Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the sole disease-modifying intervention for end-stage osteoarthritis. However, the temporal trends and stratification of age and patient demographics of pain and function levels at which surgeons perform TKA have not been characterized. The present investigation aimed to analyze the temporal trends of preoperative pain and functional patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) over the past 5 years when stratifying patient demographics. A prospective cohort of all patients who underwent primary elective TKA between January 2016 and December 2020 at a North American integrated tertiary health care system was retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was quarterly baseline (preoperative) pain and function PROM values before primary elective TKA. Evaluated PROMs included Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-pain and KOOS-physical function shortform (PS) for the 5-year study period and were stratified by patient demographics (age, sex, race, and body mass index [BMI]). A total of 10,327 patients were analyzed. Preoperative pain levels remained unchanged over the study period for patients in the 45- to 64-year category (P-trend = 0.922). Conversely, there was a significant improvement in preoperative pain levels in the 65+ years group. Sex-stratified trends between males and females did not demonstrate a significant change in pre-TKA baseline pain over the study period (P-trend = 0.347 and P-trend = 0.0744). Both white and black patients demonstrated consistent KOOS-pain levels throughout the study period (P-trend = 0.0855 and P-trend = 0.626). Only white patients demonstrated improving preoperative KOOS-PS (P-trend = 0.0001), while black and “other” patients demonstrated consistent lower preoperative functional levels throughout the study period (P-trend = 0.456 and P-trend = 0.871). All BMI categories demonstrated relatively consistent preoperative KOOS-pain and KOOS-PS except for overweight and obese patients who demonstrated progressive improvement in preoperative KOOS-PS over the study period. Patients and surgeons are electing to perform primary TKA at higher levels of preoperative function. Stratification by race showed black patients did not experience a similar trend of improving function and exhibited a consistently lower functional level versus white patients. This disparity is likely to be multifactorial but may indicate underlying barriers to TKA access.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a relatively common complication among patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This complication occurs in a spectrum of severity ranging from an incidental finding to serious readmission-requiring events. To date, the risk factors of serious VTE that require readmission have not been characterized. This study examines the patient and hospital characteristics associated with readmission for serious VTE after TKA. The National Readmission Database (NRD) from the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) was queried for patients who underwent primary TKA from January 2016-December 2018. The study population consisted of patients who were readmitted within 90 days following primary TKA with a primary diagnosis of VTE. Multivariable regression models were constructed to evaluate patient characteristics (age, sex, insurance, elective nature of procedure, hospital characteristics, discharge status, income, and comorbidities) associated with higher risk of developing readmission-requiring VTE. Readmission rates for VTE exhibited a higher incidence in patients older than 61 (compared with 40 and under), males (OR:1.08, 95%CI [1.03–1.14]), patients with nonelective procedures (OR:20.21, 95% CI [19.16–21.32]), patients at large hospitals(OR:1.17, 95% CI [1.09–1.25]), patients at private hospitals (OR:1.19, 95% CI [1.09–1.29]), and patients with non-home discharge statuses. Comorbidities of paralysis (OR:1.52, 95% CI [1.19–1.94]), neurological disorders (OR:1.12, 95% CI [1.02–1.23]), metastatic cancer (OR:1.48, 95% CI [1.01–2.17]), obesity (OR:1.11, 95% CI [1.06–1.17]), fluid and electrolyte imbalance (OR:1.28, 95% CI [1.18–1.38]), blood loss anemia (OR:1.29, 95% CI [1.02–1.64]), and iron deficiency anemia (OR:1.24, 95 % CI [1.15–1.33]) increased risk of VTE. Certain comorbidities requiring chronic anticoagulation were associated with lower risk of VTE. Insurance status and patient income did not exhibit any correlation with VTE incidence. Patient characteristics of male sex, age > 61, and baseline comorbidities (paralysis, neurological disorders, metastatic cancer, obesity, fluid and electrolyte imbalance, and blood loss/iron deficiency anemia) were at an increased risk of developing serious VTE. Patients without continued supervision at their discharge environment were at higher risk of developing serious VTE. Extra prophylaxis and special protocols may be warranted in these patients to prevent VTE complications.

Background Although biomedical preprint servers have grown rapidly over the past several years, the harm to patient health and safety remains a major concern among several scientific communities. Despite previous studies examining the role of preprints during the Coronavirus-19 pandemic, there is limited information characterizing their impact on scientific communication in orthopaedic surgery. Questions/purposes (1) What are the characteristics (subspecialty, study design, geographic origin, and proportion of publications) of orthopaedic articles on three preprint servers? (2) What are the citation counts, abstract views, tweets, and Altmetric score per preprinted article and per corresponding publication? Methods Three of the largest preprint servers (medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Research Square) with a focus on biomedical topics were queried for all preprinted articles published between July 26, 2014, and September 1, 2021, using the following search terms: “orthopaedic,” “orthopedic,” “bone,” “cartilage,” “ligament,” “tendon,” “fracture,” “dislocation,” “hand,” “wrist,” “elbow,” “shoulder,” “spine,” “spinal,” “hip,” “knee,” “ankle,” and “foot.” Full-text articles in English related to orthopaedic surgery were included, while nonclinical studies, animal studies, duplicate studies, editorials, abstracts from conferences, and commentaries were excluded. A total of 1471 unique preprints were included and further characterized in terms of the orthopaedic subspecialty, study design, date posted, and geographic factors. Citation counts, abstract views, tweets, and Altmetric scores were collected for each preprinted article and the corresponding publication of that preprint in an accepting journal. We ascertained whether a preprinted article was published by searching title keywords and the corresponding author in three peer-reviewed article databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Dimensions) and confirming that the study design and research question matched. Results The number of orthopaedic preprints increased from four in 2017 to 838 in 2020. The most common orthopaedic subspecialties represented were spine, knee, and hip. From 2017 to 2020, the cumulative counts of preprinted article citations, abstract views, and Altmetric scores increased. A corresponding publication was identified in 52% (762 of 1471) of preprints. As would be expected, because preprinting is a form of redundant publication, published articles that are also preprinted saw greater abstract views, citations, and Altmetric scores on a per-article basis. Conclusion Although preprints remain an extremely small proportion of all orthopaedic research, our findings suggest that nonpeer-reviewed, preprinted orthopaedic articles are being increasingly disseminated. These preprinted articles have a smaller academic and public footprint than their published counterparts, but they still reach a substantial audience through infrequent and superficial online interactions, which are far from equivalent to the engagement facilitated by peer review. Furthermore, the sequence of preprint posting and journal submission, acceptance, and publication is unclear based on the information available on these preprint servers. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the metrics of preprinted articles are attributable to preprinting, and studies such as the present analysis will tend to overestimate the apparent impact of preprinting. Despite the potential for preprint servers to function as a venue for thoughtful feedback on research ideas, the available metrics data for these preprinted articles do not demonstrate the meaningful engagement that is achieved by peer review in terms of the frequency or depth of audience feedback. Clinical Relevance Our findings highlight the need for safeguards to regulate research dissemination through preprint media, which has never been shown to benefit patients and should not be considered as evidence by clinicians. Clinician-scientists and researchers have the most important responsibility of protecting patients from the harm of potentially inaccurate biomedical science and therefore must prioritize patient needs first by uncovering scientific truths through the evidence-based processes of peer review, not preprinting. We recommend all journals publishing clinical research adopt the same policy as Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ®, The Bone & Joint Journal, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and the Journal of Orthopaedic Research, removing any papers posted to preprint servers from consideration.

No abstract

No abstract