electrocautery in reducing transfusion requirements in anterior supine intermuscular total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(9):1614-1617.

104. Barsoum WK, Klika AK, Murray TG, Higuera C, Lee HH, Krebs VE. Prospective randomized evaluation of the need for blood transfusion during primary total hip arthroplasty with use of a bipolar sealer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(6):513-518.

105.  Zeh A, Messer J, Davis J, Vasarhelyi A, Wohlrab D. The Aquamantys system—an alternative to reduce blood loss in primary total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(7):1072-1077.

106. Heck D, Rosenberg A, Schink-Ascani M, Garbus S, Kiewitt T. Use of antibiotic-impregnated cement during hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(4):470-475.

107. Srivastav A, Nadkarni B, Srivastav S, Mittal V, Agarwal S. Prophylactic use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in primary total knee arthroplasty: justified or not? Indian J Orthop. 2009;43(3):259-263.

108. Dunbar MJ. Antibiotic bone cements: their use in routine primary total joint arthroplasty is justified. Orthopedics. 2009;32(9).

109. Merollini KM, Zheng H, Graves N. Most relevant strategies for preventing surgical site infection after total hip arthroplasty: guideline recommendations and expert opinion. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(3):221-226.

110. Jämsen E, Huhtala H, Puolakka T, Moilanen T. Risk factors for infection after knee arthroplasty. A register-based analysis of 43,149 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):38-47.

111. Seldes RM, Winiarsky R, Jordan LC, et al. Liquid gentamicin in bone cement: a laboratory study of a potentially more cost-effective cement spacer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(2):268-272.

112. Wright TM, Sullivan DJ, Arnoczky SP. The effect of antibiotic additions on the fracture properties of bone cements. Acta Orthop Scand. 1984;55(4):414-418.

113. Baleani M, Persson C, Zolezzi C, Andollina A, Borrelli AM, Tigani D. Biological and biomechanical effects of vancomycin and meropenem in acrylic bone cement. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(8):1232-1238.

114. Baleani M, Cristofolini L, Minari C, Toni A. Fatigue strength of PMMA bone cement mixed with gentamicin and barium sulphate vs pure PMMA. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2005;217(1):9-12.

115. Parvizi J, Saleh KJ, Ragland PS, Pour AE, Mont MA. Efficacy of antibiotic-impregnated cement in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop Scand. 2008;79(3):335-341.

116. Cummins JS, Tomek IM, Kantor SR, Furnes O, Engesæter LB, Finlayson SRG. Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement used in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(3):634-641.

117. Brown NM, Cipriano CA, Moric M, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ. Dilute Betadine lavage before closure for the prevention of acute postoperative deep periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(1):27-30.

118. Fowler JR, Perkins TA, Buttaro BA, Truant AL. Bacteria adhere less to barbed monofilament than braided sutures in a contaminated wound model. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):665-671.

119.  Smith EL, DiSegna ST, Shukla PY, Matzkin EG. Barbed versus traditional sutures: closure time, cost, and wound related outcomes in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(2):283-287.

120. Ting NT, Moric MM, Della Valle CJ, Levine BR. Use of knotless suture for closure of total hip and knee arthroplasties: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(10):1783-1788.

121. Miller AG, Swank ML. Dermabond efficacy in total joint arthroplasty wounds. Am J Orthop. 2010;39(10):476-478.

122. Cai J, Karam JA, Parvizi J, Smith EB, Sharkey PF. Aquacel surgical dressing reduces the rate of acute PJI following total joint arthroplasty: a case–control study. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(6):1098-1100.

123. Drinkwater CJ, Neil MJ. Optimal timing of wound drain removal following total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(2):185-189.

124. Parker MJ, Roberts CP, Hay D. Closed suction drainage for hip and knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(6):1146-1152.

125. Matar WY, Jafari SM, Restrepo C, Austin M, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J. Preventing infection in total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(suppl 2):36-46.

126. Ritter MA, French ML, Eitzen HE. Bacterial contamination of the surgical knife. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;(108):158-160.

127. Fairclough JA, Mackie IG, Mintowt-Czyz W, Phillips GE. The contaminated skin-knife. A surgical myth. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1983;65(2):210.

128. Ramón R, García S, Combalía A, Puig de la Bellacasa J, Segur JM. Bacteriological study of surgical knives: is the use of two blades necessary? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1994;113(3):157-158.

129. Hasselgren PO, Hagberg E, Malmer H, Säljö A, Seeman T. One instead of two knives for surgical incision. Does it increase the risk of postoperative wound infection? Arch Surg. 1984;119(8):917-920.

130. Lee MJ, Pottinger PS, Butler-Wu S, Bumgarner RE, Russ SM, Matsen FA 3rd. Propionibacterium persists in the skin despite standard surgical preparation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(17):1447-1450.

131. Parvizi J, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH. Does “excessive” anticoagulation predispose to periprosthetic infection? J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6 suppl 2):24-28.

132. Marchant MH, Viens NA, Cook C, Vail TP, Bolognesi MP. The impact of glycemic control and diabetes mellitus on perioperative outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(7):1621-1629.

133. Reátegui D, Sanchez-Etayo G, Núñez E, et al. Perioperative hyperglycaemia and incidence of post-operative complications in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(7):2026-2031.

134. Urquhart DM, Hanna FS, Brennan SL, et al. Incidence and risk factors for deep surgical site infection after primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(8):1216-1222.e1-e3.

135. Friedlander AH. Oral cavity staphylococci are a potential source of prosthetic joint infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(12):1682-1683.

136. Zimmerli W, Sendi P. Antibiotics for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection following dentistry: time to focus on data. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(1):17-19.

137. Young H, Hirsh J, Hammerberg EM, Price CS. Dental disease and periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(2):162-168.

138. Simmons NA, Ball AP, Cawson RA, et al. Case against antibiotic prophylaxis for dental treatment of

References

 

 

1.    Berbari EF, Hanssen AD, Duffy MC, et al. Risk factors for prosthetic joint infection: case–control study. Clin Infect Dis. 1998;27(5):1247-1254.

2.    Adeli B, Parvizi J. Strategies for the prevention of periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(11 suppl A):42-46.

3.    Kurtz SM, Lau E, Watson H, Schmier JK, Parvizi J. Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(8 suppl):61-65.e1.

4.    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785.

5.    Ridgeway S. Infection of the surgical site after arthroplasty of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(6):844-850.

6.    Bongartz T, Halligan CS, Osmon DR, et al. Incidence and risk factors of prosthetic joint infection after total hip or knee replacement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(12):1713-1720.

7.    Menon TJ, Wroblewski BM. Charnley low-friction arthroplasty in patients with psoriasis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983;(176):127-128.

8.    Stern SH, Insall JN, Windsor RE, Inglis AE, Dines DM. Total knee arthroplasty in patients with psoriasis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;(248):108-100.

9.    Beyer CA, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG, Pittelkow MR. Primary total knee arthroplasty in patients with psoriasis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991;73(2):258-259.

10.  Berbari EF, Osmon DR, Carr A, et al. Dental procedures as risk factors for prosthetic hip or knee infection: a hospital-based prospective case–control study. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(1):8-16.

11.  Singh G, Rao DJ. Bacteriology of psoriatic plaques. Dermatologica. 1978;157(1):21-27.

12.  Bozic KJ, Ong K, Lau E, et al. Estimating risk in Medicare patients with THA: an electronic risk calculator for periprosthetic joint infection and mortality. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):574-583.

13.  Malinzak RA, Ritter MA, Berend ME, Meding JB, Olberding EM, Davis KE. Morbidly obese, diabetic, younger, and unilateral joint arthroplasty patients have elevated total joint arthroplasty infection rates. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(6 suppl):84-88.

14.  Dowsey MM, Choong PFM. Obese diabetic patients are at substantial risk for deep infection after primary TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(6):1577-1581.

15.  Jämsen E, Nevalainen P, Eskelinen A, Huotari K, Kalliovalkama J, Moilanen T. Obesity, diabetes, and preoperative hyperglycemia as predictors of periprosthetic joint infection: a single-center analysis of 7181 primary hip and knee replacements for osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(14):e101.

16.  Iorio R, Williams KM, Marcantonio AJ, Specht LM, Tilzey JF, Healy WL. Diabetes mellitus, hemoglobin A1C, and the incidence of total joint arthroplasty infection. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(5):726-729.e1.

17.  Mraovic B, Suh D, Jacovides C. Perioperative hyperglycemia and postoperative infection after lower limb arthroplasty. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011;5(2):412-418.

18.  Abbott KC, Bucci JR, Agodoa LY. Total hip arthroplasty in chronic dialysis patients in the United States. J Nephrol. 2003;16(1):34-39.

19.  Lieberman JR, Fuchs MD, Haas SB, et al. Hip arthroplasty in patients with chronic renal failure. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(2):191-195.

20.  Sakalkale DP, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH. Total hip arthroplasty in patients on long-term renal dialysis. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14(5):571-575.

21.  Shrader MW, Schall D, Parvizi J, McCarthy JT, Lewallen DG. Total hip arthroplasty in patients with renal failure: a comparison between transplant and dialysis patients. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(3):324-329.

22.  Deegan BF, Richard RD, Bowen TR, Perkins RM, Graham JH, Foltzer MA. Impact of chronic kidney disease stage on lower-extremity arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2014;37(7):e613-e618.

23.  Pulido L, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J. Periprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(7):1710-1715.

24.  Tomás T. Patient-related risk factors for infected total arthroplasty. Acta Chir Orthop. 2008;75(6):451-456.

25.  Ritter MA, Fechtman RW. Urinary tract sequelae: possible influence on joint infections following total joint replacement. Orthopedics. 1987;10(3):467-469.

26.   Gou W, Chen J, Jia Y, Wang Y. Preoperative asymptomatic leucocyturia and early prosthetic joint infections in patients undergoing joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(3):473-476.

27.  Goodman SM, Paget S. Perioperative drug safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2012;38(4):747-759.

28.  Salem M, Tainsh RE Jr, Bromberg J, Loriaux DL, Chernow B. Perioperative glucocorticoid coverage. A reassessment 42 years after emergence of a problem. Ann Surg. 1994;219(4):416-425.

29.  Howe CR, Gardner GC, Kadel NJ. Perioperative medication management for the patient with rheumatoid arthritis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(9):544-551.

30.   Grennan DM. Methotrexate and early postoperative complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001;60(3):214-217.

31.  Johnson R, Charnley J. Hydroxychloroquine in prophylaxis of pulmonary embolism following hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;(144):174-177.

32.  Mushtaq S, Goodman SM, Scanzello CR. Perioperative management of biologic agents used in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Am J Ther. 2011;18(5):426-434.

33.  Namba RS, Paxton L, Fithian DC, Stone ML. Obesity and perioperative morbidity in total hip and total knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(7 suppl 3):46-50.

34.  Winiarsky R, Barth P, Lotke PA. Total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(12):1770-1774.

35.   Kulkarni A, Jameson SS, James P, Woodcock S, Muller S, Reed MR. Does bariatric surgery prior to lower limb joint replacement reduce complications? Surgeon. 2011;9(1):18-21.

36.   Greene KA, Wilde AH, Stulberg BN. Preoperative nutritional status of total joint patients. J Arthroplasty. 1991;6(4):321-325.

37.  Fairfield KM, Fletcher RH. Vitamins for chronic disease prevention in adults. JAMA. 2002;287(23):3116.

38.  Kwiatkowski TC, Hanley EN Jr, Ramp WK. Cigarette smoking and its orthopedic consequences. Am J Orthop. 1996;25(9):590-597.

39.   Møller AM, Villebro N, Pedersen T, Tønnesen H. Effect of preoperative smoking intervention on postoperative complications: a randomised clinical trial. Lancet. 2002;359(9301):114-117.

40.  Rantala A, Lehtonen OP, Niinikoski J. Alcohol abuse: a risk factor for surgical wound infections? Am J Infect Control. 1997;25(5):381-386.

41.  Wu C, Qu X, Liu F, Li H, Mao Y, Zhu Z. Risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in Chinese patients. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e95300.

42.  Cordero-Ampuero J, de Dios M. What are the risk factors for infection in hemiarthroplasties and total hip arthroplasties? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(12):3268-3277.

43.  Tønnesen H, Rosenberg J, Nielsen HJ, et al. Effect of preoperative abstinence on poor postoperative outcome in alcohol misusers: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 1999;318(7194):1311-1316.

44.  Shourie S, Conigrave KM, Proude EM, Ward JE, Wutzke SE, Haber PS. The effectiveness of a tailored intervention for excessive alcohol consumption prior to elective surgery. Alcohol Alcohol. 2006;41(6):643-649.

45.  Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):128-133.

46.  Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):45-51.

47.  Safdar N, Bradley EA. The risk of infection after nasal colonization with Staphylococcus aureus. Am J Med. 2008;121(4):310-315.

48.  American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Patient Safety Committee, Evans RP. Surgical site infection prevention and control: an emerging paradigm. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(suppl 6):2-9.

49.  Goyal N, Aggarwal V, Parvizi J. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening in total joint arthroplasty: a worthwhile endeavor. J Knee Surg. 2012;25(1):37-43.

50.  Kluytmans J, van Belkum A, Verbrugh H. Nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus: epidemiology, underlying mechanisms, and associated risks. Clin Microbiol Rev. 1997;10(3):505-520.

51.  Wilcox MH, Hall J, Pike H, et al. Use of perioperative mupirocin to prevent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) orthopaedic surgical site infections. J Hosp Infect. 2003;54(3):196-201.

52.  Bode LG, Kluytmans JA, Wertheim HF, et al. Preventing surgical-site infections in nasal carriers of Staphylococcus aureus. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):9-17.

53.  Association of Operating Room Nurses. Recommended practices for skin preparation of patients. AORN J. 2002;75(1):184-187.

54.  Edmiston CE Jr, Seabrook GR, Johnson CP, Paulson DS, Beausoleil CM. Comparative of a new and innovative 2% chlorhexidine gluconate–impregnated cloth with 4% chlorhexidine gluconate as topical antiseptic for preparation of the skin prior to surgery. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(2):89-96.

55.  Edmiston CE Jr, Krepel CJ, Seabrook GR, Lewis BD, Brown KR, Towne JB. Preoperative shower revisited: can high topical antiseptic levels be achieved on the skin surface before surgical admission? J Am Coll Surg. 2008;207(2):233-239.

56.  Johnson AJ, Kapadia BH, Daley JA, Molina CB, Mont MA. Chlorhexidine reduces infections in knee arthroplasty. J Knee Surg. 2013;26(3):213-218.

57.  Johnson AJ, Daley JA, Zywiel MG, Delanois RE, Mont MA. Preoperative chlorhexidine preparation and the incidence of surgical site infections after hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(6 suppl):98-102.

58.  Mauerhan DR, Nelson CL, Smith DL, et al. Prophylaxis against infection in total joint arthroplasty. One day of cefuroxime compared with three days of cefazolin. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994;76(1):39-45.

59.  Bratzler DW, Houck PM; Surgical Infection Prevention Guideline Writers Workgroup. Antimicrobial prophylaxis for surgery: an advisory statement from the National Surgical Infection Prevention Project. Am J Surg. 2005;189(4):395-404.

60.  Tetreault MW, Wetters NG, Aggarwal V, Mont M, Parvizi J, Della Valle CJ. The Chitranjan Ranawat Award: should prophylactic antibiotics be withheld before revision surgery to obtain appropriate cultures? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(1):52-56.

61.  Illingworth KD, Mihalko WM, Parvizi J, et al. How to minimize infection and thereby maximize patient outcomes in total joint arthroplasty: a multicenter approach: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(8):e50.

62.  Bannister GC, Auchincloss JM, Johnson DP, Newman JH. The timing of tourniquet application in relation to prophylactic antibiotic administration. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(2):322-324.

63.  Engesæter LB, Lie SA, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Vollset SE, Havelin LI. Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty: effects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0-14 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand. 2003;74(6):644-651.

64.  Ritter MA. Operating room environment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(369):103-109.

65.  Brandt C, Hott U, Sohr D, Daschner F, Gastmeier P, Rüden H. Operating room ventilation with laminar airflow shows no protective effect on the surgical site infection rate in orthopedic and abdominal surgery. Ann Surg. 2008;248(5):695-700.

66.  Dharan S, Pittet D. Environmental controls in operating theatres. J Hosp Infect. 2002;51(2):79-84.

67.  Hamilton HW, Booth AD, Lone FJ, Clark N. Penetration of gown material by organisms from the surgical team. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;(141):237-246.

68.   Da Costa AR, Kothari A, Bannister GC, Blom AW. Investigating bacterial growth in surgical theatres: establishing the effect of laminar airflow on bacterial growth on plastic, metal and wood surfaces. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008;90(5):417-419.

69.  Tanner J, Woodings D, Moncaster K. Preoperative hair removal to reduce surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD004122.

70.  Darouiche RO, Wall MJ Jr, Itani KM, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18-26.

71.  Carroll K, Dowsey M, Choong P, Peel T. Risk factors for superficial wound complications in hip and knee arthroplasty. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2013;20(2):130-135.

72.  Ayliffe GA. Surgical scrub and skin disinfection. Infect Control. 1984;5(1):23-27.

73.   Lidwell OM, Lowbury EJ, Whyte W, Blowers R, Lowe D. Extended follow-up of patients suspected of having joint sepsis after total joint replacement. J Hyg (Lond). 1985;95(3):655-664.

74.  Webster J, Alghamdi AA. Use of plastic adhesive drapes during surgery for preventing surgical site infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;(4):CD006353.

75.  Alijanipour P, Heller S, Parvizi J. Prevention of periprosthetic joint infection: what are the effective strategies? J Knee Surg. 2014;27(4):251-258.

76.  Tanner J, Parkinson H. Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(3):CD003087.

77.   Demircay E, Unay K, Bilgili MG, Alataca G. Glove perforation in hip and knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci. 2010;15(6):790-794.

78.  Ersozlu S, Sahin O, Ozgur AF, Akkaya T, Tuncay C. Glove punctures in major and minor orthopaedic surgery with double gloving. Acta Orthop Belg. 2007;73(6):760-764.

79.  Sanders R, Fortin P, Ross E, Helfet D. Outer gloves in orthopaedic procedures. Cloth compared with latex. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72(6):914-917.

80.  Dodds RD, Guy PJ, Peacock AM, Duffy SR, Barker SG, Thomas MH. Surgical glove perforation. Br J Surg. 1988;75(10):966-968.

81.  Al-Maiyah M, Bajwa A, Mackenney P, et al. Glove perforation and contamination in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87(4):556-559.

82.   Insull PJ, Hudson J. Suction tip: a potential source of infection in clean orthopaedic procedures. ANZ J Surg. 2012;82(3):185-186.

83.   Givissis P, Karataglis D, Antonarakos P, Symeonidis PD, Christodoulou A. Suction during orthopaedic surgery. How safe is the suction tip? Acta Orthop Belg. 2008;74(4):531-533.

84.  Meals RA, Knoke L. The surgical suction top—a contaminated instrument. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(3):409-410.

85.  Strange-Vognsen MH, Klareskov B. Bacteriologic contamination of suction tips during hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand. 1988;59(4):410-411.

86.  Greenough CG. An investigation into contamination of operative suction. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986;68(1):151-153.

87.  Baird RA, Nickel FR, Thrupp LD, Rucker S, Hawkins B. Splash basin contamination in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;(187):129-133.

88.  Hargrove R, Ridgeway S, Russell R, Norris M, Packham I, Levy B. Does pulse lavage reduce hip hemiarthroplasty infection rates? J Hosp Infect. 2006;62(4):446-449.

89.  Hassinger SM, Harding G, Wongworawat MD. High-pressure pulsatile lavage propagates bacteria into soft tissue. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;(439):27-31.

90.  Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ, Berry D, Parvizi J. Prosthetic joint infection risk after TKA in the Medicare population. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(1):52-56.

91.  Peersman G, Laskin R, Davis J, Peterson M. Infection in total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;(392):15-23.

92.  Bierbaum BE, Callaghan JJ, Galante JO, Rubash HE, Tooms RE, Welch RB. An analysis of blood management in patients having a total hip or knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81(1):2-10.

93.  Cherian JJ, Kapadia BH, Issa K, et al. Preoperative blood management strategies for total hip arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int. 2013;23:261-266.

94.   Issa K, Banerjee S, Rifai A, et al. Blood management strategies in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty for Jehovah’s Witness patients. J Knee Surg. 2013;26(6):401-404.

95.  Sukeik M, Alshryda S, Haddad FS, Mason JM. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of tranexamic acid in total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;93(1):39-46.

96.  Berger V, Alperson S. A general framework for the evaluation of clinical trial quality. Rev Recent Clin Trials. 2009;4(2):79-88.

97.  Chimento GF, Huff T, Ochsner JL, Meyer M, Brandner L, Babin S. An evaluation of the use of topical tranexamic acid in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(8 suppl):74-77.

98.  Karam JA, Bloomfield MR, DiIorio TM, Irizarry AM, Sharkey PF. Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid for reducing blood loss in bilateral total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(3):501-503.

99.  Kim HJ, Fraser MR, Kahn B, Lyman S, Figgie MP. The efficacy of a thrombin-based hemostatic agent in unilateral total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(13):1160-1165.

100. Suarez JC, Slotkin EM, Alvarez AM, Szubski CR, Barsoum WK, Patel PD. Prospective, randomized trial to evaluate efficacy of a thrombin-based hemostatic agent in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(10):1950-1955.

101. Romanò CL, Monti L, Logoluso N, Romanò D, Drago L. Does a thrombin-based topical haemostatic agent reduce blood loss and transfusion requirements after total knee revision surgery? A randomized, controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(11):3337-3342.

102. Falez F, Meo A, Panegrossi G, Favetti F, Cava F, Casella F. Blood loss reduction in cementless total hip replacement with fibrin spray or bipolar sealer: a randomised controlled trial on ninety five patients. Int Orthop. 2013;37(7):1213-1217.

103. Morris MJ, Barrett M, Lombardi AV, Tucker TL, Berend KR. Randomized blinded study comparing a bipolar sealer and standard electrocautery in reducing transfusion requirements in anterior supine intermuscular total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28(9):1614-1617.

104. Barsoum WK, Klika AK, Murray TG, Higuera C, Lee HH, Krebs VE. Prospective randomized evaluation of the need for blood transfusion during primary total hip arthroplasty with use of a bipolar sealer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(6):513-518.

105.  Zeh A, Messer J, Davis J, Vasarhelyi A, Wohlrab D. The Aquamantys system—an alternative to reduce blood loss in primary total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(7):1072-1077.

106. Heck D, Rosenberg A, Schink-Ascani M, Garbus S, Kiewitt T. Use of antibiotic-impregnated cement during hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(4):470-475.

107. Srivastav A, Nadkarni B, Srivastav S, Mittal V, Agarwal S. Prophylactic use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in primary total knee arthroplasty: justified or not? Indian J Orthop. 2009;43(3):259-263.

108. Dunbar MJ. Antibiotic bone cements: their use in routine primary total joint arthroplasty is justified. Orthopedics. 2009;32(9).

109. Merollini KM, Zheng H, Graves N. Most relevant strategies for preventing surgical site infection after total hip arthroplasty: guideline recommendations and expert opinion. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41(3):221-226.

110. Jämsen E, Huhtala H, Puolakka T, Moilanen T. Risk factors for infection after knee arthroplasty. A register-based analysis of 43,149 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):38-47.

111. Seldes RM, Winiarsky R, Jordan LC, et al. Liquid gentamicin in bone cement: a laboratory study of a potentially more cost-effective cement spacer. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(2):268-272.

112. Wright TM, Sullivan DJ, Arnoczky SP. The effect of antibiotic additions on the fracture properties of bone cements. Acta Orthop Scand. 1984;55(4):414-418.

113. Baleani M, Persson C, Zolezzi C, Andollina A, Borrelli AM, Tigani D. Biological and biomechanical effects of vancomycin and meropenem in acrylic bone cement. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(8):1232-1238.

114. Baleani M, Cristofolini L, Minari C, Toni A. Fatigue strength of PMMA bone cement mixed with gentamicin and barium sulphate vs pure PMMA. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2005;217(1):9-12.

115. Parvizi J, Saleh KJ, Ragland PS, Pour AE, Mont MA. Efficacy of antibiotic-impregnated cement in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop Scand. 2008;79(3):335-341.

116. Cummins JS, Tomek IM, Kantor SR, Furnes O, Engesæter LB, Finlayson SRG. Cost-effectiveness of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement used in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(3):634-641.

117. Brown NM, Cipriano CA, Moric M, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ. Dilute Betadine lavage before closure for the prevention of acute postoperative deep periprosthetic joint infection. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(1):27-30.

118. Fowler JR, Perkins TA, Buttaro BA, Truant AL. Bacteria adhere less to barbed monofilament than braided sutures in a contaminated wound model. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(2):665-671.

119.  Smith EL, DiSegna ST, Shukla PY, Matzkin EG. Barbed versus traditional sutures: closure time, cost, and wound related outcomes in total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(2):283-287.

120. Ting NT, Moric MM, Della Valle CJ, Levine BR. Use of knotless suture for closure of total hip and knee arthroplasties: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(10):1783-1788.

121. Miller AG, Swank ML. Dermabond efficacy in total joint arthroplasty wounds. Am J Orthop. 2010;39(10):476-478.

122. Cai J, Karam JA, Parvizi J, Smith EB, Sharkey PF. Aquacel surgical dressing reduces the rate of acute PJI following total joint arthroplasty: a case–control study. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(6):1098-1100.

123. Drinkwater CJ, Neil MJ. Optimal timing of wound drain removal following total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10(2):185-189.

124. Parker MJ, Roberts CP, Hay D. Closed suction drainage for hip and knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(6):1146-1152.

125. Matar WY, Jafari SM, Restrepo C, Austin M, Purtill JJ, Parvizi J. Preventing infection in total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(suppl 2):36-46.

126. Ritter MA, French ML, Eitzen HE. Bacterial contamination of the surgical knife. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975;(108):158-160.

127. Fairclough JA, Mackie IG, Mintowt-Czyz W, Phillips GE. The contaminated skin-knife. A surgical myth. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1983;65(2):210.

128. Ramón R, García S, Combalía A, Puig de la Bellacasa J, Segur JM. Bacteriological study of surgical knives: is the use of two blades necessary? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1994;113(3):157-158.

129. Hasselgren PO, Hagberg E, Malmer H, Säljö A, Seeman T. One instead of two knives for surgical incision. Does it increase the risk of postoperative wound infection? Arch Surg. 1984;119(8):917-920.

130. Lee MJ, Pottinger PS, Butler-Wu S, Bumgarner RE, Russ SM, Matsen FA 3rd. Propionibacterium persists in the skin despite standard surgical preparation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(17):1447-1450.

131. Parvizi J, Ghanem E, Joshi A, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH. Does “excessive” anticoagulation predispose to periprosthetic infection? J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6 suppl 2):24-28.

132. Marchant MH, Viens NA, Cook C, Vail TP, Bolognesi MP. The impact of glycemic control and diabetes mellitus on perioperative outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(7):1621-1629.

133. Reátegui D, Sanchez-Etayo G, Núñez E, et al. Perioperative hyperglycaemia and incidence of post-operative complications in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015;23(7):2026-2031.

134. Urquhart DM, Hanna FS, Brennan SL, et al. Incidence and risk factors for deep surgical site infection after primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(8):1216-1222.e1-e3.

135. Friedlander AH. Oral cavity staphylococci are a potential source of prosthetic joint infection. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(12):1682-1683.

136. Zimmerli W, Sendi P. Antibiotics for prevention of periprosthetic joint infection following dentistry: time to focus on data. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;50(1):17-19.

137. Young H, Hirsh J, Hammerberg EM, Price CS. Dental disease and periprosthetic joint infection. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(2):162-168.

138. Simmons NA, Ball AP, Cawson RA, et al. Case against antibiotic prophylaxis for dental treatment of

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(5)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(5)
Page Number
E299-E307
Page Number
E299-E307
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip and Knee
Display Headline
Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip and Knee
Legacy Keywords
review paper, review, online exclusive, prevention, periprosthetic, joint, infection, hip, knee, PJI, periprosthetic joint infection, arthroplasty, TKA, THA, total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, levy, wetters, levine
Legacy Keywords
review paper, review, online exclusive, prevention, periprosthetic, joint, infection, hip, knee, PJI, periprosthetic joint infection, arthroplasty, TKA, THA, total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, levy, wetters, levine
Sections
Article PDF Media

Quality and Quantity of the Elbow Arthroscopy Literature: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:25
Display Headline
Quality and Quantity of the Elbow Arthroscopy Literature: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Although elbow arthroscopy was first described in the 1930s, it has become increasingly popular in the last 30 years.1 While initially considered as a tool for diagnosis and loose body removal, indications have expanded to include treatment of osteochondritis dissecans (OCD), treatment of lateral epicondylitis, fixation of fractures, and others.2-5 Miyake and colleagues6 found a significant improvement in range of motion, both flexion and extension, and outcome scores when elbow arthroscopy was used to remove impinging osteophytes. Babaqi and colleagues7 found significant improvement in pain, satisfaction, and outcome scores in 31 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis refractory to nonsurgical management. The technical difficulty of the procedure, lower frequency of pathology amenable to arthroscopic intervention, and potential neurovascular complications make the elbow less frequently evaluated with the arthroscope vs other joints, such as the knee and shoulder.2,8,9

Geographic distribution of subjects undergoing elbow arthroscopy, the indications used, surgical techniques being performed, and their associated clinical outcomes have received little to no recognition in the peer-reviewed literature.10 Differences in the elbow arthroscopy literature include characteristics related to the patient (age, gender, hand dominance, duration of symptoms), study (level of evidence, number of subjects, number of participating centers, design), indication (lateral epicondylitis, loose bodies, olecranon osteophytes, OCD), surgical technique, and outcome. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines direct surgeons in clinical decision-making. Payers investigate the cost of surgical interventions and the value that surgery may provide, while following trends in different surgical techniques. Regulatory agencies and associations emphasize subjective patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome measured in high-quality trials. Thus, in discussion of complex surgical interventions such as elbow arthroscopy, it is important to characterize the studies, subjects, and surgeries across the world to understand the geographic similarities and differences to optimize care in this clinical situation.

The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of elbow arthroscopy literature to identify and compare the characteristics of the studies published, the subjects analyzed, and surgical techniques performed across continents and countries to answer these questions: “Across the world, what demographic of patients are undergoing elbow arthroscopy, what are the most common indications for elbow arthroscopy, and how good is the evidence?” The authors hypothesized that patients who undergo elbow arthroscopy will be largely age <40 years, the most common indication for elbow arthroscopy will be a release/débridement, and the evidence for elbow arthroscopy will be poor. Also, no significant differences will exist in elbow arthroscopy publications, subjects, outcomes, and techniques based on continent/country of publication.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.11 Systematic review registration was performed using the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number, CRD42014010580; registration date, July 15, 2014).12 Two study authors independently conducted the search on June 23, 2014 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm used was: (elbow) AND arthroscopy) NOT shoulder) NOT knee) NOT ankle) NOT wrist) NOT hip) NOT dog) NOT cadaver). English language Level I-IV evidence (2012 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine13) clinical studies were eligible for inclusion into this study. Abstracts were ineligible for inclusion. All references in selected studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if they were missed during the initial search. Duplicate subject publications within separate unique studies were not reported twice. The study with longer duration follow-up, higher level of evidence, greater number of subjects, or more detailed subject, surgical technique, or outcome reporting was retained for inclusion. Level V evidence reviews, expert opinion articles, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, open elbow surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded.

All included patients underwent elbow arthroscopy for either intra- or extra-articular elbow pathology (ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic contracture, osteonecrosis of the capitellum or radial head, osteoid osteoma, and others). There was no minimum follow-up duration or rehabilitation requirement. The study and subject demographic parameters that we analyzed included year of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, elbow dominance, gender, age, body mass index, diagnoses treated, type of anesthesia (block or general), and surgical positioning. Postoperative splint application and pain management, and whether a continuous passive motion machine was used and whether a drain was placed were recorded. Clinical outcome scores were DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), Morrey score, MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance Score), Andrews-Carson score, Timmerman-Andrews score, LES (Liverpool Elbow Score), Tegner score, HSS (Hospital for Special Surgery Score), VAS (Visual Analog Scale), EFA (Elbow Functional Assessment), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) Shoulder and Elbow Questionnaire, and MAESS (Modified Andrews Elbow Scoring System). Radiographs, computed tomography (CT), computed tomography arthrography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) data were extracted when available. Range of motion (flexion, extension, supination, and pronation) and grip strength data, both preoperative and postoperative, were extracted when available. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).14

Statistical Analysis

Study descriptive statistics were calculated. Continuous variable data were reported as weighted means ± weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data were reported as frequencies with percentages. For all statistical analysis either measured and calculated from study data extraction or directly reported from the individual studies, P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Where applicable, study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were also compared using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-test calculators with α .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups. To examine trends over time, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated. For the purposes of analysis, the indications of “osteoarthritis,” “arthrofibrosis,” “loose body removal,” “ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis causing stiffness,” “post-traumatic contracture/stiffness,” and “post-operative elbow contracture” were combined into the indication “release and débridement.” For the 3 most common indications for arthroscopy (OCD, lateral epicondylitis, and release and débridement) data were combined into 5-year increments to overcome the smaller sample size within each of these categories, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if number of reported cases covaried with year period. Within these 3 diagnoses, ANOVA analyses were performed to determine whether the number of cases differed between continents and countries.

 

 

Results

A total of 353 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 112 studies were included in the final analysis (Figure 1; 3093 subjects; 3168 elbows; 64% male; mean age, 34.9 ± 14.68 years). There was a mean of 33.4 ± 26.02 months of follow-up, and 75% of surgeries involved the dominant elbow (Table 1). Most studies were level IV evidence (94.6%), had a low MCMS (mean 28.1 ± 8.06; poor rating), and were single-center investigations (94.6%). Most studies did not report financial conflicts of interest (56.3%) (Tables 1 and 2). From 1985 through 2014, the number of publications significantly increased with time (P = .004) among all continents. The MCMS was unchanged over time (P = .247) (Figure 2A), as was the level of evidence (P = .094) (Figure 2B). Conflicts of interest significantly increased with time (P = .025) (Figure 3).

 

Among continents, North America published the largest number of studies (54), and had the largest number of patients (1395) and elbow surgeries (1425) (Table 1). The United States published the largest number of studies (43%). There were no significant differences between age (P = .331), length of follow-up (P = .403), MCMS (P = .123), and level of evidence (P = .288) between continents. Of the 32 studies that reported the use of preoperative MRI, studies from Asia reported significantly more MRI scans than those from other continents (P = .040); there were no other significant differences between continents in reference to preoperative imaging studies or other demographic information.

 

 

The most common surgical indications were OCD (Figure 4), lateral epicondylitis (Figure 5), and release and débridement (Figure 6, Table 3; all studies listed indications). The number of reported cases for these 3 indications significantly increased over time (OCD P = .005, lateral epicondylitis P = .044, release and débridement P = .042) but did not significantly differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

 

Thirty-two (28.6%) studies reported the use of outcome measures (16 different outcome scores were used by the included studies). Asia reported outcome measures in 9 of 23 studies (39%), Europe in 12 of 35 studies (34%) and North America in 11 of 54 (20%) of studies. The MEPS was the most frequently used outcome score in 9.8% of studies, followed by VAS for pain in 5.3% of cases. North American studies reported a significantly higher increase in extension after elbow arthroscopy than Asia (P = .0432) (Figure 7), with no differences in flexion (P = .699), pronation (P = .376), or supination (P = .408). No significant differences were observed between continents in the type of anesthesia chosen (general anesthesia [P = .94] or regional anesthesia [P = .85]). Asia and Europe performed elbow arthroscopy most frequently in the lateral decubitus position, while North American studies most often used the supine position (Table 4).

 

Twenty (17.9%) studies reported the use of a postoperative splint, 12 (10.7%) studies reported use of a drain, 2 (1.79%) studies reported use of a hinged elbow brace, 9 (8.03%) studies reported use of a continuous passive motion machine postoperatively, and 3 (2.68%) studies reported use of an indwelling axillary catheter for postoperative pain management. Of 130 reported surgical complications (4.1%), the most frequent complication was transient sensory ulnar nerve palsy (1.5%), followed by persistent wound drainage (.76%), and transient sensory radial nerve palsy (.38%). Other reported complications included infection (.22%), transient sensory palsy of the median nerve (.19%), heterotopic ossification (.13%), complete transection of the ulnar nerve (.10%), loose body formation (.06%), hematoma formation (.06%), transient sensory palsy of the posterior interosseous (.06%), or anterior interosseous nerve (.03%), and complete transection of the radial (.03%), or median nerve (.03%).

 

 

 

Discussion

Elbow arthroscopy is an evolving surgical procedure that is used to treat intra- and extra-articular pathologies of the elbow. Outcomes of elbow arthroscopy for certain conditions have generally been reported as good, with improvements seen in pain, functional scores, and range of motion.6,15-17 The authors’ hypotheses were mostly confirmed in that the average age of patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy was <40 years, release/débridement was one of the most common indications (along with lateral epicondylitis and OCD), and the general evidence for elbow arthroscopy was poor. Also, there were almost no differences between continents/countries related to patient indications, preoperative imaging, anesthesia choice, indications, postoperative protocols, and outcomes (although the number of studies that reported outcomes was low and could have skewed the results), with the exception of a higher number of preoperative MRI scans in Asia. Some of the notable findings of this study included: 1) the number of studies published on elbow arthroscopy is significantly increasing with time, despite a lack of improvement in the level of evidence; 2) the majority of studies on elbow arthroscopy do not report a surgical outcome score; and 3) the number of reported cases for the 3 most common indications significantly increased over time (OCD, P = .005; lateral epicondylitis, P = .044; release and débridement, P = .042) but did not differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

The indications for elbow arthroscopy have grown dramatically in the past 2 decades to include both intra- and extra-articular pathologies.18 Despite this increase in the number of indications for elbow arthroscopy, the study did not find a significant difference between countries/continents in the indications each used for elbow arthroscopy patients. There was a trend towards an increase in OCD cases in all continents, especially Asia (Figure 4), with time. Interestingly, while not statistically significant, there was variation among countries for surgical indications. In North America, removal of loose bodies accounts for 18% of patients, while in Europe this accounted for only 9% and in Asia for 1%. Post-traumatic stiffness was the indication for elbow arthroscopy in Europe in 19% of patients vs 7% in North America and 10% in Asia. In Asia, OCD accounts for 40% of arthroscopies, 7% in Europe, and 14% in North America (Figure 4) (Table 3).

This study demonstrated that the mean increase in elbow extension gained after surgery in North America was significantly greater when compared with studies from Asia, but the gain in flexion, pronation, and supination was similar across continents. The underlying cause of this difference in improvement in elbow extension between nations is unclear, although differences in diagnosis could account for some variation. This study did not examine differences in rehabilitation protocols, and certainly, it is plausible that protocol variations by country could account for some discrepancy. Furthermore, differences in functional needs may vary by continent and could have driven this result.

This study found no routine reporting of outcome scores by elbow arthroscopy studies from any continent, and that when outcome scores are reported, there is substantial inconsistency with regard to the actual scoring system used. No continent reported outcome scores in more than 40% of the studies published from that area, and the variation of outcome scores used, even from a single region, was large. This makes comparing clinical outcomes between studies difficult, even when performing identical procedures for identical indications, because there is no standardized method of reporting outcomes. To allow comparison of studies and generalizability of the results to different populations, a more standardized approach to outcome reporting needs to be instituted in the elbow arthroscopy literature. To date, there is no standardized score that has been validated for reporting clinical outcomes after elbow arthroscopy.19 Hence, it is not surprising that there were 16 different outcome scores reported throughout the 112 studies analyzed in this review, with the most frequent score, the MEPS, reported in a total of 10 studies. As medicine moves towards pay scales that are based on patient outcomes, it will become more important to define a clear outcome score that can be used to assess these patients, and reliably report scores. This will allow comparison of patients across nations to determine the best surgical treatment for different clinical problems. A validation study comparing these outcome scores to determine which score best summarizes the patient’s level of pain and function after surgery would be beneficial, because this could identify 1 score that could be standardized to allow comparison among reported outcomes.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Despite having 2 authors search independently for studies, some studies could have been missed during the search process, introducing possible selection bias. Including only published studies could have introduced publication bias. Numerous studies did not report all the variables the authors examined. This could have skewed some results, and had additional variables been reported, could have altered the data to show significant differences in some measured variables. Because this study did not compare outcome measures for varying pathologies, conclusions cannot be drawn on the best treatment options for different indications. Case reports could have lowered the MCMS score and the average in studies reporting outcomes. Furthermore, the poor quality of the underlying data used in this study could limit the validity/generalizability of the results because this is a systematic review, and its level of evidence is only as high as the studies it includes. Because the primary aim was to report on demographics, this study did not examine concomitant pathology at the time of surgery or rehabilitation protocols.

Conclusion

The quantity, but not the quality, of arthroscopic elbow publications has significantly increased over time. Most patients undergo elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis, OCD, and release and débridement. Pathology and indications do not appear to differ geographically with more men undergoing elbow arthroscopy than women.

References

1.    Khanchandani P. Elbow arthroscopy: review of the literature and case reports. Case Rep Orthop. 2012;2012:478214.

2.    Dodson CC, Nho SJ, Williams RJ 3rd, Altchek DW. Elbow arthroscopy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(10):574-585.

3.    Takahara M, Mura N, Sasaki J, Harada M, Ogino T. Classification, treatment, and outcome of osteochondritis dissecans of the humeral capitellum. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(suppl 2 Pt 1):47-62.

4.    Kelly EW, Morrey BF, O’Driscoll SW. Complications of elbow arthroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(1):25-34.

5.    Rajeev A, Pooley J. Lateral compartment cartilage changes and lateral elbow pain. Acta Orthop Belg. 2009;75(1):37-40.

6.    Miyake J, Shimada K, Oka K, et al. Arthroscopic debridement in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the elbow, based on computer simulation. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(2):237-241.

7.    Babaqi AA, Kotb MM, Said HG, AbdelHamid MM, ElKady HA, ElAssal MA. Short-term evaluation of arthroscopic management of tennis elbow; including resection of radio-capitellar capsular complex. J Orthop. 2014;11(2):82-86.

8.    Gay DM, Raphael BS, Weiland AJ. Revision arthroscopic contracture release in the elbow resulting in an ulnar nerve transection: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1246-1249.

9.    Haapaniemi T, Berggren M, Adolfsson L. Complete transection of the median and radial nerves during arthroscopic release of post-traumatic elbow contracture. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(7):784-787.

10.  Yeoh KM, King GJ, Faber KJ, Glazebrook MA, Athwal GS. Evidence-based indications for elbow arthroscopy. Arthroscopy.  2012;28(2):272-282.

11.  Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

12.  PROSPERO. International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews. The University of York CfRaDP-Iprosr-v. 2013 [cited 2014]. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Accessed March 17, 2016.

13.  Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine - levels of evidence (March 2009). Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Web site. http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/. Accessed July 6, 2016.

14.  Cowan J, Lozano-Calderόn S, Ring D. Quality of prospective controlled randomized trials. Analysis of trials of treatment for lateral epicondylitis as an example. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(8):1693-1699.

15.  Jones GS, Savoie FH 3rd. Arthroscopic capsular release of flexion contractures (arthrofibrosis) of the elbow. Arthroscopy. 1993;9(3):277-283.

16.  O’Brien MJ, Lee Murphy R, Savoie FH 3rd. A preliminary report of acute and subacute arthroscopic repair of the radial ulnohumeral ligament after elbow dislocation in the high-demand patient. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(6):679-687.

17.  Rhyou IH, Kim KW. Is posterior synovial plica excision necessary for refractory lateral epicondylitis of the elbow? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):284-290.

18.  Jerosch J, Schunck J. Arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis: indication, technique and early results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(4):379-382.

19.  Tijssen M, van Cingel R, van Melick N, de Visser E. Patient-Reported Outcome questionnaires for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of the psychometric evidence. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:117.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Brandon J. Erickson, MD, Peter N. Chalmers, MD, Gregory L. Cvetanovich, MD, Rachel M. Frank, MD, Anthony A. Romeo, MD, and Joshua D. Harris, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(5)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E290-E298
Legacy Keywords
review paper, online exclusive, review, elbow, arthroscopy, erickson, chalmers, cvetanovich, frank, romeo, harris, outcomes
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Brandon J. Erickson, MD, Peter N. Chalmers, MD, Gregory L. Cvetanovich, MD, Rachel M. Frank, MD, Anthony A. Romeo, MD, and Joshua D. Harris, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author and Disclosure Information

Brandon J. Erickson, MD, Peter N. Chalmers, MD, Gregory L. Cvetanovich, MD, Rachel M. Frank, MD, Anthony A. Romeo, MD, and Joshua D. Harris, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Although elbow arthroscopy was first described in the 1930s, it has become increasingly popular in the last 30 years.1 While initially considered as a tool for diagnosis and loose body removal, indications have expanded to include treatment of osteochondritis dissecans (OCD), treatment of lateral epicondylitis, fixation of fractures, and others.2-5 Miyake and colleagues6 found a significant improvement in range of motion, both flexion and extension, and outcome scores when elbow arthroscopy was used to remove impinging osteophytes. Babaqi and colleagues7 found significant improvement in pain, satisfaction, and outcome scores in 31 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis refractory to nonsurgical management. The technical difficulty of the procedure, lower frequency of pathology amenable to arthroscopic intervention, and potential neurovascular complications make the elbow less frequently evaluated with the arthroscope vs other joints, such as the knee and shoulder.2,8,9

Geographic distribution of subjects undergoing elbow arthroscopy, the indications used, surgical techniques being performed, and their associated clinical outcomes have received little to no recognition in the peer-reviewed literature.10 Differences in the elbow arthroscopy literature include characteristics related to the patient (age, gender, hand dominance, duration of symptoms), study (level of evidence, number of subjects, number of participating centers, design), indication (lateral epicondylitis, loose bodies, olecranon osteophytes, OCD), surgical technique, and outcome. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines direct surgeons in clinical decision-making. Payers investigate the cost of surgical interventions and the value that surgery may provide, while following trends in different surgical techniques. Regulatory agencies and associations emphasize subjective patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome measured in high-quality trials. Thus, in discussion of complex surgical interventions such as elbow arthroscopy, it is important to characterize the studies, subjects, and surgeries across the world to understand the geographic similarities and differences to optimize care in this clinical situation.

The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of elbow arthroscopy literature to identify and compare the characteristics of the studies published, the subjects analyzed, and surgical techniques performed across continents and countries to answer these questions: “Across the world, what demographic of patients are undergoing elbow arthroscopy, what are the most common indications for elbow arthroscopy, and how good is the evidence?” The authors hypothesized that patients who undergo elbow arthroscopy will be largely age <40 years, the most common indication for elbow arthroscopy will be a release/débridement, and the evidence for elbow arthroscopy will be poor. Also, no significant differences will exist in elbow arthroscopy publications, subjects, outcomes, and techniques based on continent/country of publication.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.11 Systematic review registration was performed using the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number, CRD42014010580; registration date, July 15, 2014).12 Two study authors independently conducted the search on June 23, 2014 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm used was: (elbow) AND arthroscopy) NOT shoulder) NOT knee) NOT ankle) NOT wrist) NOT hip) NOT dog) NOT cadaver). English language Level I-IV evidence (2012 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine13) clinical studies were eligible for inclusion into this study. Abstracts were ineligible for inclusion. All references in selected studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if they were missed during the initial search. Duplicate subject publications within separate unique studies were not reported twice. The study with longer duration follow-up, higher level of evidence, greater number of subjects, or more detailed subject, surgical technique, or outcome reporting was retained for inclusion. Level V evidence reviews, expert opinion articles, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, open elbow surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded.

All included patients underwent elbow arthroscopy for either intra- or extra-articular elbow pathology (ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic contracture, osteonecrosis of the capitellum or radial head, osteoid osteoma, and others). There was no minimum follow-up duration or rehabilitation requirement. The study and subject demographic parameters that we analyzed included year of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, elbow dominance, gender, age, body mass index, diagnoses treated, type of anesthesia (block or general), and surgical positioning. Postoperative splint application and pain management, and whether a continuous passive motion machine was used and whether a drain was placed were recorded. Clinical outcome scores were DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), Morrey score, MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance Score), Andrews-Carson score, Timmerman-Andrews score, LES (Liverpool Elbow Score), Tegner score, HSS (Hospital for Special Surgery Score), VAS (Visual Analog Scale), EFA (Elbow Functional Assessment), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) Shoulder and Elbow Questionnaire, and MAESS (Modified Andrews Elbow Scoring System). Radiographs, computed tomography (CT), computed tomography arthrography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) data were extracted when available. Range of motion (flexion, extension, supination, and pronation) and grip strength data, both preoperative and postoperative, were extracted when available. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).14

Statistical Analysis

Study descriptive statistics were calculated. Continuous variable data were reported as weighted means ± weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data were reported as frequencies with percentages. For all statistical analysis either measured and calculated from study data extraction or directly reported from the individual studies, P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Where applicable, study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were also compared using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-test calculators with α .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups. To examine trends over time, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated. For the purposes of analysis, the indications of “osteoarthritis,” “arthrofibrosis,” “loose body removal,” “ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis causing stiffness,” “post-traumatic contracture/stiffness,” and “post-operative elbow contracture” were combined into the indication “release and débridement.” For the 3 most common indications for arthroscopy (OCD, lateral epicondylitis, and release and débridement) data were combined into 5-year increments to overcome the smaller sample size within each of these categories, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if number of reported cases covaried with year period. Within these 3 diagnoses, ANOVA analyses were performed to determine whether the number of cases differed between continents and countries.

 

 

Results

A total of 353 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 112 studies were included in the final analysis (Figure 1; 3093 subjects; 3168 elbows; 64% male; mean age, 34.9 ± 14.68 years). There was a mean of 33.4 ± 26.02 months of follow-up, and 75% of surgeries involved the dominant elbow (Table 1). Most studies were level IV evidence (94.6%), had a low MCMS (mean 28.1 ± 8.06; poor rating), and were single-center investigations (94.6%). Most studies did not report financial conflicts of interest (56.3%) (Tables 1 and 2). From 1985 through 2014, the number of publications significantly increased with time (P = .004) among all continents. The MCMS was unchanged over time (P = .247) (Figure 2A), as was the level of evidence (P = .094) (Figure 2B). Conflicts of interest significantly increased with time (P = .025) (Figure 3).

 

Among continents, North America published the largest number of studies (54), and had the largest number of patients (1395) and elbow surgeries (1425) (Table 1). The United States published the largest number of studies (43%). There were no significant differences between age (P = .331), length of follow-up (P = .403), MCMS (P = .123), and level of evidence (P = .288) between continents. Of the 32 studies that reported the use of preoperative MRI, studies from Asia reported significantly more MRI scans than those from other continents (P = .040); there were no other significant differences between continents in reference to preoperative imaging studies or other demographic information.

 

 

The most common surgical indications were OCD (Figure 4), lateral epicondylitis (Figure 5), and release and débridement (Figure 6, Table 3; all studies listed indications). The number of reported cases for these 3 indications significantly increased over time (OCD P = .005, lateral epicondylitis P = .044, release and débridement P = .042) but did not significantly differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

 

Thirty-two (28.6%) studies reported the use of outcome measures (16 different outcome scores were used by the included studies). Asia reported outcome measures in 9 of 23 studies (39%), Europe in 12 of 35 studies (34%) and North America in 11 of 54 (20%) of studies. The MEPS was the most frequently used outcome score in 9.8% of studies, followed by VAS for pain in 5.3% of cases. North American studies reported a significantly higher increase in extension after elbow arthroscopy than Asia (P = .0432) (Figure 7), with no differences in flexion (P = .699), pronation (P = .376), or supination (P = .408). No significant differences were observed between continents in the type of anesthesia chosen (general anesthesia [P = .94] or regional anesthesia [P = .85]). Asia and Europe performed elbow arthroscopy most frequently in the lateral decubitus position, while North American studies most often used the supine position (Table 4).

 

Twenty (17.9%) studies reported the use of a postoperative splint, 12 (10.7%) studies reported use of a drain, 2 (1.79%) studies reported use of a hinged elbow brace, 9 (8.03%) studies reported use of a continuous passive motion machine postoperatively, and 3 (2.68%) studies reported use of an indwelling axillary catheter for postoperative pain management. Of 130 reported surgical complications (4.1%), the most frequent complication was transient sensory ulnar nerve palsy (1.5%), followed by persistent wound drainage (.76%), and transient sensory radial nerve palsy (.38%). Other reported complications included infection (.22%), transient sensory palsy of the median nerve (.19%), heterotopic ossification (.13%), complete transection of the ulnar nerve (.10%), loose body formation (.06%), hematoma formation (.06%), transient sensory palsy of the posterior interosseous (.06%), or anterior interosseous nerve (.03%), and complete transection of the radial (.03%), or median nerve (.03%).

 

 

 

Discussion

Elbow arthroscopy is an evolving surgical procedure that is used to treat intra- and extra-articular pathologies of the elbow. Outcomes of elbow arthroscopy for certain conditions have generally been reported as good, with improvements seen in pain, functional scores, and range of motion.6,15-17 The authors’ hypotheses were mostly confirmed in that the average age of patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy was <40 years, release/débridement was one of the most common indications (along with lateral epicondylitis and OCD), and the general evidence for elbow arthroscopy was poor. Also, there were almost no differences between continents/countries related to patient indications, preoperative imaging, anesthesia choice, indications, postoperative protocols, and outcomes (although the number of studies that reported outcomes was low and could have skewed the results), with the exception of a higher number of preoperative MRI scans in Asia. Some of the notable findings of this study included: 1) the number of studies published on elbow arthroscopy is significantly increasing with time, despite a lack of improvement in the level of evidence; 2) the majority of studies on elbow arthroscopy do not report a surgical outcome score; and 3) the number of reported cases for the 3 most common indications significantly increased over time (OCD, P = .005; lateral epicondylitis, P = .044; release and débridement, P = .042) but did not differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

The indications for elbow arthroscopy have grown dramatically in the past 2 decades to include both intra- and extra-articular pathologies.18 Despite this increase in the number of indications for elbow arthroscopy, the study did not find a significant difference between countries/continents in the indications each used for elbow arthroscopy patients. There was a trend towards an increase in OCD cases in all continents, especially Asia (Figure 4), with time. Interestingly, while not statistically significant, there was variation among countries for surgical indications. In North America, removal of loose bodies accounts for 18% of patients, while in Europe this accounted for only 9% and in Asia for 1%. Post-traumatic stiffness was the indication for elbow arthroscopy in Europe in 19% of patients vs 7% in North America and 10% in Asia. In Asia, OCD accounts for 40% of arthroscopies, 7% in Europe, and 14% in North America (Figure 4) (Table 3).

This study demonstrated that the mean increase in elbow extension gained after surgery in North America was significantly greater when compared with studies from Asia, but the gain in flexion, pronation, and supination was similar across continents. The underlying cause of this difference in improvement in elbow extension between nations is unclear, although differences in diagnosis could account for some variation. This study did not examine differences in rehabilitation protocols, and certainly, it is plausible that protocol variations by country could account for some discrepancy. Furthermore, differences in functional needs may vary by continent and could have driven this result.

This study found no routine reporting of outcome scores by elbow arthroscopy studies from any continent, and that when outcome scores are reported, there is substantial inconsistency with regard to the actual scoring system used. No continent reported outcome scores in more than 40% of the studies published from that area, and the variation of outcome scores used, even from a single region, was large. This makes comparing clinical outcomes between studies difficult, even when performing identical procedures for identical indications, because there is no standardized method of reporting outcomes. To allow comparison of studies and generalizability of the results to different populations, a more standardized approach to outcome reporting needs to be instituted in the elbow arthroscopy literature. To date, there is no standardized score that has been validated for reporting clinical outcomes after elbow arthroscopy.19 Hence, it is not surprising that there were 16 different outcome scores reported throughout the 112 studies analyzed in this review, with the most frequent score, the MEPS, reported in a total of 10 studies. As medicine moves towards pay scales that are based on patient outcomes, it will become more important to define a clear outcome score that can be used to assess these patients, and reliably report scores. This will allow comparison of patients across nations to determine the best surgical treatment for different clinical problems. A validation study comparing these outcome scores to determine which score best summarizes the patient’s level of pain and function after surgery would be beneficial, because this could identify 1 score that could be standardized to allow comparison among reported outcomes.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Despite having 2 authors search independently for studies, some studies could have been missed during the search process, introducing possible selection bias. Including only published studies could have introduced publication bias. Numerous studies did not report all the variables the authors examined. This could have skewed some results, and had additional variables been reported, could have altered the data to show significant differences in some measured variables. Because this study did not compare outcome measures for varying pathologies, conclusions cannot be drawn on the best treatment options for different indications. Case reports could have lowered the MCMS score and the average in studies reporting outcomes. Furthermore, the poor quality of the underlying data used in this study could limit the validity/generalizability of the results because this is a systematic review, and its level of evidence is only as high as the studies it includes. Because the primary aim was to report on demographics, this study did not examine concomitant pathology at the time of surgery or rehabilitation protocols.

Conclusion

The quantity, but not the quality, of arthroscopic elbow publications has significantly increased over time. Most patients undergo elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis, OCD, and release and débridement. Pathology and indications do not appear to differ geographically with more men undergoing elbow arthroscopy than women.

Although elbow arthroscopy was first described in the 1930s, it has become increasingly popular in the last 30 years.1 While initially considered as a tool for diagnosis and loose body removal, indications have expanded to include treatment of osteochondritis dissecans (OCD), treatment of lateral epicondylitis, fixation of fractures, and others.2-5 Miyake and colleagues6 found a significant improvement in range of motion, both flexion and extension, and outcome scores when elbow arthroscopy was used to remove impinging osteophytes. Babaqi and colleagues7 found significant improvement in pain, satisfaction, and outcome scores in 31 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis refractory to nonsurgical management. The technical difficulty of the procedure, lower frequency of pathology amenable to arthroscopic intervention, and potential neurovascular complications make the elbow less frequently evaluated with the arthroscope vs other joints, such as the knee and shoulder.2,8,9

Geographic distribution of subjects undergoing elbow arthroscopy, the indications used, surgical techniques being performed, and their associated clinical outcomes have received little to no recognition in the peer-reviewed literature.10 Differences in the elbow arthroscopy literature include characteristics related to the patient (age, gender, hand dominance, duration of symptoms), study (level of evidence, number of subjects, number of participating centers, design), indication (lateral epicondylitis, loose bodies, olecranon osteophytes, OCD), surgical technique, and outcome. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines direct surgeons in clinical decision-making. Payers investigate the cost of surgical interventions and the value that surgery may provide, while following trends in different surgical techniques. Regulatory agencies and associations emphasize subjective patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome measured in high-quality trials. Thus, in discussion of complex surgical interventions such as elbow arthroscopy, it is important to characterize the studies, subjects, and surgeries across the world to understand the geographic similarities and differences to optimize care in this clinical situation.

The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of elbow arthroscopy literature to identify and compare the characteristics of the studies published, the subjects analyzed, and surgical techniques performed across continents and countries to answer these questions: “Across the world, what demographic of patients are undergoing elbow arthroscopy, what are the most common indications for elbow arthroscopy, and how good is the evidence?” The authors hypothesized that patients who undergo elbow arthroscopy will be largely age <40 years, the most common indication for elbow arthroscopy will be a release/débridement, and the evidence for elbow arthroscopy will be poor. Also, no significant differences will exist in elbow arthroscopy publications, subjects, outcomes, and techniques based on continent/country of publication.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.11 Systematic review registration was performed using the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number, CRD42014010580; registration date, July 15, 2014).12 Two study authors independently conducted the search on June 23, 2014 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm used was: (elbow) AND arthroscopy) NOT shoulder) NOT knee) NOT ankle) NOT wrist) NOT hip) NOT dog) NOT cadaver). English language Level I-IV evidence (2012 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine13) clinical studies were eligible for inclusion into this study. Abstracts were ineligible for inclusion. All references in selected studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if they were missed during the initial search. Duplicate subject publications within separate unique studies were not reported twice. The study with longer duration follow-up, higher level of evidence, greater number of subjects, or more detailed subject, surgical technique, or outcome reporting was retained for inclusion. Level V evidence reviews, expert opinion articles, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, open elbow surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded.

All included patients underwent elbow arthroscopy for either intra- or extra-articular elbow pathology (ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic contracture, osteonecrosis of the capitellum or radial head, osteoid osteoma, and others). There was no minimum follow-up duration or rehabilitation requirement. The study and subject demographic parameters that we analyzed included year of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, elbow dominance, gender, age, body mass index, diagnoses treated, type of anesthesia (block or general), and surgical positioning. Postoperative splint application and pain management, and whether a continuous passive motion machine was used and whether a drain was placed were recorded. Clinical outcome scores were DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), Morrey score, MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance Score), Andrews-Carson score, Timmerman-Andrews score, LES (Liverpool Elbow Score), Tegner score, HSS (Hospital for Special Surgery Score), VAS (Visual Analog Scale), EFA (Elbow Functional Assessment), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) Shoulder and Elbow Questionnaire, and MAESS (Modified Andrews Elbow Scoring System). Radiographs, computed tomography (CT), computed tomography arthrography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) data were extracted when available. Range of motion (flexion, extension, supination, and pronation) and grip strength data, both preoperative and postoperative, were extracted when available. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).14

Statistical Analysis

Study descriptive statistics were calculated. Continuous variable data were reported as weighted means ± weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data were reported as frequencies with percentages. For all statistical analysis either measured and calculated from study data extraction or directly reported from the individual studies, P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Where applicable, study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were also compared using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-test calculators with α .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups. To examine trends over time, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated. For the purposes of analysis, the indications of “osteoarthritis,” “arthrofibrosis,” “loose body removal,” “ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis causing stiffness,” “post-traumatic contracture/stiffness,” and “post-operative elbow contracture” were combined into the indication “release and débridement.” For the 3 most common indications for arthroscopy (OCD, lateral epicondylitis, and release and débridement) data were combined into 5-year increments to overcome the smaller sample size within each of these categories, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if number of reported cases covaried with year period. Within these 3 diagnoses, ANOVA analyses were performed to determine whether the number of cases differed between continents and countries.

 

 

Results

A total of 353 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 112 studies were included in the final analysis (Figure 1; 3093 subjects; 3168 elbows; 64% male; mean age, 34.9 ± 14.68 years). There was a mean of 33.4 ± 26.02 months of follow-up, and 75% of surgeries involved the dominant elbow (Table 1). Most studies were level IV evidence (94.6%), had a low MCMS (mean 28.1 ± 8.06; poor rating), and were single-center investigations (94.6%). Most studies did not report financial conflicts of interest (56.3%) (Tables 1 and 2). From 1985 through 2014, the number of publications significantly increased with time (P = .004) among all continents. The MCMS was unchanged over time (P = .247) (Figure 2A), as was the level of evidence (P = .094) (Figure 2B). Conflicts of interest significantly increased with time (P = .025) (Figure 3).

 

Among continents, North America published the largest number of studies (54), and had the largest number of patients (1395) and elbow surgeries (1425) (Table 1). The United States published the largest number of studies (43%). There were no significant differences between age (P = .331), length of follow-up (P = .403), MCMS (P = .123), and level of evidence (P = .288) between continents. Of the 32 studies that reported the use of preoperative MRI, studies from Asia reported significantly more MRI scans than those from other continents (P = .040); there were no other significant differences between continents in reference to preoperative imaging studies or other demographic information.

 

 

The most common surgical indications were OCD (Figure 4), lateral epicondylitis (Figure 5), and release and débridement (Figure 6, Table 3; all studies listed indications). The number of reported cases for these 3 indications significantly increased over time (OCD P = .005, lateral epicondylitis P = .044, release and débridement P = .042) but did not significantly differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

 

Thirty-two (28.6%) studies reported the use of outcome measures (16 different outcome scores were used by the included studies). Asia reported outcome measures in 9 of 23 studies (39%), Europe in 12 of 35 studies (34%) and North America in 11 of 54 (20%) of studies. The MEPS was the most frequently used outcome score in 9.8% of studies, followed by VAS for pain in 5.3% of cases. North American studies reported a significantly higher increase in extension after elbow arthroscopy than Asia (P = .0432) (Figure 7), with no differences in flexion (P = .699), pronation (P = .376), or supination (P = .408). No significant differences were observed between continents in the type of anesthesia chosen (general anesthesia [P = .94] or regional anesthesia [P = .85]). Asia and Europe performed elbow arthroscopy most frequently in the lateral decubitus position, while North American studies most often used the supine position (Table 4).

 

Twenty (17.9%) studies reported the use of a postoperative splint, 12 (10.7%) studies reported use of a drain, 2 (1.79%) studies reported use of a hinged elbow brace, 9 (8.03%) studies reported use of a continuous passive motion machine postoperatively, and 3 (2.68%) studies reported use of an indwelling axillary catheter for postoperative pain management. Of 130 reported surgical complications (4.1%), the most frequent complication was transient sensory ulnar nerve palsy (1.5%), followed by persistent wound drainage (.76%), and transient sensory radial nerve palsy (.38%). Other reported complications included infection (.22%), transient sensory palsy of the median nerve (.19%), heterotopic ossification (.13%), complete transection of the ulnar nerve (.10%), loose body formation (.06%), hematoma formation (.06%), transient sensory palsy of the posterior interosseous (.06%), or anterior interosseous nerve (.03%), and complete transection of the radial (.03%), or median nerve (.03%).

 

 

 

Discussion

Elbow arthroscopy is an evolving surgical procedure that is used to treat intra- and extra-articular pathologies of the elbow. Outcomes of elbow arthroscopy for certain conditions have generally been reported as good, with improvements seen in pain, functional scores, and range of motion.6,15-17 The authors’ hypotheses were mostly confirmed in that the average age of patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy was <40 years, release/débridement was one of the most common indications (along with lateral epicondylitis and OCD), and the general evidence for elbow arthroscopy was poor. Also, there were almost no differences between continents/countries related to patient indications, preoperative imaging, anesthesia choice, indications, postoperative protocols, and outcomes (although the number of studies that reported outcomes was low and could have skewed the results), with the exception of a higher number of preoperative MRI scans in Asia. Some of the notable findings of this study included: 1) the number of studies published on elbow arthroscopy is significantly increasing with time, despite a lack of improvement in the level of evidence; 2) the majority of studies on elbow arthroscopy do not report a surgical outcome score; and 3) the number of reported cases for the 3 most common indications significantly increased over time (OCD, P = .005; lateral epicondylitis, P = .044; release and débridement, P = .042) but did not differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

The indications for elbow arthroscopy have grown dramatically in the past 2 decades to include both intra- and extra-articular pathologies.18 Despite this increase in the number of indications for elbow arthroscopy, the study did not find a significant difference between countries/continents in the indications each used for elbow arthroscopy patients. There was a trend towards an increase in OCD cases in all continents, especially Asia (Figure 4), with time. Interestingly, while not statistically significant, there was variation among countries for surgical indications. In North America, removal of loose bodies accounts for 18% of patients, while in Europe this accounted for only 9% and in Asia for 1%. Post-traumatic stiffness was the indication for elbow arthroscopy in Europe in 19% of patients vs 7% in North America and 10% in Asia. In Asia, OCD accounts for 40% of arthroscopies, 7% in Europe, and 14% in North America (Figure 4) (Table 3).

This study demonstrated that the mean increase in elbow extension gained after surgery in North America was significantly greater when compared with studies from Asia, but the gain in flexion, pronation, and supination was similar across continents. The underlying cause of this difference in improvement in elbow extension between nations is unclear, although differences in diagnosis could account for some variation. This study did not examine differences in rehabilitation protocols, and certainly, it is plausible that protocol variations by country could account for some discrepancy. Furthermore, differences in functional needs may vary by continent and could have driven this result.

This study found no routine reporting of outcome scores by elbow arthroscopy studies from any continent, and that when outcome scores are reported, there is substantial inconsistency with regard to the actual scoring system used. No continent reported outcome scores in more than 40% of the studies published from that area, and the variation of outcome scores used, even from a single region, was large. This makes comparing clinical outcomes between studies difficult, even when performing identical procedures for identical indications, because there is no standardized method of reporting outcomes. To allow comparison of studies and generalizability of the results to different populations, a more standardized approach to outcome reporting needs to be instituted in the elbow arthroscopy literature. To date, there is no standardized score that has been validated for reporting clinical outcomes after elbow arthroscopy.19 Hence, it is not surprising that there were 16 different outcome scores reported throughout the 112 studies analyzed in this review, with the most frequent score, the MEPS, reported in a total of 10 studies. As medicine moves towards pay scales that are based on patient outcomes, it will become more important to define a clear outcome score that can be used to assess these patients, and reliably report scores. This will allow comparison of patients across nations to determine the best surgical treatment for different clinical problems. A validation study comparing these outcome scores to determine which score best summarizes the patient’s level of pain and function after surgery would be beneficial, because this could identify 1 score that could be standardized to allow comparison among reported outcomes.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Despite having 2 authors search independently for studies, some studies could have been missed during the search process, introducing possible selection bias. Including only published studies could have introduced publication bias. Numerous studies did not report all the variables the authors examined. This could have skewed some results, and had additional variables been reported, could have altered the data to show significant differences in some measured variables. Because this study did not compare outcome measures for varying pathologies, conclusions cannot be drawn on the best treatment options for different indications. Case reports could have lowered the MCMS score and the average in studies reporting outcomes. Furthermore, the poor quality of the underlying data used in this study could limit the validity/generalizability of the results because this is a systematic review, and its level of evidence is only as high as the studies it includes. Because the primary aim was to report on demographics, this study did not examine concomitant pathology at the time of surgery or rehabilitation protocols.

Conclusion

The quantity, but not the quality, of arthroscopic elbow publications has significantly increased over time. Most patients undergo elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis, OCD, and release and débridement. Pathology and indications do not appear to differ geographically with more men undergoing elbow arthroscopy than women.

References

1.    Khanchandani P. Elbow arthroscopy: review of the literature and case reports. Case Rep Orthop. 2012;2012:478214.

2.    Dodson CC, Nho SJ, Williams RJ 3rd, Altchek DW. Elbow arthroscopy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(10):574-585.

3.    Takahara M, Mura N, Sasaki J, Harada M, Ogino T. Classification, treatment, and outcome of osteochondritis dissecans of the humeral capitellum. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(suppl 2 Pt 1):47-62.

4.    Kelly EW, Morrey BF, O’Driscoll SW. Complications of elbow arthroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(1):25-34.

5.    Rajeev A, Pooley J. Lateral compartment cartilage changes and lateral elbow pain. Acta Orthop Belg. 2009;75(1):37-40.

6.    Miyake J, Shimada K, Oka K, et al. Arthroscopic debridement in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the elbow, based on computer simulation. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(2):237-241.

7.    Babaqi AA, Kotb MM, Said HG, AbdelHamid MM, ElKady HA, ElAssal MA. Short-term evaluation of arthroscopic management of tennis elbow; including resection of radio-capitellar capsular complex. J Orthop. 2014;11(2):82-86.

8.    Gay DM, Raphael BS, Weiland AJ. Revision arthroscopic contracture release in the elbow resulting in an ulnar nerve transection: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1246-1249.

9.    Haapaniemi T, Berggren M, Adolfsson L. Complete transection of the median and radial nerves during arthroscopic release of post-traumatic elbow contracture. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(7):784-787.

10.  Yeoh KM, King GJ, Faber KJ, Glazebrook MA, Athwal GS. Evidence-based indications for elbow arthroscopy. Arthroscopy.  2012;28(2):272-282.

11.  Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

12.  PROSPERO. International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews. The University of York CfRaDP-Iprosr-v. 2013 [cited 2014]. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Accessed March 17, 2016.

13.  Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine - levels of evidence (March 2009). Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Web site. http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/. Accessed July 6, 2016.

14.  Cowan J, Lozano-Calderόn S, Ring D. Quality of prospective controlled randomized trials. Analysis of trials of treatment for lateral epicondylitis as an example. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(8):1693-1699.

15.  Jones GS, Savoie FH 3rd. Arthroscopic capsular release of flexion contractures (arthrofibrosis) of the elbow. Arthroscopy. 1993;9(3):277-283.

16.  O’Brien MJ, Lee Murphy R, Savoie FH 3rd. A preliminary report of acute and subacute arthroscopic repair of the radial ulnohumeral ligament after elbow dislocation in the high-demand patient. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(6):679-687.

17.  Rhyou IH, Kim KW. Is posterior synovial plica excision necessary for refractory lateral epicondylitis of the elbow? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):284-290.

18.  Jerosch J, Schunck J. Arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis: indication, technique and early results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(4):379-382.

19.  Tijssen M, van Cingel R, van Melick N, de Visser E. Patient-Reported Outcome questionnaires for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of the psychometric evidence. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:117.

References

1.    Khanchandani P. Elbow arthroscopy: review of the literature and case reports. Case Rep Orthop. 2012;2012:478214.

2.    Dodson CC, Nho SJ, Williams RJ 3rd, Altchek DW. Elbow arthroscopy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008;16(10):574-585.

3.    Takahara M, Mura N, Sasaki J, Harada M, Ogino T. Classification, treatment, and outcome of osteochondritis dissecans of the humeral capitellum. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(suppl 2 Pt 1):47-62.

4.    Kelly EW, Morrey BF, O’Driscoll SW. Complications of elbow arthroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(1):25-34.

5.    Rajeev A, Pooley J. Lateral compartment cartilage changes and lateral elbow pain. Acta Orthop Belg. 2009;75(1):37-40.

6.    Miyake J, Shimada K, Oka K, et al. Arthroscopic debridement in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the elbow, based on computer simulation. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(2):237-241.

7.    Babaqi AA, Kotb MM, Said HG, AbdelHamid MM, ElKady HA, ElAssal MA. Short-term evaluation of arthroscopic management of tennis elbow; including resection of radio-capitellar capsular complex. J Orthop. 2014;11(2):82-86.

8.    Gay DM, Raphael BS, Weiland AJ. Revision arthroscopic contracture release in the elbow resulting in an ulnar nerve transection: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(5):1246-1249.

9.    Haapaniemi T, Berggren M, Adolfsson L. Complete transection of the median and radial nerves during arthroscopic release of post-traumatic elbow contracture. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(7):784-787.

10.  Yeoh KM, King GJ, Faber KJ, Glazebrook MA, Athwal GS. Evidence-based indications for elbow arthroscopy. Arthroscopy.  2012;28(2):272-282.

11.  Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.

12.  PROSPERO. International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews. The University of York CfRaDP-Iprosr-v. 2013 [cited 2014]. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/. Accessed March 17, 2016.

13.  Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine - levels of evidence (March 2009). Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Web site. http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/. Accessed July 6, 2016.

14.  Cowan J, Lozano-Calderόn S, Ring D. Quality of prospective controlled randomized trials. Analysis of trials of treatment for lateral epicondylitis as an example. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(8):1693-1699.

15.  Jones GS, Savoie FH 3rd. Arthroscopic capsular release of flexion contractures (arthrofibrosis) of the elbow. Arthroscopy. 1993;9(3):277-283.

16.  O’Brien MJ, Lee Murphy R, Savoie FH 3rd. A preliminary report of acute and subacute arthroscopic repair of the radial ulnohumeral ligament after elbow dislocation in the high-demand patient. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(6):679-687.

17.  Rhyou IH, Kim KW. Is posterior synovial plica excision necessary for refractory lateral epicondylitis of the elbow? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(1):284-290.

18.  Jerosch J, Schunck J. Arthroscopic treatment of lateral epicondylitis: indication, technique and early results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(4):379-382.

19.  Tijssen M, van Cingel R, van Melick N, de Visser E. Patient-Reported Outcome questionnaires for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of the psychometric evidence. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:117.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(5)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(5)
Page Number
E290-E298
Page Number
E290-E298
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Quality and Quantity of the Elbow Arthroscopy Literature: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Display Headline
Quality and Quantity of the Elbow Arthroscopy Literature: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Legacy Keywords
review paper, online exclusive, review, elbow, arthroscopy, erickson, chalmers, cvetanovich, frank, romeo, harris, outcomes
Legacy Keywords
review paper, online exclusive, review, elbow, arthroscopy, erickson, chalmers, cvetanovich, frank, romeo, harris, outcomes
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

SU2C announces researcher-industry collaboration on immunotherapy

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 01/04/2019 - 09:52
Display Headline
SU2C announces researcher-industry collaboration on immunotherapy

Stand Up To Cancer is calling for proposals to investigate additional uses for nivolumab, ipilimumab, elotuzumab, and urelumab, as part of a new researcher-industry collaborative program.

As many as four projects will be funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, maker of the four agents, in the range of $1 million to $3 million each, according to a written statement from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The company will provide access to the three drugs already approved for the treatement of various cancers –nivolumab, ipilimumab, and elotuzumab– and to urelumab, an investigational agent that is currently in early clinical trials.

Proposals can include the study of one or more of the products, alone or in combination with other treatments, and may include products from other companies, as well as explore potential new uses for the drug(s), AACR said in the statement.

Nivolumab (Opdivo) is currently approved to treat advanced melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and classical Hodgkin lymphoma; Ipilimumab (Yervoy) is approved to treat melanoma; and elotuzumab (Empliciti) is approved to treat multiple myeloma, in conjunction with other drugs. Urelumab is being evaluated as a treatment for a range of cancers, including some hematological cancers, advanced colorectal cancer, and head and neck cancers.

The Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) Catalyst program was launched in April to “use funding and materials from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and medical devices industries to accelerate research on cancer prevention, detection, and treatment,” according to a written statement from SU2C. Founding collaborators in addition to Bristol-Myers Squibb include Merck and Genentech.

The Catalyst projects must follow the SU2C model be carried out by a collaborative team, and be designed to accelerate the clinical use of therapeutic agents within the 3-year term of the grant, and to deliver near-term patient benefit.

The Request for Proposal for the Bristol-Myers Squibb agents is available at proposalCENTRAL, with proposals due by noon ET Monday, Aug. 15.

[email protected]

On Twitter @NikolaidesLaura

Publications
Topics

Stand Up To Cancer is calling for proposals to investigate additional uses for nivolumab, ipilimumab, elotuzumab, and urelumab, as part of a new researcher-industry collaborative program.

As many as four projects will be funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, maker of the four agents, in the range of $1 million to $3 million each, according to a written statement from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The company will provide access to the three drugs already approved for the treatement of various cancers –nivolumab, ipilimumab, and elotuzumab– and to urelumab, an investigational agent that is currently in early clinical trials.

Proposals can include the study of one or more of the products, alone or in combination with other treatments, and may include products from other companies, as well as explore potential new uses for the drug(s), AACR said in the statement.

Nivolumab (Opdivo) is currently approved to treat advanced melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and classical Hodgkin lymphoma; Ipilimumab (Yervoy) is approved to treat melanoma; and elotuzumab (Empliciti) is approved to treat multiple myeloma, in conjunction with other drugs. Urelumab is being evaluated as a treatment for a range of cancers, including some hematological cancers, advanced colorectal cancer, and head and neck cancers.

The Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) Catalyst program was launched in April to “use funding and materials from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and medical devices industries to accelerate research on cancer prevention, detection, and treatment,” according to a written statement from SU2C. Founding collaborators in addition to Bristol-Myers Squibb include Merck and Genentech.

The Catalyst projects must follow the SU2C model be carried out by a collaborative team, and be designed to accelerate the clinical use of therapeutic agents within the 3-year term of the grant, and to deliver near-term patient benefit.

The Request for Proposal for the Bristol-Myers Squibb agents is available at proposalCENTRAL, with proposals due by noon ET Monday, Aug. 15.

[email protected]

On Twitter @NikolaidesLaura

Stand Up To Cancer is calling for proposals to investigate additional uses for nivolumab, ipilimumab, elotuzumab, and urelumab, as part of a new researcher-industry collaborative program.

As many as four projects will be funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, maker of the four agents, in the range of $1 million to $3 million each, according to a written statement from the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).

The company will provide access to the three drugs already approved for the treatement of various cancers –nivolumab, ipilimumab, and elotuzumab– and to urelumab, an investigational agent that is currently in early clinical trials.

Proposals can include the study of one or more of the products, alone or in combination with other treatments, and may include products from other companies, as well as explore potential new uses for the drug(s), AACR said in the statement.

Nivolumab (Opdivo) is currently approved to treat advanced melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and classical Hodgkin lymphoma; Ipilimumab (Yervoy) is approved to treat melanoma; and elotuzumab (Empliciti) is approved to treat multiple myeloma, in conjunction with other drugs. Urelumab is being evaluated as a treatment for a range of cancers, including some hematological cancers, advanced colorectal cancer, and head and neck cancers.

The Stand Up To Cancer (SU2C) Catalyst program was launched in April to “use funding and materials from the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and medical devices industries to accelerate research on cancer prevention, detection, and treatment,” according to a written statement from SU2C. Founding collaborators in addition to Bristol-Myers Squibb include Merck and Genentech.

The Catalyst projects must follow the SU2C model be carried out by a collaborative team, and be designed to accelerate the clinical use of therapeutic agents within the 3-year term of the grant, and to deliver near-term patient benefit.

The Request for Proposal for the Bristol-Myers Squibb agents is available at proposalCENTRAL, with proposals due by noon ET Monday, Aug. 15.

[email protected]

On Twitter @NikolaidesLaura

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
SU2C announces researcher-industry collaboration on immunotherapy
Display Headline
SU2C announces researcher-industry collaboration on immunotherapy
Disallow All Ads

Clinical Outcomes of Anatomical Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in a Young, Active Population

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:25
Display Headline
Clinical Outcomes of Anatomical Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in a Young, Active Population

Although total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has proved to be a reliable solution in older patients, treatment in younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis remains controversial, and there are still few reliable long-term surgical options.1-8 These options include abrasion arthroplasty and arthroscopic management,9,10 biologic glenoid resurfacing,11,12 and humeral hemiarthroplasty with13 or without14,15 glenoid treatment and anatomical TSA.

In the younger cohort, 20-year TSA survivorship rates up to 84% have been reported, and unsatisfactory subjective outcomes have been unacceptably high.16 In addition, there is a paucity of literature addressing the impact of TSA on return to sport. Recommendations on returning to an athletic life style are based largely on surveys of expert opinion17,18 and heterogeneous studies of either older patients (eg, age >50-55 years) who are active19-21 or younger patients with no defined level of activity.5,7,8,16,22-24

To our knowledge, no one has evaluated the short-term morbidity and clinical outcomes within a young, high-demand patient population, such as the US military. Therefore, we conducted a study to evaluate the clinical success and complications of TSA performed for glenohumeral arthritis in a young, active population. We hypothesized that patients who had undergone TSA would have a low rate of return to duty, an increased rate of component failure, and a higher reoperation rate because of increased upper extremity demands.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining protocol approval from the William Beaumont Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board, we searched the Military Health System (MHS) Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (M2) database to retrospectively review the cases of all tri-service US military service members who had undergone primary anatomical TSA (Current Procedural Terminology code 23472) between January 1, 2007 and June 31, 2014. This was a multisurgeon, multicenter study. Patient exclusion criteria were nonmilitary or retired status at time of surgery; primary surgery consisting of limited glenohumeral resurfacing procedure, hemiarthroplasty, or reverse TSA; surgery for acute proximal humerus fracture; rotator cuff deficiency diagnosed before or during surgery; and insufficient follow-up (eg, <12 months, unless medically separated beforehand).

The M2 database is an established tool that has been used for clinical outcomes research on treatment of a variety of orthopedic conditions.25,26 The Medical Data Repository, which is operated by MHS, is populated by its military healthcare providers. The MHS, which offers worldwide coverage for all beneficiaries either at Department of Defense facilities or purchased using civilian providers, is among the largest known closed healthcare systems.

All active-duty US military service members are uniformly required to adhere to stringent and regularly evaluated physical fitness standards, which typically exceed those of average civilians. Routine physical training is required in the form of aerobic fitness, weight training, tactical field exercises, and core military tasks, such as the ability to march at least 2 miles while carrying heavy fighting loads. In addition to satisfying required height and weight standards, all service members are subject to semiannual service-specific physical fitness evaluations inclusive of timed push-ups, sit-ups, and an aerobic event. Service members may also be required to maintain a level of physical training above these baseline standards, contingent on their branch of service, rank, and military occupational specialty. If a service member is unable to maintain these standards, medical separation may be initiated.

Demographic and occupational data were extracted from the database. These data included age, sex, military rank, and branch of service. Line-by-line analysis of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (Version 22; 3M) electronic medical record was then performed to confirm the underlying diagnosis, surgical procedure, and surgery date. Further chart review yielded additional patient-based factors (eg, laterality, hand dominance, presence and type of prior shoulder surgeries) and surgical factors (eg, surgery indication, implant design). We evaluated clinical and functional outcomes as well as perioperative complications, including both major and minor systemic and local complications as previously described27,28; preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM) and self-reported pain score (SRPS, scale 1-10) as measured by physical therapist and surgeon at follow-up; secondary surgical interventions; timing of return to duty; and postoperative deployment history. The primary outcome measures were revision reoperation after index procedure, and military discharge for persistent shoulder-related disability. Clinical failure was defined as component failure or reoperation. Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) is a formal separation from the military in which it is deemed that a service member is no longer able to fulfill his or her duty because of a medical condition.

 

 

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were compared using statistical means with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and/or SDs. Categorical data were reported as frequencies or percentages. Univariate analysis was performed to assess the correlation between possible risk factors and the primary outcome measures. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Demographics

We identified 24 service members (26 shoulders) who had undergone anatomical TSA during the study period (Table 1). Mean (SD) age was 45.8 (4.5) years (range, 35-54 years), and the cohort was predominately male (25/26 shoulders; 96.2%). Most cohort members were of senior enlisted rank (14, 58.3%), and the US Army was the predominant branch of military service (13, 54.2%). The right side was the operative extremity in 7 cases (26.9%), and the dominant shoulder was involved in 6 cases (23.1%). Two patients (8.3%) underwent staged bilateral TSA. Most patients (76.9%) underwent TSA on the nondominant extremity.

Surgical Variables

TSA was indicated for post-instability arthropathy in 13 cases (50.0%), posttraumatic osteoarthritis in 7 cases (26.9%), and unspecified glenohumeral arthritis, which includes primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis, in 5 cases (19.2%) (Table 2). One case was attributed to iatrogenically induced chondrolysis secondary to intra-articular lidocaine pump. Twelve patients (46.2%) had at least 1 previous surgery. Of the shoulders with instability, 10 (76.9%) had undergone a total of 14 surgical stabilization procedures—10 anterior labral repairs, 2 posterior labral repairs, and 2 capsular plications. The other shoulders had undergone a total of 18 procedures, which included 4 rotator cuff repairs and 3 cartilage restoration procedures.

Clinical Outcomes

Mean (SD) follow-up was 41.0 (21.3) months (range, 11.6-97.6 months). All but 1 shoulder (96.2%) had follow-up of 12 months or more (the only patient with shorter follow-up was because of MEB), and 76.9% of patients had follow-up of 24 months or more (4 of the 6 patients with follow-up under 24 months were medically separated) (Table 3). In all cases, mean ROM improved with respect to flexion, abduction, and external rotation. At final follow-up, mean (SD) ROM was 138° (36°) forward flexion (range, 60°-180°), 125° (39°) abduction (range, 45°-180°), 48° (19°) external rotation at 0° abduction (range, 20°-90°), and 80° (9.4°) external rotation at 90° abduction (range, 70°-90°). Preoperative flexion, abduction, and external rotation at 0° and 90° abduction were all improved at final follow-up. The most improvement in ROM occurred within 6 months after surgery.

Overall patient satisfaction with surgery was 92.3% (n = 24). Ultimately, 18 (72.0%) of 25 shoulders with follow-up of 1 year or more were able to return to active duty within 1 year after surgery, though only 10 (45.5%) of 22 with follow-up of 2 years or more remained active 2 years after surgery. Furthermore, 5 patients (20.8%) were deployed after surgery, and all were still on active duty at final follow-up. By final follow-up, 9 (37.5%) of 24 service members were unable to return to military function; 7 had been medically discharged from the military for persistent shoulder disability, and 2 were in the process of being medically discharged.

In all cases, SRPS improved from before surgery (5.2 out of 10) to final follow-up (1.4). At final follow-up, 22 patients (88.0%) reported mild pain (0-3), and no one had pain above 6.

 

 

Complications

Nine patients had a total of 12 postoperative complications (46.2%): 6 component failures (23.1%), 2 neurologic injuries (7.7%; 1 permanent axillary nerve injury, 1 transient brachial plexus neuritis), 2 cases of adhesive capsulitis (7.7%), and 2 episodes of venous thrombosis (7.7%; 1 superficial, 1 deep) (Table 4). There were no documented infections. Six reoperations (23.1%) were performed for the 6 component failures (2 traumatic dislocations of prosthesis resulting in acute glenoid component failure, 3 cases of atraumatic glenoid loosening, 1 case of humeral stem loosening after periprosthetic fracture). Atraumatic glenoid component loosening occurred a mean (SD) of 40.6 (14.2) months after surgery (range, 20.8-54.2 months).

Surgical Failures

Eight service members underwent MEB. Six patients experienced component failure. Factors contributing to both clinical failure and separation from active duty by means of MEB were evaluated with univariate analysis (Table 5). No statistically significant risk factors, including surgical revision and presence of perioperative complications, were identified.

Discussion

We confirmed that our cohort of young service members (mean age, 45.8 years), who had undergone TSA for glenohumeral arthritis, had a relatively higher rate of component failure (23.1%) and a higher reoperation rate (23.1%) with low rates of return to military duty at short-term to midterm follow-up. Our results parallel those of a limited series with a younger cohort (Table 6).7,16,19,21,23,24 The high demand and increased life expectancy of the younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis potentiates the risk of complications, component loosening, and ultimate failure.29 To our knowledge, the present article is the first to report clinical and functional outcomes and perioperative risk profiles in a homogenously young, active military cohort after TSA.

 

 

The mean age of our study population (46 years) is one of the lowest in the literature. TSA in younger patients (age, <50-55 years) and older, active patients (>55 years) has received increased attention as a result of the expanding indications and growing popularity of TSA in these groups. Other studies have upheld the efficacy of TSA in achieving predictable pain relief and functional improvement in a diverse and predominantly elderly population.15,30-34 Alternative treatments, including humeral head resurfacing15,30,35 and soft-tissue interposition,15,36-40 have also shown inferior short- and long-term results in terms of longevity and degree of clinical or functional improvement.31-34,41 In addition, the ream-and-run technique has had promising early results by improving glenohumeral kinematics, pain relief, and shoulder function.13,42,43 However, although implantation of a glenoid component is avoided in young, active people because of reduced longevity and higher rates of component failure, the trade-offs are inadequately treated glenoid disease, suboptimal pain relief, and progression of glenoid arthritis eventually requiring revision. Furthermore, midterm and long-term survivorship of TSA in general is unknown, and there remain few good options for treating end-stage arthritis in young, active patients.

Our cohort had high rates of complications (46.2%) and revisions (23.1%). Two in 5 patients had postoperative complications, most commonly component failure resulting in reoperation. In the literature, complication rates among young patients who underwent TSA are much lower (4.8%-10.9%).16,23,24 Our cohort’s most common complication was component failure (23.1%), which was most often attributed to atraumatic, aseptic glenoid component loosening and required reoperation. Previously reported revision rates in a young population that underwent TSA (0%-11%)16,23,24 were also significantly lower than those in the present analysis (23.1%), underscoring the impact of operative indications, postoperative activity levels, and occupational demands on ultimate failure rates. Interestingly, all revisions in our study were for component failure, whereas previous reports have described a higher rate for infection.22 However, the same studies also found glenoid lucency rates as high as 76% at 10-year follow-up.16 Furthermore, in a review of 136 TSAs with unsatisfactory outcomes, glenoid loosening was the most common reason for presenting to clinic after surgery.44 Specifically, our population had a high rate of glenohumeral arthritis secondary to instability (50.0%) and posttraumatic osteoarthritis (26.9%). For many reasons, outcomes were worse in younger patients with a history of glenohumeral instability33 than in older patients without a high incidence of instability.45 This young cohort with higher demands may have had accelerated polyethylene wear patterns caused by repetitive overhead activity, which may have arisen because of a higher functional profile after surgery and greater patient expectations after arthroplasty. In addition, patients with a history of instability may have altered glenohumeral anatomy, especially with previous arthroscopic or open stabilization procedures. Anatomical changes include excessive posterior glenoid wear, internal rotation contracture, patulous capsular tissue, static or dynamic posterior humeral subluxation, and possible overconstraint after prior stabilization procedures. Almost half of our population had a previous surgery; our patients averaged 1.7 previous surgeries each.

Although estimates of component survivorship at a high-volume civilian tertiary-referral center were as high as 97% at 10 years and 84% at 20 years,7,16 10-year survivorship in patients with a history of instability was only 61%.3 TSA survivorship in our young, active cohort is already foreseeably dramatically reduced, given the 23.1% revision rate at 28.5-month follow-up. This consideration must be addressed during preoperative counseling with the young patient with glenohumeral arthritis and a history of shoulder instability.

 

 

Despite the high rates of complications and revisions in our study, 92.3% of patients were satisfied with surgery, 88.0% experienced minimal persistence of pain (mean 3.8-point decrease on SRPS), and 100% maintained improved ROM at final follow-up. Satisfaction in the young population has varied significantly, from 52% to 95%, generally on the basis of physical activity.16,22-24 The reasonable rate of postoperative satisfaction in the present analysis is comparable to what has been reported in patients of a similar age (Table 6).7,16,22 However, despite high satisfaction and pain relief, patients were inconsistently able to return to the upper limits of physical activity required of active-duty military service. In addition, we cannot exclude secondary gain motivations for pursuing medical retirement, similar to that seen in patients receiving worker’s compensation.

Other authors have conversely found more favorable functional outcomes and survivorship rates.23,24 In a retrospective review of 46 TSAs in patients 55 years or younger, Bartelt and colleagues24 found sustained improvements in pain, ROM, and satisfaction at 7-year follow-up.24 Raiss and colleagues23 conducted a prospective study of TSA outcomes in 21 patients with a mean age of 55 years and a mean follow-up of 7 years and reported no revisions and only 1 minor complication, a transient brachial plexus palsy.23 The discrepancy between these studies may reflect different activity levels and underlying pathology between cohorts. The present population is unique in that it represents a particularly difficult confluence of factors for shoulder arthroplasty surgeons. The high activity, significant overhead and lifting occupational demands, and discordant patient expectations of this military cohort place a significant functional burden on the implants, the glenoid component in particular. Furthermore, this patient group has a higher incidence of more complex glenohumeral pathology resulting in instability, posttraumatic, or capsulorrhaphy arthropathy, and multiple prior arthroscopic and open stabilization procedures.

At final follow-up, only 33% of our patients were still on activity duty, 37.5% had completed or were completing medical separation from the military after surgery for persistent shoulder disability, and 37.5% were retired from the military. Five patients (20.8%) deployed after surgery. This young, active cohort of service members who had TSA for glenohumeral arthritis faced a unique set of tremendous physical demands. A retrospective case series investigated return to sport in 100 consecutive patients (mean age, 68.9 years) who were participating in recreational and competitive athletics and underwent unilateral TSA.21 The patients were engaged most commonly in swimming (20.4%), golf (16.3%), cycling (16.3%), and fitness training (16.3%). The authors found that, at a mean follow-up of 2.8 years, 49 patients (89%) were able to continue in sports, though 36.7% thought their sport activity was restricted after TSA. In another retrospective case series (61 TSAs), McCarty and colleagues19 found that 48 patients (71%) were improved in their sports participation, and 50% increased their frequency of participation after surgery.

There are no specific recommendations on returning to military service or high-level sport after surgery. Recommendations on returning to sport after TSA have been based largely on small case series involving specific sports46,47 and surveys of expert opinion.17,18 In a survey on postoperative physical activity in young patients after TSA conducted by Healy and colleagues,17 35 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons members recommended avoiding contact and impact sports while permitting return to nonimpact sports, such as swimming, which may still impart significant stress to the glenohumeral joint. In an international survey of 101 shoulder and elbow surgeons, Magnussen and colleagues18 also found that most recommended avoiding a return to impact sports that require intensive upper extremity demands and permitting full return to sports at preoperative levels. This likely is a result of the perception that most of these patients having TSA are older and have less rigorous involvement in sports at the outset and a lower propensity for adverse patient outcomes. However, these recommendations may place a younger, more high-demand patient at significantly greater risk. The active-duty cohort engages in daily physical training, including push-ups and frequent overhead lifting, which could account for the high failure rates and low incidence of postoperative deployment. Although TSA seems to demonstrate good initial results in terms of return to high-demand activities, the return-to-duty profile in our study highlights the potential pitfalls of TSA in active individuals attempting to return to high-demand preoperative function.

 

 

Our analysis was limited by the fact that we used a small patient cohort, contributing to underpowered analysis of the potential risk factors predictive of reoperation and medical discharge. Although our minimum follow-up was 12 months, with the exception of 1 patient who was medically separated at 11.6 months because of shoulder disability, we captured 5 patients (19.2%) who underwent medical separation but who would otherwise be excluded. Therefore, this limitation is not major in that, with a longer minimum follow-up, we would be excluding a significant number of patients with such persistent disability after TSA that they would not be able to return to duty at anywhere near their previous level. In this retrospective study, we were additionally limited to analysis of the data in the medical records and could not control for variables such as surgeon technique, implant choice, and experience. Complete radiographic images were not available, limiting analysis of radiographic outcomes. Given the lack of a standardized preoperative imaging protocol, we could not evaluate glenoid version on axial imaging. It is possible that some patients with early aseptic glenoid loosening had posterior subluxation or a Walch B2 glenoid, which has a higher failure rate.48 The strengths of this study include its unique analysis of a homogeneous young, active, high-risk patient cohort within a closed healthcare system. In the military, these patients are subject to intense daily physical and occupational demands. In addition, the clinical and functional outcomes we studied are patient-centered and therefore relevant during preoperative counseling. Further investigations might focus on validated outcome measures and on midterm to long-term TSA outcomes in an active military population vis-à-vis other alternatives for clinical management.

Conclusion

By a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, only a third of the service members had returned to active duty, roughly a third had retired, and more than a third had been medically discharged because of persistent disability attributable to the shoulder. Despite initial improvements in ROM and pain, midterm outcomes were poor. The short-term complication rate (46.2%) and the rate of reoperation for component failure (23.1%) should be emphasized during preoperative counseling.

References

1.    Tokish JM. The mature athlete’s shoulder. Sports Health. 2014;6(1):31-35.

2.    Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of glenoid arthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(6):860-867.

3.    Sperling JW, Antuna SA, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck C, Cofield RH. Shoulder arthroplasty for arthritis after instability surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(10):1775-1781.

4.    Izquierdo R, Voloshin I, Edwards S, et al; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(6):375-382.

5.    Johnson MH, Paxton ES, Green A. Shoulder arthroplasty options in young (<50 years old) patients: review of current concepts. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(2):317-325.

6.    Cole BJ, Yanke A, Provencher MT. Nonarthroplasty alternatives for the treatment of glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5 suppl):S231-S240.

7.    Denard PJ, Raiss P, Sowa B, Walch G. Mid- to long-term follow-up of total shoulder arthroplasty using a keeled glenoid in young adults with primary glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(7):894-900.

8.    Denard PJ, Wirth MA, Orfaly RM. Management of glenohumeral arthritis in the young adult. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(9):885-892.

9.    Millett PJ, Horan MP, Pennock AT, Rios D. Comprehensive arthroscopic management (CAM) procedure: clinical results of a joint-preserving arthroscopic treatment for young, active patients with advanced shoulder osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(3):440-448.

10   Millett PJ, Gaskill TR. Arthroscopic management of glenohumeral arthrosis: humeral osteoplasty, capsular release, and arthroscopic axillary nerve release as a joint-preserving approach. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(9):1296-1303.

11.  Savoie FH 3rd, Brislin KJ, Argo D. Arthroscopic glenoid resurfacing as a surgical treatment for glenohumeral arthritis in the young patient: midterm results. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(8):864-871.

12.  Strauss EJ, Verma NN, Salata MJ, et al. The high failure rate of biologic resurfacing of the glenoid in young patients with glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(3):409-419.

13.  Matsen FA 3rd, Warme WJ, Jackins SE. Can the ream and run procedure improve glenohumeral relationships and function for shoulders with the arthritic triad? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(6):2088-2096.

14.  Lo IK, Litchfield RB, Griffin S, Faber K, Patterson SD, Kirkley A. Quality-of-life outcome following hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis. A prospective, randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(10):2178-2185.

15.  Wirth M, Tapscott RS, Southworth C, Rockwood CA Jr. Treatment of glenohumeral arthritis with a hemiarthroplasty: a minimum five-year follow-up outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(5):964-973.

16.  Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(6):604-613.

17.  Healy WL, Iorio R, Lemos MJ. Athletic activity after joint replacement. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(3):377-388.

18.  Magnussen RA, Mallon WJ, Willems WJ, Moorman CT 3rd. Long-term activity restrictions after shoulder arthroplasty: an international survey of experienced shoulder surgeons. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(2):281-289.

19.  McCarty EC, Marx RG, Maerz D, Altchek D, Warren RF. Sports participation after shoulder replacement surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(8):1577-1581.

20.  Schmidt-Wiethoff R, Wolf P, Lehmann M, Habermeyer P. Physical activity after shoulder arthroplasty [in German]. Sportverletz Sportschaden. 2002;16(1):26-30.

21.  Schumann K, Flury MP, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR, Drerup S, Goldhahn J. Sports activity after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(10):2097-2105.

22.  Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Neer hemiarthroplasty and Neer total shoulder arthroplasty in patients fifty years old or less. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(4):464-473.

23.  Raiss P, Aldinger PR, Kasten P, Rickert M, Loew M. Total shoulder replacement in young and middle-aged patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(6):764-769.

24.  Bartelt R, Sperling JW, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty-five years or younger with osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):123-130.

25.  Waterman BR, Burns TC, McCriskin B, Kilcoyne K, Cameron KL, Owens BD. Outcomes after Bankart repair in a military population: predictors for surgical revision and long-term disability. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(2):172-177.

26.  Waterman BR, Liu J, Newcomb R, Schoenfeld AJ, Orr JD, Belmont PJ Jr. Risk factors for chronic exertional compartment syndrome in a physically active military population. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(11):2545-2549.

27.  Chalmers PN, Gupta AK, Rahman Z, Bruce B, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Predictors of early complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(4):856-860.

28.  Dunn JC, Lanzi J, Kusnezov N, Bader J, Waterman BR, Belmont PJ Jr. Predictors of length of stay after elective total shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(5):754-759.

29.  Hayes PR, Flatow EL. Total shoulder arthroplasty in the young patient. Instr Course Lect. 2001;50;73-88.

30.  Rispoli DM, Sperling JW, Athwal GS, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Humeral head replacement for the treatment of osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2637-2644.

31.  Radnay CS, Setter KJ, Chambers L, Levine WN, Bigliani LU, Ahmad CS. Total shoulder replacement compared with humeral head replacement for the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(4):396-402.

32.  Gartsman GM, Roddey TS, Hammerman SM. Shoulder arthroplasty with or without resurfacing of the glenoid in patients who have osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(1):26-34.

33.  Edwards TB, Kadakia NR, Boulahia A, et al. A comparison of hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(3):
207-213.

34.  Bryant D, Litchfield R, Sandow M, Gartsman GM, Guyatt G, Kirkley A. A comparison of pain, strength, range of motion, and functional outcomes after hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis of the shoulder. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(9):1947-1956.

35.  Bailie DS, Llinas PJ, Ellenbecker TS. Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty in active patients less than fifty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(1):110-117.

36.  Ball CM, Galatz LM, Yamaguchi K. Meniscal allograft interposition arthroplasty for the arthritic shoulder: description of a new surgical technique. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;2:247-254.

37.  Elhassan B, Ozbaydar M, Diller D, Higgins LD, Warner JJ. Soft-tissue resurfacing of the glenoid in the treatment of glenohumeral arthritis in active patients less than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(2):419-424.

38.  Krishnan SG, Nowinski RJ, Harrison D, Burkhead WZ. Humeral hemiarthroplasty with biologic resurfacing of the glenoid for glenohumeral arthritis. Two to fifteen-year outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):727-734.

39.  Lee KT, Bell S, Salmon J. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder with biologic resurfacing of the glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):915-919.

40.  Nicholson GP, Goldstein JL, Romeo AA, et al. Lateral meniscus allograft biologic glenoid arthroplasty in total shoulder arthroplasty for young shoulders with degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5 suppl):S261-S266.

41.  Carroll RM, Izquierdo R, Vazquez M, Blaine TA, Levine WN, Bigliani LU. Conversion of painful hemiarthroplasty to total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(6):599-603.

42.  Clinton J, Franta AK, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Matsen FA 3rd. Nonprosthetic glenoid arthroplasty with humeral hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty yield similar self-assessed outcomes in the management of comparable patients with glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5):534-538.

43.  Gilmer BB, Comstock BA, Jette JL, Warme WJ, Jackins SE, Matsen FA. The prognosis for improvement in comfort and function after the ream-and-run arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis: an analysis of 176 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(14):e102.

44.  Franta AK, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Neradilek B, Matsen FA 3rd. The complex characteristics of 282 unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5):555-562.

45.   Godenèche A, Boileau P, Favard L, et al. Prosthetic replacement in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the shoulder: early results of 268 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(1):11-18.

46.  Jensen KL, Rockwood CA Jr. Shoulder arthroplasty in recreational golfers. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(4):362-367.

47.  Kirchhoff C, Imhoff AB, Hinterwimmer S. Winter sports and shoulder arthroplasty [in German]. Sportverletz Sportschaden. 2008;22(3):153-158.

48.   Raiss P, Edwards TB, Deutsch A, et al. Radiographic changes around humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(7):e54.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Nicholas Kusnezov, MD, John C. Dunn, MD, Stephen A. Parada, MD, Kelly Kilcoyne, MD, and Brian R. Waterman, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article. The authors are employees of the US government. The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the US Department of Defense or the US government.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(5)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E273-E282
Legacy Keywords
online exclusive, study, arthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, TSA, shoulder, glenohumeral arthritis, arthritis, treatment, kusnezov, dunn, parada, kilcoyne, waterman
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Nicholas Kusnezov, MD, John C. Dunn, MD, Stephen A. Parada, MD, Kelly Kilcoyne, MD, and Brian R. Waterman, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article. The authors are employees of the US government. The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the US Department of Defense or the US government.

Author and Disclosure Information

Nicholas Kusnezov, MD, John C. Dunn, MD, Stephen A. Parada, MD, Kelly Kilcoyne, MD, and Brian R. Waterman, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article. The authors are employees of the US government. The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the authors and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the US Department of Defense or the US government.

Article PDF
Article PDF

Although total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has proved to be a reliable solution in older patients, treatment in younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis remains controversial, and there are still few reliable long-term surgical options.1-8 These options include abrasion arthroplasty and arthroscopic management,9,10 biologic glenoid resurfacing,11,12 and humeral hemiarthroplasty with13 or without14,15 glenoid treatment and anatomical TSA.

In the younger cohort, 20-year TSA survivorship rates up to 84% have been reported, and unsatisfactory subjective outcomes have been unacceptably high.16 In addition, there is a paucity of literature addressing the impact of TSA on return to sport. Recommendations on returning to an athletic life style are based largely on surveys of expert opinion17,18 and heterogeneous studies of either older patients (eg, age >50-55 years) who are active19-21 or younger patients with no defined level of activity.5,7,8,16,22-24

To our knowledge, no one has evaluated the short-term morbidity and clinical outcomes within a young, high-demand patient population, such as the US military. Therefore, we conducted a study to evaluate the clinical success and complications of TSA performed for glenohumeral arthritis in a young, active population. We hypothesized that patients who had undergone TSA would have a low rate of return to duty, an increased rate of component failure, and a higher reoperation rate because of increased upper extremity demands.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining protocol approval from the William Beaumont Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board, we searched the Military Health System (MHS) Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (M2) database to retrospectively review the cases of all tri-service US military service members who had undergone primary anatomical TSA (Current Procedural Terminology code 23472) between January 1, 2007 and June 31, 2014. This was a multisurgeon, multicenter study. Patient exclusion criteria were nonmilitary or retired status at time of surgery; primary surgery consisting of limited glenohumeral resurfacing procedure, hemiarthroplasty, or reverse TSA; surgery for acute proximal humerus fracture; rotator cuff deficiency diagnosed before or during surgery; and insufficient follow-up (eg, <12 months, unless medically separated beforehand).

The M2 database is an established tool that has been used for clinical outcomes research on treatment of a variety of orthopedic conditions.25,26 The Medical Data Repository, which is operated by MHS, is populated by its military healthcare providers. The MHS, which offers worldwide coverage for all beneficiaries either at Department of Defense facilities or purchased using civilian providers, is among the largest known closed healthcare systems.

All active-duty US military service members are uniformly required to adhere to stringent and regularly evaluated physical fitness standards, which typically exceed those of average civilians. Routine physical training is required in the form of aerobic fitness, weight training, tactical field exercises, and core military tasks, such as the ability to march at least 2 miles while carrying heavy fighting loads. In addition to satisfying required height and weight standards, all service members are subject to semiannual service-specific physical fitness evaluations inclusive of timed push-ups, sit-ups, and an aerobic event. Service members may also be required to maintain a level of physical training above these baseline standards, contingent on their branch of service, rank, and military occupational specialty. If a service member is unable to maintain these standards, medical separation may be initiated.

Demographic and occupational data were extracted from the database. These data included age, sex, military rank, and branch of service. Line-by-line analysis of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (Version 22; 3M) electronic medical record was then performed to confirm the underlying diagnosis, surgical procedure, and surgery date. Further chart review yielded additional patient-based factors (eg, laterality, hand dominance, presence and type of prior shoulder surgeries) and surgical factors (eg, surgery indication, implant design). We evaluated clinical and functional outcomes as well as perioperative complications, including both major and minor systemic and local complications as previously described27,28; preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM) and self-reported pain score (SRPS, scale 1-10) as measured by physical therapist and surgeon at follow-up; secondary surgical interventions; timing of return to duty; and postoperative deployment history. The primary outcome measures were revision reoperation after index procedure, and military discharge for persistent shoulder-related disability. Clinical failure was defined as component failure or reoperation. Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) is a formal separation from the military in which it is deemed that a service member is no longer able to fulfill his or her duty because of a medical condition.

 

 

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were compared using statistical means with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and/or SDs. Categorical data were reported as frequencies or percentages. Univariate analysis was performed to assess the correlation between possible risk factors and the primary outcome measures. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Demographics

We identified 24 service members (26 shoulders) who had undergone anatomical TSA during the study period (Table 1). Mean (SD) age was 45.8 (4.5) years (range, 35-54 years), and the cohort was predominately male (25/26 shoulders; 96.2%). Most cohort members were of senior enlisted rank (14, 58.3%), and the US Army was the predominant branch of military service (13, 54.2%). The right side was the operative extremity in 7 cases (26.9%), and the dominant shoulder was involved in 6 cases (23.1%). Two patients (8.3%) underwent staged bilateral TSA. Most patients (76.9%) underwent TSA on the nondominant extremity.

Surgical Variables

TSA was indicated for post-instability arthropathy in 13 cases (50.0%), posttraumatic osteoarthritis in 7 cases (26.9%), and unspecified glenohumeral arthritis, which includes primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis, in 5 cases (19.2%) (Table 2). One case was attributed to iatrogenically induced chondrolysis secondary to intra-articular lidocaine pump. Twelve patients (46.2%) had at least 1 previous surgery. Of the shoulders with instability, 10 (76.9%) had undergone a total of 14 surgical stabilization procedures—10 anterior labral repairs, 2 posterior labral repairs, and 2 capsular plications. The other shoulders had undergone a total of 18 procedures, which included 4 rotator cuff repairs and 3 cartilage restoration procedures.

Clinical Outcomes

Mean (SD) follow-up was 41.0 (21.3) months (range, 11.6-97.6 months). All but 1 shoulder (96.2%) had follow-up of 12 months or more (the only patient with shorter follow-up was because of MEB), and 76.9% of patients had follow-up of 24 months or more (4 of the 6 patients with follow-up under 24 months were medically separated) (Table 3). In all cases, mean ROM improved with respect to flexion, abduction, and external rotation. At final follow-up, mean (SD) ROM was 138° (36°) forward flexion (range, 60°-180°), 125° (39°) abduction (range, 45°-180°), 48° (19°) external rotation at 0° abduction (range, 20°-90°), and 80° (9.4°) external rotation at 90° abduction (range, 70°-90°). Preoperative flexion, abduction, and external rotation at 0° and 90° abduction were all improved at final follow-up. The most improvement in ROM occurred within 6 months after surgery.

Overall patient satisfaction with surgery was 92.3% (n = 24). Ultimately, 18 (72.0%) of 25 shoulders with follow-up of 1 year or more were able to return to active duty within 1 year after surgery, though only 10 (45.5%) of 22 with follow-up of 2 years or more remained active 2 years after surgery. Furthermore, 5 patients (20.8%) were deployed after surgery, and all were still on active duty at final follow-up. By final follow-up, 9 (37.5%) of 24 service members were unable to return to military function; 7 had been medically discharged from the military for persistent shoulder disability, and 2 were in the process of being medically discharged.

In all cases, SRPS improved from before surgery (5.2 out of 10) to final follow-up (1.4). At final follow-up, 22 patients (88.0%) reported mild pain (0-3), and no one had pain above 6.

 

 

Complications

Nine patients had a total of 12 postoperative complications (46.2%): 6 component failures (23.1%), 2 neurologic injuries (7.7%; 1 permanent axillary nerve injury, 1 transient brachial plexus neuritis), 2 cases of adhesive capsulitis (7.7%), and 2 episodes of venous thrombosis (7.7%; 1 superficial, 1 deep) (Table 4). There were no documented infections. Six reoperations (23.1%) were performed for the 6 component failures (2 traumatic dislocations of prosthesis resulting in acute glenoid component failure, 3 cases of atraumatic glenoid loosening, 1 case of humeral stem loosening after periprosthetic fracture). Atraumatic glenoid component loosening occurred a mean (SD) of 40.6 (14.2) months after surgery (range, 20.8-54.2 months).

Surgical Failures

Eight service members underwent MEB. Six patients experienced component failure. Factors contributing to both clinical failure and separation from active duty by means of MEB were evaluated with univariate analysis (Table 5). No statistically significant risk factors, including surgical revision and presence of perioperative complications, were identified.

Discussion

We confirmed that our cohort of young service members (mean age, 45.8 years), who had undergone TSA for glenohumeral arthritis, had a relatively higher rate of component failure (23.1%) and a higher reoperation rate (23.1%) with low rates of return to military duty at short-term to midterm follow-up. Our results parallel those of a limited series with a younger cohort (Table 6).7,16,19,21,23,24 The high demand and increased life expectancy of the younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis potentiates the risk of complications, component loosening, and ultimate failure.29 To our knowledge, the present article is the first to report clinical and functional outcomes and perioperative risk profiles in a homogenously young, active military cohort after TSA.

 

 

The mean age of our study population (46 years) is one of the lowest in the literature. TSA in younger patients (age, <50-55 years) and older, active patients (>55 years) has received increased attention as a result of the expanding indications and growing popularity of TSA in these groups. Other studies have upheld the efficacy of TSA in achieving predictable pain relief and functional improvement in a diverse and predominantly elderly population.15,30-34 Alternative treatments, including humeral head resurfacing15,30,35 and soft-tissue interposition,15,36-40 have also shown inferior short- and long-term results in terms of longevity and degree of clinical or functional improvement.31-34,41 In addition, the ream-and-run technique has had promising early results by improving glenohumeral kinematics, pain relief, and shoulder function.13,42,43 However, although implantation of a glenoid component is avoided in young, active people because of reduced longevity and higher rates of component failure, the trade-offs are inadequately treated glenoid disease, suboptimal pain relief, and progression of glenoid arthritis eventually requiring revision. Furthermore, midterm and long-term survivorship of TSA in general is unknown, and there remain few good options for treating end-stage arthritis in young, active patients.

Our cohort had high rates of complications (46.2%) and revisions (23.1%). Two in 5 patients had postoperative complications, most commonly component failure resulting in reoperation. In the literature, complication rates among young patients who underwent TSA are much lower (4.8%-10.9%).16,23,24 Our cohort’s most common complication was component failure (23.1%), which was most often attributed to atraumatic, aseptic glenoid component loosening and required reoperation. Previously reported revision rates in a young population that underwent TSA (0%-11%)16,23,24 were also significantly lower than those in the present analysis (23.1%), underscoring the impact of operative indications, postoperative activity levels, and occupational demands on ultimate failure rates. Interestingly, all revisions in our study were for component failure, whereas previous reports have described a higher rate for infection.22 However, the same studies also found glenoid lucency rates as high as 76% at 10-year follow-up.16 Furthermore, in a review of 136 TSAs with unsatisfactory outcomes, glenoid loosening was the most common reason for presenting to clinic after surgery.44 Specifically, our population had a high rate of glenohumeral arthritis secondary to instability (50.0%) and posttraumatic osteoarthritis (26.9%). For many reasons, outcomes were worse in younger patients with a history of glenohumeral instability33 than in older patients without a high incidence of instability.45 This young cohort with higher demands may have had accelerated polyethylene wear patterns caused by repetitive overhead activity, which may have arisen because of a higher functional profile after surgery and greater patient expectations after arthroplasty. In addition, patients with a history of instability may have altered glenohumeral anatomy, especially with previous arthroscopic or open stabilization procedures. Anatomical changes include excessive posterior glenoid wear, internal rotation contracture, patulous capsular tissue, static or dynamic posterior humeral subluxation, and possible overconstraint after prior stabilization procedures. Almost half of our population had a previous surgery; our patients averaged 1.7 previous surgeries each.

Although estimates of component survivorship at a high-volume civilian tertiary-referral center were as high as 97% at 10 years and 84% at 20 years,7,16 10-year survivorship in patients with a history of instability was only 61%.3 TSA survivorship in our young, active cohort is already foreseeably dramatically reduced, given the 23.1% revision rate at 28.5-month follow-up. This consideration must be addressed during preoperative counseling with the young patient with glenohumeral arthritis and a history of shoulder instability.

 

 

Despite the high rates of complications and revisions in our study, 92.3% of patients were satisfied with surgery, 88.0% experienced minimal persistence of pain (mean 3.8-point decrease on SRPS), and 100% maintained improved ROM at final follow-up. Satisfaction in the young population has varied significantly, from 52% to 95%, generally on the basis of physical activity.16,22-24 The reasonable rate of postoperative satisfaction in the present analysis is comparable to what has been reported in patients of a similar age (Table 6).7,16,22 However, despite high satisfaction and pain relief, patients were inconsistently able to return to the upper limits of physical activity required of active-duty military service. In addition, we cannot exclude secondary gain motivations for pursuing medical retirement, similar to that seen in patients receiving worker’s compensation.

Other authors have conversely found more favorable functional outcomes and survivorship rates.23,24 In a retrospective review of 46 TSAs in patients 55 years or younger, Bartelt and colleagues24 found sustained improvements in pain, ROM, and satisfaction at 7-year follow-up.24 Raiss and colleagues23 conducted a prospective study of TSA outcomes in 21 patients with a mean age of 55 years and a mean follow-up of 7 years and reported no revisions and only 1 minor complication, a transient brachial plexus palsy.23 The discrepancy between these studies may reflect different activity levels and underlying pathology between cohorts. The present population is unique in that it represents a particularly difficult confluence of factors for shoulder arthroplasty surgeons. The high activity, significant overhead and lifting occupational demands, and discordant patient expectations of this military cohort place a significant functional burden on the implants, the glenoid component in particular. Furthermore, this patient group has a higher incidence of more complex glenohumeral pathology resulting in instability, posttraumatic, or capsulorrhaphy arthropathy, and multiple prior arthroscopic and open stabilization procedures.

At final follow-up, only 33% of our patients were still on activity duty, 37.5% had completed or were completing medical separation from the military after surgery for persistent shoulder disability, and 37.5% were retired from the military. Five patients (20.8%) deployed after surgery. This young, active cohort of service members who had TSA for glenohumeral arthritis faced a unique set of tremendous physical demands. A retrospective case series investigated return to sport in 100 consecutive patients (mean age, 68.9 years) who were participating in recreational and competitive athletics and underwent unilateral TSA.21 The patients were engaged most commonly in swimming (20.4%), golf (16.3%), cycling (16.3%), and fitness training (16.3%). The authors found that, at a mean follow-up of 2.8 years, 49 patients (89%) were able to continue in sports, though 36.7% thought their sport activity was restricted after TSA. In another retrospective case series (61 TSAs), McCarty and colleagues19 found that 48 patients (71%) were improved in their sports participation, and 50% increased their frequency of participation after surgery.

There are no specific recommendations on returning to military service or high-level sport after surgery. Recommendations on returning to sport after TSA have been based largely on small case series involving specific sports46,47 and surveys of expert opinion.17,18 In a survey on postoperative physical activity in young patients after TSA conducted by Healy and colleagues,17 35 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons members recommended avoiding contact and impact sports while permitting return to nonimpact sports, such as swimming, which may still impart significant stress to the glenohumeral joint. In an international survey of 101 shoulder and elbow surgeons, Magnussen and colleagues18 also found that most recommended avoiding a return to impact sports that require intensive upper extremity demands and permitting full return to sports at preoperative levels. This likely is a result of the perception that most of these patients having TSA are older and have less rigorous involvement in sports at the outset and a lower propensity for adverse patient outcomes. However, these recommendations may place a younger, more high-demand patient at significantly greater risk. The active-duty cohort engages in daily physical training, including push-ups and frequent overhead lifting, which could account for the high failure rates and low incidence of postoperative deployment. Although TSA seems to demonstrate good initial results in terms of return to high-demand activities, the return-to-duty profile in our study highlights the potential pitfalls of TSA in active individuals attempting to return to high-demand preoperative function.

 

 

Our analysis was limited by the fact that we used a small patient cohort, contributing to underpowered analysis of the potential risk factors predictive of reoperation and medical discharge. Although our minimum follow-up was 12 months, with the exception of 1 patient who was medically separated at 11.6 months because of shoulder disability, we captured 5 patients (19.2%) who underwent medical separation but who would otherwise be excluded. Therefore, this limitation is not major in that, with a longer minimum follow-up, we would be excluding a significant number of patients with such persistent disability after TSA that they would not be able to return to duty at anywhere near their previous level. In this retrospective study, we were additionally limited to analysis of the data in the medical records and could not control for variables such as surgeon technique, implant choice, and experience. Complete radiographic images were not available, limiting analysis of radiographic outcomes. Given the lack of a standardized preoperative imaging protocol, we could not evaluate glenoid version on axial imaging. It is possible that some patients with early aseptic glenoid loosening had posterior subluxation or a Walch B2 glenoid, which has a higher failure rate.48 The strengths of this study include its unique analysis of a homogeneous young, active, high-risk patient cohort within a closed healthcare system. In the military, these patients are subject to intense daily physical and occupational demands. In addition, the clinical and functional outcomes we studied are patient-centered and therefore relevant during preoperative counseling. Further investigations might focus on validated outcome measures and on midterm to long-term TSA outcomes in an active military population vis-à-vis other alternatives for clinical management.

Conclusion

By a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, only a third of the service members had returned to active duty, roughly a third had retired, and more than a third had been medically discharged because of persistent disability attributable to the shoulder. Despite initial improvements in ROM and pain, midterm outcomes were poor. The short-term complication rate (46.2%) and the rate of reoperation for component failure (23.1%) should be emphasized during preoperative counseling.

Although total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has proved to be a reliable solution in older patients, treatment in younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis remains controversial, and there are still few reliable long-term surgical options.1-8 These options include abrasion arthroplasty and arthroscopic management,9,10 biologic glenoid resurfacing,11,12 and humeral hemiarthroplasty with13 or without14,15 glenoid treatment and anatomical TSA.

In the younger cohort, 20-year TSA survivorship rates up to 84% have been reported, and unsatisfactory subjective outcomes have been unacceptably high.16 In addition, there is a paucity of literature addressing the impact of TSA on return to sport. Recommendations on returning to an athletic life style are based largely on surveys of expert opinion17,18 and heterogeneous studies of either older patients (eg, age >50-55 years) who are active19-21 or younger patients with no defined level of activity.5,7,8,16,22-24

To our knowledge, no one has evaluated the short-term morbidity and clinical outcomes within a young, high-demand patient population, such as the US military. Therefore, we conducted a study to evaluate the clinical success and complications of TSA performed for glenohumeral arthritis in a young, active population. We hypothesized that patients who had undergone TSA would have a low rate of return to duty, an increased rate of component failure, and a higher reoperation rate because of increased upper extremity demands.

Materials and Methods

After obtaining protocol approval from the William Beaumont Army Medical Center Institutional Review Board, we searched the Military Health System (MHS) Management Analysis and Reporting Tool (M2) database to retrospectively review the cases of all tri-service US military service members who had undergone primary anatomical TSA (Current Procedural Terminology code 23472) between January 1, 2007 and June 31, 2014. This was a multisurgeon, multicenter study. Patient exclusion criteria were nonmilitary or retired status at time of surgery; primary surgery consisting of limited glenohumeral resurfacing procedure, hemiarthroplasty, or reverse TSA; surgery for acute proximal humerus fracture; rotator cuff deficiency diagnosed before or during surgery; and insufficient follow-up (eg, <12 months, unless medically separated beforehand).

The M2 database is an established tool that has been used for clinical outcomes research on treatment of a variety of orthopedic conditions.25,26 The Medical Data Repository, which is operated by MHS, is populated by its military healthcare providers. The MHS, which offers worldwide coverage for all beneficiaries either at Department of Defense facilities or purchased using civilian providers, is among the largest known closed healthcare systems.

All active-duty US military service members are uniformly required to adhere to stringent and regularly evaluated physical fitness standards, which typically exceed those of average civilians. Routine physical training is required in the form of aerobic fitness, weight training, tactical field exercises, and core military tasks, such as the ability to march at least 2 miles while carrying heavy fighting loads. In addition to satisfying required height and weight standards, all service members are subject to semiannual service-specific physical fitness evaluations inclusive of timed push-ups, sit-ups, and an aerobic event. Service members may also be required to maintain a level of physical training above these baseline standards, contingent on their branch of service, rank, and military occupational specialty. If a service member is unable to maintain these standards, medical separation may be initiated.

Demographic and occupational data were extracted from the database. These data included age, sex, military rank, and branch of service. Line-by-line analysis of the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (Version 22; 3M) electronic medical record was then performed to confirm the underlying diagnosis, surgical procedure, and surgery date. Further chart review yielded additional patient-based factors (eg, laterality, hand dominance, presence and type of prior shoulder surgeries) and surgical factors (eg, surgery indication, implant design). We evaluated clinical and functional outcomes as well as perioperative complications, including both major and minor systemic and local complications as previously described27,28; preoperative and postoperative range of motion (ROM) and self-reported pain score (SRPS, scale 1-10) as measured by physical therapist and surgeon at follow-up; secondary surgical interventions; timing of return to duty; and postoperative deployment history. The primary outcome measures were revision reoperation after index procedure, and military discharge for persistent shoulder-related disability. Clinical failure was defined as component failure or reoperation. Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) is a formal separation from the military in which it is deemed that a service member is no longer able to fulfill his or her duty because of a medical condition.

 

 

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were compared using statistical means with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and/or SDs. Categorical data were reported as frequencies or percentages. Univariate analysis was performed to assess the correlation between possible risk factors and the primary outcome measures. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Demographics

We identified 24 service members (26 shoulders) who had undergone anatomical TSA during the study period (Table 1). Mean (SD) age was 45.8 (4.5) years (range, 35-54 years), and the cohort was predominately male (25/26 shoulders; 96.2%). Most cohort members were of senior enlisted rank (14, 58.3%), and the US Army was the predominant branch of military service (13, 54.2%). The right side was the operative extremity in 7 cases (26.9%), and the dominant shoulder was involved in 6 cases (23.1%). Two patients (8.3%) underwent staged bilateral TSA. Most patients (76.9%) underwent TSA on the nondominant extremity.

Surgical Variables

TSA was indicated for post-instability arthropathy in 13 cases (50.0%), posttraumatic osteoarthritis in 7 cases (26.9%), and unspecified glenohumeral arthritis, which includes primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis, in 5 cases (19.2%) (Table 2). One case was attributed to iatrogenically induced chondrolysis secondary to intra-articular lidocaine pump. Twelve patients (46.2%) had at least 1 previous surgery. Of the shoulders with instability, 10 (76.9%) had undergone a total of 14 surgical stabilization procedures—10 anterior labral repairs, 2 posterior labral repairs, and 2 capsular plications. The other shoulders had undergone a total of 18 procedures, which included 4 rotator cuff repairs and 3 cartilage restoration procedures.

Clinical Outcomes

Mean (SD) follow-up was 41.0 (21.3) months (range, 11.6-97.6 months). All but 1 shoulder (96.2%) had follow-up of 12 months or more (the only patient with shorter follow-up was because of MEB), and 76.9% of patients had follow-up of 24 months or more (4 of the 6 patients with follow-up under 24 months were medically separated) (Table 3). In all cases, mean ROM improved with respect to flexion, abduction, and external rotation. At final follow-up, mean (SD) ROM was 138° (36°) forward flexion (range, 60°-180°), 125° (39°) abduction (range, 45°-180°), 48° (19°) external rotation at 0° abduction (range, 20°-90°), and 80° (9.4°) external rotation at 90° abduction (range, 70°-90°). Preoperative flexion, abduction, and external rotation at 0° and 90° abduction were all improved at final follow-up. The most improvement in ROM occurred within 6 months after surgery.

Overall patient satisfaction with surgery was 92.3% (n = 24). Ultimately, 18 (72.0%) of 25 shoulders with follow-up of 1 year or more were able to return to active duty within 1 year after surgery, though only 10 (45.5%) of 22 with follow-up of 2 years or more remained active 2 years after surgery. Furthermore, 5 patients (20.8%) were deployed after surgery, and all were still on active duty at final follow-up. By final follow-up, 9 (37.5%) of 24 service members were unable to return to military function; 7 had been medically discharged from the military for persistent shoulder disability, and 2 were in the process of being medically discharged.

In all cases, SRPS improved from before surgery (5.2 out of 10) to final follow-up (1.4). At final follow-up, 22 patients (88.0%) reported mild pain (0-3), and no one had pain above 6.

 

 

Complications

Nine patients had a total of 12 postoperative complications (46.2%): 6 component failures (23.1%), 2 neurologic injuries (7.7%; 1 permanent axillary nerve injury, 1 transient brachial plexus neuritis), 2 cases of adhesive capsulitis (7.7%), and 2 episodes of venous thrombosis (7.7%; 1 superficial, 1 deep) (Table 4). There were no documented infections. Six reoperations (23.1%) were performed for the 6 component failures (2 traumatic dislocations of prosthesis resulting in acute glenoid component failure, 3 cases of atraumatic glenoid loosening, 1 case of humeral stem loosening after periprosthetic fracture). Atraumatic glenoid component loosening occurred a mean (SD) of 40.6 (14.2) months after surgery (range, 20.8-54.2 months).

Surgical Failures

Eight service members underwent MEB. Six patients experienced component failure. Factors contributing to both clinical failure and separation from active duty by means of MEB were evaluated with univariate analysis (Table 5). No statistically significant risk factors, including surgical revision and presence of perioperative complications, were identified.

Discussion

We confirmed that our cohort of young service members (mean age, 45.8 years), who had undergone TSA for glenohumeral arthritis, had a relatively higher rate of component failure (23.1%) and a higher reoperation rate (23.1%) with low rates of return to military duty at short-term to midterm follow-up. Our results parallel those of a limited series with a younger cohort (Table 6).7,16,19,21,23,24 The high demand and increased life expectancy of the younger patients with glenohumeral arthritis potentiates the risk of complications, component loosening, and ultimate failure.29 To our knowledge, the present article is the first to report clinical and functional outcomes and perioperative risk profiles in a homogenously young, active military cohort after TSA.

 

 

The mean age of our study population (46 years) is one of the lowest in the literature. TSA in younger patients (age, <50-55 years) and older, active patients (>55 years) has received increased attention as a result of the expanding indications and growing popularity of TSA in these groups. Other studies have upheld the efficacy of TSA in achieving predictable pain relief and functional improvement in a diverse and predominantly elderly population.15,30-34 Alternative treatments, including humeral head resurfacing15,30,35 and soft-tissue interposition,15,36-40 have also shown inferior short- and long-term results in terms of longevity and degree of clinical or functional improvement.31-34,41 In addition, the ream-and-run technique has had promising early results by improving glenohumeral kinematics, pain relief, and shoulder function.13,42,43 However, although implantation of a glenoid component is avoided in young, active people because of reduced longevity and higher rates of component failure, the trade-offs are inadequately treated glenoid disease, suboptimal pain relief, and progression of glenoid arthritis eventually requiring revision. Furthermore, midterm and long-term survivorship of TSA in general is unknown, and there remain few good options for treating end-stage arthritis in young, active patients.

Our cohort had high rates of complications (46.2%) and revisions (23.1%). Two in 5 patients had postoperative complications, most commonly component failure resulting in reoperation. In the literature, complication rates among young patients who underwent TSA are much lower (4.8%-10.9%).16,23,24 Our cohort’s most common complication was component failure (23.1%), which was most often attributed to atraumatic, aseptic glenoid component loosening and required reoperation. Previously reported revision rates in a young population that underwent TSA (0%-11%)16,23,24 were also significantly lower than those in the present analysis (23.1%), underscoring the impact of operative indications, postoperative activity levels, and occupational demands on ultimate failure rates. Interestingly, all revisions in our study were for component failure, whereas previous reports have described a higher rate for infection.22 However, the same studies also found glenoid lucency rates as high as 76% at 10-year follow-up.16 Furthermore, in a review of 136 TSAs with unsatisfactory outcomes, glenoid loosening was the most common reason for presenting to clinic after surgery.44 Specifically, our population had a high rate of glenohumeral arthritis secondary to instability (50.0%) and posttraumatic osteoarthritis (26.9%). For many reasons, outcomes were worse in younger patients with a history of glenohumeral instability33 than in older patients without a high incidence of instability.45 This young cohort with higher demands may have had accelerated polyethylene wear patterns caused by repetitive overhead activity, which may have arisen because of a higher functional profile after surgery and greater patient expectations after arthroplasty. In addition, patients with a history of instability may have altered glenohumeral anatomy, especially with previous arthroscopic or open stabilization procedures. Anatomical changes include excessive posterior glenoid wear, internal rotation contracture, patulous capsular tissue, static or dynamic posterior humeral subluxation, and possible overconstraint after prior stabilization procedures. Almost half of our population had a previous surgery; our patients averaged 1.7 previous surgeries each.

Although estimates of component survivorship at a high-volume civilian tertiary-referral center were as high as 97% at 10 years and 84% at 20 years,7,16 10-year survivorship in patients with a history of instability was only 61%.3 TSA survivorship in our young, active cohort is already foreseeably dramatically reduced, given the 23.1% revision rate at 28.5-month follow-up. This consideration must be addressed during preoperative counseling with the young patient with glenohumeral arthritis and a history of shoulder instability.

 

 

Despite the high rates of complications and revisions in our study, 92.3% of patients were satisfied with surgery, 88.0% experienced minimal persistence of pain (mean 3.8-point decrease on SRPS), and 100% maintained improved ROM at final follow-up. Satisfaction in the young population has varied significantly, from 52% to 95%, generally on the basis of physical activity.16,22-24 The reasonable rate of postoperative satisfaction in the present analysis is comparable to what has been reported in patients of a similar age (Table 6).7,16,22 However, despite high satisfaction and pain relief, patients were inconsistently able to return to the upper limits of physical activity required of active-duty military service. In addition, we cannot exclude secondary gain motivations for pursuing medical retirement, similar to that seen in patients receiving worker’s compensation.

Other authors have conversely found more favorable functional outcomes and survivorship rates.23,24 In a retrospective review of 46 TSAs in patients 55 years or younger, Bartelt and colleagues24 found sustained improvements in pain, ROM, and satisfaction at 7-year follow-up.24 Raiss and colleagues23 conducted a prospective study of TSA outcomes in 21 patients with a mean age of 55 years and a mean follow-up of 7 years and reported no revisions and only 1 minor complication, a transient brachial plexus palsy.23 The discrepancy between these studies may reflect different activity levels and underlying pathology between cohorts. The present population is unique in that it represents a particularly difficult confluence of factors for shoulder arthroplasty surgeons. The high activity, significant overhead and lifting occupational demands, and discordant patient expectations of this military cohort place a significant functional burden on the implants, the glenoid component in particular. Furthermore, this patient group has a higher incidence of more complex glenohumeral pathology resulting in instability, posttraumatic, or capsulorrhaphy arthropathy, and multiple prior arthroscopic and open stabilization procedures.

At final follow-up, only 33% of our patients were still on activity duty, 37.5% had completed or were completing medical separation from the military after surgery for persistent shoulder disability, and 37.5% were retired from the military. Five patients (20.8%) deployed after surgery. This young, active cohort of service members who had TSA for glenohumeral arthritis faced a unique set of tremendous physical demands. A retrospective case series investigated return to sport in 100 consecutive patients (mean age, 68.9 years) who were participating in recreational and competitive athletics and underwent unilateral TSA.21 The patients were engaged most commonly in swimming (20.4%), golf (16.3%), cycling (16.3%), and fitness training (16.3%). The authors found that, at a mean follow-up of 2.8 years, 49 patients (89%) were able to continue in sports, though 36.7% thought their sport activity was restricted after TSA. In another retrospective case series (61 TSAs), McCarty and colleagues19 found that 48 patients (71%) were improved in their sports participation, and 50% increased their frequency of participation after surgery.

There are no specific recommendations on returning to military service or high-level sport after surgery. Recommendations on returning to sport after TSA have been based largely on small case series involving specific sports46,47 and surveys of expert opinion.17,18 In a survey on postoperative physical activity in young patients after TSA conducted by Healy and colleagues,17 35 American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons members recommended avoiding contact and impact sports while permitting return to nonimpact sports, such as swimming, which may still impart significant stress to the glenohumeral joint. In an international survey of 101 shoulder and elbow surgeons, Magnussen and colleagues18 also found that most recommended avoiding a return to impact sports that require intensive upper extremity demands and permitting full return to sports at preoperative levels. This likely is a result of the perception that most of these patients having TSA are older and have less rigorous involvement in sports at the outset and a lower propensity for adverse patient outcomes. However, these recommendations may place a younger, more high-demand patient at significantly greater risk. The active-duty cohort engages in daily physical training, including push-ups and frequent overhead lifting, which could account for the high failure rates and low incidence of postoperative deployment. Although TSA seems to demonstrate good initial results in terms of return to high-demand activities, the return-to-duty profile in our study highlights the potential pitfalls of TSA in active individuals attempting to return to high-demand preoperative function.

 

 

Our analysis was limited by the fact that we used a small patient cohort, contributing to underpowered analysis of the potential risk factors predictive of reoperation and medical discharge. Although our minimum follow-up was 12 months, with the exception of 1 patient who was medically separated at 11.6 months because of shoulder disability, we captured 5 patients (19.2%) who underwent medical separation but who would otherwise be excluded. Therefore, this limitation is not major in that, with a longer minimum follow-up, we would be excluding a significant number of patients with such persistent disability after TSA that they would not be able to return to duty at anywhere near their previous level. In this retrospective study, we were additionally limited to analysis of the data in the medical records and could not control for variables such as surgeon technique, implant choice, and experience. Complete radiographic images were not available, limiting analysis of radiographic outcomes. Given the lack of a standardized preoperative imaging protocol, we could not evaluate glenoid version on axial imaging. It is possible that some patients with early aseptic glenoid loosening had posterior subluxation or a Walch B2 glenoid, which has a higher failure rate.48 The strengths of this study include its unique analysis of a homogeneous young, active, high-risk patient cohort within a closed healthcare system. In the military, these patients are subject to intense daily physical and occupational demands. In addition, the clinical and functional outcomes we studied are patient-centered and therefore relevant during preoperative counseling. Further investigations might focus on validated outcome measures and on midterm to long-term TSA outcomes in an active military population vis-à-vis other alternatives for clinical management.

Conclusion

By a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, only a third of the service members had returned to active duty, roughly a third had retired, and more than a third had been medically discharged because of persistent disability attributable to the shoulder. Despite initial improvements in ROM and pain, midterm outcomes were poor. The short-term complication rate (46.2%) and the rate of reoperation for component failure (23.1%) should be emphasized during preoperative counseling.

References

1.    Tokish JM. The mature athlete’s shoulder. Sports Health. 2014;6(1):31-35.

2.    Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of glenoid arthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(6):860-867.

3.    Sperling JW, Antuna SA, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck C, Cofield RH. Shoulder arthroplasty for arthritis after instability surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(10):1775-1781.

4.    Izquierdo R, Voloshin I, Edwards S, et al; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(6):375-382.

5.    Johnson MH, Paxton ES, Green A. Shoulder arthroplasty options in young (<50 years old) patients: review of current concepts. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(2):317-325.

6.    Cole BJ, Yanke A, Provencher MT. Nonarthroplasty alternatives for the treatment of glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5 suppl):S231-S240.

7.    Denard PJ, Raiss P, Sowa B, Walch G. Mid- to long-term follow-up of total shoulder arthroplasty using a keeled glenoid in young adults with primary glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(7):894-900.

8.    Denard PJ, Wirth MA, Orfaly RM. Management of glenohumeral arthritis in the young adult. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(9):885-892.

9.    Millett PJ, Horan MP, Pennock AT, Rios D. Comprehensive arthroscopic management (CAM) procedure: clinical results of a joint-preserving arthroscopic treatment for young, active patients with advanced shoulder osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(3):440-448.

10   Millett PJ, Gaskill TR. Arthroscopic management of glenohumeral arthrosis: humeral osteoplasty, capsular release, and arthroscopic axillary nerve release as a joint-preserving approach. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(9):1296-1303.

11.  Savoie FH 3rd, Brislin KJ, Argo D. Arthroscopic glenoid resurfacing as a surgical treatment for glenohumeral arthritis in the young patient: midterm results. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(8):864-871.

12.  Strauss EJ, Verma NN, Salata MJ, et al. The high failure rate of biologic resurfacing of the glenoid in young patients with glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(3):409-419.

13.  Matsen FA 3rd, Warme WJ, Jackins SE. Can the ream and run procedure improve glenohumeral relationships and function for shoulders with the arthritic triad? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(6):2088-2096.

14.  Lo IK, Litchfield RB, Griffin S, Faber K, Patterson SD, Kirkley A. Quality-of-life outcome following hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis. A prospective, randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(10):2178-2185.

15.  Wirth M, Tapscott RS, Southworth C, Rockwood CA Jr. Treatment of glenohumeral arthritis with a hemiarthroplasty: a minimum five-year follow-up outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(5):964-973.

16.  Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(6):604-613.

17.  Healy WL, Iorio R, Lemos MJ. Athletic activity after joint replacement. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(3):377-388.

18.  Magnussen RA, Mallon WJ, Willems WJ, Moorman CT 3rd. Long-term activity restrictions after shoulder arthroplasty: an international survey of experienced shoulder surgeons. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(2):281-289.

19.  McCarty EC, Marx RG, Maerz D, Altchek D, Warren RF. Sports participation after shoulder replacement surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(8):1577-1581.

20.  Schmidt-Wiethoff R, Wolf P, Lehmann M, Habermeyer P. Physical activity after shoulder arthroplasty [in German]. Sportverletz Sportschaden. 2002;16(1):26-30.

21.  Schumann K, Flury MP, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR, Drerup S, Goldhahn J. Sports activity after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(10):2097-2105.

22.  Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Neer hemiarthroplasty and Neer total shoulder arthroplasty in patients fifty years old or less. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(4):464-473.

23.  Raiss P, Aldinger PR, Kasten P, Rickert M, Loew M. Total shoulder replacement in young and middle-aged patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(6):764-769.

24.  Bartelt R, Sperling JW, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty-five years or younger with osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):123-130.

25.  Waterman BR, Burns TC, McCriskin B, Kilcoyne K, Cameron KL, Owens BD. Outcomes after Bankart repair in a military population: predictors for surgical revision and long-term disability. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(2):172-177.

26.  Waterman BR, Liu J, Newcomb R, Schoenfeld AJ, Orr JD, Belmont PJ Jr. Risk factors for chronic exertional compartment syndrome in a physically active military population. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(11):2545-2549.

27.  Chalmers PN, Gupta AK, Rahman Z, Bruce B, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Predictors of early complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(4):856-860.

28.  Dunn JC, Lanzi J, Kusnezov N, Bader J, Waterman BR, Belmont PJ Jr. Predictors of length of stay after elective total shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(5):754-759.

29.  Hayes PR, Flatow EL. Total shoulder arthroplasty in the young patient. Instr Course Lect. 2001;50;73-88.

30.  Rispoli DM, Sperling JW, Athwal GS, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Humeral head replacement for the treatment of osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2637-2644.

31.  Radnay CS, Setter KJ, Chambers L, Levine WN, Bigliani LU, Ahmad CS. Total shoulder replacement compared with humeral head replacement for the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(4):396-402.

32.  Gartsman GM, Roddey TS, Hammerman SM. Shoulder arthroplasty with or without resurfacing of the glenoid in patients who have osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(1):26-34.

33.  Edwards TB, Kadakia NR, Boulahia A, et al. A comparison of hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(3):
207-213.

34.  Bryant D, Litchfield R, Sandow M, Gartsman GM, Guyatt G, Kirkley A. A comparison of pain, strength, range of motion, and functional outcomes after hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis of the shoulder. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(9):1947-1956.

35.  Bailie DS, Llinas PJ, Ellenbecker TS. Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty in active patients less than fifty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(1):110-117.

36.  Ball CM, Galatz LM, Yamaguchi K. Meniscal allograft interposition arthroplasty for the arthritic shoulder: description of a new surgical technique. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;2:247-254.

37.  Elhassan B, Ozbaydar M, Diller D, Higgins LD, Warner JJ. Soft-tissue resurfacing of the glenoid in the treatment of glenohumeral arthritis in active patients less than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(2):419-424.

38.  Krishnan SG, Nowinski RJ, Harrison D, Burkhead WZ. Humeral hemiarthroplasty with biologic resurfacing of the glenoid for glenohumeral arthritis. Two to fifteen-year outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):727-734.

39.  Lee KT, Bell S, Salmon J. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder with biologic resurfacing of the glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):915-919.

40.  Nicholson GP, Goldstein JL, Romeo AA, et al. Lateral meniscus allograft biologic glenoid arthroplasty in total shoulder arthroplasty for young shoulders with degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5 suppl):S261-S266.

41.  Carroll RM, Izquierdo R, Vazquez M, Blaine TA, Levine WN, Bigliani LU. Conversion of painful hemiarthroplasty to total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(6):599-603.

42.  Clinton J, Franta AK, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Matsen FA 3rd. Nonprosthetic glenoid arthroplasty with humeral hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty yield similar self-assessed outcomes in the management of comparable patients with glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5):534-538.

43.  Gilmer BB, Comstock BA, Jette JL, Warme WJ, Jackins SE, Matsen FA. The prognosis for improvement in comfort and function after the ream-and-run arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis: an analysis of 176 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(14):e102.

44.  Franta AK, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Neradilek B, Matsen FA 3rd. The complex characteristics of 282 unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5):555-562.

45.   Godenèche A, Boileau P, Favard L, et al. Prosthetic replacement in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the shoulder: early results of 268 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(1):11-18.

46.  Jensen KL, Rockwood CA Jr. Shoulder arthroplasty in recreational golfers. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(4):362-367.

47.  Kirchhoff C, Imhoff AB, Hinterwimmer S. Winter sports and shoulder arthroplasty [in German]. Sportverletz Sportschaden. 2008;22(3):153-158.

48.   Raiss P, Edwards TB, Deutsch A, et al. Radiographic changes around humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(7):e54.

References

1.    Tokish JM. The mature athlete’s shoulder. Sports Health. 2014;6(1):31-35.

2.    Sperling JW, Cofield RH. Revision total shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of glenoid arthrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(6):860-867.

3.    Sperling JW, Antuna SA, Sanchez-Sotelo J, Schleck C, Cofield RH. Shoulder arthroplasty for arthritis after instability surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(10):1775-1781.

4.    Izquierdo R, Voloshin I, Edwards S, et al; American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(6):375-382.

5.    Johnson MH, Paxton ES, Green A. Shoulder arthroplasty options in young (<50 years old) patients: review of current concepts. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(2):317-325.

6.    Cole BJ, Yanke A, Provencher MT. Nonarthroplasty alternatives for the treatment of glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5 suppl):S231-S240.

7.    Denard PJ, Raiss P, Sowa B, Walch G. Mid- to long-term follow-up of total shoulder arthroplasty using a keeled glenoid in young adults with primary glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(7):894-900.

8.    Denard PJ, Wirth MA, Orfaly RM. Management of glenohumeral arthritis in the young adult. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(9):885-892.

9.    Millett PJ, Horan MP, Pennock AT, Rios D. Comprehensive arthroscopic management (CAM) procedure: clinical results of a joint-preserving arthroscopic treatment for young, active patients with advanced shoulder osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(3):440-448.

10   Millett PJ, Gaskill TR. Arthroscopic management of glenohumeral arthrosis: humeral osteoplasty, capsular release, and arthroscopic axillary nerve release as a joint-preserving approach. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(9):1296-1303.

11.  Savoie FH 3rd, Brislin KJ, Argo D. Arthroscopic glenoid resurfacing as a surgical treatment for glenohumeral arthritis in the young patient: midterm results. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(8):864-871.

12.  Strauss EJ, Verma NN, Salata MJ, et al. The high failure rate of biologic resurfacing of the glenoid in young patients with glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23(3):409-419.

13.  Matsen FA 3rd, Warme WJ, Jackins SE. Can the ream and run procedure improve glenohumeral relationships and function for shoulders with the arthritic triad? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(6):2088-2096.

14.  Lo IK, Litchfield RB, Griffin S, Faber K, Patterson SD, Kirkley A. Quality-of-life outcome following hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis. A prospective, randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(10):2178-2185.

15.  Wirth M, Tapscott RS, Southworth C, Rockwood CA Jr. Treatment of glenohumeral arthritis with a hemiarthroplasty: a minimum five-year follow-up outcome study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(5):964-973.

16.  Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Minimum fifteen-year follow-up of Neer hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty years or younger. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(6):604-613.

17.  Healy WL, Iorio R, Lemos MJ. Athletic activity after joint replacement. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29(3):377-388.

18.  Magnussen RA, Mallon WJ, Willems WJ, Moorman CT 3rd. Long-term activity restrictions after shoulder arthroplasty: an international survey of experienced shoulder surgeons. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(2):281-289.

19.  McCarty EC, Marx RG, Maerz D, Altchek D, Warren RF. Sports participation after shoulder replacement surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(8):1577-1581.

20.  Schmidt-Wiethoff R, Wolf P, Lehmann M, Habermeyer P. Physical activity after shoulder arthroplasty [in German]. Sportverletz Sportschaden. 2002;16(1):26-30.

21.  Schumann K, Flury MP, Schwyzer HK, Simmen BR, Drerup S, Goldhahn J. Sports activity after anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(10):2097-2105.

22.  Sperling JW, Cofield RH, Rowland CM. Neer hemiarthroplasty and Neer total shoulder arthroplasty in patients fifty years old or less. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80(4):464-473.

23.  Raiss P, Aldinger PR, Kasten P, Rickert M, Loew M. Total shoulder replacement in young and middle-aged patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(6):764-769.

24.  Bartelt R, Sperling JW, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged fifty-five years or younger with osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(1):123-130.

25.  Waterman BR, Burns TC, McCriskin B, Kilcoyne K, Cameron KL, Owens BD. Outcomes after Bankart repair in a military population: predictors for surgical revision and long-term disability. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(2):172-177.

26.  Waterman BR, Liu J, Newcomb R, Schoenfeld AJ, Orr JD, Belmont PJ Jr. Risk factors for chronic exertional compartment syndrome in a physically active military population. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(11):2545-2549.

27.  Chalmers PN, Gupta AK, Rahman Z, Bruce B, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Predictors of early complications of total shoulder arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(4):856-860.

28.  Dunn JC, Lanzi J, Kusnezov N, Bader J, Waterman BR, Belmont PJ Jr. Predictors of length of stay after elective total shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(5):754-759.

29.  Hayes PR, Flatow EL. Total shoulder arthroplasty in the young patient. Instr Course Lect. 2001;50;73-88.

30.  Rispoli DM, Sperling JW, Athwal GS, Schleck CD, Cofield RH. Humeral head replacement for the treatment of osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(12):2637-2644.

31.  Radnay CS, Setter KJ, Chambers L, Levine WN, Bigliani LU, Ahmad CS. Total shoulder replacement compared with humeral head replacement for the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(4):396-402.

32.  Gartsman GM, Roddey TS, Hammerman SM. Shoulder arthroplasty with or without resurfacing of the glenoid in patients who have osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(1):26-34.

33.  Edwards TB, Kadakia NR, Boulahia A, et al. A comparison of hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis: results of a multicenter study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12(3):
207-213.

34.  Bryant D, Litchfield R, Sandow M, Gartsman GM, Guyatt G, Kirkley A. A comparison of pain, strength, range of motion, and functional outcomes after hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with osteoarthritis of the shoulder. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(9):1947-1956.

35.  Bailie DS, Llinas PJ, Ellenbecker TS. Cementless humeral resurfacing arthroplasty in active patients less than fifty-five years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(1):110-117.

36.  Ball CM, Galatz LM, Yamaguchi K. Meniscal allograft interposition arthroplasty for the arthritic shoulder: description of a new surgical technique. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2001;2:247-254.

37.  Elhassan B, Ozbaydar M, Diller D, Higgins LD, Warner JJ. Soft-tissue resurfacing of the glenoid in the treatment of glenohumeral arthritis in active patients less than fifty years old. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(2):419-424.

38.  Krishnan SG, Nowinski RJ, Harrison D, Burkhead WZ. Humeral hemiarthroplasty with biologic resurfacing of the glenoid for glenohumeral arthritis. Two to fifteen-year outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):727-734.

39.  Lee KT, Bell S, Salmon J. Cementless surface replacement arthroplasty of the shoulder with biologic resurfacing of the glenoid. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6):915-919.

40.  Nicholson GP, Goldstein JL, Romeo AA, et al. Lateral meniscus allograft biologic glenoid arthroplasty in total shoulder arthroplasty for young shoulders with degenerative joint disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5 suppl):S261-S266.

41.  Carroll RM, Izquierdo R, Vazquez M, Blaine TA, Levine WN, Bigliani LU. Conversion of painful hemiarthroplasty to total shoulder arthroplasty: long-term results. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2004;13(6):599-603.

42.  Clinton J, Franta AK, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Matsen FA 3rd. Nonprosthetic glenoid arthroplasty with humeral hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder arthroplasty yield similar self-assessed outcomes in the management of comparable patients with glenohumeral arthritis. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5):534-538.

43.  Gilmer BB, Comstock BA, Jette JL, Warme WJ, Jackins SE, Matsen FA. The prognosis for improvement in comfort and function after the ream-and-run arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis: an analysis of 176 consecutive cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(14):e102.

44.  Franta AK, Lenters TR, Mounce D, Neradilek B, Matsen FA 3rd. The complex characteristics of 282 unsatisfactory shoulder arthroplasties. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007;16(5):555-562.

45.   Godenèche A, Boileau P, Favard L, et al. Prosthetic replacement in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the shoulder: early results of 268 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11(1):11-18.

46.  Jensen KL, Rockwood CA Jr. Shoulder arthroplasty in recreational golfers. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1998;7(4):362-367.

47.  Kirchhoff C, Imhoff AB, Hinterwimmer S. Winter sports and shoulder arthroplasty [in German]. Sportverletz Sportschaden. 2008;22(3):153-158.

48.   Raiss P, Edwards TB, Deutsch A, et al. Radiographic changes around humeral components in shoulder arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(7):e54.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(5)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(5)
Page Number
E273-E282
Page Number
E273-E282
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Clinical Outcomes of Anatomical Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in a Young, Active Population
Display Headline
Clinical Outcomes of Anatomical Total Shoulder Arthroplasty in a Young, Active Population
Legacy Keywords
online exclusive, study, arthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, TSA, shoulder, glenohumeral arthritis, arthritis, treatment, kusnezov, dunn, parada, kilcoyne, waterman
Legacy Keywords
online exclusive, study, arthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, TSA, shoulder, glenohumeral arthritis, arthritis, treatment, kusnezov, dunn, parada, kilcoyne, waterman
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Successful Nonoperative Management of HAGL (Humeral Avulsion of Glenohumeral Ligament) Lesion With Concurrent Axillary Nerve Injury in an Active-Duty US Navy SEAL

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 09/19/2019 - 13:25
Display Headline
Successful Nonoperative Management of HAGL (Humeral Avulsion of Glenohumeral Ligament) Lesion With Concurrent Axillary Nerve Injury in an Active-Duty US Navy SEAL

The humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligament (HAGL) lesion has been recognized as a cause of recurrent shoulder instability. In 1942, Nicola1 was the first to describe this lesion, in a small case series of avulsions of the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament from the humeral neck secondary to a dislocation injury. In 1988, Bach and colleagues2 described it in 2 patients with recurrent anterior dislocations. Wolf and colleagues3 were the first to apply the term HAGL to the injury, in 1995.

HAGL lesion incidence ranges from 1% to 9%, but many authors think the lesion is underdiagnosed.3-5 It occurs in isolation or in combination with other injuries, and it is commonly identified on recurrence of instability. Bui-Mansfield and colleagues6 found that 11% of patients with a diagnosis of HAGL lesion previously had surgery on the same shoulder, whereas for 62% the lesion was associated with other, concurrent lesions, including labral tears (18, 25%), rotator cuff tears (16, 23%), and Hill-Sachs deformities (12, 17%).

Most young athletes who undergo nonoperative therapy for a HAGL lesion continue to experience pain and/or instability that then requires surgical intervention.4 To our knowledge, there are no reports of return to full function in young competitive athletes or return to manual labor after nonoperative management of a HAGL lesion.

In this article, we report the case of a US Navy SEAL who sustained a traction injury causing an axillary nerve injury and a HAGL lesion. Successful nonoperative management allowed him to return to full duty. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 26-year-old Navy SEAL presented with pain and significant weakness in the right (dominant) upper extremity after an injury in a training exercise. The shoulder sustained a traction injury when the man’s fast-moving marine attack craft was in a collision and he was trying not to be thrown off. He reported having a sense of dislocation yet never required a reduction.

Physical examination revealed severe weakness with shoulder abduction, external rotation, and forward flexion; inability to contract the deltoid muscle; and complete numbness along the cutaneous distribution of the axillary nerve. On neurovascular examination, the right upper extremity was otherwise intact. The patient had complete passive range of motion (ROM) with apprehension in abduction with external rotation along with anterior laxity and normal posterior stability.

Standard shoulder radiographs showed no bony abnormalities and a concentrically reduced glenohumeral joint. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reviewed by a staff musculoskeletal radiologist and a sports fellowship–trained orthopedic surgeon, showed a greater tuberosity contusion, a partial tear of the infraspinatus, and a HAGL lesion (Figure 1).

The patient was counseled toward surgical intervention to prevent symptoms of recurrent instability. A detailed discussion ensued about whether to proceed with surgery immediately or to pursue temporary nonoperative treatment to allow for assessment and return of deltoid function. Patient and surgeon decided to delay operative intervention because of concerns about the patient’s ability to effectively rehabilitate while still having a compromised axillary nerve after surgery. The recommendation was to delay initial electromyographic (EMG) and nerve conduction velocity testing at least 4 weeks to allow for completion of Wallerian degeneration and more accurate assessment of the axillary nerve.7 Physical therapy for gentle ROM (excluding external rotation) and isometric rotator cuff exercises were initiated.

Five weeks after injury, the patient left the area to attend a 2-month nonphysical training course and continued rehabilitation and orthopedic follow-up at another military medical facility. Six weeks after injury, initial EMG testing revealed the expected axillary neuropraxia. In addition, some marginal improvement in ROM was noted, but deltoid function was still very limited.

 

 

Ten weeks after injury, clinical inspection revealed deltoid wasting. Active shoulder ROM was limited, and deltoid strength was 3/5, though the patient was able to perform a standard push-up without difficulty and showed no sign of laxity or apprehension on shoulder examination. Repeat EMG testing revealed axillary nerve denervation with no sign of regeneration. Twelve weeks after injury, MRA showed reorganization and partial healing of the HAGL lesion relative to the prior study (Figure 2).

On the patient’s return from training, 15 weeks after injury, he had improved active ROM and 4+/5 deltoid strength. Axillary nerve sensation was still decreased but markedly improved. Physical examination revealed no significant shoulder laxity or apprehension, and the patient denied feelings of instability. Activities were advanced to include an organized strengthening program.

Six months after injury, the patient was cleared to return to his unit with only mild physical restriction. Function continued to steadily improve. After 9 months, he was cleared for full, unrestricted duty. Although he still demonstrated slight asymmetric weakness in the right deltoid with continued muscular atrophy, examination findings were otherwise normal, and he was back to full activities without significant symptoms.

Eleven months after injury, MRI showed healing of the HAGL lesion (Figure 3). At 17 months, EMG testing revealed significant interval improvement in axillary motor unit potentials but still about a 50% decrement compared with the noninjured side. The patient denied any motor or sensory deficits and any instability events since his injury. He continued with full function as an active-duty Navy SEAL.

Discussion

Nonoperative management has been used for injuries to the inferior glenohumeral ligament complex when there is no humeral detachment but generally has been reserved for low-demand patients and patients who cannot tolerate surgical intervention.4 Detached lesions may initially be managed nonoperatively with physical therapy and rehabilitation, but the rate of recurrent instability after nonoperative management of a known HAGL lesion remains unknown.4 Most active young people are expected to have persistent pain and/or instability and require surgical intervention. Both arthroscopic and open methods have been used successfully.3,8-15 Persistent instability is often the primary complaint leading to a diagnosis of a HAGL lesion.4 The patient in this case report neither demonstrated nor reported any instability event after his 6-month period of nonoperative management, despite his young age and elite physical requirements.

To our knowledge, there are no reports of successful nonoperative management of a known symptomatic HAGL lesion in a high-demand athlete. Although we do not routinely recommend nonoperative treatment for cases such as the one reported here, the decision to delay this Navy SEAL’s surgical management was made out of concern about potential complications of postoperative rehabilitation given the concurrent axillary nerve injury.

With anterior shoulder dislocations, multiple concomitant shoulder injuries, including a HAGL lesion, are not uncommon.6,16 With HAGL lesions, associated rotator cuff injuries occur at a rate as high as 23%.6 Our patient had a concurrent partial rotator cuff tear but also an axillary nerve traction injury. To our knowledge, the literature has not described axillary nerve injury specifically in association with a HAGL lesion, though it is well documented and maintained as a possible concurrent injury with anterior shoulder instability events.17 Robinson and colleagues16 found a 5.8% incidence of a clinically apparent neurologic deficit after traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in 3633 dislocations, about 75% of which were isolated axillary nerve injuries. They also reported a 25.7% rate of rotator cuff tear or greater tuberosity fracture, either of which significantly increased the likelihood of a neurologic deficit in their study.

 

 

When nerve continuity remains, functional recovery occurs after 3 to 6 months, or within weeks in some cases.18-20 Nerve injuries in continuity but with persistent, severe clinical deficits may require surgical exploration with subsequent neurolysis and/or repair.19-21 Our patient showed gradual axillary nerve recovery from a clinical standpoint. By 6 months after injury, despite continued muscle atrophy and decreased axillary nerve sensation, he had returned to full duty as a Navy SEAL. By 17 months, atrophy was markedly improved, and strength and ROM had subjectively returned, despite there being significant conduction amplitude losses, up to 50% of the contralateral side, on EMG testing.

This case represents a scenario in which likely initial surgical management was precluded by a concomitant injury, and the patient had a serendipitous outcome. It is possible the axillary neuropraxia and subsequent temporary deltoid dysfunction provided a unique environment that was conducive to the healing of the HAGL lesion. With classic Bankart lesions, many surgeons prefer to use aggressive early surgical treatment in first-time dislocators, especially elite athletes, in an attempt to avoid recurrent instability.22-26 However, some have suggested that initial immobilization after acute injury may lead to successful nonoperative management.27 Perhaps our case report raises the question as to whether a prolonged period of initial immobilization can prove successful in management of a HAGL lesion. Prospective studies comparing early surgical and nonoperative treatment of these challenging lesions are warranted.

We have reported a case of successful nonoperative management of a HAGL lesion in an active-duty Navy SEAL with concomitant shoulder injuries. This case could suggest that a trial of initial nonoperative management should be considered for injuries that involve a HAGL lesion when there are concerns about the patient’s ability to complete functional rehabilitation because of the combined injuries of the shoulder.

References

1.    Nicola T. Anterior dislocation of the shoulder: the role of the articular capsule. J Bone Joint Surg. 1942;25:614-616.

2.    Bach BR, Warren RF, Fronek J. Disruption of the lateral capsule of the shoulder. A cause of recurrent dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(2):274-276.

3.    Wolf EM, Cheng JC, Dickson K. Humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligaments as a cause of anterior shoulder instability. Arthroscopy. 1995;11(5):600-607.

4.    George MS, Khazzam M, Kuhn JE. Humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligaments. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(3):127-133.

5.    Tirman PF, Steinbach LS, Feller JF, Stauffer AE. Humeral avulsion of the anterior shoulder stabilizing structures after anterior shoulder dislocation: demonstration by MRI and MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25(8):743-748.

6.    Bui-Mansfield LT, Banks KP, Taylor DC. Humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments: the HAGL lesion. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(11):1960-1966.

7.    Dumitru D, Zwarts MJ. Needle electromyography. In: Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts MJ, eds. Electrodiagnostic Medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley & Belfus; 2005:257-292.

8.    Parameswaran AD, Provencher MT, Bach BR Jr, Verma N, Romeo AA. Humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament. Injury pattern and arthroscopic repair techniques. Orthopedics. 2008;31(8):773-779.

9.    Kon Y, Shiozaki H, Sugaya H. Arthroscopic repair of a humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament lesion. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(5):632.

10.  Bokor DJ, Conboy VB, Olson C. Anterior instability of the glenohumeral joint with humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament: a review of 41 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(1):93-96.

11.  Field LD, Bokor DJ, Savoie FH 3rd. Humeral and glenoid detachment of the anterior inferior glenohumeral ligament: a cause of anterior shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(1):6-10.

12.  Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD. Mini-open repair technique of HAGL (humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament) lesion. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(9):1152.

13.  Bhatia DN, DeBeer JF, van Rooyen KS. The “subscapularis-sparing” approach: a new mini-open technique to repair a humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament lesion. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(6):686-690.

14.  Huberty D, Burkhart S. Arthroscopic repair of anterior humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;7(4):186-190.

15.  Richards DP, Burkhart SS. Arthroscopic humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments (HAGL) repair. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(suppl 2):134-141.

16.  Robinson CM, Shur N, Sharpe T, Ray A, Murray IR. Injuries associated with traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocations. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(1):18-26.

17.  Visser CP, Coene LN, Brand R, Tavy DL. The incidence of nerve injury in anterior dislocation of the shoulder and its influence on functional recovery. A prospective clinical and EMG study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(4):679-685.

18.  Gumina S, Bertino A, Di Giorgio G, Postacchini F. Injury of the axillary nerve subsequent to recurrence of shoulder dislocation. Clinical and electromyographic study. Chir Organi Mov. 2005;90(2):153-158.

19.  Perlmutter GS. Axillary nerve injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(368):28-36.

20.  Saragaglia D, Picard F, Le Bredonchel T, Moncenis C, Sardo M, Tourne Y. Acute anterior instability of the shoulder: short- and mid-term outcome after conservative treatment [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2001;87(3):215-220.

21.  Kline DG, Kim DH. Axillary nerve repair in 99 patients with 101 stretch injuries. J Neurosurg. 2003;99(4):630-636.

22.  Kralinger FS, Golser K, Wischatta R, Wambacher M, Sperner G. Predicting recurrence after primary anterior shoulder dislocation. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(1):116-120.

23.  Bottoni CR, Wilckens JH, DeBerardino TM, et al. A prospective, randomized evaluation of arthroscopic stabilization versus nonoperative treatment in patients with acute, traumatic, first-time shoulder dislocations. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(4):576-580.

24.  Handoll HH, Almaiyah MA, Rangan A. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute anterior shoulder dislocation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD004325.

25.  Jakobsen BW, Johannsen HV, Suder P, Søjbjerg JO. Primary repair versus conservative treatment of first-time traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder: a randomized study with 10-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(2):118-123.

26.  Kirkley A, Griffin S, Richards C, Miniaci A, Mohtadi N. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(5):507-514.

27.  Paterson WH, Throckmorton TW, Koester M, Azar FM, Kuhn JE. Position and duration of immobilization after primary anterior shoulder dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(18):2924-2933.

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Justin J. Ernat, MD, Craig R. Bottoni, MD, and Douglas J. Rowles, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Department of the Army, US Department of Defense, or US Government.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(5)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E236-E239
Legacy Keywords
online exclusive, case report, Navy, SEAL, HAGL, humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligament, ligament, glenohumeral, humeral, lesion, injury, nerve, shoulder, ernat, bottoni, rowles
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Justin J. Ernat, MD, Craig R. Bottoni, MD, and Douglas J. Rowles, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Department of the Army, US Department of Defense, or US Government.

Author and Disclosure Information

Justin J. Ernat, MD, Craig R. Bottoni, MD, and Douglas J. Rowles, MD

Authors’ Disclosure Statement: The authors report no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Department of the Army, US Department of Defense, or US Government.

Article PDF
Article PDF

The humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligament (HAGL) lesion has been recognized as a cause of recurrent shoulder instability. In 1942, Nicola1 was the first to describe this lesion, in a small case series of avulsions of the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament from the humeral neck secondary to a dislocation injury. In 1988, Bach and colleagues2 described it in 2 patients with recurrent anterior dislocations. Wolf and colleagues3 were the first to apply the term HAGL to the injury, in 1995.

HAGL lesion incidence ranges from 1% to 9%, but many authors think the lesion is underdiagnosed.3-5 It occurs in isolation or in combination with other injuries, and it is commonly identified on recurrence of instability. Bui-Mansfield and colleagues6 found that 11% of patients with a diagnosis of HAGL lesion previously had surgery on the same shoulder, whereas for 62% the lesion was associated with other, concurrent lesions, including labral tears (18, 25%), rotator cuff tears (16, 23%), and Hill-Sachs deformities (12, 17%).

Most young athletes who undergo nonoperative therapy for a HAGL lesion continue to experience pain and/or instability that then requires surgical intervention.4 To our knowledge, there are no reports of return to full function in young competitive athletes or return to manual labor after nonoperative management of a HAGL lesion.

In this article, we report the case of a US Navy SEAL who sustained a traction injury causing an axillary nerve injury and a HAGL lesion. Successful nonoperative management allowed him to return to full duty. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 26-year-old Navy SEAL presented with pain and significant weakness in the right (dominant) upper extremity after an injury in a training exercise. The shoulder sustained a traction injury when the man’s fast-moving marine attack craft was in a collision and he was trying not to be thrown off. He reported having a sense of dislocation yet never required a reduction.

Physical examination revealed severe weakness with shoulder abduction, external rotation, and forward flexion; inability to contract the deltoid muscle; and complete numbness along the cutaneous distribution of the axillary nerve. On neurovascular examination, the right upper extremity was otherwise intact. The patient had complete passive range of motion (ROM) with apprehension in abduction with external rotation along with anterior laxity and normal posterior stability.

Standard shoulder radiographs showed no bony abnormalities and a concentrically reduced glenohumeral joint. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reviewed by a staff musculoskeletal radiologist and a sports fellowship–trained orthopedic surgeon, showed a greater tuberosity contusion, a partial tear of the infraspinatus, and a HAGL lesion (Figure 1).

The patient was counseled toward surgical intervention to prevent symptoms of recurrent instability. A detailed discussion ensued about whether to proceed with surgery immediately or to pursue temporary nonoperative treatment to allow for assessment and return of deltoid function. Patient and surgeon decided to delay operative intervention because of concerns about the patient’s ability to effectively rehabilitate while still having a compromised axillary nerve after surgery. The recommendation was to delay initial electromyographic (EMG) and nerve conduction velocity testing at least 4 weeks to allow for completion of Wallerian degeneration and more accurate assessment of the axillary nerve.7 Physical therapy for gentle ROM (excluding external rotation) and isometric rotator cuff exercises were initiated.

Five weeks after injury, the patient left the area to attend a 2-month nonphysical training course and continued rehabilitation and orthopedic follow-up at another military medical facility. Six weeks after injury, initial EMG testing revealed the expected axillary neuropraxia. In addition, some marginal improvement in ROM was noted, but deltoid function was still very limited.

 

 

Ten weeks after injury, clinical inspection revealed deltoid wasting. Active shoulder ROM was limited, and deltoid strength was 3/5, though the patient was able to perform a standard push-up without difficulty and showed no sign of laxity or apprehension on shoulder examination. Repeat EMG testing revealed axillary nerve denervation with no sign of regeneration. Twelve weeks after injury, MRA showed reorganization and partial healing of the HAGL lesion relative to the prior study (Figure 2).

On the patient’s return from training, 15 weeks after injury, he had improved active ROM and 4+/5 deltoid strength. Axillary nerve sensation was still decreased but markedly improved. Physical examination revealed no significant shoulder laxity or apprehension, and the patient denied feelings of instability. Activities were advanced to include an organized strengthening program.

Six months after injury, the patient was cleared to return to his unit with only mild physical restriction. Function continued to steadily improve. After 9 months, he was cleared for full, unrestricted duty. Although he still demonstrated slight asymmetric weakness in the right deltoid with continued muscular atrophy, examination findings were otherwise normal, and he was back to full activities without significant symptoms.

Eleven months after injury, MRI showed healing of the HAGL lesion (Figure 3). At 17 months, EMG testing revealed significant interval improvement in axillary motor unit potentials but still about a 50% decrement compared with the noninjured side. The patient denied any motor or sensory deficits and any instability events since his injury. He continued with full function as an active-duty Navy SEAL.

Discussion

Nonoperative management has been used for injuries to the inferior glenohumeral ligament complex when there is no humeral detachment but generally has been reserved for low-demand patients and patients who cannot tolerate surgical intervention.4 Detached lesions may initially be managed nonoperatively with physical therapy and rehabilitation, but the rate of recurrent instability after nonoperative management of a known HAGL lesion remains unknown.4 Most active young people are expected to have persistent pain and/or instability and require surgical intervention. Both arthroscopic and open methods have been used successfully.3,8-15 Persistent instability is often the primary complaint leading to a diagnosis of a HAGL lesion.4 The patient in this case report neither demonstrated nor reported any instability event after his 6-month period of nonoperative management, despite his young age and elite physical requirements.

To our knowledge, there are no reports of successful nonoperative management of a known symptomatic HAGL lesion in a high-demand athlete. Although we do not routinely recommend nonoperative treatment for cases such as the one reported here, the decision to delay this Navy SEAL’s surgical management was made out of concern about potential complications of postoperative rehabilitation given the concurrent axillary nerve injury.

With anterior shoulder dislocations, multiple concomitant shoulder injuries, including a HAGL lesion, are not uncommon.6,16 With HAGL lesions, associated rotator cuff injuries occur at a rate as high as 23%.6 Our patient had a concurrent partial rotator cuff tear but also an axillary nerve traction injury. To our knowledge, the literature has not described axillary nerve injury specifically in association with a HAGL lesion, though it is well documented and maintained as a possible concurrent injury with anterior shoulder instability events.17 Robinson and colleagues16 found a 5.8% incidence of a clinically apparent neurologic deficit after traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in 3633 dislocations, about 75% of which were isolated axillary nerve injuries. They also reported a 25.7% rate of rotator cuff tear or greater tuberosity fracture, either of which significantly increased the likelihood of a neurologic deficit in their study.

 

 

When nerve continuity remains, functional recovery occurs after 3 to 6 months, or within weeks in some cases.18-20 Nerve injuries in continuity but with persistent, severe clinical deficits may require surgical exploration with subsequent neurolysis and/or repair.19-21 Our patient showed gradual axillary nerve recovery from a clinical standpoint. By 6 months after injury, despite continued muscle atrophy and decreased axillary nerve sensation, he had returned to full duty as a Navy SEAL. By 17 months, atrophy was markedly improved, and strength and ROM had subjectively returned, despite there being significant conduction amplitude losses, up to 50% of the contralateral side, on EMG testing.

This case represents a scenario in which likely initial surgical management was precluded by a concomitant injury, and the patient had a serendipitous outcome. It is possible the axillary neuropraxia and subsequent temporary deltoid dysfunction provided a unique environment that was conducive to the healing of the HAGL lesion. With classic Bankart lesions, many surgeons prefer to use aggressive early surgical treatment in first-time dislocators, especially elite athletes, in an attempt to avoid recurrent instability.22-26 However, some have suggested that initial immobilization after acute injury may lead to successful nonoperative management.27 Perhaps our case report raises the question as to whether a prolonged period of initial immobilization can prove successful in management of a HAGL lesion. Prospective studies comparing early surgical and nonoperative treatment of these challenging lesions are warranted.

We have reported a case of successful nonoperative management of a HAGL lesion in an active-duty Navy SEAL with concomitant shoulder injuries. This case could suggest that a trial of initial nonoperative management should be considered for injuries that involve a HAGL lesion when there are concerns about the patient’s ability to complete functional rehabilitation because of the combined injuries of the shoulder.

The humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligament (HAGL) lesion has been recognized as a cause of recurrent shoulder instability. In 1942, Nicola1 was the first to describe this lesion, in a small case series of avulsions of the anterior band of the inferior glenohumeral ligament from the humeral neck secondary to a dislocation injury. In 1988, Bach and colleagues2 described it in 2 patients with recurrent anterior dislocations. Wolf and colleagues3 were the first to apply the term HAGL to the injury, in 1995.

HAGL lesion incidence ranges from 1% to 9%, but many authors think the lesion is underdiagnosed.3-5 It occurs in isolation or in combination with other injuries, and it is commonly identified on recurrence of instability. Bui-Mansfield and colleagues6 found that 11% of patients with a diagnosis of HAGL lesion previously had surgery on the same shoulder, whereas for 62% the lesion was associated with other, concurrent lesions, including labral tears (18, 25%), rotator cuff tears (16, 23%), and Hill-Sachs deformities (12, 17%).

Most young athletes who undergo nonoperative therapy for a HAGL lesion continue to experience pain and/or instability that then requires surgical intervention.4 To our knowledge, there are no reports of return to full function in young competitive athletes or return to manual labor after nonoperative management of a HAGL lesion.

In this article, we report the case of a US Navy SEAL who sustained a traction injury causing an axillary nerve injury and a HAGL lesion. Successful nonoperative management allowed him to return to full duty. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

An otherwise healthy 26-year-old Navy SEAL presented with pain and significant weakness in the right (dominant) upper extremity after an injury in a training exercise. The shoulder sustained a traction injury when the man’s fast-moving marine attack craft was in a collision and he was trying not to be thrown off. He reported having a sense of dislocation yet never required a reduction.

Physical examination revealed severe weakness with shoulder abduction, external rotation, and forward flexion; inability to contract the deltoid muscle; and complete numbness along the cutaneous distribution of the axillary nerve. On neurovascular examination, the right upper extremity was otherwise intact. The patient had complete passive range of motion (ROM) with apprehension in abduction with external rotation along with anterior laxity and normal posterior stability.

Standard shoulder radiographs showed no bony abnormalities and a concentrically reduced glenohumeral joint. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), reviewed by a staff musculoskeletal radiologist and a sports fellowship–trained orthopedic surgeon, showed a greater tuberosity contusion, a partial tear of the infraspinatus, and a HAGL lesion (Figure 1).

The patient was counseled toward surgical intervention to prevent symptoms of recurrent instability. A detailed discussion ensued about whether to proceed with surgery immediately or to pursue temporary nonoperative treatment to allow for assessment and return of deltoid function. Patient and surgeon decided to delay operative intervention because of concerns about the patient’s ability to effectively rehabilitate while still having a compromised axillary nerve after surgery. The recommendation was to delay initial electromyographic (EMG) and nerve conduction velocity testing at least 4 weeks to allow for completion of Wallerian degeneration and more accurate assessment of the axillary nerve.7 Physical therapy for gentle ROM (excluding external rotation) and isometric rotator cuff exercises were initiated.

Five weeks after injury, the patient left the area to attend a 2-month nonphysical training course and continued rehabilitation and orthopedic follow-up at another military medical facility. Six weeks after injury, initial EMG testing revealed the expected axillary neuropraxia. In addition, some marginal improvement in ROM was noted, but deltoid function was still very limited.

 

 

Ten weeks after injury, clinical inspection revealed deltoid wasting. Active shoulder ROM was limited, and deltoid strength was 3/5, though the patient was able to perform a standard push-up without difficulty and showed no sign of laxity or apprehension on shoulder examination. Repeat EMG testing revealed axillary nerve denervation with no sign of regeneration. Twelve weeks after injury, MRA showed reorganization and partial healing of the HAGL lesion relative to the prior study (Figure 2).

On the patient’s return from training, 15 weeks after injury, he had improved active ROM and 4+/5 deltoid strength. Axillary nerve sensation was still decreased but markedly improved. Physical examination revealed no significant shoulder laxity or apprehension, and the patient denied feelings of instability. Activities were advanced to include an organized strengthening program.

Six months after injury, the patient was cleared to return to his unit with only mild physical restriction. Function continued to steadily improve. After 9 months, he was cleared for full, unrestricted duty. Although he still demonstrated slight asymmetric weakness in the right deltoid with continued muscular atrophy, examination findings were otherwise normal, and he was back to full activities without significant symptoms.

Eleven months after injury, MRI showed healing of the HAGL lesion (Figure 3). At 17 months, EMG testing revealed significant interval improvement in axillary motor unit potentials but still about a 50% decrement compared with the noninjured side. The patient denied any motor or sensory deficits and any instability events since his injury. He continued with full function as an active-duty Navy SEAL.

Discussion

Nonoperative management has been used for injuries to the inferior glenohumeral ligament complex when there is no humeral detachment but generally has been reserved for low-demand patients and patients who cannot tolerate surgical intervention.4 Detached lesions may initially be managed nonoperatively with physical therapy and rehabilitation, but the rate of recurrent instability after nonoperative management of a known HAGL lesion remains unknown.4 Most active young people are expected to have persistent pain and/or instability and require surgical intervention. Both arthroscopic and open methods have been used successfully.3,8-15 Persistent instability is often the primary complaint leading to a diagnosis of a HAGL lesion.4 The patient in this case report neither demonstrated nor reported any instability event after his 6-month period of nonoperative management, despite his young age and elite physical requirements.

To our knowledge, there are no reports of successful nonoperative management of a known symptomatic HAGL lesion in a high-demand athlete. Although we do not routinely recommend nonoperative treatment for cases such as the one reported here, the decision to delay this Navy SEAL’s surgical management was made out of concern about potential complications of postoperative rehabilitation given the concurrent axillary nerve injury.

With anterior shoulder dislocations, multiple concomitant shoulder injuries, including a HAGL lesion, are not uncommon.6,16 With HAGL lesions, associated rotator cuff injuries occur at a rate as high as 23%.6 Our patient had a concurrent partial rotator cuff tear but also an axillary nerve traction injury. To our knowledge, the literature has not described axillary nerve injury specifically in association with a HAGL lesion, though it is well documented and maintained as a possible concurrent injury with anterior shoulder instability events.17 Robinson and colleagues16 found a 5.8% incidence of a clinically apparent neurologic deficit after traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation in 3633 dislocations, about 75% of which were isolated axillary nerve injuries. They also reported a 25.7% rate of rotator cuff tear or greater tuberosity fracture, either of which significantly increased the likelihood of a neurologic deficit in their study.

 

 

When nerve continuity remains, functional recovery occurs after 3 to 6 months, or within weeks in some cases.18-20 Nerve injuries in continuity but with persistent, severe clinical deficits may require surgical exploration with subsequent neurolysis and/or repair.19-21 Our patient showed gradual axillary nerve recovery from a clinical standpoint. By 6 months after injury, despite continued muscle atrophy and decreased axillary nerve sensation, he had returned to full duty as a Navy SEAL. By 17 months, atrophy was markedly improved, and strength and ROM had subjectively returned, despite there being significant conduction amplitude losses, up to 50% of the contralateral side, on EMG testing.

This case represents a scenario in which likely initial surgical management was precluded by a concomitant injury, and the patient had a serendipitous outcome. It is possible the axillary neuropraxia and subsequent temporary deltoid dysfunction provided a unique environment that was conducive to the healing of the HAGL lesion. With classic Bankart lesions, many surgeons prefer to use aggressive early surgical treatment in first-time dislocators, especially elite athletes, in an attempt to avoid recurrent instability.22-26 However, some have suggested that initial immobilization after acute injury may lead to successful nonoperative management.27 Perhaps our case report raises the question as to whether a prolonged period of initial immobilization can prove successful in management of a HAGL lesion. Prospective studies comparing early surgical and nonoperative treatment of these challenging lesions are warranted.

We have reported a case of successful nonoperative management of a HAGL lesion in an active-duty Navy SEAL with concomitant shoulder injuries. This case could suggest that a trial of initial nonoperative management should be considered for injuries that involve a HAGL lesion when there are concerns about the patient’s ability to complete functional rehabilitation because of the combined injuries of the shoulder.

References

1.    Nicola T. Anterior dislocation of the shoulder: the role of the articular capsule. J Bone Joint Surg. 1942;25:614-616.

2.    Bach BR, Warren RF, Fronek J. Disruption of the lateral capsule of the shoulder. A cause of recurrent dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(2):274-276.

3.    Wolf EM, Cheng JC, Dickson K. Humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligaments as a cause of anterior shoulder instability. Arthroscopy. 1995;11(5):600-607.

4.    George MS, Khazzam M, Kuhn JE. Humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligaments. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(3):127-133.

5.    Tirman PF, Steinbach LS, Feller JF, Stauffer AE. Humeral avulsion of the anterior shoulder stabilizing structures after anterior shoulder dislocation: demonstration by MRI and MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25(8):743-748.

6.    Bui-Mansfield LT, Banks KP, Taylor DC. Humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments: the HAGL lesion. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(11):1960-1966.

7.    Dumitru D, Zwarts MJ. Needle electromyography. In: Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts MJ, eds. Electrodiagnostic Medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley & Belfus; 2005:257-292.

8.    Parameswaran AD, Provencher MT, Bach BR Jr, Verma N, Romeo AA. Humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament. Injury pattern and arthroscopic repair techniques. Orthopedics. 2008;31(8):773-779.

9.    Kon Y, Shiozaki H, Sugaya H. Arthroscopic repair of a humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament lesion. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(5):632.

10.  Bokor DJ, Conboy VB, Olson C. Anterior instability of the glenohumeral joint with humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament: a review of 41 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(1):93-96.

11.  Field LD, Bokor DJ, Savoie FH 3rd. Humeral and glenoid detachment of the anterior inferior glenohumeral ligament: a cause of anterior shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(1):6-10.

12.  Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD. Mini-open repair technique of HAGL (humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament) lesion. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(9):1152.

13.  Bhatia DN, DeBeer JF, van Rooyen KS. The “subscapularis-sparing” approach: a new mini-open technique to repair a humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament lesion. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(6):686-690.

14.  Huberty D, Burkhart S. Arthroscopic repair of anterior humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;7(4):186-190.

15.  Richards DP, Burkhart SS. Arthroscopic humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments (HAGL) repair. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(suppl 2):134-141.

16.  Robinson CM, Shur N, Sharpe T, Ray A, Murray IR. Injuries associated with traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocations. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(1):18-26.

17.  Visser CP, Coene LN, Brand R, Tavy DL. The incidence of nerve injury in anterior dislocation of the shoulder and its influence on functional recovery. A prospective clinical and EMG study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(4):679-685.

18.  Gumina S, Bertino A, Di Giorgio G, Postacchini F. Injury of the axillary nerve subsequent to recurrence of shoulder dislocation. Clinical and electromyographic study. Chir Organi Mov. 2005;90(2):153-158.

19.  Perlmutter GS. Axillary nerve injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(368):28-36.

20.  Saragaglia D, Picard F, Le Bredonchel T, Moncenis C, Sardo M, Tourne Y. Acute anterior instability of the shoulder: short- and mid-term outcome after conservative treatment [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2001;87(3):215-220.

21.  Kline DG, Kim DH. Axillary nerve repair in 99 patients with 101 stretch injuries. J Neurosurg. 2003;99(4):630-636.

22.  Kralinger FS, Golser K, Wischatta R, Wambacher M, Sperner G. Predicting recurrence after primary anterior shoulder dislocation. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(1):116-120.

23.  Bottoni CR, Wilckens JH, DeBerardino TM, et al. A prospective, randomized evaluation of arthroscopic stabilization versus nonoperative treatment in patients with acute, traumatic, first-time shoulder dislocations. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(4):576-580.

24.  Handoll HH, Almaiyah MA, Rangan A. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute anterior shoulder dislocation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD004325.

25.  Jakobsen BW, Johannsen HV, Suder P, Søjbjerg JO. Primary repair versus conservative treatment of first-time traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder: a randomized study with 10-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(2):118-123.

26.  Kirkley A, Griffin S, Richards C, Miniaci A, Mohtadi N. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(5):507-514.

27.  Paterson WH, Throckmorton TW, Koester M, Azar FM, Kuhn JE. Position and duration of immobilization after primary anterior shoulder dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(18):2924-2933.

References

1.    Nicola T. Anterior dislocation of the shoulder: the role of the articular capsule. J Bone Joint Surg. 1942;25:614-616.

2.    Bach BR, Warren RF, Fronek J. Disruption of the lateral capsule of the shoulder. A cause of recurrent dislocation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1988;70(2):274-276.

3.    Wolf EM, Cheng JC, Dickson K. Humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligaments as a cause of anterior shoulder instability. Arthroscopy. 1995;11(5):600-607.

4.    George MS, Khazzam M, Kuhn JE. Humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligaments. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(3):127-133.

5.    Tirman PF, Steinbach LS, Feller JF, Stauffer AE. Humeral avulsion of the anterior shoulder stabilizing structures after anterior shoulder dislocation: demonstration by MRI and MR arthrography. Skeletal Radiol. 1996;25(8):743-748.

6.    Bui-Mansfield LT, Banks KP, Taylor DC. Humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments: the HAGL lesion. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(11):1960-1966.

7.    Dumitru D, Zwarts MJ. Needle electromyography. In: Dumitru D, Amato AA, Zwarts MJ, eds. Electrodiagnostic Medicine. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Hanley & Belfus; 2005:257-292.

8.    Parameswaran AD, Provencher MT, Bach BR Jr, Verma N, Romeo AA. Humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament. Injury pattern and arthroscopic repair techniques. Orthopedics. 2008;31(8):773-779.

9.    Kon Y, Shiozaki H, Sugaya H. Arthroscopic repair of a humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament lesion. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(5):632.

10.  Bokor DJ, Conboy VB, Olson C. Anterior instability of the glenohumeral joint with humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament: a review of 41 cases. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(1):93-96.

11.  Field LD, Bokor DJ, Savoie FH 3rd. Humeral and glenoid detachment of the anterior inferior glenohumeral ligament: a cause of anterior shoulder instability. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1997;6(1):6-10.

12.  Arciero RA, Mazzocca AD. Mini-open repair technique of HAGL (humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament) lesion. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(9):1152.

13.  Bhatia DN, DeBeer JF, van Rooyen KS. The “subscapularis-sparing” approach: a new mini-open technique to repair a humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament lesion. Arthroscopy. 2009;25(6):686-690.

14.  Huberty D, Burkhart S. Arthroscopic repair of anterior humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments. Tech Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2006;7(4):186-190.

15.  Richards DP, Burkhart SS. Arthroscopic humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligaments (HAGL) repair. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(suppl 2):134-141.

16.  Robinson CM, Shur N, Sharpe T, Ray A, Murray IR. Injuries associated with traumatic anterior glenohumeral dislocations. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(1):18-26.

17.  Visser CP, Coene LN, Brand R, Tavy DL. The incidence of nerve injury in anterior dislocation of the shoulder and its influence on functional recovery. A prospective clinical and EMG study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81(4):679-685.

18.  Gumina S, Bertino A, Di Giorgio G, Postacchini F. Injury of the axillary nerve subsequent to recurrence of shoulder dislocation. Clinical and electromyographic study. Chir Organi Mov. 2005;90(2):153-158.

19.  Perlmutter GS. Axillary nerve injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999;(368):28-36.

20.  Saragaglia D, Picard F, Le Bredonchel T, Moncenis C, Sardo M, Tourne Y. Acute anterior instability of the shoulder: short- and mid-term outcome after conservative treatment [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2001;87(3):215-220.

21.  Kline DG, Kim DH. Axillary nerve repair in 99 patients with 101 stretch injuries. J Neurosurg. 2003;99(4):630-636.

22.  Kralinger FS, Golser K, Wischatta R, Wambacher M, Sperner G. Predicting recurrence after primary anterior shoulder dislocation. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(1):116-120.

23.  Bottoni CR, Wilckens JH, DeBerardino TM, et al. A prospective, randomized evaluation of arthroscopic stabilization versus nonoperative treatment in patients with acute, traumatic, first-time shoulder dislocations. Am J Sports Med. 2002;30(4):576-580.

24.  Handoll HH, Almaiyah MA, Rangan A. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for acute anterior shoulder dislocation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD004325.

25.  Jakobsen BW, Johannsen HV, Suder P, Søjbjerg JO. Primary repair versus conservative treatment of first-time traumatic anterior dislocation of the shoulder: a randomized study with 10-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(2):118-123.

26.  Kirkley A, Griffin S, Richards C, Miniaci A, Mohtadi N. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of immediate arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization and rehabilitation in first traumatic anterior dislocations of the shoulder. Arthroscopy. 1999;15(5):507-514.

27.  Paterson WH, Throckmorton TW, Koester M, Azar FM, Kuhn JE. Position and duration of immobilization after primary anterior shoulder dislocation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(18):2924-2933.

Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(5)
Issue
The American Journal of Orthopedics - 45(5)
Page Number
E236-E239
Page Number
E236-E239
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Successful Nonoperative Management of HAGL (Humeral Avulsion of Glenohumeral Ligament) Lesion With Concurrent Axillary Nerve Injury in an Active-Duty US Navy SEAL
Display Headline
Successful Nonoperative Management of HAGL (Humeral Avulsion of Glenohumeral Ligament) Lesion With Concurrent Axillary Nerve Injury in an Active-Duty US Navy SEAL
Legacy Keywords
online exclusive, case report, Navy, SEAL, HAGL, humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligament, ligament, glenohumeral, humeral, lesion, injury, nerve, shoulder, ernat, bottoni, rowles
Legacy Keywords
online exclusive, case report, Navy, SEAL, HAGL, humeral avulsion of glenohumeral ligament, ligament, glenohumeral, humeral, lesion, injury, nerve, shoulder, ernat, bottoni, rowles
Sections
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article

Article PDF Media

Sunscreens May Fail to Meet SPF Claims on Product Labels

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 01/10/2019 - 13:31
Display Headline
Sunscreens May Fail to Meet SPF Claims on Product Labels

New data from Consumer Reports indicate that 48% of all sunscreens tested (N=104) over 4 years did not provide the sun protection factor (SPF) promised on product labels, leaving consumers with insufficient sun protection, which could lead to long-term sun damage including wrinkles or skin cancer. Furthermore, 42% of chemical sunscreens (n=85) and 74% of mineral sunscreens (n=19) did not meet their SPF claims.

The study also reveals that more than one-third (35%) of sunscreens registered below SPF 30, which is the minimum recommended by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). Although product labels featured claims of water resistance, nearly half of the sunscreens tested failed to meet their SPF claim following water immersion.

Dermatologists can educate patients about correct sunscreen use and product labels to ensure the highest level of protection against melanoma and other skin cancers. According to a 2016 AAD survey, only 32% of respondents knew that an SPF 30 sunscreen does not provide twice as much protection as an SPF 15 sunscreen. Furthermore, only 45% of respondents knew that a higher-SPF sunscreen does not protect skin from sun exposure longer than a lower-SPF sunscreen.

The AAD has issued a list of talking points highlighting key messages that dermatologists can share with patients and/or the media when asked about sun-protection techniques and the recent sunscreen data released by Consumer Reports.

References

Author and Disclosure Information

Publications
Topics
Author and Disclosure Information

Author and Disclosure Information

New data from Consumer Reports indicate that 48% of all sunscreens tested (N=104) over 4 years did not provide the sun protection factor (SPF) promised on product labels, leaving consumers with insufficient sun protection, which could lead to long-term sun damage including wrinkles or skin cancer. Furthermore, 42% of chemical sunscreens (n=85) and 74% of mineral sunscreens (n=19) did not meet their SPF claims.

The study also reveals that more than one-third (35%) of sunscreens registered below SPF 30, which is the minimum recommended by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). Although product labels featured claims of water resistance, nearly half of the sunscreens tested failed to meet their SPF claim following water immersion.

Dermatologists can educate patients about correct sunscreen use and product labels to ensure the highest level of protection against melanoma and other skin cancers. According to a 2016 AAD survey, only 32% of respondents knew that an SPF 30 sunscreen does not provide twice as much protection as an SPF 15 sunscreen. Furthermore, only 45% of respondents knew that a higher-SPF sunscreen does not protect skin from sun exposure longer than a lower-SPF sunscreen.

The AAD has issued a list of talking points highlighting key messages that dermatologists can share with patients and/or the media when asked about sun-protection techniques and the recent sunscreen data released by Consumer Reports.

New data from Consumer Reports indicate that 48% of all sunscreens tested (N=104) over 4 years did not provide the sun protection factor (SPF) promised on product labels, leaving consumers with insufficient sun protection, which could lead to long-term sun damage including wrinkles or skin cancer. Furthermore, 42% of chemical sunscreens (n=85) and 74% of mineral sunscreens (n=19) did not meet their SPF claims.

The study also reveals that more than one-third (35%) of sunscreens registered below SPF 30, which is the minimum recommended by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD). Although product labels featured claims of water resistance, nearly half of the sunscreens tested failed to meet their SPF claim following water immersion.

Dermatologists can educate patients about correct sunscreen use and product labels to ensure the highest level of protection against melanoma and other skin cancers. According to a 2016 AAD survey, only 32% of respondents knew that an SPF 30 sunscreen does not provide twice as much protection as an SPF 15 sunscreen. Furthermore, only 45% of respondents knew that a higher-SPF sunscreen does not protect skin from sun exposure longer than a lower-SPF sunscreen.

The AAD has issued a list of talking points highlighting key messages that dermatologists can share with patients and/or the media when asked about sun-protection techniques and the recent sunscreen data released by Consumer Reports.

References

References

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Sunscreens May Fail to Meet SPF Claims on Product Labels
Display Headline
Sunscreens May Fail to Meet SPF Claims on Product Labels
Article Source

PURLs Copyright

Inside the Article