Background: The prospect of treating knee cartilage injury/pathology with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) has garnered considerable attention in recent years, but study heterogeneity and a lack of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) preclude quantitative analysis. The purpose of this review was to provide clinicians with an overview of RCTs that addresses 2 key areas that have been largely overlooked: nomenclature inconsistency and selective outcome reporting. Methods: RCTs that purported to use stem cells or MSCs to treat knee cartilage were identified with use of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). Study variables were compiled, and methodological quality was assessed. The cell treatments and the methods used to characterize them were recorded and compared. Clinical, radiographic, and arthroscopic outcomes were extracted and evaluated qualitatively. Results: There was extensive variation among the treatments, adjuvant therapies, and outcome measures. Treatments did not coincide with terminology. Significant differences in clinical outcomes were reported infrequently, and intra-group improvements or inter-group subscore differences were consistently highlighted, particularly when inter-group comparisons were left unreported. Conclusions: Overall, there are isolated cases in which positive efficacy results have been published, but our results suggest that the generally positive efficacy conclusions concerning stem cell therapy for knee cartilage pathology may be overstated. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that the efficacy of stem cell therapies should not be considered in aggregate. Cells that are procured or processed differently produce entirely different drugs. When evaluating the efficacy of “stem cell” therapies, clinicians must consider the methodological quality, nomenclature, and inherent distinctness of each treatment.

Background: Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are popular among Medicare-eligible patients, but little is known about MA in lower-extremity total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The purpose of this study was to describe trends in MA utilization and analyze differences in patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes between patients undergoing primary TJA using traditional Medicare (TM) or MA plans. Methods: Patients ≥65 years of age who underwent primary total knee or total hip arthroplasty were identified using the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients were categorized into TM and MA cohorts. Data from 2004 to 2020 were used to describe trends in insurance coverage. Data from 2015 to 2020 were used to identify differences in patient characteristics and postoperative complications using ICD-10 codes. Multivariate analyses were performed using 2015 to 2020 data to account for potential confounders. Results: From 2004 to 2020, the proportion of patients with MA increased from 7.9% to 34.4%, while those with TM decreased from 83.7% to 54.0%. Of the 697,317 patients who underwent primary elective TJA from 2015 to 2020, 471,439 (67.6%) had TM coverage and 225,878 (32.4%) had MA coverage. The cohorts were similar in terms of age and sex. However, a higher proportion of Black patients (8.29% compared with 4.62%; p < 0.001) and a lower proportion of White patients (84.0% compared with 89.2%; p < 0.001) were enrolled in MA compared with TM. After controlling for confounders, patients with MA had higher odds of surgical site infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.47; p = 0.031), periprosthetic joint infection (aOR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.18; p = 0.006), stroke (aOR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.31; p = 0.026), and acute kidney injury (aOR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.11; p < 0.001), but lower odds of urinary tract infection (aOR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.90 to 0.98; p = 0.003). Conclusions: From 2004 to 2020, the number of patients utilizing MA increased markedly such that 1 in 3 were covered by MA in 2020. From 2015 to 2020, patients who were non-White were more likely to have MA than TM, and the MA group had a higher rate of several postoperative complications compared with the TM group. As TM claims data inform health-care policy and clinical decisions, this change portends future challenges, including limitations in arthroplasty registry research, an increase in the administrative burden of surgeons, and a potential worsening of social disparities in health care.

Cementless fixation during total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the predominant mode of fixation utilized for both acetabular and femoral components during elective primary THAs performed in the United States. This study aims to compare early complication and readmission rates between primary THA patients receiving cemented versus cementless femoral fixation. The 2016–2017 National Readmissions Database was queried to identify patients undergoing elective primary THA. Postoperative complication and readmission rates at 30, 90, and 180 days were compared between cemented and cementless cohorts. Univariate analysis was conducted to compare differences between cohorts. Multivariate analysis was performed to account for confounding variables. Of 447,902 patients, 35,226 (7.9%) received cemented femoral fixation, while 412,676 (92.1%) did not. The cemented group was older (70.0 vs. 64.8, p < 0.001), more female (65.0% vs. 54.3%, p < 0.001), and more comorbid (CCI 3.65 vs. 3.22, p < 0.001) compared to the cementless group. On univariate analysis, the cemented cohort had decreased odds of periprosthetic fracture at 30 days postoperatively (OR: 0.556, 95%-CI 0.424–0.729, p < 0.0001), but higher odds of hip dislocation, periprosthetic joint infection, aseptic loosening, wound dehiscence, readmission, medical complications, and death at all timepoints. On multivariate analysis, the cemented fixation cohort demonstrated reduced odds of periprosthetic fracture at all postoperative timepoints: 30 (OR: 0.350, 95%-CI 0.233–0.506, p < 0.0001), 90 (OR: 0.544, 95%-CI 0.400–0.725, p < 0.0001), and 180 days (OR: 0.573, 95%-CI 0.396–0.803, p = 0.002). Cemented femoral fixation was associated with significantly fewer short-term periprosthetic fractures, but more unplanned readmissions, deaths, and postoperative complications compared to cementless femoral fixation in patients undergoing elective THA.

Background: Peripheral nerve injury (PNI) following revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) can be a devastating complication. This study assessed the frequency of and risk factors for postoperative PNI following rTHA. Methods: Patients who underwent rTHA from 2003 to 2015 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). Demographics, medical history, surgical details, and complications were compared between patients who sustained a PNI and those who did not, to identify risk factors for the development of PNI after rTHA. Results: Overall, 112,310 patients who underwent rTHA were identified, 929 (0.83%) of whom sustained a PNI. Univariate analysis found that younger patients (p < 0.0001), females (p = 0.025), and those with a history of flexion contracture (0.65% vs. 0.22%, p = 0.005), hip dislocation (24.0% vs. 18.0%, p < 0.001), and spine conditions (4.8% vs. 2.7%, p < 0.001) had significantly higher rates of PNI. In-hospital complications associated with PNI included postoperative hematoma (2.6% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.0001), postoperative seroma (0.75% vs. 0.30%, p = 0.011), superficial wound dehiscence (0.65% vs. 0.23%, p = 0.008), and postoperative anemia (36.1% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.007). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that a history of pre-existing spine conditions (aOR: 1.7; 95%-CI: 1.3–2.4, p < 0.001), prior dislocation (aOR 1.5; 95%-CI: 1.3–1.7, p < 0.001), postoperative anemia (aOR 1.2; 95%-CI: 1.0–1.4, p = 0.01), and hematoma (aOR 2.1; 95%-CI: 1.4–3.2, p < 0.001) were associated with increased risk for PNI. Conclusions: Our findings align with the existing literature, affirming that sciatic nerve injury is the prevailing neuropathic complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Furthermore, we observed a 0.83% incidence of PNI following rTHA and identified pre-existing spine conditions, prior hip dislocation, postoperative anemia, or hematoma as risk factors. Orthopedic surgeons may use this information to guide their discussion of PNI following rTHA, especially in high-risk patients.