Orthopedics

An increasingly number of patients with symptomatic isolated medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) are too young and too functionally active to be ideal candidates for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Isolated medial compartment OA occurs in 10% to 29.5% of all cases, whereas the isolated lateral variant is less common, with a reported incidence of 1% to 7%.^1,2 In 1961, Jackson and Waugh³ introduced the high tibial osteotomy (HTO) as a surgical treatment for single-compartment OA. This procedure is designed to increase the life span of articular cartilage by unloading and redistributing the mechanical forces over the nonaffected compartment. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) was introduced in the 1970s as an alternative to TKA or HTO for single-compartment OA.

Since the introduction of these methods, there has been debate about which patients are appropriate candidates for each procedure. Improved surgical techniques and implant designs have led surgeons to reexamine the selection criteria and contraindications for these procedures. Furthermore, given the increasing popularity and use of UKA, the question arises as to whether HTO still has a role in clinical practice in the surgical treatment of medial OA of the knee.

To clarify current ambiguities, we review the modern indications, subjective outcome scores, and survivorship results of UKA and HTO in the treatment of isolated medial compartment degeneration of the knee. In addition, in a thorough review of the literature, we evaluate global trends in the use of both methods.

High Tibial Osteotomy for Medial Compartment OA

Indications

Before the introduction of TKA and UKA for single-compartment OA, surgical management consisted of HTO. When the mechanical axis is slightly overcorrected, the medial compartment is decompressed, ensuring tissue viability and delaying progressive compartment degeneration.

Traditionally, HTO is indicated for young (age <60 years), normal-weight, active patients with radiographic single-compartment OA.⁶ The knee should be stable and have good range of motion (ROM; flexion >120°), and pain should be localized to the tibiofemoral joint line.

Over the past few decades, numerous authors have reported similar inclusion criteria, clarifying their definition. This definition should be further refined in order to optimize survivorship and clinical outcomes.

Confirming age as an inclusion criterion for HTO, Trieb and colleagues⁷ found that the risk of failure was significantly (P = .046) higher for HTO patients older than 65 years than for those younger than 65 years (relative risk, 1.5). This finding agrees with findings of other studies, which suggests that, in particular, young patients benefit from HTO.^8-11

Moreover, there is a clear relation between HTO survival and obesity. In a study of 159 CWHTOs, Akizuki and colleagues¹² reported that preoperative body mass index (BMI) higher than 27.5 kg/m² was a significant risk factor for early failure. Using BMI higher than 30 kg/m² as a threshold, Howells and colleagues⁹ found significantly inferior Knee Society Score (KSS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) results for the obese group 5 years after HTO.

Radiographic evidence of severe preoperative compartment degeneration has been associated with early conversion to TKA. Flecher and colleagues¹¹ and van Raaij and colleagues¹³ both concluded the best long-term survival grades are achieved in HTO patients with mild compartment OA (Ahlbäck^14 grade I). The question then becomes whether these patients should be treated nonoperatively instead.^15,16The literature supports strict adherence to inclusion criteria in the selection of a potential HTO candidate. Age, BMI, and the preoperative state of OA should be taken into account in order to optimize clinical outcome and survivorship results in patients about to undergo HTO.

Outcomes

Multiple authors have described or compared the midterm or long-term results of the various surgical HTO techniques. Howells and colleagues⁹ noted overall survival rates of 87% (5 years after CWHTO) and 79% (10 years after CWHTO). Over the 10-year postoperative period, there was significant deterioration in clinical outcome scores and survivorship. Others authors have had similar findings.^17-19 van Raaij and colleagues¹³ found that the 10-year probability of survival after CWHTO was 75%. In 455 patients who underwent lateral CWHTO, Hui and colleagues⁸ found that 5-year probability of survival was 95%, 10-year probability was 79%, and 15-year probability was 56%. Niinimäki and colleagues¹⁰ used the Finnish Arthroplasty Register to report HTO survivorship at a national level. Using conversion to TKA as a cutoff, they noted 5-year survivorship of 89% and 10-year survivorship of 73%. To our knowledge, 2 groups, both in Japan, have reported substantially higher 15-year survival rates: 90%¹² and 93%.²⁰ The authors acknowledged that their results were significantly better than in other countries and that Japanese lifestyle, culture, and body habitus therefore require further investigation. At this time, it is not possible to compare their results with Western results.

In an attempt to compare the different survival rates of the various HTO techniques, Schallberger and colleagues²¹ conducted a retrospective study of OWHTOs and CWHTOs. At median follow-up of 16.5 years, comparative survival rates showed a trend of deterioration. Although data were limited, there were no significant differences in survival or functional outcome between the 2 techniques. In a recent randomized clinical trial, Duivenvoorden and colleagues⁵ compared these techniques’ midterm results (mean follow-up, 6 years). Clinical outcomes were not significantly different. There were more complications in the OWHTO group and more conversions to TKA in the CWHTO group. Considering these results, the authors suggested OWHTO without autologous bone graft is the best HTO treatment strategy for medial gonarthritis with varus malalignment of <12°.

The HTO results noted in these studies show a similar deteriorating trend; expected 10-year survivorship is 75%. Although modern implants and surgical techniques are being used, evidence supporting use of one surgical HTO method over another is lacking.

UKA for Medial Compartment OA

Indications

Since it was first introduced in the 1970s, use of UKA for single-compartment OA has been a subject of debate. The high failure rates reported at the time raised skepticism about the new treatment.²² Kozinn and Scott²³ defined classic indications and contraindications. Indications included isolated medial or lateral compartment OA or osteonecrosis of the knee, age over 60 years, and weight under 82 kg. In addition, the angular deformity of the affected lower extremity had to be <15° and passively correctable to neutral at time of surgery. Last, the flexion contracture had to be <5°, and ideal ROM was 90°. Contraindications included high activity, age under 60 years, and inflammatory arthritis. Strict adherence led to improved implant survival and lower revision rates. Because of improved surgical techniques, modern implant designs, and accumulating experience with the procedure, the surgical indications for UKA have expanded. Exact thresholds for UKA inclusion, however, remain unclear.

The modern literature is overturning the traditional idea that UKA is not indicated for patients under age 60 years.²³ Using KSS, Thompson and colleagues²⁴ found that younger patients did better than older patients 2 years after UKA using various types of implants. Analyzing survivorship results, Heyse and colleagues²⁵ concluded that UKA can be successful in patients under age 60 years and reported a 15-year survivorship rate of 85.6% and excellent outcome scores. Other authors have had similar findings.^26-28

Evaluating the influence of weight, Thompson and colleagues²⁴ found obese patients did not have a higher revision rate but did have slower progression of improvement 2 years after UKA. Cavaignac and colleagues²⁹ concluded that, at minimum follow-up of 7 years (range, 7-22 years), weight did not influence UKA survivorship. Other authors^30-33 have found no significant influence of BMI on survival.

Reports on preoperative radiographic parameters that can potentially influence UKA results are limited. In 113 medial UKAs studied by Niinimäki and colleagues,³⁴ mild medial compartment degeneration, seen on preoperative radiographs, was associated with significantly higher failure rates. The authors concluded that other treatment options should be favored in the absence of severe isolated compartment OA.

Although the classic indications defined by Kozinn and Scott²³ have yielded good to excellent UKA results, improvements in implants and surgical techniques^35-38 have extended the criteria. The modern literature demonstrates that age and BMI should not be used as criteria for excluding UKA candidates. Radiographically, there should be significant isolated compartment degeneration in order to optimize patient-reported outcome and survivorship.

Outcomes

Improved implant designs and modern minimally invasive techniques have effected a change in outcome results and a renewed interest in implants. Over the past decade, multiple authors have described the various modern UKA implants and their survivorship. Reports published since UKA was introduced in the 1970s show a continual increase in implant survival. Koskinen and colleagues,³⁹ using Finnish Arthroplasty Register data on 1819 UKAs performed between 1985 and 2003, found 10-year survival rates of 81% for Oxford implants (Zimmer Biomet), 79% for Miller-Galante II (Zimmer Biomet), 78% for Duracon (Howmedica), and 53% for PCA unicompartmental knee (Howmedica). Heyse and colleagues²⁵ reported 10- and 15-year survivorship data (93.5% and 86.3%, respectively) for 223 patients under age 60 years at the time of their index surgery (Genesis Unicondylar implant, Smith & Nephew), performed between 1993 and 2005. KSS was good to excellent. Similar numbers in cohorts under age 60 years were reported by Schai and colleagues²⁶ using the PFC system (Johnson & Johnson) and by Price and colleagues²⁷ using the medial Oxford UKA. Both groups reported excellent survivorship rates: 93% at 2- to 6-year follow-up and 91% at 10-year follow-up. The outcome in older patients seems satisfactory as well. In another multicenter report, by Price and colleagues,⁴⁰ medial Oxford UKAs had a 15-year survival rate of 93%. Berger and colleagues⁴¹ reported similar numbers for the Miller-Galante prosthesis. Survival rates were 98% (10 years) and 95.7% (13 years), and 92% of patients had good to excellent Hospital for Special Surgery knee scores.

Although various modern implants have had good to excellent results, the historical question of what type of UKA to use (mobile or fixed-bearing) remains unanswered. To try to address it, Peersman and colleagues⁴² performed a systematic review of 44 papers (9463 knees). The 2 implant types had comparable revision rates. Another recent retrospective study tried to determine what is crucial for implant survival: implant design or surgeon experience.⁴³ The authors concluded that prosthetic component positioning is key. Other authors have reported high-volume centers are crucial for satisfactory UKA results and lower revision rates.^44-46

Results of these studies indicate that, where UKAs are being performed in volume, 10-year survivorship rates higher than 90% and good to excellent outcomes can be expected.

UKA vs HTO

Cohort studies that have directly compared the 2 treatment modalities are scarce, and most have been retrospective. In a prospective study, Stukenborg-Colsman and colleagues⁴⁷ randomized patients with medial compartment OA to undergo either CWHTO (32 patients) with a technique reported by Coventry⁴⁸ or UKA (28 patients) with the unicondylar knee sliding prosthesis, Tübingen pattern (Aesculap), between 1988 and 1991. Patients were assessed 2.5, 4.5, and 7.5 years after surgery. More postoperative complications were noted in the HTO group. At 7- to 10-year follow-up, 71% of the HTO group and 65% of the UKA group had excellent KSS. Mean ROM was 103° after UKA (range, 35°-140°) and 117° after HTO (range, 85°-135°) during the same assessment. Although differences were not significant, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was 60% for HTO and 77% for UKA at 10 years. Results were not promising for the implants used, compared with other implants, but the authors concluded that, because of improvements in implant designs and image-guided techniques, better long-term success can be expected with UKA than with HTO.

In another prospective study, Börjesson and colleagues⁴⁹ evaluated pain during walking, ROM, British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) scores, and gait variables at 1- and 5-year follow-up. Patients with moderate medial OA (Ahlbäck¹⁴ grade I-III) were randomly selected to undergo CWHTO or UKA (Brigham, DePuy). There were no significant differences in BOA scores, ROM, or pain during walking between the 2 groups at 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years after surgery. Gait analysis showed a significant difference in favor of UKA only at 3 months after surgery. At 1- and 5-year follow-up, no significant differences were noted.

To clarify current ambiguities, Fu and colleagues⁵⁰ performed a systematic review of all (11) comparative studies. These studies had a total of 5840 (5081 UKA, 759 HTO) patients. Although ROM was significantly better for the HTO group than the UKA group, the UKA group had significantly better functional results. Walking after surgery was significantly faster for the UKA group. The authors suggested the difference might be attributed to the different postoperative regimens—HTO patients wore a whole-leg plaster cast for 6 weeks, and UKA patients were allowed immediate postoperative weight-bearing. Regarding rates of survival and complications, pooled data showed no significant differences. Despite these results, the authors acknowledged the limitation of available randomized clinical trials and the multiple techniques and implants used. We share their assertion that larger prospective controlled trials are needed. These are crucial to getting a definitive answer regarding which of the 2 treatment strategies should be used for isolated compartment OA.

Current Trends in Use of UKA and HTO

Evaluation of national registries and recent reports showed a global shift in use of both HTO and UKA. Despite the lack of national HTO registries, a few reports have described use of TKA, UKA, and HTO in Western populations over the past 2 decades. Using 1998-2007 data from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, W-Dahl and colleagues⁵¹ found a 3-fold increase in UKA use, whereas HTO use was halved over the same period. Niinimäki and colleagues⁵² reported similar findings with the Finnish National Hospital Discharge Register. They noted a steady 6.8% annual decrease in osteotomies, whereas UKA use increased sharply after the Oxford UKA was introduced (Phase 3; Biomet). These findings are consistent with several reports from North America. In their epidemiologic analysis covering the period 1985-1990, Wright and colleagues⁵³ found an 11% to 14% annual decrease in osteotomies among the elderly, compared with an annual decrease of only 3% to 4% among patients younger than 65 years. Nwachukwu and colleagues⁵⁴ recently compared UKA and HTO practice patterns between 2007 and 2011, using data from a large US private payer insurance database. They noted an annual growth rate of 4.7% in UKA use, compared with an annual 3.9% decrease in HTO use. Furthermore, based on their subgroup analysis, they speculated there was a demographic shift toward UKA, as opposed to TKA, particularly in older women. Bolognesi and colleagues⁵⁵ investigated further. Evaluating all Medicare beneficiaries who underwent knee arthroplasty in the United States between 2000 and 2009, they noted a 1.7-fold increase in TKA use and a 6.2-fold increase in UKA use. As there were no substantial changes in patient characteristics over that period, the authors hypothesized that a possible broadening of inclusion criteria may have led to the increased use of UKA.

There is a possible multifactorial explanation for the current global shift in favor of UKA. First, UKA was once a technically demanding procedure, but improved surgical techniques, image guidance, and robot assistance⁵⁶ have made it relatively less difficult. Second, UKA surgery is associated with lower reported perioperative morbidities.⁵⁷ We think these factors have contributed to the global trend of less HTO use and more UKA use in the treatment of unicompartmental OA.

Conclusion

The modern literature suggests the inclusion criteria for HTO have been well investigated and defined; the UKA criteria remain a matter of debate but seem to be expanding. Long-term survival results seem to favor UKA, though patient satisfaction with both procedures is good to excellent. The broadening range of inclusion criteria and consistent reports of durable outcomes, coupled with excellent patient satisfaction, likely explain the shift toward UKA in the treatment of isolated compartment degeneration.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E355-E361. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

An increasingly number of patients with symptomatic isolated medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) are too young and too functionally active to be ideal candidates for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Isolated medial compartment OA occurs in 10% to 29.5% of all cases, whereas the isolated lateral variant is less common, with a reported incidence of 1% to 7%.^1,2 In 1961, Jackson and Waugh³ introduced the high tibial osteotomy (HTO) as a surgical treatment for single-compartment OA. This procedure is designed to increase the life span of articular cartilage by unloading and redistributing the mechanical forces over the nonaffected compartment. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) was introduced in the 1970s as an alternative to TKA or HTO for single-compartment OA.

Since the introduction of these methods, there has been debate about which patients are appropriate candidates for each procedure. Improved surgical techniques and implant designs have led surgeons to reexamine the selection criteria and contraindications for these procedures. Furthermore, given the increasing popularity and use of UKA, the question arises as to whether HTO still has a role in clinical practice in the surgical treatment of medial OA of the knee.

To clarify current ambiguities, we review the modern indications, subjective outcome scores, and survivorship results of UKA and HTO in the treatment of isolated medial compartment degeneration of the knee. In addition, in a thorough review of the literature, we evaluate global trends in the use of both methods.

High Tibial Osteotomy for Medial Compartment OA

Indications

Before the introduction of TKA and UKA for single-compartment OA, surgical management consisted of HTO. When the mechanical axis is slightly overcorrected, the medial compartment is decompressed, ensuring tissue viability and delaying progressive compartment degeneration.

Traditionally, HTO is indicated for young (age <60 years), normal-weight, active patients with radiographic single-compartment OA.⁶ The knee should be stable and have good range of motion (ROM; flexion >120°), and pain should be localized to the tibiofemoral joint line.

Over the past few decades, numerous authors have reported similar inclusion criteria, clarifying their definition. This definition should be further refined in order to optimize survivorship and clinical outcomes.

Confirming age as an inclusion criterion for HTO, Trieb and colleagues⁷ found that the risk of failure was significantly (P = .046) higher for HTO patients older than 65 years than for those younger than 65 years (relative risk, 1.5). This finding agrees with findings of other studies, which suggests that, in particular, young patients benefit from HTO.^8-11

Moreover, there is a clear relation between HTO survival and obesity. In a study of 159 CWHTOs, Akizuki and colleagues¹² reported that preoperative body mass index (BMI) higher than 27.5 kg/m² was a significant risk factor for early failure. Using BMI higher than 30 kg/m² as a threshold, Howells and colleagues⁹ found significantly inferior Knee Society Score (KSS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) results for the obese group 5 years after HTO.

Radiographic evidence of severe preoperative compartment degeneration has been associated with early conversion to TKA. Flecher and colleagues¹¹ and van Raaij and colleagues¹³ both concluded the best long-term survival grades are achieved in HTO patients with mild compartment OA (Ahlbäck^14 grade I). The question then becomes whether these patients should be treated nonoperatively instead.^15,16The literature supports strict adherence to inclusion criteria in the selection of a potential HTO candidate. Age, BMI, and the preoperative state of OA should be taken into account in order to optimize clinical outcome and survivorship results in patients about to undergo HTO.

Outcomes

Multiple authors have described or compared the midterm or long-term results of the various surgical HTO techniques. Howells and colleagues⁹ noted overall survival rates of 87% (5 years after CWHTO) and 79% (10 years after CWHTO). Over the 10-year postoperative period, there was significant deterioration in clinical outcome scores and survivorship. Others authors have had similar findings.^17-19 van Raaij and colleagues¹³ found that the 10-year probability of survival after CWHTO was 75%. In 455 patients who underwent lateral CWHTO, Hui and colleagues⁸ found that 5-year probability of survival was 95%, 10-year probability was 79%, and 15-year probability was 56%. Niinimäki and colleagues¹⁰ used the Finnish Arthroplasty Register to report HTO survivorship at a national level. Using conversion to TKA as a cutoff, they noted 5-year survivorship of 89% and 10-year survivorship of 73%. To our knowledge, 2 groups, both in Japan, have reported substantially higher 15-year survival rates: 90%¹² and 93%.²⁰ The authors acknowledged that their results were significantly better than in other countries and that Japanese lifestyle, culture, and body habitus therefore require further investigation. At this time, it is not possible to compare their results with Western results.

In an attempt to compare the different survival rates of the various HTO techniques, Schallberger and colleagues²¹ conducted a retrospective study of OWHTOs and CWHTOs. At median follow-up of 16.5 years, comparative survival rates showed a trend of deterioration. Although data were limited, there were no significant differences in survival or functional outcome between the 2 techniques. In a recent randomized clinical trial, Duivenvoorden and colleagues⁵ compared these techniques’ midterm results (mean follow-up, 6 years). Clinical outcomes were not significantly different. There were more complications in the OWHTO group and more conversions to TKA in the CWHTO group. Considering these results, the authors suggested OWHTO without autologous bone graft is the best HTO treatment strategy for medial gonarthritis with varus malalignment of <12°.

The HTO results noted in these studies show a similar deteriorating trend; expected 10-year survivorship is 75%. Although modern implants and surgical techniques are being used, evidence supporting use of one surgical HTO method over another is lacking.

UKA for Medial Compartment OA

Indications

Since it was first introduced in the 1970s, use of UKA for single-compartment OA has been a subject of debate. The high failure rates reported at the time raised skepticism about the new treatment.²² Kozinn and Scott²³ defined classic indications and contraindications. Indications included isolated medial or lateral compartment OA or osteonecrosis of the knee, age over 60 years, and weight under 82 kg. In addition, the angular deformity of the affected lower extremity had to be <15° and passively correctable to neutral at time of surgery. Last, the flexion contracture had to be <5°, and ideal ROM was 90°. Contraindications included high activity, age under 60 years, and inflammatory arthritis. Strict adherence led to improved implant survival and lower revision rates. Because of improved surgical techniques, modern implant designs, and accumulating experience with the procedure, the surgical indications for UKA have expanded. Exact thresholds for UKA inclusion, however, remain unclear.

The modern literature is overturning the traditional idea that UKA is not indicated for patients under age 60 years.²³ Using KSS, Thompson and colleagues²⁴ found that younger patients did better than older patients 2 years after UKA using various types of implants. Analyzing survivorship results, Heyse and colleagues²⁵ concluded that UKA can be successful in patients under age 60 years and reported a 15-year survivorship rate of 85.6% and excellent outcome scores. Other authors have had similar findings.^26-28

Evaluating the influence of weight, Thompson and colleagues²⁴ found obese patients did not have a higher revision rate but did have slower progression of improvement 2 years after UKA. Cavaignac and colleagues²⁹ concluded that, at minimum follow-up of 7 years (range, 7-22 years), weight did not influence UKA survivorship. Other authors^30-33 have found no significant influence of BMI on survival.

Reports on preoperative radiographic parameters that can potentially influence UKA results are limited. In 113 medial UKAs studied by Niinimäki and colleagues,³⁴ mild medial compartment degeneration, seen on preoperative radiographs, was associated with significantly higher failure rates. The authors concluded that other treatment options should be favored in the absence of severe isolated compartment OA.

Although the classic indications defined by Kozinn and Scott²³ have yielded good to excellent UKA results, improvements in implants and surgical techniques^35-38 have extended the criteria. The modern literature demonstrates that age and BMI should not be used as criteria for excluding UKA candidates. Radiographically, there should be significant isolated compartment degeneration in order to optimize patient-reported outcome and survivorship.

Outcomes

Improved implant designs and modern minimally invasive techniques have effected a change in outcome results and a renewed interest in implants. Over the past decade, multiple authors have described the various modern UKA implants and their survivorship. Reports published since UKA was introduced in the 1970s show a continual increase in implant survival. Koskinen and colleagues,³⁹ using Finnish Arthroplasty Register data on 1819 UKAs performed between 1985 and 2003, found 10-year survival rates of 81% for Oxford implants (Zimmer Biomet), 79% for Miller-Galante II (Zimmer Biomet), 78% for Duracon (Howmedica), and 53% for PCA unicompartmental knee (Howmedica). Heyse and colleagues²⁵ reported 10- and 15-year survivorship data (93.5% and 86.3%, respectively) for 223 patients under age 60 years at the time of their index surgery (Genesis Unicondylar implant, Smith & Nephew), performed between 1993 and 2005. KSS was good to excellent. Similar numbers in cohorts under age 60 years were reported by Schai and colleagues²⁶ using the PFC system (Johnson & Johnson) and by Price and colleagues²⁷ using the medial Oxford UKA. Both groups reported excellent survivorship rates: 93% at 2- to 6-year follow-up and 91% at 10-year follow-up. The outcome in older patients seems satisfactory as well. In another multicenter report, by Price and colleagues,⁴⁰ medial Oxford UKAs had a 15-year survival rate of 93%. Berger and colleagues⁴¹ reported similar numbers for the Miller-Galante prosthesis. Survival rates were 98% (10 years) and 95.7% (13 years), and 92% of patients had good to excellent Hospital for Special Surgery knee scores.

Although various modern implants have had good to excellent results, the historical question of what type of UKA to use (mobile or fixed-bearing) remains unanswered. To try to address it, Peersman and colleagues⁴² performed a systematic review of 44 papers (9463 knees). The 2 implant types had comparable revision rates. Another recent retrospective study tried to determine what is crucial for implant survival: implant design or surgeon experience.⁴³ The authors concluded that prosthetic component positioning is key. Other authors have reported high-volume centers are crucial for satisfactory UKA results and lower revision rates.^44-46

Results of these studies indicate that, where UKAs are being performed in volume, 10-year survivorship rates higher than 90% and good to excellent outcomes can be expected.

UKA vs HTO

Cohort studies that have directly compared the 2 treatment modalities are scarce, and most have been retrospective. In a prospective study, Stukenborg-Colsman and colleagues⁴⁷ randomized patients with medial compartment OA to undergo either CWHTO (32 patients) with a technique reported by Coventry⁴⁸ or UKA (28 patients) with the unicondylar knee sliding prosthesis, Tübingen pattern (Aesculap), between 1988 and 1991. Patients were assessed 2.5, 4.5, and 7.5 years after surgery. More postoperative complications were noted in the HTO group. At 7- to 10-year follow-up, 71% of the HTO group and 65% of the UKA group had excellent KSS. Mean ROM was 103° after UKA (range, 35°-140°) and 117° after HTO (range, 85°-135°) during the same assessment. Although differences were not significant, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was 60% for HTO and 77% for UKA at 10 years. Results were not promising for the implants used, compared with other implants, but the authors concluded that, because of improvements in implant designs and image-guided techniques, better long-term success can be expected with UKA than with HTO.

In another prospective study, Börjesson and colleagues⁴⁹ evaluated pain during walking, ROM, British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) scores, and gait variables at 1- and 5-year follow-up. Patients with moderate medial OA (Ahlbäck¹⁴ grade I-III) were randomly selected to undergo CWHTO or UKA (Brigham, DePuy). There were no significant differences in BOA scores, ROM, or pain during walking between the 2 groups at 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years after surgery. Gait analysis showed a significant difference in favor of UKA only at 3 months after surgery. At 1- and 5-year follow-up, no significant differences were noted.

To clarify current ambiguities, Fu and colleagues⁵⁰ performed a systematic review of all (11) comparative studies. These studies had a total of 5840 (5081 UKA, 759 HTO) patients. Although ROM was significantly better for the HTO group than the UKA group, the UKA group had significantly better functional results. Walking after surgery was significantly faster for the UKA group. The authors suggested the difference might be attributed to the different postoperative regimens—HTO patients wore a whole-leg plaster cast for 6 weeks, and UKA patients were allowed immediate postoperative weight-bearing. Regarding rates of survival and complications, pooled data showed no significant differences. Despite these results, the authors acknowledged the limitation of available randomized clinical trials and the multiple techniques and implants used. We share their assertion that larger prospective controlled trials are needed. These are crucial to getting a definitive answer regarding which of the 2 treatment strategies should be used for isolated compartment OA.

Current Trends in Use of UKA and HTO

Evaluation of national registries and recent reports showed a global shift in use of both HTO and UKA. Despite the lack of national HTO registries, a few reports have described use of TKA, UKA, and HTO in Western populations over the past 2 decades. Using 1998-2007 data from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, W-Dahl and colleagues⁵¹ found a 3-fold increase in UKA use, whereas HTO use was halved over the same period. Niinimäki and colleagues⁵² reported similar findings with the Finnish National Hospital Discharge Register. They noted a steady 6.8% annual decrease in osteotomies, whereas UKA use increased sharply after the Oxford UKA was introduced (Phase 3; Biomet). These findings are consistent with several reports from North America. In their epidemiologic analysis covering the period 1985-1990, Wright and colleagues⁵³ found an 11% to 14% annual decrease in osteotomies among the elderly, compared with an annual decrease of only 3% to 4% among patients younger than 65 years. Nwachukwu and colleagues⁵⁴ recently compared UKA and HTO practice patterns between 2007 and 2011, using data from a large US private payer insurance database. They noted an annual growth rate of 4.7% in UKA use, compared with an annual 3.9% decrease in HTO use. Furthermore, based on their subgroup analysis, they speculated there was a demographic shift toward UKA, as opposed to TKA, particularly in older women. Bolognesi and colleagues⁵⁵ investigated further. Evaluating all Medicare beneficiaries who underwent knee arthroplasty in the United States between 2000 and 2009, they noted a 1.7-fold increase in TKA use and a 6.2-fold increase in UKA use. As there were no substantial changes in patient characteristics over that period, the authors hypothesized that a possible broadening of inclusion criteria may have led to the increased use of UKA.

There is a possible multifactorial explanation for the current global shift in favor of UKA. First, UKA was once a technically demanding procedure, but improved surgical techniques, image guidance, and robot assistance⁵⁶ have made it relatively less difficult. Second, UKA surgery is associated with lower reported perioperative morbidities.⁵⁷ We think these factors have contributed to the global trend of less HTO use and more UKA use in the treatment of unicompartmental OA.

Conclusion

The modern literature suggests the inclusion criteria for HTO have been well investigated and defined; the UKA criteria remain a matter of debate but seem to be expanding. Long-term survival results seem to favor UKA, though patient satisfaction with both procedures is good to excellent. The broadening range of inclusion criteria and consistent reports of durable outcomes, coupled with excellent patient satisfaction, likely explain the shift toward UKA in the treatment of isolated compartment degeneration.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E355-E361. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

An increasingly number of patients with symptomatic isolated medial unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) are too young and too functionally active to be ideal candidates for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Isolated medial compartment OA occurs in 10% to 29.5% of all cases, whereas the isolated lateral variant is less common, with a reported incidence of 1% to 7%.^1,2 In 1961, Jackson and Waugh³ introduced the high tibial osteotomy (HTO) as a surgical treatment for single-compartment OA. This procedure is designed to increase the life span of articular cartilage by unloading and redistributing the mechanical forces over the nonaffected compartment. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) was introduced in the 1970s as an alternative to TKA or HTO for single-compartment OA.

Since the introduction of these methods, there has been debate about which patients are appropriate candidates for each procedure. Improved surgical techniques and implant designs have led surgeons to reexamine the selection criteria and contraindications for these procedures. Furthermore, given the increasing popularity and use of UKA, the question arises as to whether HTO still has a role in clinical practice in the surgical treatment of medial OA of the knee.

To clarify current ambiguities, we review the modern indications, subjective outcome scores, and survivorship results of UKA and HTO in the treatment of isolated medial compartment degeneration of the knee. In addition, in a thorough review of the literature, we evaluate global trends in the use of both methods.

High Tibial Osteotomy for Medial Compartment OA

Indications

Before the introduction of TKA and UKA for single-compartment OA, surgical management consisted of HTO. When the mechanical axis is slightly overcorrected, the medial compartment is decompressed, ensuring tissue viability and delaying progressive compartment degeneration.

Traditionally, HTO is indicated for young (age <60 years), normal-weight, active patients with radiographic single-compartment OA.⁶ The knee should be stable and have good range of motion (ROM; flexion >120°), and pain should be localized to the tibiofemoral joint line.

Over the past few decades, numerous authors have reported similar inclusion criteria, clarifying their definition. This definition should be further refined in order to optimize survivorship and clinical outcomes.

Confirming age as an inclusion criterion for HTO, Trieb and colleagues⁷ found that the risk of failure was significantly (P = .046) higher for HTO patients older than 65 years than for those younger than 65 years (relative risk, 1.5). This finding agrees with findings of other studies, which suggests that, in particular, young patients benefit from HTO.^8-11

Moreover, there is a clear relation between HTO survival and obesity. In a study of 159 CWHTOs, Akizuki and colleagues¹² reported that preoperative body mass index (BMI) higher than 27.5 kg/m² was a significant risk factor for early failure. Using BMI higher than 30 kg/m² as a threshold, Howells and colleagues⁹ found significantly inferior Knee Society Score (KSS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) results for the obese group 5 years after HTO.

Radiographic evidence of severe preoperative compartment degeneration has been associated with early conversion to TKA. Flecher and colleagues¹¹ and van Raaij and colleagues¹³ both concluded the best long-term survival grades are achieved in HTO patients with mild compartment OA (Ahlbäck^14 grade I). The question then becomes whether these patients should be treated nonoperatively instead.^15,16The literature supports strict adherence to inclusion criteria in the selection of a potential HTO candidate. Age, BMI, and the preoperative state of OA should be taken into account in order to optimize clinical outcome and survivorship results in patients about to undergo HTO.

Outcomes

Multiple authors have described or compared the midterm or long-term results of the various surgical HTO techniques. Howells and colleagues⁹ noted overall survival rates of 87% (5 years after CWHTO) and 79% (10 years after CWHTO). Over the 10-year postoperative period, there was significant deterioration in clinical outcome scores and survivorship. Others authors have had similar findings.^17-19 van Raaij and colleagues¹³ found that the 10-year probability of survival after CWHTO was 75%. In 455 patients who underwent lateral CWHTO, Hui and colleagues⁸ found that 5-year probability of survival was 95%, 10-year probability was 79%, and 15-year probability was 56%. Niinimäki and colleagues¹⁰ used the Finnish Arthroplasty Register to report HTO survivorship at a national level. Using conversion to TKA as a cutoff, they noted 5-year survivorship of 89% and 10-year survivorship of 73%. To our knowledge, 2 groups, both in Japan, have reported substantially higher 15-year survival rates: 90%¹² and 93%.²⁰ The authors acknowledged that their results were significantly better than in other countries and that Japanese lifestyle, culture, and body habitus therefore require further investigation. At this time, it is not possible to compare their results with Western results.

In an attempt to compare the different survival rates of the various HTO techniques, Schallberger and colleagues²¹ conducted a retrospective study of OWHTOs and CWHTOs. At median follow-up of 16.5 years, comparative survival rates showed a trend of deterioration. Although data were limited, there were no significant differences in survival or functional outcome between the 2 techniques. In a recent randomized clinical trial, Duivenvoorden and colleagues⁵ compared these techniques’ midterm results (mean follow-up, 6 years). Clinical outcomes were not significantly different. There were more complications in the OWHTO group and more conversions to TKA in the CWHTO group. Considering these results, the authors suggested OWHTO without autologous bone graft is the best HTO treatment strategy for medial gonarthritis with varus malalignment of <12°.

The HTO results noted in these studies show a similar deteriorating trend; expected 10-year survivorship is 75%. Although modern implants and surgical techniques are being used, evidence supporting use of one surgical HTO method over another is lacking.

UKA for Medial Compartment OA

Indications

Since it was first introduced in the 1970s, use of UKA for single-compartment OA has been a subject of debate. The high failure rates reported at the time raised skepticism about the new treatment.²² Kozinn and Scott²³ defined classic indications and contraindications. Indications included isolated medial or lateral compartment OA or osteonecrosis of the knee, age over 60 years, and weight under 82 kg. In addition, the angular deformity of the affected lower extremity had to be <15° and passively correctable to neutral at time of surgery. Last, the flexion contracture had to be <5°, and ideal ROM was 90°. Contraindications included high activity, age under 60 years, and inflammatory arthritis. Strict adherence led to improved implant survival and lower revision rates. Because of improved surgical techniques, modern implant designs, and accumulating experience with the procedure, the surgical indications for UKA have expanded. Exact thresholds for UKA inclusion, however, remain unclear.

The modern literature is overturning the traditional idea that UKA is not indicated for patients under age 60 years.²³ Using KSS, Thompson and colleagues²⁴ found that younger patients did better than older patients 2 years after UKA using various types of implants. Analyzing survivorship results, Heyse and colleagues²⁵ concluded that UKA can be successful in patients under age 60 years and reported a 15-year survivorship rate of 85.6% and excellent outcome scores. Other authors have had similar findings.^26-28

Evaluating the influence of weight, Thompson and colleagues²⁴ found obese patients did not have a higher revision rate but did have slower progression of improvement 2 years after UKA. Cavaignac and colleagues²⁹ concluded that, at minimum follow-up of 7 years (range, 7-22 years), weight did not influence UKA survivorship. Other authors^30-33 have found no significant influence of BMI on survival.

Reports on preoperative radiographic parameters that can potentially influence UKA results are limited. In 113 medial UKAs studied by Niinimäki and colleagues,³⁴ mild medial compartment degeneration, seen on preoperative radiographs, was associated with significantly higher failure rates. The authors concluded that other treatment options should be favored in the absence of severe isolated compartment OA.

Although the classic indications defined by Kozinn and Scott²³ have yielded good to excellent UKA results, improvements in implants and surgical techniques^35-38 have extended the criteria. The modern literature demonstrates that age and BMI should not be used as criteria for excluding UKA candidates. Radiographically, there should be significant isolated compartment degeneration in order to optimize patient-reported outcome and survivorship.

Outcomes

Improved implant designs and modern minimally invasive techniques have effected a change in outcome results and a renewed interest in implants. Over the past decade, multiple authors have described the various modern UKA implants and their survivorship. Reports published since UKA was introduced in the 1970s show a continual increase in implant survival. Koskinen and colleagues,³⁹ using Finnish Arthroplasty Register data on 1819 UKAs performed between 1985 and 2003, found 10-year survival rates of 81% for Oxford implants (Zimmer Biomet), 79% for Miller-Galante II (Zimmer Biomet), 78% for Duracon (Howmedica), and 53% for PCA unicompartmental knee (Howmedica). Heyse and colleagues²⁵ reported 10- and 15-year survivorship data (93.5% and 86.3%, respectively) for 223 patients under age 60 years at the time of their index surgery (Genesis Unicondylar implant, Smith & Nephew), performed between 1993 and 2005. KSS was good to excellent. Similar numbers in cohorts under age 60 years were reported by Schai and colleagues²⁶ using the PFC system (Johnson & Johnson) and by Price and colleagues²⁷ using the medial Oxford UKA. Both groups reported excellent survivorship rates: 93% at 2- to 6-year follow-up and 91% at 10-year follow-up. The outcome in older patients seems satisfactory as well. In another multicenter report, by Price and colleagues,⁴⁰ medial Oxford UKAs had a 15-year survival rate of 93%. Berger and colleagues⁴¹ reported similar numbers for the Miller-Galante prosthesis. Survival rates were 98% (10 years) and 95.7% (13 years), and 92% of patients had good to excellent Hospital for Special Surgery knee scores.

Although various modern implants have had good to excellent results, the historical question of what type of UKA to use (mobile or fixed-bearing) remains unanswered. To try to address it, Peersman and colleagues⁴² performed a systematic review of 44 papers (9463 knees). The 2 implant types had comparable revision rates. Another recent retrospective study tried to determine what is crucial for implant survival: implant design or surgeon experience.⁴³ The authors concluded that prosthetic component positioning is key. Other authors have reported high-volume centers are crucial for satisfactory UKA results and lower revision rates.^44-46

Results of these studies indicate that, where UKAs are being performed in volume, 10-year survivorship rates higher than 90% and good to excellent outcomes can be expected.

UKA vs HTO

Cohort studies that have directly compared the 2 treatment modalities are scarce, and most have been retrospective. In a prospective study, Stukenborg-Colsman and colleagues⁴⁷ randomized patients with medial compartment OA to undergo either CWHTO (32 patients) with a technique reported by Coventry⁴⁸ or UKA (28 patients) with the unicondylar knee sliding prosthesis, Tübingen pattern (Aesculap), between 1988 and 1991. Patients were assessed 2.5, 4.5, and 7.5 years after surgery. More postoperative complications were noted in the HTO group. At 7- to 10-year follow-up, 71% of the HTO group and 65% of the UKA group had excellent KSS. Mean ROM was 103° after UKA (range, 35°-140°) and 117° after HTO (range, 85°-135°) during the same assessment. Although differences were not significant, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was 60% for HTO and 77% for UKA at 10 years. Results were not promising for the implants used, compared with other implants, but the authors concluded that, because of improvements in implant designs and image-guided techniques, better long-term success can be expected with UKA than with HTO.

In another prospective study, Börjesson and colleagues⁴⁹ evaluated pain during walking, ROM, British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) scores, and gait variables at 1- and 5-year follow-up. Patients with moderate medial OA (Ahlbäck¹⁴ grade I-III) were randomly selected to undergo CWHTO or UKA (Brigham, DePuy). There were no significant differences in BOA scores, ROM, or pain during walking between the 2 groups at 3 months, 1 year, and 5 years after surgery. Gait analysis showed a significant difference in favor of UKA only at 3 months after surgery. At 1- and 5-year follow-up, no significant differences were noted.

To clarify current ambiguities, Fu and colleagues⁵⁰ performed a systematic review of all (11) comparative studies. These studies had a total of 5840 (5081 UKA, 759 HTO) patients. Although ROM was significantly better for the HTO group than the UKA group, the UKA group had significantly better functional results. Walking after surgery was significantly faster for the UKA group. The authors suggested the difference might be attributed to the different postoperative regimens—HTO patients wore a whole-leg plaster cast for 6 weeks, and UKA patients were allowed immediate postoperative weight-bearing. Regarding rates of survival and complications, pooled data showed no significant differences. Despite these results, the authors acknowledged the limitation of available randomized clinical trials and the multiple techniques and implants used. We share their assertion that larger prospective controlled trials are needed. These are crucial to getting a definitive answer regarding which of the 2 treatment strategies should be used for isolated compartment OA.

Current Trends in Use of UKA and HTO

Evaluation of national registries and recent reports showed a global shift in use of both HTO and UKA. Despite the lack of national HTO registries, a few reports have described use of TKA, UKA, and HTO in Western populations over the past 2 decades. Using 1998-2007 data from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, W-Dahl and colleagues⁵¹ found a 3-fold increase in UKA use, whereas HTO use was halved over the same period. Niinimäki and colleagues⁵² reported similar findings with the Finnish National Hospital Discharge Register. They noted a steady 6.8% annual decrease in osteotomies, whereas UKA use increased sharply after the Oxford UKA was introduced (Phase 3; Biomet). These findings are consistent with several reports from North America. In their epidemiologic analysis covering the period 1985-1990, Wright and colleagues⁵³ found an 11% to 14% annual decrease in osteotomies among the elderly, compared with an annual decrease of only 3% to 4% among patients younger than 65 years. Nwachukwu and colleagues⁵⁴ recently compared UKA and HTO practice patterns between 2007 and 2011, using data from a large US private payer insurance database. They noted an annual growth rate of 4.7% in UKA use, compared with an annual 3.9% decrease in HTO use. Furthermore, based on their subgroup analysis, they speculated there was a demographic shift toward UKA, as opposed to TKA, particularly in older women. Bolognesi and colleagues⁵⁵ investigated further. Evaluating all Medicare beneficiaries who underwent knee arthroplasty in the United States between 2000 and 2009, they noted a 1.7-fold increase in TKA use and a 6.2-fold increase in UKA use. As there were no substantial changes in patient characteristics over that period, the authors hypothesized that a possible broadening of inclusion criteria may have led to the increased use of UKA.

There is a possible multifactorial explanation for the current global shift in favor of UKA. First, UKA was once a technically demanding procedure, but improved surgical techniques, image guidance, and robot assistance⁵⁶ have made it relatively less difficult. Second, UKA surgery is associated with lower reported perioperative morbidities.⁵⁷ We think these factors have contributed to the global trend of less HTO use and more UKA use in the treatment of unicompartmental OA.

Conclusion

The modern literature suggests the inclusion criteria for HTO have been well investigated and defined; the UKA criteria remain a matter of debate but seem to be expanding. Long-term survival results seem to favor UKA, though patient satisfaction with both procedures is good to excellent. The broadening range of inclusion criteria and consistent reports of durable outcomes, coupled with excellent patient satisfaction, likely explain the shift toward UKA in the treatment of isolated compartment degeneration.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E355-E361. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has revolutionized the practice of orthopedic surgery. The number of primary THAs performed in the United States alone is predicted to rise to 572,000 per year by 2030.¹ Increasing demand requires a tighter focus on cost-effectiveness, particularly with regard to expensive postoperative complications. Trunnionosis and taper corrosion have recently emerged as problems in THA.^2-7 No longer restricted to metal-on-metal bearings, these phenomena now affect an increasing number of metal-on-polyethylene THAs and are exacerbated by modularity.⁸ The emergence of these complications adds complexity to the diagnostic algorithm in patients who present with painful THAs. Furthermore, the diagnosis of either trunnionosis or taper corrosion calls for revision surgery. In response to the increase in these complications, a group of orthopedic professional societies developed an algorithm for managing suspected metal toxicity issues.⁹ However, increases in toxicity and patient morbidity, and the added costs of toxicity surveillance and revision surgery, will place a substantial economic burden on many health systems at a time when policy makers are implementing substantial changes to health delivery in an effort to contain costs while improving patient outcomes.

Although they are more expensive than cobalt-chrome heads, ceramic femoral heads make metal toxicity a nonissue and eliminate the need for toxicity surveillance protocols. Furthermore, ceramic femoral heads are thought to have longevity advantages (this relationship needs to be confirmed in long-term studies).

In this article, we provide a theoretical framework for debating whether use of ceramic femoral heads in all THA patients could represent a more cost-effective option over the long term.

Materials and Methods

Guidelines for the diagnostic algorithm for painful THA with suspected metal toxicity were obtained from a recent orthopedic professional society consensus statement.⁹ The cost of this work-up was obtained from the finance department at our institution (Table 1).

We created 2 metrics to analyze the cost difference between ceramic and cobalt-chrome femoral heads. The first metric was “ceramic surplus,” the extra cost of a ceramic femoral head above that of a cobalt-chrome femoral head, and the second was “maximum ceramic surplus,” the ceramic surplus cutoff value for which using ceramic femoral heads in all patients becomes more cost-effective than using cobalt-chrome heads.

Results

A single metal toxicity work-up cost $5085 with MARS-MRI and $2402 with US (Table 1). Revision THA with a 3-day inpatient stay cost $53,320, and that figure does not include the cost of surgical implants or perioperative medications and devices, all of which have highly variable cost structures (Table 1). Ceramic surplus was as low as $500 in a high-volume academic practice and as high as $1500 in a low-volume private practice (Table 2). Maximum ceramic surplus ranged from $511 to $2044 in the models integrating MARS-MRI and from $488 to $1950 in the models integrating US (Table 3).

Discussion

Trunnionosis, corrosion, and metal toxicity are of increasing concern in hip implants that incorporate a cobalt-chrome femoral head, regardless of the counterpart articulation surface (metal, ceramic, polyethylene).^2-8 In response to the added diagnostic challenge raised by these phenomena, a group of orthopedic professional societies developed an algorithm that can guide surgeons in the management of suspected corrosion or metal toxicity.⁹ In this protocol, toxicity surveillance in conjunction with potential revision surgery for metal-associated complications has the potential to increase patient morbidity and place a significant economic burden on many health systems. Given the recent emergence of trunnionosis, epidemiologic data on this complication are lacking.¹⁰ However, there is a substantial body of evidence showing devastating complications associated with adverse reactions to metal debris.^11-17

Given the potential complications specific to cobalt-chrome femoral heads, we wanted to provide a theoretical framework for debating whether use of ceramic heads in all patients has the potential to be a more cost-effective option over the long term. Ceramic femoral heads are premium implants, certainly more expensive at initial point of care. One study based on a large community registry showed premium implants (eg, ceramic femoral heads) add a surplus averaging $1000.¹⁸ In our investigation, ceramic surplus varied with practice setting, from $500 to $1500. Lower costs were discovered in high-volume practice settings, indicating that a shift to increased use of ceramic femoral heads would likely decrease ceramic surplus for most institutions.

We used a series of simulations to predict maximum ceramic surplus after manipulation of theoretical incidence ratios. The main limitation of this study was our use of 7% as the incidence of painful THA within 1- to 2-year follow-up. This point estimate was derived from a manuscript that to our knowledge provides the most realistic estimate of this complication¹⁰; with use of more complete data in upcoming studies, however, the 7% figure could certainly change. As data are also lacking on the proportion of painful THAs that receive a metal work-up and on the proportion of metal work-ups that indicate revision surgery, we modeled values of 12.5%, 25%, and 50% for each of these metrics to cover a wide range of possibilities.

It is also true the model did not incorporate scenarios to account for the law of unintended consequences, which would caution that using ceramics for all patients may bring a new set of complications. Zirconia ceramic bearings have tended to fracture, with the vast majority of fractures occurring in the liner of ceramic-on-ceramic articulations. Midterm reports and laboratory data suggest this issue has largely been solved with the advent of delta ceramics, a composite containing only a small fraction of zirconia.^19,20 Nevertheless, longer term in vivo data are needed to confirm the stability, longevity, and complication profile of these materials.

A final limitation of the present study is that the cost of a single metal toxicity work-up was based on just one institution. Grossly differing cost structures in other markets could alter the economic risk–benefit analysis we have described. However, we should note that the costs of tests, procedures, and appointments at our institution were uniform across a wide variety of practice settings in multiple regions of the United States, and thus are likely similar to the costs at a majority of practices.

Although our model took some liberties by necessity, it was also quite conservative in many respects. Many patients who undergo surveillance for metal toxicity undergo serial follow-ups; for this analysis, however, we considered the cost of only a single work-up. In addition, our proposed cost of revision surgery accounts only for facility and personnel costs during a 3-day inpatient stay and does not include the costs of implants, perioperative medications and devices, follow-up care, and potentially longer hospital stays or subsequent procedures, all of which can be highly variable and add considerable cost. Had any or all of these factors been incorporated into more complex modeling, the potential economic benefits of ceramic femoral heads would have been significantly greater.

After taking all these factors into account, our model found that maximum ceramic surplus ranged from $488 to $2044, depending on theoretical incidence ratio and imaging modality (Table 3). The lowest maximum ceramic surplus values ($511 for MARS-MRI protocol, $488 for US protocol) were based on the assumption that only 12.5% of patients who present with a painful THA receive a single metal work-up (0.875% of all THAs) and that only 12.5% of those patients are eventually revised (0.11% of all THAs). This outcome suggests ceramic femoral heads could be more cost-effective than cobalt-chrome femoral heads under these conservative projections when considering ceramic surplus is already as low as $500 at some high-volume centers. This figure would likely decline further in parallel with widespread growth in demand. Further study on the epidemiology of trunnionosis, corrosion, and metal toxicity in metal-on-polyethylene THA is needed to evaluate the economic validity of this proposal. Nevertheless, the superior safety profile of ceramic femoral heads with regard to metal toxicity indicates that wholesale use in THAs may in fact provide the most economical option on a societal scale.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E362-E366. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has revolutionized the practice of orthopedic surgery. The number of primary THAs performed in the United States alone is predicted to rise to 572,000 per year by 2030.¹ Increasing demand requires a tighter focus on cost-effectiveness, particularly with regard to expensive postoperative complications. Trunnionosis and taper corrosion have recently emerged as problems in THA.^2-7 No longer restricted to metal-on-metal bearings, these phenomena now affect an increasing number of metal-on-polyethylene THAs and are exacerbated by modularity.⁸ The emergence of these complications adds complexity to the diagnostic algorithm in patients who present with painful THAs. Furthermore, the diagnosis of either trunnionosis or taper corrosion calls for revision surgery. In response to the increase in these complications, a group of orthopedic professional societies developed an algorithm for managing suspected metal toxicity issues.⁹ However, increases in toxicity and patient morbidity, and the added costs of toxicity surveillance and revision surgery, will place a substantial economic burden on many health systems at a time when policy makers are implementing substantial changes to health delivery in an effort to contain costs while improving patient outcomes.

Although they are more expensive than cobalt-chrome heads, ceramic femoral heads make metal toxicity a nonissue and eliminate the need for toxicity surveillance protocols. Furthermore, ceramic femoral heads are thought to have longevity advantages (this relationship needs to be confirmed in long-term studies).

In this article, we provide a theoretical framework for debating whether use of ceramic femoral heads in all THA patients could represent a more cost-effective option over the long term.

Materials and Methods

Guidelines for the diagnostic algorithm for painful THA with suspected metal toxicity were obtained from a recent orthopedic professional society consensus statement.⁹ The cost of this work-up was obtained from the finance department at our institution (Table 1).

We created 2 metrics to analyze the cost difference between ceramic and cobalt-chrome femoral heads. The first metric was “ceramic surplus,” the extra cost of a ceramic femoral head above that of a cobalt-chrome femoral head, and the second was “maximum ceramic surplus,” the ceramic surplus cutoff value for which using ceramic femoral heads in all patients becomes more cost-effective than using cobalt-chrome heads.

Results

A single metal toxicity work-up cost $5085 with MARS-MRI and $2402 with US (Table 1). Revision THA with a 3-day inpatient stay cost $53,320, and that figure does not include the cost of surgical implants or perioperative medications and devices, all of which have highly variable cost structures (Table 1). Ceramic surplus was as low as $500 in a high-volume academic practice and as high as $1500 in a low-volume private practice (Table 2). Maximum ceramic surplus ranged from $511 to $2044 in the models integrating MARS-MRI and from $488 to $1950 in the models integrating US (Table 3).

Discussion

Trunnionosis, corrosion, and metal toxicity are of increasing concern in hip implants that incorporate a cobalt-chrome femoral head, regardless of the counterpart articulation surface (metal, ceramic, polyethylene).^2-8 In response to the added diagnostic challenge raised by these phenomena, a group of orthopedic professional societies developed an algorithm that can guide surgeons in the management of suspected corrosion or metal toxicity.⁹ In this protocol, toxicity surveillance in conjunction with potential revision surgery for metal-associated complications has the potential to increase patient morbidity and place a significant economic burden on many health systems. Given the recent emergence of trunnionosis, epidemiologic data on this complication are lacking.¹⁰ However, there is a substantial body of evidence showing devastating complications associated with adverse reactions to metal debris.^11-17

Given the potential complications specific to cobalt-chrome femoral heads, we wanted to provide a theoretical framework for debating whether use of ceramic heads in all patients has the potential to be a more cost-effective option over the long term. Ceramic femoral heads are premium implants, certainly more expensive at initial point of care. One study based on a large community registry showed premium implants (eg, ceramic femoral heads) add a surplus averaging $1000.¹⁸ In our investigation, ceramic surplus varied with practice setting, from $500 to $1500. Lower costs were discovered in high-volume practice settings, indicating that a shift to increased use of ceramic femoral heads would likely decrease ceramic surplus for most institutions.

We used a series of simulations to predict maximum ceramic surplus after manipulation of theoretical incidence ratios. The main limitation of this study was our use of 7% as the incidence of painful THA within 1- to 2-year follow-up. This point estimate was derived from a manuscript that to our knowledge provides the most realistic estimate of this complication¹⁰; with use of more complete data in upcoming studies, however, the 7% figure could certainly change. As data are also lacking on the proportion of painful THAs that receive a metal work-up and on the proportion of metal work-ups that indicate revision surgery, we modeled values of 12.5%, 25%, and 50% for each of these metrics to cover a wide range of possibilities.

It is also true the model did not incorporate scenarios to account for the law of unintended consequences, which would caution that using ceramics for all patients may bring a new set of complications. Zirconia ceramic bearings have tended to fracture, with the vast majority of fractures occurring in the liner of ceramic-on-ceramic articulations. Midterm reports and laboratory data suggest this issue has largely been solved with the advent of delta ceramics, a composite containing only a small fraction of zirconia.^19,20 Nevertheless, longer term in vivo data are needed to confirm the stability, longevity, and complication profile of these materials.

A final limitation of the present study is that the cost of a single metal toxicity work-up was based on just one institution. Grossly differing cost structures in other markets could alter the economic risk–benefit analysis we have described. However, we should note that the costs of tests, procedures, and appointments at our institution were uniform across a wide variety of practice settings in multiple regions of the United States, and thus are likely similar to the costs at a majority of practices.

Although our model took some liberties by necessity, it was also quite conservative in many respects. Many patients who undergo surveillance for metal toxicity undergo serial follow-ups; for this analysis, however, we considered the cost of only a single work-up. In addition, our proposed cost of revision surgery accounts only for facility and personnel costs during a 3-day inpatient stay and does not include the costs of implants, perioperative medications and devices, follow-up care, and potentially longer hospital stays or subsequent procedures, all of which can be highly variable and add considerable cost. Had any or all of these factors been incorporated into more complex modeling, the potential economic benefits of ceramic femoral heads would have been significantly greater.

After taking all these factors into account, our model found that maximum ceramic surplus ranged from $488 to $2044, depending on theoretical incidence ratio and imaging modality (Table 3). The lowest maximum ceramic surplus values ($511 for MARS-MRI protocol, $488 for US protocol) were based on the assumption that only 12.5% of patients who present with a painful THA receive a single metal work-up (0.875% of all THAs) and that only 12.5% of those patients are eventually revised (0.11% of all THAs). This outcome suggests ceramic femoral heads could be more cost-effective than cobalt-chrome femoral heads under these conservative projections when considering ceramic surplus is already as low as $500 at some high-volume centers. This figure would likely decline further in parallel with widespread growth in demand. Further study on the epidemiology of trunnionosis, corrosion, and metal toxicity in metal-on-polyethylene THA is needed to evaluate the economic validity of this proposal. Nevertheless, the superior safety profile of ceramic femoral heads with regard to metal toxicity indicates that wholesale use in THAs may in fact provide the most economical option on a societal scale.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E362-E366. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has revolutionized the practice of orthopedic surgery. The number of primary THAs performed in the United States alone is predicted to rise to 572,000 per year by 2030.¹ Increasing demand requires a tighter focus on cost-effectiveness, particularly with regard to expensive postoperative complications. Trunnionosis and taper corrosion have recently emerged as problems in THA.^2-7 No longer restricted to metal-on-metal bearings, these phenomena now affect an increasing number of metal-on-polyethylene THAs and are exacerbated by modularity.⁸ The emergence of these complications adds complexity to the diagnostic algorithm in patients who present with painful THAs. Furthermore, the diagnosis of either trunnionosis or taper corrosion calls for revision surgery. In response to the increase in these complications, a group of orthopedic professional societies developed an algorithm for managing suspected metal toxicity issues.⁹ However, increases in toxicity and patient morbidity, and the added costs of toxicity surveillance and revision surgery, will place a substantial economic burden on many health systems at a time when policy makers are implementing substantial changes to health delivery in an effort to contain costs while improving patient outcomes.

Although they are more expensive than cobalt-chrome heads, ceramic femoral heads make metal toxicity a nonissue and eliminate the need for toxicity surveillance protocols. Furthermore, ceramic femoral heads are thought to have longevity advantages (this relationship needs to be confirmed in long-term studies).

In this article, we provide a theoretical framework for debating whether use of ceramic femoral heads in all THA patients could represent a more cost-effective option over the long term.

Materials and Methods

Guidelines for the diagnostic algorithm for painful THA with suspected metal toxicity were obtained from a recent orthopedic professional society consensus statement.⁹ The cost of this work-up was obtained from the finance department at our institution (Table 1).

We created 2 metrics to analyze the cost difference between ceramic and cobalt-chrome femoral heads. The first metric was “ceramic surplus,” the extra cost of a ceramic femoral head above that of a cobalt-chrome femoral head, and the second was “maximum ceramic surplus,” the ceramic surplus cutoff value for which using ceramic femoral heads in all patients becomes more cost-effective than using cobalt-chrome heads.

Results

A single metal toxicity work-up cost $5085 with MARS-MRI and $2402 with US (Table 1). Revision THA with a 3-day inpatient stay cost $53,320, and that figure does not include the cost of surgical implants or perioperative medications and devices, all of which have highly variable cost structures (Table 1). Ceramic surplus was as low as $500 in a high-volume academic practice and as high as $1500 in a low-volume private practice (Table 2). Maximum ceramic surplus ranged from $511 to $2044 in the models integrating MARS-MRI and from $488 to $1950 in the models integrating US (Table 3).

Discussion

Trunnionosis, corrosion, and metal toxicity are of increasing concern in hip implants that incorporate a cobalt-chrome femoral head, regardless of the counterpart articulation surface (metal, ceramic, polyethylene).^2-8 In response to the added diagnostic challenge raised by these phenomena, a group of orthopedic professional societies developed an algorithm that can guide surgeons in the management of suspected corrosion or metal toxicity.⁹ In this protocol, toxicity surveillance in conjunction with potential revision surgery for metal-associated complications has the potential to increase patient morbidity and place a significant economic burden on many health systems. Given the recent emergence of trunnionosis, epidemiologic data on this complication are lacking.¹⁰ However, there is a substantial body of evidence showing devastating complications associated with adverse reactions to metal debris.^11-17

Given the potential complications specific to cobalt-chrome femoral heads, we wanted to provide a theoretical framework for debating whether use of ceramic heads in all patients has the potential to be a more cost-effective option over the long term. Ceramic femoral heads are premium implants, certainly more expensive at initial point of care. One study based on a large community registry showed premium implants (eg, ceramic femoral heads) add a surplus averaging $1000.¹⁸ In our investigation, ceramic surplus varied with practice setting, from $500 to $1500. Lower costs were discovered in high-volume practice settings, indicating that a shift to increased use of ceramic femoral heads would likely decrease ceramic surplus for most institutions.

We used a series of simulations to predict maximum ceramic surplus after manipulation of theoretical incidence ratios. The main limitation of this study was our use of 7% as the incidence of painful THA within 1- to 2-year follow-up. This point estimate was derived from a manuscript that to our knowledge provides the most realistic estimate of this complication¹⁰; with use of more complete data in upcoming studies, however, the 7% figure could certainly change. As data are also lacking on the proportion of painful THAs that receive a metal work-up and on the proportion of metal work-ups that indicate revision surgery, we modeled values of 12.5%, 25%, and 50% for each of these metrics to cover a wide range of possibilities.

It is also true the model did not incorporate scenarios to account for the law of unintended consequences, which would caution that using ceramics for all patients may bring a new set of complications. Zirconia ceramic bearings have tended to fracture, with the vast majority of fractures occurring in the liner of ceramic-on-ceramic articulations. Midterm reports and laboratory data suggest this issue has largely been solved with the advent of delta ceramics, a composite containing only a small fraction of zirconia.^19,20 Nevertheless, longer term in vivo data are needed to confirm the stability, longevity, and complication profile of these materials.

A final limitation of the present study is that the cost of a single metal toxicity work-up was based on just one institution. Grossly differing cost structures in other markets could alter the economic risk–benefit analysis we have described. However, we should note that the costs of tests, procedures, and appointments at our institution were uniform across a wide variety of practice settings in multiple regions of the United States, and thus are likely similar to the costs at a majority of practices.

Although our model took some liberties by necessity, it was also quite conservative in many respects. Many patients who undergo surveillance for metal toxicity undergo serial follow-ups; for this analysis, however, we considered the cost of only a single work-up. In addition, our proposed cost of revision surgery accounts only for facility and personnel costs during a 3-day inpatient stay and does not include the costs of implants, perioperative medications and devices, follow-up care, and potentially longer hospital stays or subsequent procedures, all of which can be highly variable and add considerable cost. Had any or all of these factors been incorporated into more complex modeling, the potential economic benefits of ceramic femoral heads would have been significantly greater.

After taking all these factors into account, our model found that maximum ceramic surplus ranged from $488 to $2044, depending on theoretical incidence ratio and imaging modality (Table 3). The lowest maximum ceramic surplus values ($511 for MARS-MRI protocol, $488 for US protocol) were based on the assumption that only 12.5% of patients who present with a painful THA receive a single metal work-up (0.875% of all THAs) and that only 12.5% of those patients are eventually revised (0.11% of all THAs). This outcome suggests ceramic femoral heads could be more cost-effective than cobalt-chrome femoral heads under these conservative projections when considering ceramic surplus is already as low as $500 at some high-volume centers. This figure would likely decline further in parallel with widespread growth in demand. Further study on the epidemiology of trunnionosis, corrosion, and metal toxicity in metal-on-polyethylene THA is needed to evaluate the economic validity of this proposal. Nevertheless, the superior safety profile of ceramic femoral heads with regard to metal toxicity indicates that wholesale use in THAs may in fact provide the most economical option on a societal scale.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E362-E366. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

In both elective and revision surgery, removal of retained hardware can be unpredictable. Broken hardware, whether identified before or during surgery, presents a significant challenge. Cases often require enlisting a large variety of equipment and techniques that often result in larger dissection and potential for wider soft-tissue or bony destruction. Broken intramedullary devices, located entirely within the cortices of bone, pose unique challenges.^1,2 Various techniques have been used to remove broken cannulated nails.^1-9 There is, however, a paucity of techniques for removing broken solid nails from within the tibia.^1,2 Moreover, many of these techniques require significant metaphyseal and cortical bone destruction that may compromise the integrity of the long bone.^1,3,9 In this article, we describe a modified technique for removal of a broken solid nail, with minimal cortical bone destruction, in the setting of a tibial nonunion.

Technique

A 23-year-old man presented with a symptomatic valgus nonunion of the tibia, which had been treated with a solid intramedullary 9-mm nail (Orthofix). The patient was taken to the operative theater for nonunion takedown and exchanged reamed intramedullary nailing. The proximal fragment of the anterograde intramedullary nail was removed in standard fashion using the Winquist Universal Extraction Set (Shukla Medical). When threading the extractor into the proximal aspect of the nail, we found it helpful to leave one of the cross-locks in place to prevent nail rotation.¹⁰ Inspection of the removed nail revealed a fracture of the device at the more proximal of 2 distal cross-locks (Figures 1A, 1B, 2).

To remove the distal fragment of the nail, we used a 5.0-mm smooth Steinmann pin. After cross-lock removal, the pin was placed unicortically through the distal medial cortex at the tip of the retained implant. The distal nail fragment was pushed proximally using the pin as a lever with the interposed cortical bone serving as a fulcrum (Figures 3A, 3B).

Discussion

Removal of broken solid intramedullary tibial nails presents orthopedic surgeons with a unique challenge. We have described a technique that modifies and incorporates previously described techniques while exploiting available surgical windows to facilitate hardware removal. This technique obviates the need for further bony and soft-tissue dissection, potentially mitigating surgical morbidity.

Other techniques for removing broken solid intramedullary devices have been reported. Krettek and colleagues⁷ described a technique in which the short distal fragment of a broken solid femoral intramedullary nail was removed with use of retrograde levering through a cortical window just proximal to the articular surface. The same window was then used for anterograde nail removal with a small Hohmann retractor serving as a guide. This technique is limited by the need for a large bony window, which potentially creates a stress riser within the distal segment. In addition, a short, distal nail fragment is required in order to facilitate manipulation through the metaphyseal bone. This technique is more readily used within the distal femur, given the large metaphyseal volume, in contrast with the distal tibial metaphysis. Giannoudis and colleagues¹ described a method (for both tibia and femur) in which the intramedullary canal was proximally reamed to permit retrograde removal of an anterograde nail. The authors described reaming the canal to 4 mm larger than the nail to create access for a cleaning trephine and then a ratcheting extractor. This technique can be easily applied to the tibia or femur but requires special equipment that may not be readily available. Other retrograde techniques for the femur⁸ are not as suitable for the tibia, as they would cause significant chondral damage to the tibiotalar joint.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E352-E354. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

In both elective and revision surgery, removal of retained hardware can be unpredictable. Broken hardware, whether identified before or during surgery, presents a significant challenge. Cases often require enlisting a large variety of equipment and techniques that often result in larger dissection and potential for wider soft-tissue or bony destruction. Broken intramedullary devices, located entirely within the cortices of bone, pose unique challenges.^1,2 Various techniques have been used to remove broken cannulated nails.^1-9 There is, however, a paucity of techniques for removing broken solid nails from within the tibia.^1,2 Moreover, many of these techniques require significant metaphyseal and cortical bone destruction that may compromise the integrity of the long bone.^1,3,9 In this article, we describe a modified technique for removal of a broken solid nail, with minimal cortical bone destruction, in the setting of a tibial nonunion.

Technique

A 23-year-old man presented with a symptomatic valgus nonunion of the tibia, which had been treated with a solid intramedullary 9-mm nail (Orthofix). The patient was taken to the operative theater for nonunion takedown and exchanged reamed intramedullary nailing. The proximal fragment of the anterograde intramedullary nail was removed in standard fashion using the Winquist Universal Extraction Set (Shukla Medical). When threading the extractor into the proximal aspect of the nail, we found it helpful to leave one of the cross-locks in place to prevent nail rotation.¹⁰ Inspection of the removed nail revealed a fracture of the device at the more proximal of 2 distal cross-locks (Figures 1A, 1B, 2).

To remove the distal fragment of the nail, we used a 5.0-mm smooth Steinmann pin. After cross-lock removal, the pin was placed unicortically through the distal medial cortex at the tip of the retained implant. The distal nail fragment was pushed proximally using the pin as a lever with the interposed cortical bone serving as a fulcrum (Figures 3A, 3B).

Discussion

Removal of broken solid intramedullary tibial nails presents orthopedic surgeons with a unique challenge. We have described a technique that modifies and incorporates previously described techniques while exploiting available surgical windows to facilitate hardware removal. This technique obviates the need for further bony and soft-tissue dissection, potentially mitigating surgical morbidity.

Other techniques for removing broken solid intramedullary devices have been reported. Krettek and colleagues⁷ described a technique in which the short distal fragment of a broken solid femoral intramedullary nail was removed with use of retrograde levering through a cortical window just proximal to the articular surface. The same window was then used for anterograde nail removal with a small Hohmann retractor serving as a guide. This technique is limited by the need for a large bony window, which potentially creates a stress riser within the distal segment. In addition, a short, distal nail fragment is required in order to facilitate manipulation through the metaphyseal bone. This technique is more readily used within the distal femur, given the large metaphyseal volume, in contrast with the distal tibial metaphysis. Giannoudis and colleagues¹ described a method (for both tibia and femur) in which the intramedullary canal was proximally reamed to permit retrograde removal of an anterograde nail. The authors described reaming the canal to 4 mm larger than the nail to create access for a cleaning trephine and then a ratcheting extractor. This technique can be easily applied to the tibia or femur but requires special equipment that may not be readily available. Other retrograde techniques for the femur⁸ are not as suitable for the tibia, as they would cause significant chondral damage to the tibiotalar joint.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E352-E354. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

In both elective and revision surgery, removal of retained hardware can be unpredictable. Broken hardware, whether identified before or during surgery, presents a significant challenge. Cases often require enlisting a large variety of equipment and techniques that often result in larger dissection and potential for wider soft-tissue or bony destruction. Broken intramedullary devices, located entirely within the cortices of bone, pose unique challenges.^1,2 Various techniques have been used to remove broken cannulated nails.^1-9 There is, however, a paucity of techniques for removing broken solid nails from within the tibia.^1,2 Moreover, many of these techniques require significant metaphyseal and cortical bone destruction that may compromise the integrity of the long bone.^1,3,9 In this article, we describe a modified technique for removal of a broken solid nail, with minimal cortical bone destruction, in the setting of a tibial nonunion.

Technique

A 23-year-old man presented with a symptomatic valgus nonunion of the tibia, which had been treated with a solid intramedullary 9-mm nail (Orthofix). The patient was taken to the operative theater for nonunion takedown and exchanged reamed intramedullary nailing. The proximal fragment of the anterograde intramedullary nail was removed in standard fashion using the Winquist Universal Extraction Set (Shukla Medical). When threading the extractor into the proximal aspect of the nail, we found it helpful to leave one of the cross-locks in place to prevent nail rotation.¹⁰ Inspection of the removed nail revealed a fracture of the device at the more proximal of 2 distal cross-locks (Figures 1A, 1B, 2).

To remove the distal fragment of the nail, we used a 5.0-mm smooth Steinmann pin. After cross-lock removal, the pin was placed unicortically through the distal medial cortex at the tip of the retained implant. The distal nail fragment was pushed proximally using the pin as a lever with the interposed cortical bone serving as a fulcrum (Figures 3A, 3B).

Discussion

Removal of broken solid intramedullary tibial nails presents orthopedic surgeons with a unique challenge. We have described a technique that modifies and incorporates previously described techniques while exploiting available surgical windows to facilitate hardware removal. This technique obviates the need for further bony and soft-tissue dissection, potentially mitigating surgical morbidity.

Other techniques for removing broken solid intramedullary devices have been reported. Krettek and colleagues⁷ described a technique in which the short distal fragment of a broken solid femoral intramedullary nail was removed with use of retrograde levering through a cortical window just proximal to the articular surface. The same window was then used for anterograde nail removal with a small Hohmann retractor serving as a guide. This technique is limited by the need for a large bony window, which potentially creates a stress riser within the distal segment. In addition, a short, distal nail fragment is required in order to facilitate manipulation through the metaphyseal bone. This technique is more readily used within the distal femur, given the large metaphyseal volume, in contrast with the distal tibial metaphysis. Giannoudis and colleagues¹ described a method (for both tibia and femur) in which the intramedullary canal was proximally reamed to permit retrograde removal of an anterograde nail. The authors described reaming the canal to 4 mm larger than the nail to create access for a cleaning trephine and then a ratcheting extractor. This technique can be easily applied to the tibia or femur but requires special equipment that may not be readily available. Other retrograde techniques for the femur⁸ are not as suitable for the tibia, as they would cause significant chondral damage to the tibiotalar joint.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E352-E354. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are among the most effective surgical procedures in modern medicine. Use of primary THA in the United States is projected to increase by 174% by 2030, to 532,000 cases annually, and the estimate for TKA is even greater.¹ Hospital length of stay (LOS) accounts for a significant portion of the overall cost of these procedures. Reducing LOS to limit costs without compromising patient safety, satisfaction, and outcomes remains the goal at all joint arthroplasty centers. Rapid-recovery or fast-track clinical pathways limiting opioid use and emphasizing patient education and early (day-of-surgery) mobilization have been shown to reduce LOS without compromising patient outcomes.^2-5 Factors correlated with LOS after THA include surgical approach, use of multimodal analgesia, obesity, age, and social situations or living conditions.^4,6-10

Our institution recently implemented a protocol in which certified physical therapists provide accelerated (day-of-surgery) physical therapy (PT) for all total joint arthroplasty patients. For the study reported here, we hypothesized that, compared with PT started on postoperative day 1 (POD-1), PT started day of surgery (Day 0) would result in shorter LOS for unilateral primary THA and TKA patients. In addition, we wanted to evaluate any predischarge differences in function, as measured by gait distance, between the groups.

Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively evaluated use of the new postoperative protocol (Day 0 PT) for primary THA and TKA patients. We reviewed all cases of primary unilateral THA or TKA performed by a single surgeon over the 12-month period immediately following initiation of the protocol. There were 116 THA cases and 126 TKA cases. Charts were reviewed for patient demographics, intraoperative data, in-hospital course, and PT session notes. Patients who had a PT session at any point on day of surgery were designated the Day 0 group, and patients who had PT starting the next day (POD-1) were designated the Non-Day 0 group. Although the medical records showed that Day 0 PT had been ordered in all cases, not all patients received PT on the day of their surgery; the most common reason was that they returned from postanesthesia care after the physical therapists’ work shift had ended. Another reason was patient noncompliance or unwillingness stemming from the prolonged effects of general anesthesia, diminished mental orientation, excess fatigue, or inadequate pain control. PT sessions after THA and TKA remained consistent over the study period, with twice daily sessions directed at patient mobility, range of motion, and gentle strengthening exercise. PT was performed only with patient consent.

Surgery

A combination of general and spinal anesthesia was used in almost all THA and TKA cases. In <5% of cases, either the patient refused spinal anesthesia, or it was unsuccessful. In addition, tranexamic acid was administered to limit blood loss in all THA and TKA cases. Of the 116 THAs performed over the study period, 3 were excluded (see below). Of the 113 patients included in the study, 88 (77.9%) used a minimally invasive posterolateral approach, 18 (15.9%) a direct anterior approach, and 7 (6.2%) an anterolateral approach. All THAs were performed with conventional instruments and uncemented components. All TKAs were performed with a standard medial parapatellar approach, conventional instruments, and a tourniquet; in each case, the patella was resurfaced, and cemented fixation was used. Drains were not used in any THA or TKA cases. A local anesthetic cocktail (100 mL of 0.25% ropivacaine, 15 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine, and 1 mL of 1:1000 epinephrine) was injected for postoperative analgesia in all THA and TKA cases.

There were 3 important intraoperative findings in the THA Day 0 group: 2 cases of incidental gluteus medius tendon tears requiring repair and 1 case of nondisplaced calcar fracture treated with a cerclage cable. The THA Non-Day 0 group and both TKA groups had no major intraoperative findings.

Physical Therapy

Day-of-surgery PT was ordered for all patients. Patients did not receive formal PT before surgery. The PT protocol consisted of subjective assessment of patient condition, expectations, and goals; lower limb strengthening exercises; and maximum gait training with use of an assistive device as tolerated. Standard hip movement restrictions were ordered for posterolateral approach patients to protect the soft-tissue repair. Continuous passive motion (CPM) was not used during this study period.

Discharge Criteria

Patients were cleared for discharge by a multidisciplinary team using several criteria: no medical condition that would require readmission, intact surgical incision without discharge or concerning erythema, adequate analgesia (oral medications), intact neurovascular examination, and PT goals achieved (independence with bed mobility, transfers, standing balance, and minimum gait distance of 150 feet). Patients who could not be discharged home because of family or occupation issues or because of problems with gait or transfer were referred to skilled nursing or home healthcare. Follow-up for wound assessment and for examination of radiographs and functional range of motion was planned for 2 to 3 weeks after surgery (all patients followed up). Two patients, 1 in the THA Non-Day 0 group and 1 in the TKA Day 0 group, had a mechanical fall 1 day before discharge, but there were no complication-related discharge delays. In addition, there were no readmissions during the first 4 weeks after surgery.

Excluded Patients

Of the 116 THA cases, 113 (63 Day 0, 50 Non-Day 0) were analyzed. To establish homogeneity between groups and remove potential confounding factors, we excluded 4 THA patients (all Non-Day 0) from analysis because of medical complications prolonging LOS. In 1 of these cases, the patient developed respiratory insufficiency and myocardial infarction on POD-3, and critical care support was required (LOS, 16 days). In another case, anticoagulation treatment led to the development of a hip hematoma on POD-9 and to treatment (evacuation) in the operating room (LOS, 14 days). The other 2 cases involved exacerbation of dysphagia from preexisting myasthenia gravis (LOS, 5 days) and Ogilvie syndrome, managed conservatively (LOS, 9 days).

Of the 126 TKA cases, 123 (97 Day 0, 26 Non-Day 0) were analyzed. Three TKA patients were excluded because of prolonged hospitalization for medical reasons: One developed a deep vein thrombosis, 1 acquired Clostridium difficile colitis (history of lung transplantation, multiple immunosuppressive drugs), and 1 developed respiratory insufficiency from asthma exacerbation.

Statistical Analysis

Power analysis (G*Power) was used to determine an appropriate sample size for comparison.¹¹ Given a previously published mean LOS after THA of 4 days, the hypothesized mean LOS reducing that by at least 0.5 day to 3.5 days, a significance level set at 5%, a power of test set at 0.95, and an allocation ratio of 1, a minimum of 23 subjects would be needed in each group to attain a statistically significant difference using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess data normality. Regarding statistical significance, the Mann-Whitney U test was used for non-normally distributed data, the 2-sided Fisher exact test and χ² test for qualitative data and contingency, and the 2-tailed, unpaired, independent-samples Student t test for normally distributed data. Data were analyzed with SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 20 (IBM).

Results

TKA and THA patients had similar demographic profiles, types of anesthesia, operating room and surgery times, surgical approaches, and total number of PT sessions before discharge. Estimated blood loss, however, was significantly (P < .05) higher for Non-Day 0 patients than for Non-Day 0 patients (Table 1).

Mean (SD) distance ambulated during first PT session was 2-fold farther (P = .014) for Non-Day 0 patients, 84.1 (10.4) feet, than for Day 0 patients, 42.1 (6.4) feet. On POD-1, mean (SD) gait was significantly (P = .019) longer for Day 0 patients, 162.4 (12.9) feet, than for Non-Day 0 patients, 118 (11.7) feet (Figure 2).

Discussion

Protocols for PT after THA and TKA remain unstandardized and largely dependent on institutions and surgeons. Factors permitting successful implementation of accelerated rehabilitation include patient motivation, adequate analgesia, and adequate support by physical therapists.¹² A potential risk associated with accelerated PT after THA is dislocation, which did not occur in any patient in our Day 0 group. Other risks are increased pain and swelling leading to increased risk of falling and bleeding, which were not observed in our cohort. Although Day 0 PT was ordered in all cases in this study, only 55% of THA patients and 79% of TKA patients received PT the same day as their surgery. The delay can be addressed by making physical therapists’ work shifts more flexible for cases that finish later in the day and by providing preoperative education on the importance of day-of-surgery PT. Dr. Incavo and office staff routinely discuss discharge planning with all patients before surgery, but there was no stimulus protocol or communication to discuss or emphasize LOS with patients before surgery, and there was no questionnaire or survey given to assess patient expectations about PT and discharge.

Our finding of no statistically significant reduction in mean LOS after implementation of accelerated PT for THA or TKA differs from findings in multiple other reports.^4,5,13-17 Baseline or control group mean LOS tended to be higher in previous studies^3,5,18-23 (3.4-11.4 days) than in our control group (2.5 days) (Table 2).

Conclusion

These results provide useful information for providers who are managing primary THA and TKA cases and seeking continual improvement in postoperative patient care and better resource allocation. Hospitals, particularly those operating in bundled-care environments, are increasingly coming under scrutiny to control costs. Our study results showed that the costs associated with Day 0 PT are justified for THA but not for TKA.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E337-E342. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are among the most effective surgical procedures in modern medicine. Use of primary THA in the United States is projected to increase by 174% by 2030, to 532,000 cases annually, and the estimate for TKA is even greater.¹ Hospital length of stay (LOS) accounts for a significant portion of the overall cost of these procedures. Reducing LOS to limit costs without compromising patient safety, satisfaction, and outcomes remains the goal at all joint arthroplasty centers. Rapid-recovery or fast-track clinical pathways limiting opioid use and emphasizing patient education and early (day-of-surgery) mobilization have been shown to reduce LOS without compromising patient outcomes.^2-5 Factors correlated with LOS after THA include surgical approach, use of multimodal analgesia, obesity, age, and social situations or living conditions.^4,6-10

Our institution recently implemented a protocol in which certified physical therapists provide accelerated (day-of-surgery) physical therapy (PT) for all total joint arthroplasty patients. For the study reported here, we hypothesized that, compared with PT started on postoperative day 1 (POD-1), PT started day of surgery (Day 0) would result in shorter LOS for unilateral primary THA and TKA patients. In addition, we wanted to evaluate any predischarge differences in function, as measured by gait distance, between the groups.

Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively evaluated use of the new postoperative protocol (Day 0 PT) for primary THA and TKA patients. We reviewed all cases of primary unilateral THA or TKA performed by a single surgeon over the 12-month period immediately following initiation of the protocol. There were 116 THA cases and 126 TKA cases. Charts were reviewed for patient demographics, intraoperative data, in-hospital course, and PT session notes. Patients who had a PT session at any point on day of surgery were designated the Day 0 group, and patients who had PT starting the next day (POD-1) were designated the Non-Day 0 group. Although the medical records showed that Day 0 PT had been ordered in all cases, not all patients received PT on the day of their surgery; the most common reason was that they returned from postanesthesia care after the physical therapists’ work shift had ended. Another reason was patient noncompliance or unwillingness stemming from the prolonged effects of general anesthesia, diminished mental orientation, excess fatigue, or inadequate pain control. PT sessions after THA and TKA remained consistent over the study period, with twice daily sessions directed at patient mobility, range of motion, and gentle strengthening exercise. PT was performed only with patient consent.

Surgery

A combination of general and spinal anesthesia was used in almost all THA and TKA cases. In <5% of cases, either the patient refused spinal anesthesia, or it was unsuccessful. In addition, tranexamic acid was administered to limit blood loss in all THA and TKA cases. Of the 116 THAs performed over the study period, 3 were excluded (see below). Of the 113 patients included in the study, 88 (77.9%) used a minimally invasive posterolateral approach, 18 (15.9%) a direct anterior approach, and 7 (6.2%) an anterolateral approach. All THAs were performed with conventional instruments and uncemented components. All TKAs were performed with a standard medial parapatellar approach, conventional instruments, and a tourniquet; in each case, the patella was resurfaced, and cemented fixation was used. Drains were not used in any THA or TKA cases. A local anesthetic cocktail (100 mL of 0.25% ropivacaine, 15 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine, and 1 mL of 1:1000 epinephrine) was injected for postoperative analgesia in all THA and TKA cases.

There were 3 important intraoperative findings in the THA Day 0 group: 2 cases of incidental gluteus medius tendon tears requiring repair and 1 case of nondisplaced calcar fracture treated with a cerclage cable. The THA Non-Day 0 group and both TKA groups had no major intraoperative findings.

Physical Therapy

Day-of-surgery PT was ordered for all patients. Patients did not receive formal PT before surgery. The PT protocol consisted of subjective assessment of patient condition, expectations, and goals; lower limb strengthening exercises; and maximum gait training with use of an assistive device as tolerated. Standard hip movement restrictions were ordered for posterolateral approach patients to protect the soft-tissue repair. Continuous passive motion (CPM) was not used during this study period.

Discharge Criteria

Patients were cleared for discharge by a multidisciplinary team using several criteria: no medical condition that would require readmission, intact surgical incision without discharge or concerning erythema, adequate analgesia (oral medications), intact neurovascular examination, and PT goals achieved (independence with bed mobility, transfers, standing balance, and minimum gait distance of 150 feet). Patients who could not be discharged home because of family or occupation issues or because of problems with gait or transfer were referred to skilled nursing or home healthcare. Follow-up for wound assessment and for examination of radiographs and functional range of motion was planned for 2 to 3 weeks after surgery (all patients followed up). Two patients, 1 in the THA Non-Day 0 group and 1 in the TKA Day 0 group, had a mechanical fall 1 day before discharge, but there were no complication-related discharge delays. In addition, there were no readmissions during the first 4 weeks after surgery.

Excluded Patients

Of the 116 THA cases, 113 (63 Day 0, 50 Non-Day 0) were analyzed. To establish homogeneity between groups and remove potential confounding factors, we excluded 4 THA patients (all Non-Day 0) from analysis because of medical complications prolonging LOS. In 1 of these cases, the patient developed respiratory insufficiency and myocardial infarction on POD-3, and critical care support was required (LOS, 16 days). In another case, anticoagulation treatment led to the development of a hip hematoma on POD-9 and to treatment (evacuation) in the operating room (LOS, 14 days). The other 2 cases involved exacerbation of dysphagia from preexisting myasthenia gravis (LOS, 5 days) and Ogilvie syndrome, managed conservatively (LOS, 9 days).

Of the 126 TKA cases, 123 (97 Day 0, 26 Non-Day 0) were analyzed. Three TKA patients were excluded because of prolonged hospitalization for medical reasons: One developed a deep vein thrombosis, 1 acquired Clostridium difficile colitis (history of lung transplantation, multiple immunosuppressive drugs), and 1 developed respiratory insufficiency from asthma exacerbation.

Statistical Analysis

Power analysis (G*Power) was used to determine an appropriate sample size for comparison.¹¹ Given a previously published mean LOS after THA of 4 days, the hypothesized mean LOS reducing that by at least 0.5 day to 3.5 days, a significance level set at 5%, a power of test set at 0.95, and an allocation ratio of 1, a minimum of 23 subjects would be needed in each group to attain a statistically significant difference using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess data normality. Regarding statistical significance, the Mann-Whitney U test was used for non-normally distributed data, the 2-sided Fisher exact test and χ² test for qualitative data and contingency, and the 2-tailed, unpaired, independent-samples Student t test for normally distributed data. Data were analyzed with SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 20 (IBM).

Results

TKA and THA patients had similar demographic profiles, types of anesthesia, operating room and surgery times, surgical approaches, and total number of PT sessions before discharge. Estimated blood loss, however, was significantly (P < .05) higher for Non-Day 0 patients than for Non-Day 0 patients (Table 1).

Mean (SD) distance ambulated during first PT session was 2-fold farther (P = .014) for Non-Day 0 patients, 84.1 (10.4) feet, than for Day 0 patients, 42.1 (6.4) feet. On POD-1, mean (SD) gait was significantly (P = .019) longer for Day 0 patients, 162.4 (12.9) feet, than for Non-Day 0 patients, 118 (11.7) feet (Figure 2).

Discussion

Protocols for PT after THA and TKA remain unstandardized and largely dependent on institutions and surgeons. Factors permitting successful implementation of accelerated rehabilitation include patient motivation, adequate analgesia, and adequate support by physical therapists.¹² A potential risk associated with accelerated PT after THA is dislocation, which did not occur in any patient in our Day 0 group. Other risks are increased pain and swelling leading to increased risk of falling and bleeding, which were not observed in our cohort. Although Day 0 PT was ordered in all cases in this study, only 55% of THA patients and 79% of TKA patients received PT the same day as their surgery. The delay can be addressed by making physical therapists’ work shifts more flexible for cases that finish later in the day and by providing preoperative education on the importance of day-of-surgery PT. Dr. Incavo and office staff routinely discuss discharge planning with all patients before surgery, but there was no stimulus protocol or communication to discuss or emphasize LOS with patients before surgery, and there was no questionnaire or survey given to assess patient expectations about PT and discharge.

Our finding of no statistically significant reduction in mean LOS after implementation of accelerated PT for THA or TKA differs from findings in multiple other reports.^4,5,13-17 Baseline or control group mean LOS tended to be higher in previous studies^3,5,18-23 (3.4-11.4 days) than in our control group (2.5 days) (Table 2).

Conclusion

These results provide useful information for providers who are managing primary THA and TKA cases and seeking continual improvement in postoperative patient care and better resource allocation. Hospitals, particularly those operating in bundled-care environments, are increasingly coming under scrutiny to control costs. Our study results showed that the costs associated with Day 0 PT are justified for THA but not for TKA.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E337-E342. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are among the most effective surgical procedures in modern medicine. Use of primary THA in the United States is projected to increase by 174% by 2030, to 532,000 cases annually, and the estimate for TKA is even greater.¹ Hospital length of stay (LOS) accounts for a significant portion of the overall cost of these procedures. Reducing LOS to limit costs without compromising patient safety, satisfaction, and outcomes remains the goal at all joint arthroplasty centers. Rapid-recovery or fast-track clinical pathways limiting opioid use and emphasizing patient education and early (day-of-surgery) mobilization have been shown to reduce LOS without compromising patient outcomes.^2-5 Factors correlated with LOS after THA include surgical approach, use of multimodal analgesia, obesity, age, and social situations or living conditions.^4,6-10

Our institution recently implemented a protocol in which certified physical therapists provide accelerated (day-of-surgery) physical therapy (PT) for all total joint arthroplasty patients. For the study reported here, we hypothesized that, compared with PT started on postoperative day 1 (POD-1), PT started day of surgery (Day 0) would result in shorter LOS for unilateral primary THA and TKA patients. In addition, we wanted to evaluate any predischarge differences in function, as measured by gait distance, between the groups.

Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively evaluated use of the new postoperative protocol (Day 0 PT) for primary THA and TKA patients. We reviewed all cases of primary unilateral THA or TKA performed by a single surgeon over the 12-month period immediately following initiation of the protocol. There were 116 THA cases and 126 TKA cases. Charts were reviewed for patient demographics, intraoperative data, in-hospital course, and PT session notes. Patients who had a PT session at any point on day of surgery were designated the Day 0 group, and patients who had PT starting the next day (POD-1) were designated the Non-Day 0 group. Although the medical records showed that Day 0 PT had been ordered in all cases, not all patients received PT on the day of their surgery; the most common reason was that they returned from postanesthesia care after the physical therapists’ work shift had ended. Another reason was patient noncompliance or unwillingness stemming from the prolonged effects of general anesthesia, diminished mental orientation, excess fatigue, or inadequate pain control. PT sessions after THA and TKA remained consistent over the study period, with twice daily sessions directed at patient mobility, range of motion, and gentle strengthening exercise. PT was performed only with patient consent.

Surgery

A combination of general and spinal anesthesia was used in almost all THA and TKA cases. In <5% of cases, either the patient refused spinal anesthesia, or it was unsuccessful. In addition, tranexamic acid was administered to limit blood loss in all THA and TKA cases. Of the 116 THAs performed over the study period, 3 were excluded (see below). Of the 113 patients included in the study, 88 (77.9%) used a minimally invasive posterolateral approach, 18 (15.9%) a direct anterior approach, and 7 (6.2%) an anterolateral approach. All THAs were performed with conventional instruments and uncemented components. All TKAs were performed with a standard medial parapatellar approach, conventional instruments, and a tourniquet; in each case, the patella was resurfaced, and cemented fixation was used. Drains were not used in any THA or TKA cases. A local anesthetic cocktail (100 mL of 0.25% ropivacaine, 15 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine, and 1 mL of 1:1000 epinephrine) was injected for postoperative analgesia in all THA and TKA cases.

There were 3 important intraoperative findings in the THA Day 0 group: 2 cases of incidental gluteus medius tendon tears requiring repair and 1 case of nondisplaced calcar fracture treated with a cerclage cable. The THA Non-Day 0 group and both TKA groups had no major intraoperative findings.

Physical Therapy

Day-of-surgery PT was ordered for all patients. Patients did not receive formal PT before surgery. The PT protocol consisted of subjective assessment of patient condition, expectations, and goals; lower limb strengthening exercises; and maximum gait training with use of an assistive device as tolerated. Standard hip movement restrictions were ordered for posterolateral approach patients to protect the soft-tissue repair. Continuous passive motion (CPM) was not used during this study period.

Discharge Criteria

Patients were cleared for discharge by a multidisciplinary team using several criteria: no medical condition that would require readmission, intact surgical incision without discharge or concerning erythema, adequate analgesia (oral medications), intact neurovascular examination, and PT goals achieved (independence with bed mobility, transfers, standing balance, and minimum gait distance of 150 feet). Patients who could not be discharged home because of family or occupation issues or because of problems with gait or transfer were referred to skilled nursing or home healthcare. Follow-up for wound assessment and for examination of radiographs and functional range of motion was planned for 2 to 3 weeks after surgery (all patients followed up). Two patients, 1 in the THA Non-Day 0 group and 1 in the TKA Day 0 group, had a mechanical fall 1 day before discharge, but there were no complication-related discharge delays. In addition, there were no readmissions during the first 4 weeks after surgery.

Excluded Patients

Of the 116 THA cases, 113 (63 Day 0, 50 Non-Day 0) were analyzed. To establish homogeneity between groups and remove potential confounding factors, we excluded 4 THA patients (all Non-Day 0) from analysis because of medical complications prolonging LOS. In 1 of these cases, the patient developed respiratory insufficiency and myocardial infarction on POD-3, and critical care support was required (LOS, 16 days). In another case, anticoagulation treatment led to the development of a hip hematoma on POD-9 and to treatment (evacuation) in the operating room (LOS, 14 days). The other 2 cases involved exacerbation of dysphagia from preexisting myasthenia gravis (LOS, 5 days) and Ogilvie syndrome, managed conservatively (LOS, 9 days).

Of the 126 TKA cases, 123 (97 Day 0, 26 Non-Day 0) were analyzed. Three TKA patients were excluded because of prolonged hospitalization for medical reasons: One developed a deep vein thrombosis, 1 acquired Clostridium difficile colitis (history of lung transplantation, multiple immunosuppressive drugs), and 1 developed respiratory insufficiency from asthma exacerbation.

Statistical Analysis

Power analysis (G*Power) was used to determine an appropriate sample size for comparison.¹¹ Given a previously published mean LOS after THA of 4 days, the hypothesized mean LOS reducing that by at least 0.5 day to 3.5 days, a significance level set at 5%, a power of test set at 0.95, and an allocation ratio of 1, a minimum of 23 subjects would be needed in each group to attain a statistically significant difference using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess data normality. Regarding statistical significance, the Mann-Whitney U test was used for non-normally distributed data, the 2-sided Fisher exact test and χ² test for qualitative data and contingency, and the 2-tailed, unpaired, independent-samples Student t test for normally distributed data. Data were analyzed with SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 20 (IBM).

Results

TKA and THA patients had similar demographic profiles, types of anesthesia, operating room and surgery times, surgical approaches, and total number of PT sessions before discharge. Estimated blood loss, however, was significantly (P < .05) higher for Non-Day 0 patients than for Non-Day 0 patients (Table 1).

Mean (SD) distance ambulated during first PT session was 2-fold farther (P = .014) for Non-Day 0 patients, 84.1 (10.4) feet, than for Day 0 patients, 42.1 (6.4) feet. On POD-1, mean (SD) gait was significantly (P = .019) longer for Day 0 patients, 162.4 (12.9) feet, than for Non-Day 0 patients, 118 (11.7) feet (Figure 2).

Discussion

Protocols for PT after THA and TKA remain unstandardized and largely dependent on institutions and surgeons. Factors permitting successful implementation of accelerated rehabilitation include patient motivation, adequate analgesia, and adequate support by physical therapists.¹² A potential risk associated with accelerated PT after THA is dislocation, which did not occur in any patient in our Day 0 group. Other risks are increased pain and swelling leading to increased risk of falling and bleeding, which were not observed in our cohort. Although Day 0 PT was ordered in all cases in this study, only 55% of THA patients and 79% of TKA patients received PT the same day as their surgery. The delay can be addressed by making physical therapists’ work shifts more flexible for cases that finish later in the day and by providing preoperative education on the importance of day-of-surgery PT. Dr. Incavo and office staff routinely discuss discharge planning with all patients before surgery, but there was no stimulus protocol or communication to discuss or emphasize LOS with patients before surgery, and there was no questionnaire or survey given to assess patient expectations about PT and discharge.

Our finding of no statistically significant reduction in mean LOS after implementation of accelerated PT for THA or TKA differs from findings in multiple other reports.^4,5,13-17 Baseline or control group mean LOS tended to be higher in previous studies^3,5,18-23 (3.4-11.4 days) than in our control group (2.5 days) (Table 2).

Conclusion

These results provide useful information for providers who are managing primary THA and TKA cases and seeking continual improvement in postoperative patient care and better resource allocation. Hospitals, particularly those operating in bundled-care environments, are increasingly coming under scrutiny to control costs. Our study results showed that the costs associated with Day 0 PT are justified for THA but not for TKA.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E337-E342. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Septic arthritis predominantly involves the weight-bearing joints of the hip and knee, which account for nearly 60% of cases.¹ In contrast, the shoulder joint is involved in 10% to 15% of cases, though this number may be higher among intravenous (IV) drug users.² The most common causative organisms are the Staphylococcus species, followed closely by β-hemolytic streptococci, with these 2 groups accounting for more than 90% of all cases.³ The Streptococcus viridans group belongs to normal oral flora residing predominantly on the surface of teeth. Although well known for its ability to colonize heart valves and frequently cause bacterial endocarditis, this group has rarely been associated with septic arthritis. Furthermore, Streptococcus mitis, a subgroup of S viridans, has been implicated even less commonly.

In this article, we report a case of glenohumeral joint septic arthritis caused by S mitis. To our knowledge, such a case has not been previously reported in the English literature. Given the low virulence of this orally based bacterium, treating physicians must maintain clinical suspicion for the organism in the setting of persistent joint effusion and pain in association with periodontal disease or trauma. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A right-hand-dominant 54-year-old man presented to Dr. Gruson with complaints of persistent right shoulder pain associated with worsening range of motion (ROM). Three weeks earlier, the patient reported being assaulted and noted progressive swelling about the right shoulder. He denied fevers, chills, or prior shoulder problems. Although his past medical history was remarkable for hepatitis C and diabetes, he was not taking any diabetic medications at that time. A review of systems was remarkable for poor dental hygiene, and the patient was missing several teeth, which he said had been knocked out during the assault. Physical examination revealed diffuse tenderness about the right shoulder and severe pain with all passive movement. The shoulder was pseudoparalyzed. There were no subcutaneous collections, wounds, or ecchymosis about the shoulder. Mild calor was noted on the right shoulder relative to the left. Radiographs of the right shoulder showed no acute osseous abnormalities.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which was urgently obtained to assess the integrity of the rotator cuff and the location of the effusion, showed a large subacromial and glenohumeral joint effusion as well as diffuse muscular edema (Figures 1A-1C).

Discussion

Staphylococcus aureus is the leading causative organism of septic arthritis, accounting for more than 60% of all cases.⁴ Conversely, the Streptococcus viridans group is rarely implicated in septic arthritis, accounting for <1% of cases.⁴S viridans is part of the commensal oral flora and has low virulence. This heterogeneous group is subdivided into S mitis, S salivarius, S anginosus, S mutans, and S bovis. The S mitis group is further subdivided into S sanguinis (formerly known as S sanguis) and S mitis. Infection by an organism of the S viridans group usually occurs on a previously injured focus, and the organism is a causative agent of bacterial endocarditis.⁵ Reported cases of septic arthritis caused by S viridans have predominantly involved the knee joint—with severe osteoarthritis, poor dental hygiene, and prior IV drug use identified as risk factors.^5-7The shoulder joint is seldom involved in septic arthritis; estimated incidence is under 8%.⁸ Although overall incidence may rise in an increasingly elderly patient population, incidence of shoulder infection remains low.^2,9

The main routes for developing septic arthritis include direct inoculation secondary to penetrating trauma or hematologic spread.¹⁰ Coatsworth and colleagues¹¹ reported on iatrogenic S mitis septic arthritis of a shoulder arthroplasty during ultrasonography-guided aspiration by a technician who was not wearing a mask. Our institutional policy is to perform joint aspiration under strictly sterile conditions, which were adhered to in the present case. We surmise our patient developed transient bacteremia from the loss of several teeth, particularly given his poor dentition. Yombi and colleagues⁵ documented 2 cases of septic arthritis caused by Streptococcus gordonii, a relative of S sanguinis. One involved a previously replaced knee, and the other a native knee joint. Other cases of S viridans group septic arthritis have involved the knee,^6,7,12,13 the sternoclavicular joint,^14-16 and the acromioclavicular joint.¹⁷S sanguinis^6,7,12,15,16 and S gordonii⁵ have been implicated in most cases, and an unspeciated S viridans in others.^13,14,17 Concomitant periodontal disease has been reported in most cases as well,^6,7,12,15 including our patient’s case. In the English-language literature, we found no other reports of S mitis as the causative agent of acute septic glenohumeral joint arthritis from hematogenous spread.

There should be no delay in diagnosing septic arthritis, and infected material should be removed from the joint. In animal models, complete joint destruction occurred only 5 weeks after inoculation with Staphylococcus aureus.¹⁰ Garofalo and colleagues¹⁸ reported a trend toward improved functional outcomes after earlier operative treatment. The choice of open surgical drainage vs repeat needle aspiration seems to be of little consequence, as both have good long-term outcomes, but open surgical drainage seems to result in better long-term functional ROM.^2,9 However, results of a recent study suggested surgical treatment is not always superior to medical treatment for septic arthritis in native joints.¹⁹ In some cases involving S viridans species, treatment consisted of a combination of IV antibiotics and onetime or repeat aspiration;^6,12-15 treatment in the remaining cases was surgical débridement.^5,7,16,17 Given that S viridans is associated with bacterial endocarditis, echocardiography is essential if this organism is to be identified. Medical management and antibiotic treatment should be initiated after consultation with medical and infectious disease specialists.¹⁹We have reported a case of septic shoulder caused by S mitis, a low-virulence organism seldom associated with joint infection. The patient’s infection likely resulted from hematogenous spread from the oral cavity (dentition was poor). Urgent aspiration of the joint and baseline infection laboratory tests are recommended. MRI of the shoulder may show an effusion. Urgent arthroscopic irrigation and débridement can yield good clinical outcomes.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E343-E346. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Septic arthritis predominantly involves the weight-bearing joints of the hip and knee, which account for nearly 60% of cases.¹ In contrast, the shoulder joint is involved in 10% to 15% of cases, though this number may be higher among intravenous (IV) drug users.² The most common causative organisms are the Staphylococcus species, followed closely by β-hemolytic streptococci, with these 2 groups accounting for more than 90% of all cases.³ The Streptococcus viridans group belongs to normal oral flora residing predominantly on the surface of teeth. Although well known for its ability to colonize heart valves and frequently cause bacterial endocarditis, this group has rarely been associated with septic arthritis. Furthermore, Streptococcus mitis, a subgroup of S viridans, has been implicated even less commonly.

In this article, we report a case of glenohumeral joint septic arthritis caused by S mitis. To our knowledge, such a case has not been previously reported in the English literature. Given the low virulence of this orally based bacterium, treating physicians must maintain clinical suspicion for the organism in the setting of persistent joint effusion and pain in association with periodontal disease or trauma. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A right-hand-dominant 54-year-old man presented to Dr. Gruson with complaints of persistent right shoulder pain associated with worsening range of motion (ROM). Three weeks earlier, the patient reported being assaulted and noted progressive swelling about the right shoulder. He denied fevers, chills, or prior shoulder problems. Although his past medical history was remarkable for hepatitis C and diabetes, he was not taking any diabetic medications at that time. A review of systems was remarkable for poor dental hygiene, and the patient was missing several teeth, which he said had been knocked out during the assault. Physical examination revealed diffuse tenderness about the right shoulder and severe pain with all passive movement. The shoulder was pseudoparalyzed. There were no subcutaneous collections, wounds, or ecchymosis about the shoulder. Mild calor was noted on the right shoulder relative to the left. Radiographs of the right shoulder showed no acute osseous abnormalities.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which was urgently obtained to assess the integrity of the rotator cuff and the location of the effusion, showed a large subacromial and glenohumeral joint effusion as well as diffuse muscular edema (Figures 1A-1C).

Discussion

Staphylococcus aureus is the leading causative organism of septic arthritis, accounting for more than 60% of all cases.⁴ Conversely, the Streptococcus viridans group is rarely implicated in septic arthritis, accounting for <1% of cases.⁴S viridans is part of the commensal oral flora and has low virulence. This heterogeneous group is subdivided into S mitis, S salivarius, S anginosus, S mutans, and S bovis. The S mitis group is further subdivided into S sanguinis (formerly known as S sanguis) and S mitis. Infection by an organism of the S viridans group usually occurs on a previously injured focus, and the organism is a causative agent of bacterial endocarditis.⁵ Reported cases of septic arthritis caused by S viridans have predominantly involved the knee joint—with severe osteoarthritis, poor dental hygiene, and prior IV drug use identified as risk factors.^5-7The shoulder joint is seldom involved in septic arthritis; estimated incidence is under 8%.⁸ Although overall incidence may rise in an increasingly elderly patient population, incidence of shoulder infection remains low.^2,9

The main routes for developing septic arthritis include direct inoculation secondary to penetrating trauma or hematologic spread.¹⁰ Coatsworth and colleagues¹¹ reported on iatrogenic S mitis septic arthritis of a shoulder arthroplasty during ultrasonography-guided aspiration by a technician who was not wearing a mask. Our institutional policy is to perform joint aspiration under strictly sterile conditions, which were adhered to in the present case. We surmise our patient developed transient bacteremia from the loss of several teeth, particularly given his poor dentition. Yombi and colleagues⁵ documented 2 cases of septic arthritis caused by Streptococcus gordonii, a relative of S sanguinis. One involved a previously replaced knee, and the other a native knee joint. Other cases of S viridans group septic arthritis have involved the knee,^6,7,12,13 the sternoclavicular joint,^14-16 and the acromioclavicular joint.¹⁷S sanguinis^6,7,12,15,16 and S gordonii⁵ have been implicated in most cases, and an unspeciated S viridans in others.^13,14,17 Concomitant periodontal disease has been reported in most cases as well,^6,7,12,15 including our patient’s case. In the English-language literature, we found no other reports of S mitis as the causative agent of acute septic glenohumeral joint arthritis from hematogenous spread.

There should be no delay in diagnosing septic arthritis, and infected material should be removed from the joint. In animal models, complete joint destruction occurred only 5 weeks after inoculation with Staphylococcus aureus.¹⁰ Garofalo and colleagues¹⁸ reported a trend toward improved functional outcomes after earlier operative treatment. The choice of open surgical drainage vs repeat needle aspiration seems to be of little consequence, as both have good long-term outcomes, but open surgical drainage seems to result in better long-term functional ROM.^2,9 However, results of a recent study suggested surgical treatment is not always superior to medical treatment for septic arthritis in native joints.¹⁹ In some cases involving S viridans species, treatment consisted of a combination of IV antibiotics and onetime or repeat aspiration;^6,12-15 treatment in the remaining cases was surgical débridement.^5,7,16,17 Given that S viridans is associated with bacterial endocarditis, echocardiography is essential if this organism is to be identified. Medical management and antibiotic treatment should be initiated after consultation with medical and infectious disease specialists.¹⁹We have reported a case of septic shoulder caused by S mitis, a low-virulence organism seldom associated with joint infection. The patient’s infection likely resulted from hematogenous spread from the oral cavity (dentition was poor). Urgent aspiration of the joint and baseline infection laboratory tests are recommended. MRI of the shoulder may show an effusion. Urgent arthroscopic irrigation and débridement can yield good clinical outcomes.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E343-E346. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Septic arthritis predominantly involves the weight-bearing joints of the hip and knee, which account for nearly 60% of cases.¹ In contrast, the shoulder joint is involved in 10% to 15% of cases, though this number may be higher among intravenous (IV) drug users.² The most common causative organisms are the Staphylococcus species, followed closely by β-hemolytic streptococci, with these 2 groups accounting for more than 90% of all cases.³ The Streptococcus viridans group belongs to normal oral flora residing predominantly on the surface of teeth. Although well known for its ability to colonize heart valves and frequently cause bacterial endocarditis, this group has rarely been associated with septic arthritis. Furthermore, Streptococcus mitis, a subgroup of S viridans, has been implicated even less commonly.

In this article, we report a case of glenohumeral joint septic arthritis caused by S mitis. To our knowledge, such a case has not been previously reported in the English literature. Given the low virulence of this orally based bacterium, treating physicians must maintain clinical suspicion for the organism in the setting of persistent joint effusion and pain in association with periodontal disease or trauma. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A right-hand-dominant 54-year-old man presented to Dr. Gruson with complaints of persistent right shoulder pain associated with worsening range of motion (ROM). Three weeks earlier, the patient reported being assaulted and noted progressive swelling about the right shoulder. He denied fevers, chills, or prior shoulder problems. Although his past medical history was remarkable for hepatitis C and diabetes, he was not taking any diabetic medications at that time. A review of systems was remarkable for poor dental hygiene, and the patient was missing several teeth, which he said had been knocked out during the assault. Physical examination revealed diffuse tenderness about the right shoulder and severe pain with all passive movement. The shoulder was pseudoparalyzed. There were no subcutaneous collections, wounds, or ecchymosis about the shoulder. Mild calor was noted on the right shoulder relative to the left. Radiographs of the right shoulder showed no acute osseous abnormalities.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which was urgently obtained to assess the integrity of the rotator cuff and the location of the effusion, showed a large subacromial and glenohumeral joint effusion as well as diffuse muscular edema (Figures 1A-1C).

Discussion

Staphylococcus aureus is the leading causative organism of septic arthritis, accounting for more than 60% of all cases.⁴ Conversely, the Streptococcus viridans group is rarely implicated in septic arthritis, accounting for <1% of cases.⁴S viridans is part of the commensal oral flora and has low virulence. This heterogeneous group is subdivided into S mitis, S salivarius, S anginosus, S mutans, and S bovis. The S mitis group is further subdivided into S sanguinis (formerly known as S sanguis) and S mitis. Infection by an organism of the S viridans group usually occurs on a previously injured focus, and the organism is a causative agent of bacterial endocarditis.⁵ Reported cases of septic arthritis caused by S viridans have predominantly involved the knee joint—with severe osteoarthritis, poor dental hygiene, and prior IV drug use identified as risk factors.^5-7The shoulder joint is seldom involved in septic arthritis; estimated incidence is under 8%.⁸ Although overall incidence may rise in an increasingly elderly patient population, incidence of shoulder infection remains low.^2,9

The main routes for developing septic arthritis include direct inoculation secondary to penetrating trauma or hematologic spread.¹⁰ Coatsworth and colleagues¹¹ reported on iatrogenic S mitis septic arthritis of a shoulder arthroplasty during ultrasonography-guided aspiration by a technician who was not wearing a mask. Our institutional policy is to perform joint aspiration under strictly sterile conditions, which were adhered to in the present case. We surmise our patient developed transient bacteremia from the loss of several teeth, particularly given his poor dentition. Yombi and colleagues⁵ documented 2 cases of septic arthritis caused by Streptococcus gordonii, a relative of S sanguinis. One involved a previously replaced knee, and the other a native knee joint. Other cases of S viridans group septic arthritis have involved the knee,^6,7,12,13 the sternoclavicular joint,^14-16 and the acromioclavicular joint.¹⁷S sanguinis^6,7,12,15,16 and S gordonii⁵ have been implicated in most cases, and an unspeciated S viridans in others.^13,14,17 Concomitant periodontal disease has been reported in most cases as well,^6,7,12,15 including our patient’s case. In the English-language literature, we found no other reports of S mitis as the causative agent of acute septic glenohumeral joint arthritis from hematogenous spread.

There should be no delay in diagnosing septic arthritis, and infected material should be removed from the joint. In animal models, complete joint destruction occurred only 5 weeks after inoculation with Staphylococcus aureus.¹⁰ Garofalo and colleagues¹⁸ reported a trend toward improved functional outcomes after earlier operative treatment. The choice of open surgical drainage vs repeat needle aspiration seems to be of little consequence, as both have good long-term outcomes, but open surgical drainage seems to result in better long-term functional ROM.^2,9 However, results of a recent study suggested surgical treatment is not always superior to medical treatment for septic arthritis in native joints.¹⁹ In some cases involving S viridans species, treatment consisted of a combination of IV antibiotics and onetime or repeat aspiration;^6,12-15 treatment in the remaining cases was surgical débridement.^5,7,16,17 Given that S viridans is associated with bacterial endocarditis, echocardiography is essential if this organism is to be identified. Medical management and antibiotic treatment should be initiated after consultation with medical and infectious disease specialists.¹⁹We have reported a case of septic shoulder caused by S mitis, a low-virulence organism seldom associated with joint infection. The patient’s infection likely resulted from hematogenous spread from the oral cavity (dentition was poor). Urgent aspiration of the joint and baseline infection laboratory tests are recommended. MRI of the shoulder may show an effusion. Urgent arthroscopic irrigation and débridement can yield good clinical outcomes.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E343-E346. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

People who develop knee pain associated with osteoarthritis often subsequently develop pain in other joints, according to a study of two observational, community-based cohorts that could not discern any pattern of new pain sites.

In the “first investigation of the association of knee pain with pain in multiple other sites,” David T. Felson, MD, of Boston University and his colleagues reported that the regions where pain developed after first appearing in the knee varied from person to person and occurred in both upper and lower extremities, which goes against the hypothesis that adjacent joints are most often affected by knee pain.

The study involved patients from the MOST (Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study) trial, including 281 with knee pain at the index visit (168 unilaterally) and 852 without, as well as patients from OAI (the Osteoarthritis Initiative), including 412 with knee pain at the index visit (241 unilaterally), and 1,941 without. The investigators assessed the patients’ data for 14 total joints outside of the knees: 2 each of feet, ankles, hips, hands, wrists, elbows, and shoulders (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Sep 2. doi: 10.1002/art.39848).

Patients with new-onset knee pain at the index visit reported a mean of 2.3 painful joints outside the knee, compared with a significantly lower number of 1.3 reported by those without knee pain. The mean number of nonknee joints with pain was higher among patients with bilateral knee pain, compared with unilateral knee pain. The percentage of patients who reported pain outside the knee rose with the number of painful knees: 80% for two, 64% for one, and 50% for none.

The patients who developed new unilateral knee pain at the index visit also experienced an increase in prevalent joint pain in multiple joints in upper- and lower-extremity sites. In particular, the investigators noted that ipsilateral prevalent hip joint pain, which they characterized as pain in the groin or front of the thigh, was more than twice as likely to occur among those with new unilateral knee pain at the index visit, but the odds for contralateral hip joint pain did not reach statistical significance. The comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, depression at the index visit, study (MOST or OAI), and count of painful upper and lower limb joints at the index visit (excluding knees).

When examining only patients with new-onset joint pain outside of the knee, the odds of patients with new knee pain to later develop new-onset joint pain outside the knee were 30% higher than for those without knee pain. Patients with new knee pain had a mean 2.6 new painful joints out of 12.1 eligible joints, compared with 2.0 new painful joints in those without knee pain out of 12.7 eligible joints. (Joint regions with prevalent symptoms at the index visit were excluded as incident painful sites.) Patients with knee pain also had a consistently higher rate of new-onset pain in nonknee joints when compared with patients without knee pain in at least half of the follow-up visits over the course of the MOST and OAI studies. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the association between knee pain and subsequent pain in other joints was not driven by the inclusion of patients with widespread pain.

“There was no clear-cut predilection for pain in any specific lower-extremity joint region,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators noted that other researchers have suggested that patients with knee pain may be at higher risk for lower-extremity joint pain because of changes to their gait that gradually cause damage to other joints, but evidence in this study doesn’t “necessarily support the argument that in persons with knee pain, aberrant loading by altered movement patterns induces pain in only nearby joints. Our findings suggest that the sites affected are more than just hip and ankle and that there is no special predilection for pain in these locations.”

While the investigators cannot differentiate underlying mechanisms for their study’s finding of multiple co-occurring sites of joint pain in people with new-onset knee pain, they suggested that it “supports either a predilection for osteoarthritic changes at multiple joint sites and/or raises the possibility that nervous system–driven pain sensitization increases the risk not only of widespread pain but even of regional pain. Since symptomatic OA is unusual in some of these painful sites (e.g., elbow, shoulder, ankle), pain sensitization would seem a more likely explanation.”

Some of the study’s limitations described by the investigators included the uncertainty surrounding whether new-onset knee pain was truly new onset or whether it was a reoccurrence, and also the fact that most of the people in the two cohorts had multiple sites of joint pain at both the baseline and the index visit and there were too few people with no sites of pain outside the knee to carry out subanalyses in that group, which “speaks to the high prevalence of multiple joint pains in older adult cohorts.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures to report.

[email protected]

People who develop knee pain associated with osteoarthritis often subsequently develop pain in other joints, according to a study of two observational, community-based cohorts that could not discern any pattern of new pain sites.

In the “first investigation of the association of knee pain with pain in multiple other sites,” David T. Felson, MD, of Boston University and his colleagues reported that the regions where pain developed after first appearing in the knee varied from person to person and occurred in both upper and lower extremities, which goes against the hypothesis that adjacent joints are most often affected by knee pain.

The study involved patients from the MOST (Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study) trial, including 281 with knee pain at the index visit (168 unilaterally) and 852 without, as well as patients from OAI (the Osteoarthritis Initiative), including 412 with knee pain at the index visit (241 unilaterally), and 1,941 without. The investigators assessed the patients’ data for 14 total joints outside of the knees: 2 each of feet, ankles, hips, hands, wrists, elbows, and shoulders (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Sep 2. doi: 10.1002/art.39848).

Patients with new-onset knee pain at the index visit reported a mean of 2.3 painful joints outside the knee, compared with a significantly lower number of 1.3 reported by those without knee pain. The mean number of nonknee joints with pain was higher among patients with bilateral knee pain, compared with unilateral knee pain. The percentage of patients who reported pain outside the knee rose with the number of painful knees: 80% for two, 64% for one, and 50% for none.

The patients who developed new unilateral knee pain at the index visit also experienced an increase in prevalent joint pain in multiple joints in upper- and lower-extremity sites. In particular, the investigators noted that ipsilateral prevalent hip joint pain, which they characterized as pain in the groin or front of the thigh, was more than twice as likely to occur among those with new unilateral knee pain at the index visit, but the odds for contralateral hip joint pain did not reach statistical significance. The comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, depression at the index visit, study (MOST or OAI), and count of painful upper and lower limb joints at the index visit (excluding knees).

When examining only patients with new-onset joint pain outside of the knee, the odds of patients with new knee pain to later develop new-onset joint pain outside the knee were 30% higher than for those without knee pain. Patients with new knee pain had a mean 2.6 new painful joints out of 12.1 eligible joints, compared with 2.0 new painful joints in those without knee pain out of 12.7 eligible joints. (Joint regions with prevalent symptoms at the index visit were excluded as incident painful sites.) Patients with knee pain also had a consistently higher rate of new-onset pain in nonknee joints when compared with patients without knee pain in at least half of the follow-up visits over the course of the MOST and OAI studies. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the association between knee pain and subsequent pain in other joints was not driven by the inclusion of patients with widespread pain.

“There was no clear-cut predilection for pain in any specific lower-extremity joint region,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators noted that other researchers have suggested that patients with knee pain may be at higher risk for lower-extremity joint pain because of changes to their gait that gradually cause damage to other joints, but evidence in this study doesn’t “necessarily support the argument that in persons with knee pain, aberrant loading by altered movement patterns induces pain in only nearby joints. Our findings suggest that the sites affected are more than just hip and ankle and that there is no special predilection for pain in these locations.”

While the investigators cannot differentiate underlying mechanisms for their study’s finding of multiple co-occurring sites of joint pain in people with new-onset knee pain, they suggested that it “supports either a predilection for osteoarthritic changes at multiple joint sites and/or raises the possibility that nervous system–driven pain sensitization increases the risk not only of widespread pain but even of regional pain. Since symptomatic OA is unusual in some of these painful sites (e.g., elbow, shoulder, ankle), pain sensitization would seem a more likely explanation.”

Some of the study’s limitations described by the investigators included the uncertainty surrounding whether new-onset knee pain was truly new onset or whether it was a reoccurrence, and also the fact that most of the people in the two cohorts had multiple sites of joint pain at both the baseline and the index visit and there were too few people with no sites of pain outside the knee to carry out subanalyses in that group, which “speaks to the high prevalence of multiple joint pains in older adult cohorts.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures to report.

[email protected]

People who develop knee pain associated with osteoarthritis often subsequently develop pain in other joints, according to a study of two observational, community-based cohorts that could not discern any pattern of new pain sites.

In the “first investigation of the association of knee pain with pain in multiple other sites,” David T. Felson, MD, of Boston University and his colleagues reported that the regions where pain developed after first appearing in the knee varied from person to person and occurred in both upper and lower extremities, which goes against the hypothesis that adjacent joints are most often affected by knee pain.

The study involved patients from the MOST (Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study) trial, including 281 with knee pain at the index visit (168 unilaterally) and 852 without, as well as patients from OAI (the Osteoarthritis Initiative), including 412 with knee pain at the index visit (241 unilaterally), and 1,941 without. The investigators assessed the patients’ data for 14 total joints outside of the knees: 2 each of feet, ankles, hips, hands, wrists, elbows, and shoulders (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Sep 2. doi: 10.1002/art.39848).

Patients with new-onset knee pain at the index visit reported a mean of 2.3 painful joints outside the knee, compared with a significantly lower number of 1.3 reported by those without knee pain. The mean number of nonknee joints with pain was higher among patients with bilateral knee pain, compared with unilateral knee pain. The percentage of patients who reported pain outside the knee rose with the number of painful knees: 80% for two, 64% for one, and 50% for none.

The patients who developed new unilateral knee pain at the index visit also experienced an increase in prevalent joint pain in multiple joints in upper- and lower-extremity sites. In particular, the investigators noted that ipsilateral prevalent hip joint pain, which they characterized as pain in the groin or front of the thigh, was more than twice as likely to occur among those with new unilateral knee pain at the index visit, but the odds for contralateral hip joint pain did not reach statistical significance. The comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, depression at the index visit, study (MOST or OAI), and count of painful upper and lower limb joints at the index visit (excluding knees).

When examining only patients with new-onset joint pain outside of the knee, the odds of patients with new knee pain to later develop new-onset joint pain outside the knee were 30% higher than for those without knee pain. Patients with new knee pain had a mean 2.6 new painful joints out of 12.1 eligible joints, compared with 2.0 new painful joints in those without knee pain out of 12.7 eligible joints. (Joint regions with prevalent symptoms at the index visit were excluded as incident painful sites.) Patients with knee pain also had a consistently higher rate of new-onset pain in nonknee joints when compared with patients without knee pain in at least half of the follow-up visits over the course of the MOST and OAI studies. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the association between knee pain and subsequent pain in other joints was not driven by the inclusion of patients with widespread pain.

“There was no clear-cut predilection for pain in any specific lower-extremity joint region,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators noted that other researchers have suggested that patients with knee pain may be at higher risk for lower-extremity joint pain because of changes to their gait that gradually cause damage to other joints, but evidence in this study doesn’t “necessarily support the argument that in persons with knee pain, aberrant loading by altered movement patterns induces pain in only nearby joints. Our findings suggest that the sites affected are more than just hip and ankle and that there is no special predilection for pain in these locations.”

While the investigators cannot differentiate underlying mechanisms for their study’s finding of multiple co-occurring sites of joint pain in people with new-onset knee pain, they suggested that it “supports either a predilection for osteoarthritic changes at multiple joint sites and/or raises the possibility that nervous system–driven pain sensitization increases the risk not only of widespread pain but even of regional pain. Since symptomatic OA is unusual in some of these painful sites (e.g., elbow, shoulder, ankle), pain sensitization would seem a more likely explanation.”

Some of the study’s limitations described by the investigators included the uncertainty surrounding whether new-onset knee pain was truly new onset or whether it was a reoccurrence, and also the fact that most of the people in the two cohorts had multiple sites of joint pain at both the baseline and the index visit and there were too few people with no sites of pain outside the knee to carry out subanalyses in that group, which “speaks to the high prevalence of multiple joint pains in older adult cohorts.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures to report.

[email protected]

Knee and hip replacement surgeries were more expensive in the United States than in a group of six other industrialized countries in 2014, according to a report from the International Federation of Health Plans.

The U.S. average for total hospital and physician costs was $28,184 for knee replacement and $29,067 for hip replacement. Switzerland was the next most expensive country for knee replacements at $20,132, and Australia was second for hip replacements at $19,484. Spain had the lowest average cost for both surgeries: $6,687 for knee replacement and $6,757 for hip replacement, the IFHP reported.

“We look at these numbers every year and it’s always a shocking demonstration of how much procedures and prescription drugs actually cost,” IFHP Chief Executive Tom Sackville said in a written statement. “There is no reason why identical procedures and products should vary in price so much across countries: it illustrates the damaging effects of an inadequately regulated health care market.”

The IFHP consists of 80 member companies in 25 countries. For the survey, costs for each country were submitted by participating member plans. Costs for the United States are derived from over 370 million employer-sponsored medical claims incurred from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 31, 2014, and paid by multiple health plans. Cost data for the other six countries were provided by one private plan in each country.

[email protected]

Knee and hip replacement surgeries were more expensive in the United States than in a group of six other industrialized countries in 2014, according to a report from the International Federation of Health Plans.

The U.S. average for total hospital and physician costs was $28,184 for knee replacement and $29,067 for hip replacement. Switzerland was the next most expensive country for knee replacements at $20,132, and Australia was second for hip replacements at $19,484. Spain had the lowest average cost for both surgeries: $6,687 for knee replacement and $6,757 for hip replacement, the IFHP reported.

“We look at these numbers every year and it’s always a shocking demonstration of how much procedures and prescription drugs actually cost,” IFHP Chief Executive Tom Sackville said in a written statement. “There is no reason why identical procedures and products should vary in price so much across countries: it illustrates the damaging effects of an inadequately regulated health care market.”

The IFHP consists of 80 member companies in 25 countries. For the survey, costs for each country were submitted by participating member plans. Costs for the United States are derived from over 370 million employer-sponsored medical claims incurred from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 31, 2014, and paid by multiple health plans. Cost data for the other six countries were provided by one private plan in each country.

[email protected]

Knee and hip replacement surgeries were more expensive in the United States than in a group of six other industrialized countries in 2014, according to a report from the International Federation of Health Plans.

The U.S. average for total hospital and physician costs was $28,184 for knee replacement and $29,067 for hip replacement. Switzerland was the next most expensive country for knee replacements at $20,132, and Australia was second for hip replacements at $19,484. Spain had the lowest average cost for both surgeries: $6,687 for knee replacement and $6,757 for hip replacement, the IFHP reported.

“We look at these numbers every year and it’s always a shocking demonstration of how much procedures and prescription drugs actually cost,” IFHP Chief Executive Tom Sackville said in a written statement. “There is no reason why identical procedures and products should vary in price so much across countries: it illustrates the damaging effects of an inadequately regulated health care market.”

The IFHP consists of 80 member companies in 25 countries. For the survey, costs for each country were submitted by participating member plans. Costs for the United States are derived from over 370 million employer-sponsored medical claims incurred from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 31, 2014, and paid by multiple health plans. Cost data for the other six countries were provided by one private plan in each country.

[email protected]

There is a paucity of literature on how mechanism of injury may be associated with patient retention. Failure to attend outpatient clinics is a form of noncompliance and a major obstacle to safe, effective, and efficient healthcare delivery. Noncompliance may lead to increased patient morbidity and carries substantial financial implications for the healthcare system.^1,2 In addition to these direct patient and healthcare issues, loss of patient follow-up or the belief of potential loss of follow-up of penetrating trauma patients may also significantly affect research studies. These patients often may be excluded from studies, even if they might otherwise meet inclusion criteria, because of concerns that they are unlikely to follow-up after leaving hospital. Is this myth or fact? To validate or to disprove this selection bias, we conducted a study in which we retrospectively evaluated long bone fractures caused by either penetrating or blunt trauma.

Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval for this study, we used the trauma database of an American College of Surgeons–verified level I trauma center in a major Midwest metropolitan area to compile a list of all cases of long bone fractures caused by penetrating trauma between 2006 and 2009 (N = 132). Gunshot wounds were the mechanism of injury for the penetrating trauma. We also compiled a list of control cases—long bone fractures caused by blunt trauma in patients demographically matched to the penetrating group patients on sex, race, and age (N = 104) (Table).

We retrospectively performed chart reviews to obtain patient follow-up data 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after injury from penetrating or blunt trauma. Patients scheduled to return on an as-needed basis were considered to have completed follow-up. The 2 groups were also statistically compared with respect to sex, race, age, surgical fixation, and history of tobacco, alcohol, or drug use.

SAS/STAT Version 8 (SAS Institute) was used to test the equality of survival functions (patient retention) for the penetrating and blunt trauma patient groups. A similar comparison was made for the categories of sex, race, and age. Pearson χ² test was used to compare the 12-month survival rates of the 2 treatment groups across sex and race. Binary logistic regression was used to compare the 12-month survival rates of the 2 treatment groups removing the effect of age. A comparison of the frequency distributions of the 2 treatment groups with respect to alcohol use, tobacco use, drug use, and surgical intervention was also performed. Power analysis showed power of more than 90% in detecting at least a 20% difference in the follow-up rates between the penetrating and blunt trauma groups based on our sample size.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference (P = .736) between the penetrating and blunt trauma patients in terms of follow-up within 1 year after injury. At 1 year, 103 (78%) of the 132 penetrating trauma patients and 83 (80%) of the 104 blunt trauma patients were lost to follow-up (Figure).

Discussion

Trauma outcomes historically have been difficult to determine because of lack of patient follow-up. In a simulation series, Zelle and colleagues³ found that the turning point from significant to nonsignificant varied from 15% to 75% loss of follow-up, thus compromising the validity of a study. They and others have emphasized the importance of establishing research protocols to minimize follow-up loss and eliminate reporting bias, ensure randomization, and report accurate outcomes.^3-7

Very few have tried to investigate factors associated with failure to follow up after trauma.^1,2,4 Leukhardt and colleagues⁴ evaluated the medical services that trauma patients follow up with most often. Orthopedic surgery had the largest portion of follow-up visits (37%), followed by the trauma surgery clinic and the emergency department (19% each). The authors also found that penetrating trauma patients were more likely to follow up, though more than 90% of the authors’ patients had blunt trauma. Although our study did not support their finding, it does call into question the commonly held belief that penetrating trauma patients are less likely to follow up, as our study found no difference in follow-up between penetrating and blunt trauma patients.

One of the most interesting findings in this retrospective study is that almost 80% of patients were lost to follow-up regardless of mechanism of injury. Most prospective studies try to reduce loss to follow-up to below 10%. This difference may be attributable to having a dedicated research team and the resources required to ensure follow-up of research patients to improve follow-up beyond baseline values. At our institution, 13 prospective studies (most multicenter) are currently enrolling patients, and the worst loss to follow-up has been 30%. The majority of the studies have loss to follow-up of 15% or less. This low rate represents a significant difference from the 80% “baseline” clinical loss to follow-up for the blunt and penetrating trauma patients treated at our institution, based on the findings of this study. We have been improving follow-up by having dedicated research coordinators call patients to remind them of their appointments (all clinic patients who are not research patients receive a recorded reminder); by having the hospital agree that research patients can be seen without charge (by the facility or the physician), which helps defray costs to the patient; and by excluding patients the principal investigator thinks are unlikely to follow up. Patients unlikely to follow up are routinely excluded by all centers that enroll in prospective studies. Although it is difficult to quantitate, this factor may play a large role in reducing loss to follow-up. Penetrating trauma patients historically routinely biased investigators to exclude them from studies, regardless of whether being considered unlikely to follow-up was an exclusion criterion. Our study results suggest this bias may not be valid.

Our study evaluated the role of mechanism of injury, penetrating or blunt trauma, and the respective orthopedic follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in the 1-year follow-up rate based on the mechanism of injury. Our study was conducted with a well-matched control group that eliminated potential confounding variables, such as sex, race, age, tobacco use, and alcohol use. Although the prevalence of drug use was higher in the penetrating trauma group, patient retention seemed not to be affected by it. Surprisingly, patient loss to follow-up was extremely high (almost 80%) for both the penetrating and blunt trauma patient groups at the 1-year mark. Our findings call into question the commonly accepted theory that patients with penetrating injuries are less likely to follow up, at least in an academic level I trauma center population. We suggest that the commonly held belief that penetrating trauma patients are less likely to follow up may not be valid and that, when prospective studies are designed, it may not be appropriate to exclude penetrating trauma patients on this basis alone.

The primary limitation of this study is that it was performed at a single institution. Eighty-five percent of blunt trauma patients and 93% of penetrating trauma patients live in the county that is predominantly served by our institution, and electronic medical records from all major hospitals in the metropolitan area are linked, suggesting that the large majority of patients lost to follow-up do not seek further medical care, at least not from local facilities in our metropolitan area. A prospective multicenter study is being designed to help us gain a better understanding of the variables that affect musculoskeletal trauma patient follow-up and learn interventional strategies that can be used to improve patient retention.

Dr. Turner is an Orthopedic Surgeon, Rockwood Clinic, Spokane, Washington. Dr. Turner was a resident at the time the article was written. Dr. Hiatt is an Anesthesia Resident, University of Louisville Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky. Dr. Mullis is Chief of the Orthopaedic Trauma Service, Eskenazi Health, and Professor & Program Director, Indiana University School of Medicine Department of Orthopaedics, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Acknowledgments: This study was first reported in a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, October 2013, Phoenix, Arizona.

The authors gratefully acknowledge and thank Jyoti Sarkar, PhD, for his assistance with statistical analysis and manuscript preparation.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E331-E334. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

There is a paucity of literature on how mechanism of injury may be associated with patient retention. Failure to attend outpatient clinics is a form of noncompliance and a major obstacle to safe, effective, and efficient healthcare delivery. Noncompliance may lead to increased patient morbidity and carries substantial financial implications for the healthcare system.^1,2 In addition to these direct patient and healthcare issues, loss of patient follow-up or the belief of potential loss of follow-up of penetrating trauma patients may also significantly affect research studies. These patients often may be excluded from studies, even if they might otherwise meet inclusion criteria, because of concerns that they are unlikely to follow-up after leaving hospital. Is this myth or fact? To validate or to disprove this selection bias, we conducted a study in which we retrospectively evaluated long bone fractures caused by either penetrating or blunt trauma.

Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval for this study, we used the trauma database of an American College of Surgeons–verified level I trauma center in a major Midwest metropolitan area to compile a list of all cases of long bone fractures caused by penetrating trauma between 2006 and 2009 (N = 132). Gunshot wounds were the mechanism of injury for the penetrating trauma. We also compiled a list of control cases—long bone fractures caused by blunt trauma in patients demographically matched to the penetrating group patients on sex, race, and age (N = 104) (Table).

We retrospectively performed chart reviews to obtain patient follow-up data 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after injury from penetrating or blunt trauma. Patients scheduled to return on an as-needed basis were considered to have completed follow-up. The 2 groups were also statistically compared with respect to sex, race, age, surgical fixation, and history of tobacco, alcohol, or drug use.

SAS/STAT Version 8 (SAS Institute) was used to test the equality of survival functions (patient retention) for the penetrating and blunt trauma patient groups. A similar comparison was made for the categories of sex, race, and age. Pearson χ² test was used to compare the 12-month survival rates of the 2 treatment groups across sex and race. Binary logistic regression was used to compare the 12-month survival rates of the 2 treatment groups removing the effect of age. A comparison of the frequency distributions of the 2 treatment groups with respect to alcohol use, tobacco use, drug use, and surgical intervention was also performed. Power analysis showed power of more than 90% in detecting at least a 20% difference in the follow-up rates between the penetrating and blunt trauma groups based on our sample size.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference (P = .736) between the penetrating and blunt trauma patients in terms of follow-up within 1 year after injury. At 1 year, 103 (78%) of the 132 penetrating trauma patients and 83 (80%) of the 104 blunt trauma patients were lost to follow-up (Figure).

Discussion

Trauma outcomes historically have been difficult to determine because of lack of patient follow-up. In a simulation series, Zelle and colleagues³ found that the turning point from significant to nonsignificant varied from 15% to 75% loss of follow-up, thus compromising the validity of a study. They and others have emphasized the importance of establishing research protocols to minimize follow-up loss and eliminate reporting bias, ensure randomization, and report accurate outcomes.^3-7

Very few have tried to investigate factors associated with failure to follow up after trauma.^1,2,4 Leukhardt and colleagues⁴ evaluated the medical services that trauma patients follow up with most often. Orthopedic surgery had the largest portion of follow-up visits (37%), followed by the trauma surgery clinic and the emergency department (19% each). The authors also found that penetrating trauma patients were more likely to follow up, though more than 90% of the authors’ patients had blunt trauma. Although our study did not support their finding, it does call into question the commonly held belief that penetrating trauma patients are less likely to follow up, as our study found no difference in follow-up between penetrating and blunt trauma patients.

One of the most interesting findings in this retrospective study is that almost 80% of patients were lost to follow-up regardless of mechanism of injury. Most prospective studies try to reduce loss to follow-up to below 10%. This difference may be attributable to having a dedicated research team and the resources required to ensure follow-up of research patients to improve follow-up beyond baseline values. At our institution, 13 prospective studies (most multicenter) are currently enrolling patients, and the worst loss to follow-up has been 30%. The majority of the studies have loss to follow-up of 15% or less. This low rate represents a significant difference from the 80% “baseline” clinical loss to follow-up for the blunt and penetrating trauma patients treated at our institution, based on the findings of this study. We have been improving follow-up by having dedicated research coordinators call patients to remind them of their appointments (all clinic patients who are not research patients receive a recorded reminder); by having the hospital agree that research patients can be seen without charge (by the facility or the physician), which helps defray costs to the patient; and by excluding patients the principal investigator thinks are unlikely to follow up. Patients unlikely to follow up are routinely excluded by all centers that enroll in prospective studies. Although it is difficult to quantitate, this factor may play a large role in reducing loss to follow-up. Penetrating trauma patients historically routinely biased investigators to exclude them from studies, regardless of whether being considered unlikely to follow-up was an exclusion criterion. Our study results suggest this bias may not be valid.

Our study evaluated the role of mechanism of injury, penetrating or blunt trauma, and the respective orthopedic follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in the 1-year follow-up rate based on the mechanism of injury. Our study was conducted with a well-matched control group that eliminated potential confounding variables, such as sex, race, age, tobacco use, and alcohol use. Although the prevalence of drug use was higher in the penetrating trauma group, patient retention seemed not to be affected by it. Surprisingly, patient loss to follow-up was extremely high (almost 80%) for both the penetrating and blunt trauma patient groups at the 1-year mark. Our findings call into question the commonly accepted theory that patients with penetrating injuries are less likely to follow up, at least in an academic level I trauma center population. We suggest that the commonly held belief that penetrating trauma patients are less likely to follow up may not be valid and that, when prospective studies are designed, it may not be appropriate to exclude penetrating trauma patients on this basis alone.

The primary limitation of this study is that it was performed at a single institution. Eighty-five percent of blunt trauma patients and 93% of penetrating trauma patients live in the county that is predominantly served by our institution, and electronic medical records from all major hospitals in the metropolitan area are linked, suggesting that the large majority of patients lost to follow-up do not seek further medical care, at least not from local facilities in our metropolitan area. A prospective multicenter study is being designed to help us gain a better understanding of the variables that affect musculoskeletal trauma patient follow-up and learn interventional strategies that can be used to improve patient retention.

Dr. Turner is an Orthopedic Surgeon, Rockwood Clinic, Spokane, Washington. Dr. Turner was a resident at the time the article was written. Dr. Hiatt is an Anesthesia Resident, University of Louisville Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky. Dr. Mullis is Chief of the Orthopaedic Trauma Service, Eskenazi Health, and Professor & Program Director, Indiana University School of Medicine Department of Orthopaedics, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Acknowledgments: This study was first reported in a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, October 2013, Phoenix, Arizona.

The authors gratefully acknowledge and thank Jyoti Sarkar, PhD, for his assistance with statistical analysis and manuscript preparation.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E331-E334. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

There is a paucity of literature on how mechanism of injury may be associated with patient retention. Failure to attend outpatient clinics is a form of noncompliance and a major obstacle to safe, effective, and efficient healthcare delivery. Noncompliance may lead to increased patient morbidity and carries substantial financial implications for the healthcare system.^1,2 In addition to these direct patient and healthcare issues, loss of patient follow-up or the belief of potential loss of follow-up of penetrating trauma patients may also significantly affect research studies. These patients often may be excluded from studies, even if they might otherwise meet inclusion criteria, because of concerns that they are unlikely to follow-up after leaving hospital. Is this myth or fact? To validate or to disprove this selection bias, we conducted a study in which we retrospectively evaluated long bone fractures caused by either penetrating or blunt trauma.

Methods

After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval for this study, we used the trauma database of an American College of Surgeons–verified level I trauma center in a major Midwest metropolitan area to compile a list of all cases of long bone fractures caused by penetrating trauma between 2006 and 2009 (N = 132). Gunshot wounds were the mechanism of injury for the penetrating trauma. We also compiled a list of control cases—long bone fractures caused by blunt trauma in patients demographically matched to the penetrating group patients on sex, race, and age (N = 104) (Table).

We retrospectively performed chart reviews to obtain patient follow-up data 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after injury from penetrating or blunt trauma. Patients scheduled to return on an as-needed basis were considered to have completed follow-up. The 2 groups were also statistically compared with respect to sex, race, age, surgical fixation, and history of tobacco, alcohol, or drug use.

SAS/STAT Version 8 (SAS Institute) was used to test the equality of survival functions (patient retention) for the penetrating and blunt trauma patient groups. A similar comparison was made for the categories of sex, race, and age. Pearson χ² test was used to compare the 12-month survival rates of the 2 treatment groups across sex and race. Binary logistic regression was used to compare the 12-month survival rates of the 2 treatment groups removing the effect of age. A comparison of the frequency distributions of the 2 treatment groups with respect to alcohol use, tobacco use, drug use, and surgical intervention was also performed. Power analysis showed power of more than 90% in detecting at least a 20% difference in the follow-up rates between the penetrating and blunt trauma groups based on our sample size.

Results

There was no statistically significant difference (P = .736) between the penetrating and blunt trauma patients in terms of follow-up within 1 year after injury. At 1 year, 103 (78%) of the 132 penetrating trauma patients and 83 (80%) of the 104 blunt trauma patients were lost to follow-up (Figure).

Discussion

Trauma outcomes historically have been difficult to determine because of lack of patient follow-up. In a simulation series, Zelle and colleagues³ found that the turning point from significant to nonsignificant varied from 15% to 75% loss of follow-up, thus compromising the validity of a study. They and others have emphasized the importance of establishing research protocols to minimize follow-up loss and eliminate reporting bias, ensure randomization, and report accurate outcomes.^3-7

Very few have tried to investigate factors associated with failure to follow up after trauma.^1,2,4 Leukhardt and colleagues⁴ evaluated the medical services that trauma patients follow up with most often. Orthopedic surgery had the largest portion of follow-up visits (37%), followed by the trauma surgery clinic and the emergency department (19% each). The authors also found that penetrating trauma patients were more likely to follow up, though more than 90% of the authors’ patients had blunt trauma. Although our study did not support their finding, it does call into question the commonly held belief that penetrating trauma patients are less likely to follow up, as our study found no difference in follow-up between penetrating and blunt trauma patients.

One of the most interesting findings in this retrospective study is that almost 80% of patients were lost to follow-up regardless of mechanism of injury. Most prospective studies try to reduce loss to follow-up to below 10%. This difference may be attributable to having a dedicated research team and the resources required to ensure follow-up of research patients to improve follow-up beyond baseline values. At our institution, 13 prospective studies (most multicenter) are currently enrolling patients, and the worst loss to follow-up has been 30%. The majority of the studies have loss to follow-up of 15% or less. This low rate represents a significant difference from the 80% “baseline” clinical loss to follow-up for the blunt and penetrating trauma patients treated at our institution, based on the findings of this study. We have been improving follow-up by having dedicated research coordinators call patients to remind them of their appointments (all clinic patients who are not research patients receive a recorded reminder); by having the hospital agree that research patients can be seen without charge (by the facility or the physician), which helps defray costs to the patient; and by excluding patients the principal investigator thinks are unlikely to follow up. Patients unlikely to follow up are routinely excluded by all centers that enroll in prospective studies. Although it is difficult to quantitate, this factor may play a large role in reducing loss to follow-up. Penetrating trauma patients historically routinely biased investigators to exclude them from studies, regardless of whether being considered unlikely to follow-up was an exclusion criterion. Our study results suggest this bias may not be valid.

Our study evaluated the role of mechanism of injury, penetrating or blunt trauma, and the respective orthopedic follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in the 1-year follow-up rate based on the mechanism of injury. Our study was conducted with a well-matched control group that eliminated potential confounding variables, such as sex, race, age, tobacco use, and alcohol use. Although the prevalence of drug use was higher in the penetrating trauma group, patient retention seemed not to be affected by it. Surprisingly, patient loss to follow-up was extremely high (almost 80%) for both the penetrating and blunt trauma patient groups at the 1-year mark. Our findings call into question the commonly accepted theory that patients with penetrating injuries are less likely to follow up, at least in an academic level I trauma center population. We suggest that the commonly held belief that penetrating trauma patients are less likely to follow up may not be valid and that, when prospective studies are designed, it may not be appropriate to exclude penetrating trauma patients on this basis alone.

The primary limitation of this study is that it was performed at a single institution. Eighty-five percent of blunt trauma patients and 93% of penetrating trauma patients live in the county that is predominantly served by our institution, and electronic medical records from all major hospitals in the metropolitan area are linked, suggesting that the large majority of patients lost to follow-up do not seek further medical care, at least not from local facilities in our metropolitan area. A prospective multicenter study is being designed to help us gain a better understanding of the variables that affect musculoskeletal trauma patient follow-up and learn interventional strategies that can be used to improve patient retention.

Dr. Turner is an Orthopedic Surgeon, Rockwood Clinic, Spokane, Washington. Dr. Turner was a resident at the time the article was written. Dr. Hiatt is an Anesthesia Resident, University of Louisville Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky. Dr. Mullis is Chief of the Orthopaedic Trauma Service, Eskenazi Health, and Professor & Program Director, Indiana University School of Medicine Department of Orthopaedics, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Acknowledgments: This study was first reported in a poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association, October 2013, Phoenix, Arizona.

The authors gratefully acknowledge and thank Jyoti Sarkar, PhD, for his assistance with statistical analysis and manuscript preparation.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E331-E334. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

As the United States becomes increasingly diverse, with predictions that by 2045 minorities will comprise 50% or more of the population,¹ the demographics of the orthopedic surgery population will also likely diversify. It is important that orthopedic surgeons shift in their diversity as well. Lack of diversity in orthopedics (women and racial minorities are underrepresented) relative to the national population and other surgical specialties and their training programs is well documented.^2-8

More concerning, the diversity of orthopedic residents does not compare favorably with that of medical school attendees.^4,9 The difference suggests the greatest loss of potential diversity occurs during the transition from medical school to residency. A national study demonstrated that instruction in musculoskeletal medicine led to an increase in application rates nationally.¹⁰ However, the authors of that study stated they were unexpectedly limited by its large size—they could not validate the accuracy of curriculum data and could not differentiate between a 1-day required experience and a 4-week rotation.

In the present study, which accounted for curricular factors, we compared our medical students’ application rates to orthopedics residencies based on sex and race before and after introduction of a required third-year musculoskeletal clerkship. We hypothesized that making the curriculum a requirement would increase the number of applicants and increase the diversity of applicants in terms of both women and underrepresented minorities. This hypothesis was based on the rationale that these groups might not consider an orthopedics residency without first being directly exposed to orthopedics. We also wanted to determine what factors influenced applicants to choose orthopedic surgery.

Methods

Curriculum

Before 2006, third-year students spent 3 months completing a surgery clerkship. Some students interested in orthopedic surgery would have to wait until their fourth year to complete an elective in orthopedic surgery, and uninterested students would not be exposed at all. Starting in 2006, 1 month of the third-year surgery clerkship was required to be completed in musculoskeletal surgery: orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, or neurosurgical spine. Plastic surgery was an option, as it exposed students to hand surgery and flap reconstruction.

During the 12-year study period, overall teaching hours in the preclinical curriculum did not change, and there were no other structural changes to the preclinical or clinical curriculum. The orthopedics department increased its faculty from 23 in 2000 to 34 in 2012. Number of female faculty increased from 1 to 3, representing a 4% to 9% increase in department faculty. Throughout the 12 years, there were no underrepresented minority faculty. Total number of residents increased from 26 in 2000 to 30 in 2012. Number of female residents varied year to year, from a low of 3 in the period 2003–2004 to a high of 11 in the period 2009–2010. Number of underrepresented minority residents varied yearly as well, from 1 to 2.

Data Collection

After this study was granted exempt status by our Institutional Review Board, we obtained student data from our registrar. Data included graduation year, self-identified sex and race, exposure to orthopedic surgery during clerkships, and matching residency specialty. National data were obtained from the Electronic Residency Application Service for the periods 2002–2007 and 2009–2012. These data included all US allopathic medical students’ self-identified sex and race, and applied-to primary residency specialty. National data from 2008 and national data on sex differences in orthopedic applications from 2009 were not available.

Graduates who matched into orthopedic surgery were asked to complete an anonymous survey on what influenced their decision to apply to orthopedic surgery and when this decision was made. Our goal with the survey was to substantiate or refute the conclusion that application rates depended on third-year exposure to musculoskeletal medicine.

Statistical Methods

Students were divided into 2 groups: precurriculum (graduated within 7-year period, 2000–2006) and postcurriculum (graduated within 6-year period, 2007–2012). A 2-sample test for proportions was used to compare percentage of total students who applied to orthopedics in each group. In the group of students who applied to orthopedics, we compared precurriculum and postcurriculum proportions of women and underrepresented minorities (non-white, non-Asian). We also compared these proportions with national data (using 2-sample tests for proportions) to determine if any change in diversity of our institution’s applicants was mirroring a national trend. Our definition of underrepresented minority was based on work that showed that the proportion of Asian matriculants in medical school and the proportion of applicants to orthopedics are higher than their respective national proportions.⁵ Survey data are reported descriptively. Statistical significance was defined with a 2-tailed α of 0.05 for all tests.

Results

Over the 2000–2012 period, 1507 students from our institution successfully applied to residency programs: 792 in the precurriculum group and 715 in the postcurriculum group. Of these students, 91 successfully applied to orthopedic surgery: 48 in the precurriculum group (applied before introduction of the required clerkship) and 43 in the postcurriculum group (applied afterward).

Over the 2002–2012 period, 10,100 US allopathic medical students applied to orthopedic residency programs: 4769 students between 2002 and 2006 and 5331 students between 2007 and 2012.

Discussion

Orthopedic surgery needs a more diverse workforce^11-17 in order to better mirror the population served, bring care to underserved areas,^18-26 and provide better training environments.²⁷ Several hypotheses about the lack of diversity have been posited: stereotypes about the specialty,^28-31 lack of interest among minority medical students, and lack of exposure to the specialty.^5,6,32,33

Lack of exposure deserves scrutiny, as a large proportion of medical students who choose to apply to orthopedic surgery make their decision before entering medical school, which is not typical.³³ Such a finding suggests that exposure to orthopedic surgery is lacking, especially given that an orthopedic surgery rotation is usually not required during the clinical years. The idea that increased exposure to orthopedics affects application patterns is logical, as clinical exposure has been shown to play a role in medical students’ choice of specialty.³⁴

Exposure helps in several key areas. Firsthand experience can help dispel stereotypes, such as the idea that success in orthopedic surgery depends on physical strength and that only former athletes pursue orthopedics.^28-31 Authors have also reported on a perceived negative bias against women: Orthopedics is an “old boys’ network”; women will not fit in and need not apply; the orthopedic lifestyle is difficult and not conducive to a satisfying personal life.⁹ Requiring exposure ensures that all students, but especially women, can gain firsthand experience that can show these stereotypes to be false. Beyond dispelling these stereotypes, exposure to orthopedic surgery is essential for women, as studies have shown that clinical rotations play a larger role in determining specialty choice for women compared to men,³³ and this would be particularly critical for specialties they may not be initially considering.

A national study found that requiring an orthopedic/musculoskeletal clerkship led to a 12% relative increase in the application rate, from 5.1% to 5.7%, and to an increase in applicant diversity (race, sex).¹⁰ However, the investigators could not determine individual reasons for specialty choice or the exact nature of each institution’s musculoskeletal curriculum. Confirming these factors, we found an 81% increase in number of female applicants and a 101% increase in number of underrepresented minority applicants after introduction of the required third-year musculoskeletal surgery clerkship at our institution.

We were unable to replicate the 12% relative increase in the overall application rate; our orthopedic surgery match rate remained 6%. Our findings cannot directly explain this, but we have several hypotheses. First, whereas other studies measured the application rate, we measured the successful match rate, given our data structure. This difference in data definition could account for some of the discrepancy. Second, we did not account for individuals’ academic success, and career counseling is paramount in decisions regarding residency specialties. It is possible we are substituting qualified female and underrepresented minority candidates for less-than-qualified male applicants. Third, the 25% increase in medical student exposure to orthopedic surgery led to a corresponding increase in number of orthopedic faculty providing undergraduate medical education. Some of these faculty could have been inexperienced in undergraduate medical education, and thus the teaching environment may not have been optimal.

Our study had several limitations. First, our institution has limited racial diversity. Over the past 12 years, only 15% of our students have been underrepresented minorities. (Nationally, the proportion is closer to 18%.) This may have limited the ability of our orthopedic rotation to affect the proportion of underrepresented minority applicants. Second, this study involved medical students at only one institution, which limits generalizability of findings. Third, we were unable to obtain records specifying which faculty and residents interacted with which medical students, and the increased number of female faculty and residents coinciding with the curriculum change may also be a factor. However, we expect that, without the curriculum change, these students would have had smaller odds of interacting with these potential female role models in orthopedics, negating any affect they may have had. Last, although we contacted former students to ask about their reasons for choosing the orthopedics residency, those findings are limited by a potential respondent selection bias.

The qualities and characteristics of successful orthopedic surgeons, as presented in both medical and lay cultures, are subject to numerous stereotypes. By increasing medical student exposure to orthopedics during the third year of medical school, we are giving a larger proportion of our students direct clinical experience in a field they may not have been considering. This exposure allows students to interact with mentors who can be positive role models—orthopedic surgeons who are dispelling stereotypes. By increasing medical student exposure and reaching students who may not have been considering orthopedics, we have increased diversity among our applicants. Third-year medical students’ exposure to orthopedic surgery is essential in promoting a more diverse workforce.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E347-E351. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

As the United States becomes increasingly diverse, with predictions that by 2045 minorities will comprise 50% or more of the population,¹ the demographics of the orthopedic surgery population will also likely diversify. It is important that orthopedic surgeons shift in their diversity as well. Lack of diversity in orthopedics (women and racial minorities are underrepresented) relative to the national population and other surgical specialties and their training programs is well documented.^2-8

More concerning, the diversity of orthopedic residents does not compare favorably with that of medical school attendees.^4,9 The difference suggests the greatest loss of potential diversity occurs during the transition from medical school to residency. A national study demonstrated that instruction in musculoskeletal medicine led to an increase in application rates nationally.¹⁰ However, the authors of that study stated they were unexpectedly limited by its large size—they could not validate the accuracy of curriculum data and could not differentiate between a 1-day required experience and a 4-week rotation.

In the present study, which accounted for curricular factors, we compared our medical students’ application rates to orthopedics residencies based on sex and race before and after introduction of a required third-year musculoskeletal clerkship. We hypothesized that making the curriculum a requirement would increase the number of applicants and increase the diversity of applicants in terms of both women and underrepresented minorities. This hypothesis was based on the rationale that these groups might not consider an orthopedics residency without first being directly exposed to orthopedics. We also wanted to determine what factors influenced applicants to choose orthopedic surgery.

Methods

Curriculum

Before 2006, third-year students spent 3 months completing a surgery clerkship. Some students interested in orthopedic surgery would have to wait until their fourth year to complete an elective in orthopedic surgery, and uninterested students would not be exposed at all. Starting in 2006, 1 month of the third-year surgery clerkship was required to be completed in musculoskeletal surgery: orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, or neurosurgical spine. Plastic surgery was an option, as it exposed students to hand surgery and flap reconstruction.

During the 12-year study period, overall teaching hours in the preclinical curriculum did not change, and there were no other structural changes to the preclinical or clinical curriculum. The orthopedics department increased its faculty from 23 in 2000 to 34 in 2012. Number of female faculty increased from 1 to 3, representing a 4% to 9% increase in department faculty. Throughout the 12 years, there were no underrepresented minority faculty. Total number of residents increased from 26 in 2000 to 30 in 2012. Number of female residents varied year to year, from a low of 3 in the period 2003–2004 to a high of 11 in the period 2009–2010. Number of underrepresented minority residents varied yearly as well, from 1 to 2.

Data Collection

After this study was granted exempt status by our Institutional Review Board, we obtained student data from our registrar. Data included graduation year, self-identified sex and race, exposure to orthopedic surgery during clerkships, and matching residency specialty. National data were obtained from the Electronic Residency Application Service for the periods 2002–2007 and 2009–2012. These data included all US allopathic medical students’ self-identified sex and race, and applied-to primary residency specialty. National data from 2008 and national data on sex differences in orthopedic applications from 2009 were not available.

Graduates who matched into orthopedic surgery were asked to complete an anonymous survey on what influenced their decision to apply to orthopedic surgery and when this decision was made. Our goal with the survey was to substantiate or refute the conclusion that application rates depended on third-year exposure to musculoskeletal medicine.

Statistical Methods

Students were divided into 2 groups: precurriculum (graduated within 7-year period, 2000–2006) and postcurriculum (graduated within 6-year period, 2007–2012). A 2-sample test for proportions was used to compare percentage of total students who applied to orthopedics in each group. In the group of students who applied to orthopedics, we compared precurriculum and postcurriculum proportions of women and underrepresented minorities (non-white, non-Asian). We also compared these proportions with national data (using 2-sample tests for proportions) to determine if any change in diversity of our institution’s applicants was mirroring a national trend. Our definition of underrepresented minority was based on work that showed that the proportion of Asian matriculants in medical school and the proportion of applicants to orthopedics are higher than their respective national proportions.⁵ Survey data are reported descriptively. Statistical significance was defined with a 2-tailed α of 0.05 for all tests.

Results

Over the 2000–2012 period, 1507 students from our institution successfully applied to residency programs: 792 in the precurriculum group and 715 in the postcurriculum group. Of these students, 91 successfully applied to orthopedic surgery: 48 in the precurriculum group (applied before introduction of the required clerkship) and 43 in the postcurriculum group (applied afterward).

Over the 2002–2012 period, 10,100 US allopathic medical students applied to orthopedic residency programs: 4769 students between 2002 and 2006 and 5331 students between 2007 and 2012.

Discussion

Orthopedic surgery needs a more diverse workforce^11-17 in order to better mirror the population served, bring care to underserved areas,^18-26 and provide better training environments.²⁷ Several hypotheses about the lack of diversity have been posited: stereotypes about the specialty,^28-31 lack of interest among minority medical students, and lack of exposure to the specialty.^5,6,32,33

Lack of exposure deserves scrutiny, as a large proportion of medical students who choose to apply to orthopedic surgery make their decision before entering medical school, which is not typical.³³ Such a finding suggests that exposure to orthopedic surgery is lacking, especially given that an orthopedic surgery rotation is usually not required during the clinical years. The idea that increased exposure to orthopedics affects application patterns is logical, as clinical exposure has been shown to play a role in medical students’ choice of specialty.³⁴

Exposure helps in several key areas. Firsthand experience can help dispel stereotypes, such as the idea that success in orthopedic surgery depends on physical strength and that only former athletes pursue orthopedics.^28-31 Authors have also reported on a perceived negative bias against women: Orthopedics is an “old boys’ network”; women will not fit in and need not apply; the orthopedic lifestyle is difficult and not conducive to a satisfying personal life.⁹ Requiring exposure ensures that all students, but especially women, can gain firsthand experience that can show these stereotypes to be false. Beyond dispelling these stereotypes, exposure to orthopedic surgery is essential for women, as studies have shown that clinical rotations play a larger role in determining specialty choice for women compared to men,³³ and this would be particularly critical for specialties they may not be initially considering.

A national study found that requiring an orthopedic/musculoskeletal clerkship led to a 12% relative increase in the application rate, from 5.1% to 5.7%, and to an increase in applicant diversity (race, sex).¹⁰ However, the investigators could not determine individual reasons for specialty choice or the exact nature of each institution’s musculoskeletal curriculum. Confirming these factors, we found an 81% increase in number of female applicants and a 101% increase in number of underrepresented minority applicants after introduction of the required third-year musculoskeletal surgery clerkship at our institution.

We were unable to replicate the 12% relative increase in the overall application rate; our orthopedic surgery match rate remained 6%. Our findings cannot directly explain this, but we have several hypotheses. First, whereas other studies measured the application rate, we measured the successful match rate, given our data structure. This difference in data definition could account for some of the discrepancy. Second, we did not account for individuals’ academic success, and career counseling is paramount in decisions regarding residency specialties. It is possible we are substituting qualified female and underrepresented minority candidates for less-than-qualified male applicants. Third, the 25% increase in medical student exposure to orthopedic surgery led to a corresponding increase in number of orthopedic faculty providing undergraduate medical education. Some of these faculty could have been inexperienced in undergraduate medical education, and thus the teaching environment may not have been optimal.

Our study had several limitations. First, our institution has limited racial diversity. Over the past 12 years, only 15% of our students have been underrepresented minorities. (Nationally, the proportion is closer to 18%.) This may have limited the ability of our orthopedic rotation to affect the proportion of underrepresented minority applicants. Second, this study involved medical students at only one institution, which limits generalizability of findings. Third, we were unable to obtain records specifying which faculty and residents interacted with which medical students, and the increased number of female faculty and residents coinciding with the curriculum change may also be a factor. However, we expect that, without the curriculum change, these students would have had smaller odds of interacting with these potential female role models in orthopedics, negating any affect they may have had. Last, although we contacted former students to ask about their reasons for choosing the orthopedics residency, those findings are limited by a potential respondent selection bias.

The qualities and characteristics of successful orthopedic surgeons, as presented in both medical and lay cultures, are subject to numerous stereotypes. By increasing medical student exposure to orthopedics during the third year of medical school, we are giving a larger proportion of our students direct clinical experience in a field they may not have been considering. This exposure allows students to interact with mentors who can be positive role models—orthopedic surgeons who are dispelling stereotypes. By increasing medical student exposure and reaching students who may not have been considering orthopedics, we have increased diversity among our applicants. Third-year medical students’ exposure to orthopedic surgery is essential in promoting a more diverse workforce.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E347-E351. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

As the United States becomes increasingly diverse, with predictions that by 2045 minorities will comprise 50% or more of the population,¹ the demographics of the orthopedic surgery population will also likely diversify. It is important that orthopedic surgeons shift in their diversity as well. Lack of diversity in orthopedics (women and racial minorities are underrepresented) relative to the national population and other surgical specialties and their training programs is well documented.^2-8

More concerning, the diversity of orthopedic residents does not compare favorably with that of medical school attendees.^4,9 The difference suggests the greatest loss of potential diversity occurs during the transition from medical school to residency. A national study demonstrated that instruction in musculoskeletal medicine led to an increase in application rates nationally.¹⁰ However, the authors of that study stated they were unexpectedly limited by its large size—they could not validate the accuracy of curriculum data and could not differentiate between a 1-day required experience and a 4-week rotation.

In the present study, which accounted for curricular factors, we compared our medical students’ application rates to orthopedics residencies based on sex and race before and after introduction of a required third-year musculoskeletal clerkship. We hypothesized that making the curriculum a requirement would increase the number of applicants and increase the diversity of applicants in terms of both women and underrepresented minorities. This hypothesis was based on the rationale that these groups might not consider an orthopedics residency without first being directly exposed to orthopedics. We also wanted to determine what factors influenced applicants to choose orthopedic surgery.

Methods

Curriculum

Before 2006, third-year students spent 3 months completing a surgery clerkship. Some students interested in orthopedic surgery would have to wait until their fourth year to complete an elective in orthopedic surgery, and uninterested students would not be exposed at all. Starting in 2006, 1 month of the third-year surgery clerkship was required to be completed in musculoskeletal surgery: orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery, or neurosurgical spine. Plastic surgery was an option, as it exposed students to hand surgery and flap reconstruction.

During the 12-year study period, overall teaching hours in the preclinical curriculum did not change, and there were no other structural changes to the preclinical or clinical curriculum. The orthopedics department increased its faculty from 23 in 2000 to 34 in 2012. Number of female faculty increased from 1 to 3, representing a 4% to 9% increase in department faculty. Throughout the 12 years, there were no underrepresented minority faculty. Total number of residents increased from 26 in 2000 to 30 in 2012. Number of female residents varied year to year, from a low of 3 in the period 2003–2004 to a high of 11 in the period 2009–2010. Number of underrepresented minority residents varied yearly as well, from 1 to 2.

Data Collection

After this study was granted exempt status by our Institutional Review Board, we obtained student data from our registrar. Data included graduation year, self-identified sex and race, exposure to orthopedic surgery during clerkships, and matching residency specialty. National data were obtained from the Electronic Residency Application Service for the periods 2002–2007 and 2009–2012. These data included all US allopathic medical students’ self-identified sex and race, and applied-to primary residency specialty. National data from 2008 and national data on sex differences in orthopedic applications from 2009 were not available.

Graduates who matched into orthopedic surgery were asked to complete an anonymous survey on what influenced their decision to apply to orthopedic surgery and when this decision was made. Our goal with the survey was to substantiate or refute the conclusion that application rates depended on third-year exposure to musculoskeletal medicine.

Statistical Methods

Students were divided into 2 groups: precurriculum (graduated within 7-year period, 2000–2006) and postcurriculum (graduated within 6-year period, 2007–2012). A 2-sample test for proportions was used to compare percentage of total students who applied to orthopedics in each group. In the group of students who applied to orthopedics, we compared precurriculum and postcurriculum proportions of women and underrepresented minorities (non-white, non-Asian). We also compared these proportions with national data (using 2-sample tests for proportions) to determine if any change in diversity of our institution’s applicants was mirroring a national trend. Our definition of underrepresented minority was based on work that showed that the proportion of Asian matriculants in medical school and the proportion of applicants to orthopedics are higher than their respective national proportions.⁵ Survey data are reported descriptively. Statistical significance was defined with a 2-tailed α of 0.05 for all tests.

Results

Over the 2000–2012 period, 1507 students from our institution successfully applied to residency programs: 792 in the precurriculum group and 715 in the postcurriculum group. Of these students, 91 successfully applied to orthopedic surgery: 48 in the precurriculum group (applied before introduction of the required clerkship) and 43 in the postcurriculum group (applied afterward).

Over the 2002–2012 period, 10,100 US allopathic medical students applied to orthopedic residency programs: 4769 students between 2002 and 2006 and 5331 students between 2007 and 2012.

Discussion

Orthopedic surgery needs a more diverse workforce^11-17 in order to better mirror the population served, bring care to underserved areas,^18-26 and provide better training environments.²⁷ Several hypotheses about the lack of diversity have been posited: stereotypes about the specialty,^28-31 lack of interest among minority medical students, and lack of exposure to the specialty.^5,6,32,33

Lack of exposure deserves scrutiny, as a large proportion of medical students who choose to apply to orthopedic surgery make their decision before entering medical school, which is not typical.³³ Such a finding suggests that exposure to orthopedic surgery is lacking, especially given that an orthopedic surgery rotation is usually not required during the clinical years. The idea that increased exposure to orthopedics affects application patterns is logical, as clinical exposure has been shown to play a role in medical students’ choice of specialty.³⁴

Exposure helps in several key areas. Firsthand experience can help dispel stereotypes, such as the idea that success in orthopedic surgery depends on physical strength and that only former athletes pursue orthopedics.^28-31 Authors have also reported on a perceived negative bias against women: Orthopedics is an “old boys’ network”; women will not fit in and need not apply; the orthopedic lifestyle is difficult and not conducive to a satisfying personal life.⁹ Requiring exposure ensures that all students, but especially women, can gain firsthand experience that can show these stereotypes to be false. Beyond dispelling these stereotypes, exposure to orthopedic surgery is essential for women, as studies have shown that clinical rotations play a larger role in determining specialty choice for women compared to men,³³ and this would be particularly critical for specialties they may not be initially considering.

A national study found that requiring an orthopedic/musculoskeletal clerkship led to a 12% relative increase in the application rate, from 5.1% to 5.7%, and to an increase in applicant diversity (race, sex).¹⁰ However, the investigators could not determine individual reasons for specialty choice or the exact nature of each institution’s musculoskeletal curriculum. Confirming these factors, we found an 81% increase in number of female applicants and a 101% increase in number of underrepresented minority applicants after introduction of the required third-year musculoskeletal surgery clerkship at our institution.

We were unable to replicate the 12% relative increase in the overall application rate; our orthopedic surgery match rate remained 6%. Our findings cannot directly explain this, but we have several hypotheses. First, whereas other studies measured the application rate, we measured the successful match rate, given our data structure. This difference in data definition could account for some of the discrepancy. Second, we did not account for individuals’ academic success, and career counseling is paramount in decisions regarding residency specialties. It is possible we are substituting qualified female and underrepresented minority candidates for less-than-qualified male applicants. Third, the 25% increase in medical student exposure to orthopedic surgery led to a corresponding increase in number of orthopedic faculty providing undergraduate medical education. Some of these faculty could have been inexperienced in undergraduate medical education, and thus the teaching environment may not have been optimal.

Our study had several limitations. First, our institution has limited racial diversity. Over the past 12 years, only 15% of our students have been underrepresented minorities. (Nationally, the proportion is closer to 18%.) This may have limited the ability of our orthopedic rotation to affect the proportion of underrepresented minority applicants. Second, this study involved medical students at only one institution, which limits generalizability of findings. Third, we were unable to obtain records specifying which faculty and residents interacted with which medical students, and the increased number of female faculty and residents coinciding with the curriculum change may also be a factor. However, we expect that, without the curriculum change, these students would have had smaller odds of interacting with these potential female role models in orthopedics, negating any affect they may have had. Last, although we contacted former students to ask about their reasons for choosing the orthopedics residency, those findings are limited by a potential respondent selection bias.

The qualities and characteristics of successful orthopedic surgeons, as presented in both medical and lay cultures, are subject to numerous stereotypes. By increasing medical student exposure to orthopedics during the third year of medical school, we are giving a larger proportion of our students direct clinical experience in a field they may not have been considering. This exposure allows students to interact with mentors who can be positive role models—orthopedic surgeons who are dispelling stereotypes. By increasing medical student exposure and reaching students who may not have been considering orthopedics, we have increased diversity among our applicants. Third-year medical students’ exposure to orthopedic surgery is essential in promoting a more diverse workforce.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E347-E351. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Direct-to-consumer marketing (DTCM) is the promotion of health-related products or services directly to patients. Although this topic is not new to orthopedics, several emerging trends hold troubling implications for patients as well as orthopedic surgeons, particularly surgeons in training.

Orthopedics DTCM most commonly involves television and print advertisements. Supporters contend DTCM is an empowering educational tool that increases awareness of medical ailments and encourages patients to seek treatment. Opponents point to inaccuracies and misleading claims. Bhattacharyya and colleagues¹ found that about half the claims in orthopedic print advertisements were not supported by clinical evidence. Woloshin and colleagues² found that information in DTCM was vague and often was designed to act on the emotions. Patients misled by these claims and innately seeking improvement could present with unreasonable expectations and difficult discussions that can be detrimental to the patient–physician relationship.³Given changing patient demographics and the information revolution, the effects of DTCM likely will continue to grow. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA), which represents Medicare’s largest expenditure,⁴ is a classic example. Today’s TJA patients are younger, more active, and better educated, and they live longer, have higher expectations, and are more reliant on the media.⁵ Television is no longer our main medium—the internet is the source of healthcare education for 70% of adults in the United States.⁶Healthcare reform has also brought significant changes in the delivery of DTCM. In an era of competition for market share brought by increased demand and decreased reimbursement, DTCM has evolved into sales pitches by hospitals and physicians. Robotic joint replacement, minimally invasive surgery (MIS), use of the anterior hip approach, use of sex-specific or high-flexion knee implants, and other practices have become popular marketing tools for surgery centers competing for new patients. As a result, patients often present not only with a complaint but with a request for a particular procedure.^4,5 Labovitch and colleagues⁷ found that 70% of MIS information on the internet was produced by hospitals and private medical groups, and only 6% was produced by industry. Although the vast majority of the sources reported on the advantages of MIS, only 15% explained patient eligibility, and a mere 9% supplied references for examination of peer-reviewed data. Another unfortunate consequence of DCTM is “physician shopping.” Bozic and colleagues⁴ found that patients exposed to DCTM were more likely to demand a specific surgery, approach, or implant and were less open to alternatives; in addition, they saw more than one surgeon before deciding on joint arthroplasty.

The effects of DTCM on resident and fellowship training require serious consideration. An emphasis on technology has come at the expense of learning the science and art of orthopedics.⁸ Physicians in training are pressured both to produce more and to use whichever specific technique or product a patient requests.⁴ Similarly, orthopedic surgeons are seeing job advertisements that read, “Training in robotic surgery or anterior approach is preferred.” Employer pressure can have profound implications for residents and fellows, who may feel compelled to learn these techniques. To a large degree, residents and fellows learn by accompanying their mentors and closely observing their decision-making processes and interactions with patients. Decisions regarding fellowships should not be influenced by surgical techniques or implant choices but by the quality and breadth of clinical experience.

DTCM likely will continue to shape all aspects of care. Claims made by physicians and hospitals are especially troubling because patients trust these sources. We face the challenge of reaffirming our commitment to patients and orthopedic surgeons. As the leader in musculoskeletal education, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) not only must provide educational material that is compatible with current technological media but must address current controversies and misleading claims. Toward that end, AAOS can expand its patient website, OrthoInfo, to include information on new technologies and surgical techniques pertaining to each musculoskeletal condition. Educating the public about risk factors for poor surgical outcomes is equally important in order to moderate unrealistic expectations and stimulate discussions on risks involved in unnecessary or potentially harmful technologies. The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) has already embarked on this approach. Orthopedic surgeons should continue to abide by the standards of professionalism—maintaining the tenet of “First do no harm,” resisting the temptations of consumerism, and giving patients accurate information. Taking these measures may help reduce physician shopping and strengthen the patient–physician relationship. We physicians are the guardians of patients’ well-being. We also owe it to orthopedic surgeons in training to provide well-balanced, unbiased education. The focus of training should not be on techniques for gaining market edge but on learning evidence-based medicine and surgical principles. In our burdened healthcare system, curbing DTCM has the potential to decrease unnecessary use of resources and improve the quality of education and patient care.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E335-E336. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Direct-to-consumer marketing (DTCM) is the promotion of health-related products or services directly to patients. Although this topic is not new to orthopedics, several emerging trends hold troubling implications for patients as well as orthopedic surgeons, particularly surgeons in training.

Orthopedics DTCM most commonly involves television and print advertisements. Supporters contend DTCM is an empowering educational tool that increases awareness of medical ailments and encourages patients to seek treatment. Opponents point to inaccuracies and misleading claims. Bhattacharyya and colleagues¹ found that about half the claims in orthopedic print advertisements were not supported by clinical evidence. Woloshin and colleagues² found that information in DTCM was vague and often was designed to act on the emotions. Patients misled by these claims and innately seeking improvement could present with unreasonable expectations and difficult discussions that can be detrimental to the patient–physician relationship.³Given changing patient demographics and the information revolution, the effects of DTCM likely will continue to grow. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA), which represents Medicare’s largest expenditure,⁴ is a classic example. Today’s TJA patients are younger, more active, and better educated, and they live longer, have higher expectations, and are more reliant on the media.⁵ Television is no longer our main medium—the internet is the source of healthcare education for 70% of adults in the United States.⁶Healthcare reform has also brought significant changes in the delivery of DTCM. In an era of competition for market share brought by increased demand and decreased reimbursement, DTCM has evolved into sales pitches by hospitals and physicians. Robotic joint replacement, minimally invasive surgery (MIS), use of the anterior hip approach, use of sex-specific or high-flexion knee implants, and other practices have become popular marketing tools for surgery centers competing for new patients. As a result, patients often present not only with a complaint but with a request for a particular procedure.^4,5 Labovitch and colleagues⁷ found that 70% of MIS information on the internet was produced by hospitals and private medical groups, and only 6% was produced by industry. Although the vast majority of the sources reported on the advantages of MIS, only 15% explained patient eligibility, and a mere 9% supplied references for examination of peer-reviewed data. Another unfortunate consequence of DCTM is “physician shopping.” Bozic and colleagues⁴ found that patients exposed to DCTM were more likely to demand a specific surgery, approach, or implant and were less open to alternatives; in addition, they saw more than one surgeon before deciding on joint arthroplasty.

The effects of DTCM on resident and fellowship training require serious consideration. An emphasis on technology has come at the expense of learning the science and art of orthopedics.⁸ Physicians in training are pressured both to produce more and to use whichever specific technique or product a patient requests.⁴ Similarly, orthopedic surgeons are seeing job advertisements that read, “Training in robotic surgery or anterior approach is preferred.” Employer pressure can have profound implications for residents and fellows, who may feel compelled to learn these techniques. To a large degree, residents and fellows learn by accompanying their mentors and closely observing their decision-making processes and interactions with patients. Decisions regarding fellowships should not be influenced by surgical techniques or implant choices but by the quality and breadth of clinical experience.

DTCM likely will continue to shape all aspects of care. Claims made by physicians and hospitals are especially troubling because patients trust these sources. We face the challenge of reaffirming our commitment to patients and orthopedic surgeons. As the leader in musculoskeletal education, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) not only must provide educational material that is compatible with current technological media but must address current controversies and misleading claims. Toward that end, AAOS can expand its patient website, OrthoInfo, to include information on new technologies and surgical techniques pertaining to each musculoskeletal condition. Educating the public about risk factors for poor surgical outcomes is equally important in order to moderate unrealistic expectations and stimulate discussions on risks involved in unnecessary or potentially harmful technologies. The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) has already embarked on this approach. Orthopedic surgeons should continue to abide by the standards of professionalism—maintaining the tenet of “First do no harm,” resisting the temptations of consumerism, and giving patients accurate information. Taking these measures may help reduce physician shopping and strengthen the patient–physician relationship. We physicians are the guardians of patients’ well-being. We also owe it to orthopedic surgeons in training to provide well-balanced, unbiased education. The focus of training should not be on techniques for gaining market edge but on learning evidence-based medicine and surgical principles. In our burdened healthcare system, curbing DTCM has the potential to decrease unnecessary use of resources and improve the quality of education and patient care.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E335-E336. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

Direct-to-consumer marketing (DTCM) is the promotion of health-related products or services directly to patients. Although this topic is not new to orthopedics, several emerging trends hold troubling implications for patients as well as orthopedic surgeons, particularly surgeons in training.

Orthopedics DTCM most commonly involves television and print advertisements. Supporters contend DTCM is an empowering educational tool that increases awareness of medical ailments and encourages patients to seek treatment. Opponents point to inaccuracies and misleading claims. Bhattacharyya and colleagues¹ found that about half the claims in orthopedic print advertisements were not supported by clinical evidence. Woloshin and colleagues² found that information in DTCM was vague and often was designed to act on the emotions. Patients misled by these claims and innately seeking improvement could present with unreasonable expectations and difficult discussions that can be detrimental to the patient–physician relationship.³Given changing patient demographics and the information revolution, the effects of DTCM likely will continue to grow. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA), which represents Medicare’s largest expenditure,⁴ is a classic example. Today’s TJA patients are younger, more active, and better educated, and they live longer, have higher expectations, and are more reliant on the media.⁵ Television is no longer our main medium—the internet is the source of healthcare education for 70% of adults in the United States.⁶Healthcare reform has also brought significant changes in the delivery of DTCM. In an era of competition for market share brought by increased demand and decreased reimbursement, DTCM has evolved into sales pitches by hospitals and physicians. Robotic joint replacement, minimally invasive surgery (MIS), use of the anterior hip approach, use of sex-specific or high-flexion knee implants, and other practices have become popular marketing tools for surgery centers competing for new patients. As a result, patients often present not only with a complaint but with a request for a particular procedure.^4,5 Labovitch and colleagues⁷ found that 70% of MIS information on the internet was produced by hospitals and private medical groups, and only 6% was produced by industry. Although the vast majority of the sources reported on the advantages of MIS, only 15% explained patient eligibility, and a mere 9% supplied references for examination of peer-reviewed data. Another unfortunate consequence of DCTM is “physician shopping.” Bozic and colleagues⁴ found that patients exposed to DCTM were more likely to demand a specific surgery, approach, or implant and were less open to alternatives; in addition, they saw more than one surgeon before deciding on joint arthroplasty.

The effects of DTCM on resident and fellowship training require serious consideration. An emphasis on technology has come at the expense of learning the science and art of orthopedics.⁸ Physicians in training are pressured both to produce more and to use whichever specific technique or product a patient requests.⁴ Similarly, orthopedic surgeons are seeing job advertisements that read, “Training in robotic surgery or anterior approach is preferred.” Employer pressure can have profound implications for residents and fellows, who may feel compelled to learn these techniques. To a large degree, residents and fellows learn by accompanying their mentors and closely observing their decision-making processes and interactions with patients. Decisions regarding fellowships should not be influenced by surgical techniques or implant choices but by the quality and breadth of clinical experience.

DTCM likely will continue to shape all aspects of care. Claims made by physicians and hospitals are especially troubling because patients trust these sources. We face the challenge of reaffirming our commitment to patients and orthopedic surgeons. As the leader in musculoskeletal education, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) not only must provide educational material that is compatible with current technological media but must address current controversies and misleading claims. Toward that end, AAOS can expand its patient website, OrthoInfo, to include information on new technologies and surgical techniques pertaining to each musculoskeletal condition. Educating the public about risk factors for poor surgical outcomes is equally important in order to moderate unrealistic expectations and stimulate discussions on risks involved in unnecessary or potentially harmful technologies. The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) has already embarked on this approach. Orthopedic surgeons should continue to abide by the standards of professionalism—maintaining the tenet of “First do no harm,” resisting the temptations of consumerism, and giving patients accurate information. Taking these measures may help reduce physician shopping and strengthen the patient–physician relationship. We physicians are the guardians of patients’ well-being. We also owe it to orthopedic surgeons in training to provide well-balanced, unbiased education. The focus of training should not be on techniques for gaining market edge but on learning evidence-based medicine and surgical principles. In our burdened healthcare system, curbing DTCM has the potential to decrease unnecessary use of resources and improve the quality of education and patient care.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(6):E335-E336. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.