Number of Doses of Systemic Antibiotic Prophylaxis May Be Reduced in Cemented Primary Knee Arthroplasty Irrespective of Use of Antibiotic in the Cement: A Multiregistry-Based Meta-Analysis.

Background: The use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) and antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) is the accepted practice to reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary total knee arthroplasty (pTKA). However, practice varies internationally. This study's primary aim was to compare the risk of PJI revision after pTKA with ALBC + SAP vs.

No Difference in Survivorship Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Ultraporous Acetabular Cups and Cross-Linked Polyethylene With and Without Acetabular Screws in a Large United States Health Care System.

Background: Modern cementless acetabular cups for total hip arthroplasty (THA) typically have screw options. Historically, screws were thought to improve stability, but came at the cost of pathways for osteolysis. Modern cups and liners may have made both concerns obsolete, and the utility of screws are now contested.

Dual-Mobility Articulations in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparison with Metal or Ceramic on Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene and Constrained Articulations.

Background: The increased availability of dual-mobility acetabular constructs (DMCs) provides surgeons with a newer option to increase the effective femoral head size in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). We sought to evaluate risks of re-revision and prosthetic dislocation following rTHA involving a DMC compared with other articulations.

Methods: A cohort study was conducted using data from a U.

Loose-fit vs. press-fit stems and risk for surgical reintervention following radial head arthroplasty: a US-based cohort study of 1575 patients.

Background: Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is performed with increasing frequency for reconstruction of comminuted radial head fractures. Implants can be categorized by stem design, either loose fit or press fit. Currently, the RHA literature does not suggest one implant type is superior to another based on revision and reoperation rates, although most RHA outcome studies have small numbers of patients with few events to detect a difference.