Work hour restrictions imposed on orthopedic surgery residents since the early 2000s have reduced educational opportunities at the workplace and encouraged alternative strategies for teaching outside the clinical setting. Preoperative templating is essential for safe and effective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and is accurate in predicting final implants. We sought to determine the effectiveness of a video tool for teaching orthopedic residents basic THA templating skills. We developed a video-based teaching tool with instructions on proper THA templating techniques. Ten cases were selected for testing, after excluding patients with severe hip deformities and poor-quality radiographs and only retaining those with concordance between templating by the senior authors and implanted components. The study subjects included three postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1), three PGY-2, and three PGY-5 residents, and three adult reconstruction fellows (PGY-6). Templating skills were assessed before and after watching the instructional video. The evaluation included the size and positioning of femoral and acetabular components, as well as the restoration of leg length. Each templating session was repeated twice. Variance was measured to evaluate consistency in measurements. A linear mixed model and F-test were used for statistical analyses. The number of years in training significantly affected performance prior to exposure to the instructional video. Post-exposure, there was a significant improvement in the accuracy of sizing and positioning of acetabular and femoral components for PGY-1, PGY-2, and PGY-5 residents. The results achieved were comparable to PGY-6 examiners, who did not gain substantial performance benefits from the instructional video. Limb length restoration was less affected by experience or exposure to the video. Component positioning and sizing, as well as leg length discrepancy (LLD), showed a significant decrease in variance after the intervention in all study groups. Video learning is reliable in teaching invaluable skills to orthopedic surgery residents without encroaching on work hours. We conceived a concise video to train orthopedic residents to perform THA templating with proper technique and demonstrated its efficiency and reproducibility.
Postoperative infection is a potentially devastating complication after THA and TKA. In the early postoperative period, clinicians often find nonspecific indicators of infection. Although leukocytosis may be a sign of a developing infection in the early postoperative period, it may also be part of a normal surgical response. QUESTIONS AND PURPOSES: We determined (1) the natural history of white blood cell values after primary THA and TKA, (2) factors associated with early postoperative leukocytosis, and (3) the predictive value of white blood cell count for early postoperative periprosthetic joint infection.Using our institutional database, we identified all THA and TKA cases between January 2000 and December 2008. We determined the incidence of leukocytosis and characterized the natural history of postoperative white blood cell counts. We then investigated potential indicators of postoperative leukocytosis, including development of early periprosthetic infection.The average postoperative white blood cell count increased to approximately 3 × 10(6) cells/μL over the first 2 postoperative days and then declined to a level slightly higher than the preoperative level by Postoperative Day 4. The incidence of postoperative leukocytosis for all patients was 38%. Factors associated with postoperative leukocytosis included TKA, bilateral procedures, older age, and higher modified Charlson Comorbidity Index. The sensitivity and specificity of white blood cell count for diagnosing early periprosthetic infection were 79% and 46%, respectively.Postoperative leukocytosis is common after THA and TKA and represents a normal physiologic response to surgery. In the absence of abnormal clinical signs and symptoms, postoperative leukocytosis may not warrant further workup for infection.Level III, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Background While it is accepted accurate identification of infecting organisms is crucial in guiding treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), there remains no consensus regarding the best method for obtaining cultures. Questions/purposes We compared the yield of intraoperative tissue samples versus swab cultures in diagnosing PJI. Methods Tissue and swab cultures (three each) were collected prospectively during a consecutive series of 156 aseptic and septic revision arthroplasties from October 2011 to April 2012. The tissues and swabs were taken from standardized regions of the joint. After excluding 39 reimplantation procedures, we included 117 cases (74 hip, 43 knee; 30 septic, 87 aseptic) for analysis. We used a modified version of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria for defining PJI, requiring three of five rather than four of six criteria. Tissue and swab cultures from septic and aseptic cases were used to calculate their sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) for identifying PJI. Results Tissue cultures were positive in a higher percentage of septic cases than swab cultures: 28 of 30 (93%) versus 21 of 30 (70%). Tissue cultures were positive in two of 87 aseptic cases (2%), while swab cultures were positive in 10 of 87 (12%). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 93%, 98%, 93%, and 98%, respectively, for tissue cultures and 70%, 89%, 68%, and 90%, respectively, for swab cultures. Conclusions Tissue cultures demonstrated higher sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for diagnosing PJI than swab cultures. Swab cultures had more false-negative and false-positive results than tissue cultures. Because swab cultures pose a higher risk of not identifying or incorrectly identifying infecting organisms in PJI, we believe their use in obtaining intraoperative culture specimens should be discouraged. Level of Evidence Level II, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
