Search

Endoprosthetic reconstructions of the hip and knee are currently reimbursed as primary hip and knee arthroplasty according to Current Procedural Terminology ( CPT ) coding guidelines. The purpose of this study was to compare hospital resources consumed by patients undergoing endoprosthetic reconstruction with those consumed by patients undergoing primary arthroplasty. The authors' hypothesis was that the former group carries more comorbidities, experiences longer length of stay (LOS), and has greater resource consumption. A retrospective review was performed of 61 patients undergoing endoprosthetic reconstruction and 745 patients undergoing primary hip or knee arthroplasty between 2015 and 2018 at a single institution. Demographic, clinical, and financial data were compared. The Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to measure patients' health status and identify comorbidities associated with prolonged LOS through linear regression analysis. Patients who underwent endoprosthetic reconstruction had a greater than 3.5 times average LOS compared with primary arthroplasty patients: 10.81 days vs 2.94 days ( P P Orthopedics . 2021;44(1):e73–e79.]

Backside damage of the polyethylene in TKA is a potential source of debris. The location of the tibial post in posterior-stabilized implants may influence micromotion, and thus affect backside damage, as may surface roughness.We used implant retrieval analysis to (1) examine if there were differences in backside damage among three modern posterior-stabilized implants attributable to variable surface roughness; (2) determine if the location of damage on the tibial post affected the pattern of backside damage; and (3) determine if demographics influenced backside damage.We identified 403 posterior-stabilized tibial retrieved inserts (147 NexGen(®), 152 Optetrak(®), 104 Genesis(®) II). The damage on the surfaces of the tibial posts was previously graded. The backside of the inserts (divided into quadrants) were scored for evidence of damage. The total quadrant damage was compared for each implant group, the relationship between post face damage and location of damage on the backside was determined for each implant group, and total backside damage was compared among the three implant groups.No correlation was found between the location of damage on the post and location of damage on the backside of the implant for any of the three groups. The Genesis(®) II polyethylene implants, which articulate with a highly polished tibial tray, showed a significantly lower total backside damage score (p0.01) when compared with the other two implant groups. The Genesis(®) II and Optetrak(®) showed significantly more damage in the posterior quadrants of the implants (p0.01) when compared with the anterior quadrants. A linear regression analysis revealed that lower tibial tray surface roughness was correlated with decreased damage.An implant design with a highly polished tibial tray was associated with decreased backside damage. However, tibial post design and location did not influence the location of backside damage.Our study showed that a highly polished tibial tray was associated with decreased damage to the backside of polyethylene inserts independent of post design and location. These findings should be taken into consideration when new generations of implants are designed.