Search

The Orthopaedic In-Training Exam (OITE) is administered annually to orthopedic surgery residents to assess their medical knowledge. The authors provide a comprehensive review of the orthopedic oncology portion of the exam in order to aid residents in preparation for future in-training and licensing examinations as well as to help guide oncology residency education curriculum. All of the orthopedic oncology questions on the OITE from 2007 to 2019 were reviewed. Analysis included (1) the number of oncology questions each year, (2) question topic, (3) question taxonomy (knowledge versus interpretation), (4) the type of imaging modalities (radiological, histological), (5) most commonly cited references, and (6) level of evidence. Descriptive statistics were utilized to compare means between variables. From 2007 to 2019, there was a total of 292 tumor-related questions with a mean of 22.5 tumor-related questions (range 19-28) per year. Of the questions, 54.8% pertained to malignant tumors and 45.2% to benign tumors. Assessment of question taxonomy showed that 79.8% of questions required interpretation of imaging and analysis of the information provided versus 20.2% of questions being knowledge recall type. Of the questions, 76.7% required interpretation of radiological images, pathological images, or both. Orthopaedic Knowledge Update, Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery were the three most commonly cited question sources. Only 29 (9.84%) oncology questions over the past 13 years have been supported by level I or II sources of evidence. Better understanding of the OITE make-up, question distribution, and number and style of question, reference sources can improve an orthopedic residents' performance as well as better guide educational curriculum to prepare residents in their orthopedic oncology education.

Background Routine analysis of bone specimens in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is mandatory at many institutions. The purpose of this study was to determine if mandatory routine TJA specimen analysis alters patient care or if they represent an unnecessary healthcare expenditure. Methods A retrospective review was performed of all primary TJA patients between October 2015 and December 2017 at our institution. Pathology results were reviewed to ascertain the number of concordant, discrepant, and discordant results. A diagnosis was considered concordant if the preoperative and pathologic diagnosis matched, discrepant if the preoperative and pathological diagnosis differed but no change in the patient's plan of care occurred, and discordant if the preoperative and pathologic diagnosis differed and resulted in a change in the patient's plan of care.  Results 3,670 total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures (3,613 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. All 3,670 specimens had a concordant diagnosis; there were zero discrepant and zero discordant diagnoses. During the study period, our institution spent $67,246.88 in routine analysis of TJA specimens by a pathologist, with no change in any postoperative patient care plans. Conclusion With bundled payment reimbursement models and hospitals trying to decrease unnecessary expenditures, the present study helps further demonstrate that routine analysis has limited cost-effectiveness due to the low prevalence of alteration in the management of patient care. The decision for pathological analysis should be left at the discretion of the surgeon in order to maximize the cost-efficiency of TJA procedures., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2021, Koss et al.)

Hip joint dislocation is the most common complication after a proximal femur replacement. As the utilization of proximal femur replacements continues to increase, it becomes imperative for surgeons to find the optimal method to decrease postoperative dislocation and its sequelae. These cases often involve extensive soft-tissue deficits that require reconstruction to provide postoperative strength and stability. Patients report good functional outcomes; however, dislocation remains a concern. Although "described" previously in the literature, the authors illustrate the "purse-string" hip joint capsular closure technique to help other surgeons understand it and apply to their practice as deemed necessary. We also present the senior author's results with using a modified version of the "purse-string" hip joint capsular closure technique., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

The humerus is a common site of metastatic tumor involvement and pathologic fracture. Intramedullary nailing is a treatment option that offers the benefit of protecting a long segment of diseased bone, but it is not without complications. This study aims to examine the survival, functional outcomes, and complications of patients treated with cement-augmented unlocked intramedullary nailing for actual and impending pathologic fractures of the humeral shaft., Methods: From 2014 to 2019, 26 patients were treated with this technique. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society scoring system. Outcome scores, complications, reoperations, and mortality were determined by retrospective chart reviews and direct patient examinations., Results: The mean age at the time of surgery was 66.8 years. The mean follow-up was 20.2 months. Patients reported significant improvement in the mean Musculoskeletal Tumor Society score from 10.5 preoperatively to 26.1 after surgery ( P < 0.001). Five patients died of disease during the follow-up period. One patient had intraoperative fracture propagation during implant placement, and one patient experienced a postoperative rotator cuff tear., Discussion: Unlocked intramedullary nailing with cement augmentation is a reliable treatment method for actual and impending pathologic fractures of the humerus that results in favorable outcomes, including consistent pain relief and restoration of function., Competing Interests: None of the following authors or any immediate family member has received anything of value from or has stock or stock options held in a commercial company or institution related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article: Dr. Pizzo, Mr. Hoskins, Dr. Patel, Dr. Miller, Mr. Goyette, Mr. Mazzei, and Dr. Wittig., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Background: Postoperative infection is one of the most prevalent complications following total joint arthroplasty (TJA). As such procedures become more prevalent, it is imperative that we develop new prophylactic methods to prevent the need for revision procedures. In recent years, surgeons have opted to use antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) rather than plain bone cement (PBC) in primary hip and knee replacements due to its theoretical potential of lowering infection rates. However, the cost-effectiveness of this intervention remains in question.Questions/Purposes: To determine the rate of infection and cost-effectiveness of antibiotic-loaded bone cement as compared to plain bone cement in hip and knee arthroplasty., Patients and Methods: We reviewed 4116 primary hip and knee arthroplasty cases performed between 2016 and 2018 at Morristown Medical Center in New Jersey. Data regarding demographics, complications, and any readmissions due to deep infection were collected retrospectively. During that time period there were a total of 4016 knee cases (423 ALBC, 3593 PBC) and 123 hip cases (63 ALBC, 60 PBC). The average cost for one bag of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and plain bone cement for hip and knee arthroplasty was $336.42 and $72.14, respectively. A statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test; the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) surgical site infection guidelines were used to distinguish between superficial and deep infections., Results: Ten patients were readmitted due to deep infection, all of whom had undergone total knee arthroplasty. Of those cases, plain bone cement was used for the index procedure in seven instances and antibiotic-loaded cement was used in three. This resulted in an infection rate of 0.19% and 0.62%, respectively, p = 0.103. There was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the two groups. A total of 778 bags of ALBC were used in 423 knee surgeries, and 98 bags of ALBC were used in 63 hip cases. The total cost for ALBC in TKA and THA procedures was $261,734.76 (778*336.42) and $32,969.16 (98*336.42), respectively. If PBC had been used during all index procedures, it would have resulted in a total savings of $231,509.28., Conclusions: Antibiotic-loaded cement did not significantly reduce the rate of infection for either knee or hip arthroplasty. Thus, the routine use of antibiotic-loaded cement in primary hip and knee arthroplasty may be an unnecessary financial burden to the healthcare system. A larger sample size and a randomized controlled trial would help confirm our findings and would provide further information on the cost-effectiveness of ALBC cement versus PBC.Significance/Clinical Relevance: In this review of cases performed from 2016 to 2018 there was no statistically significant difference between the rate of infection and the need for revision surgeries for patients treated with ALBC versus PBC. As hospital systems continue to transition towards a bundled payment model, it becomes imperative for providers to reduce any unnecessary costs in order to increase quality and efficiency. We estimate that our hospital system could save nearly $120,000/year by using plain bone cement instead of antibiotic-loaded cement., Competing Interests: “Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.”, (Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Professor P K Surendran Memorial Education Foundation.)