» While no single approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been proven to be superior to others in terms of patient outcomes, the direct anterior approach (DAA) is becoming increasingly popular.» All of the described techniques for THA carry a small risk of nerve injury.» Identifying risk factors for nerve injury and mitigating these risks where feasible are imperative in order to reduce the incidence of this complication with any approach for THA.

Instability after total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be a problematic complication and remains one of the leading causes of revision surgery in the early post-operative period. Dual mobility (DM) implants decrease dislocation risk after THA but they come with their own set of complications. Selective use of DM implants for THA in high risk groups can confer the advantages of this construct while mitigating the risks. In this paper, we review the current literature to examine the evidence for or against use of DM implants in various clinical scenarios and provide an algorithm for when to consider using DM design construct in THA.

Background: We sought to determine whether any relevant patient, fracture, surgical, or postoperative characteristics are associated with loss of reduction after plate fixation of isolated olecranon fractures in adults. Methods: Patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation of an olecranon fracture at our institution over an 11-year period were analyzed. Electronic patient charts and radiographic images were reviewed to gather patient, fracture, surgical, and postoperative data. Statistical analysis to explore the differences between groups was performed. Results: Seven of 96 patients experienced a loss of fracture reduction diagnosed at a median of 19 days after their initial surgery (range: 4-116 days). The radiographic mode of failure of all patients who lost reduction was proximal migration of the proximal fracture fragment with or without implant failure. The group that lost reduction had a significantly smaller proximal fragment (14.2 vs 18.6 mm), a higher incidence of malreduction with a persistent articular step-off greater than 2 mm (6/7 vs 14/89), a greater distance between the most proximal screw and the olecranon tip (19.8 vs 13.5 mm), a higher proportion of constructs with screws placed outside of the primary plate (4/7 vs 14/89), and a higher proportion of patients that were not immobilized postoperatively (3/7 vs 8/89). Conclusions: Our results suggest anatomical reduction at the articular surface and adequate fixation of the proximal fragment are key factors in maintenance of reduction, with smaller proximal fragments being at higher risk for failure. A period of postoperative immobilization may decrease the risk of loss of reduction.

Introduction: Prompt diagnosis of septic arthritis is imperative to prevent irreversible joint damage. Immunocompromised patients are at an increased risk of septic arthritis as well as secondary systemic infection. Our aims were to identify features predictive of septic arthritis and to determine whether these features differed between immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients.Methods: A single institution retrospective cohort study was performed of 173 immunocompetent and 70 immunocompromised patients who underwent aspiration or arthrotomy for suspected septic arthritis from 2010 to 2018. Demographic data, symptoms, laboratory values, and imaging findings were recorded. Multiple variable logistic regression models were used to assess for predictive factors for septic arthritis in both cohorts. Results were reported as odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals, and P values.Results: In the regression analysis, independent predictive factors for septic arthritis in immunocompetent patients were younger age (P = 0.004), presence of radiographic abnormalities (P = 0.006), and Creactive protein (CRP) (P , 0.001). For immunocompromised patients, only CRP was an independent continuous predictive factor (P = 0.008) for septic arthritis. A risk stratification tool for predicting septic arthritis in immunocompetent patients using age ,55 years, CRP .100 mg/dL, and presence of radiographic abnormalities was developed. A similar tool was created using CRP .180 mg/dL and radiographic abnormalities in immunocompromised patients.Discussion: Differences in predictive factors for septic arthritis between immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients suggest dissimilar clinical presentations. The developed risk stratification tools allow one to predict the likelihood of septic arthritis in both groups. This may permit more accurate selection of patients for surgical intervention in the setting of insufficient data from synovial aspiration.

Background:Risk factors for removal of symptomatic hardware after plate fixation of olecranon fractures are not well defined. We examined patient, fracture, and surgical characteristics in relation to hardware removal for symptomatic instrumentation after plate and screw fixation of isolated olecranon fractures in adults. Methods:Eighty-four patients who underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) of isolated olecranon fractures with a plate and screw construct were analyzed retrospectively. Those with subsequent hardware removal for symptomatic hardware were identified. Charts and radiographs were reviewed to gather patient, fracture, and surgical characteristics in relation to management of their olecranon fracture. Univariate analysis was performed to test for statistical significance between groups. Results:Seventeen of 84 patients (20.2%) underwent hardware removal for symptomatic instrumentation at an average of 326 days after ORIF. Compared to patients who retained hardware, those who underwent removal trended younger (40.0 vs. 49.4 yr, P = 0.076), had a higher percentage of one particular plate design (35% vs. 8%, P = 0.026), and had their plate fixated an average of 1.3 mm farther from the olecranon tip (3.4 vs. 2.1 mm; P = 0.011). There was an 8.2 times increased likelihood of hardware removal for plates that were placed more than 2 mm from the olecranon tip [1.7 to 38.7, 95% confidence interval (CI); P = 0.003]. Conclusions:This study resulted in approximately 20% rate of symptomatic hardware necessitating removal. Patients who request removal tend to be younger. Fixating the plate closer to the olecranon tip may decrease the incidence of symptomatic hardware and need for subsequent removal.