Levy DM

Nearly 2% of patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) develop a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) within 20 years of surgery, and 41% of these infections occur within the first 2 years.¹ PJI is the most common cause of TKA failure and the third leading complication of THA.² The estimated total hospital cost of treating PJI increased from $320 million in 2001 to $566 million in 2009, which can be extrapolated to $1.62 billion in 2020.³ By 2030, the projected increase in demand for TKA and THA will be 673% and 174% of what it was in 2005, respectively.⁴ Treatment of PJI of the knee is estimated to cost 3 to 4 times more than a primary TKA, and the cost of revision THA for PJI is almost $6000 more than that of revision TKA for PJI.³

In this article, we review the numerous preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative methods of decreasing PJI incidence after total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

Preoperative Risk Prevention

Medical Comorbidities

Preoperative medical optimization is a key element in PJI prevention (Table 1). An American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score of 3 or more has been associated with doubled risk for surgical site infections (SSIs) after THA.5 Autoimmune conditions confer a particularly higher risk. In a retrospective double-cohort study of 924 subjects, Bongartz and colleagues⁶ found that, compared with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis tripled the risk of PJI. Small case series originally suggested a higher risk of PJI in patients with psoriasis,^7,8 but more recent studies have contradicted that finding.^9,10 Nevertheless, psoriatic plaques have elevated bacterial counts,¹¹ and planned incisions should circumvent these areas.

Diabetes mellitus is a clear risk factor for PJI.^12-16 Regarding whether preoperative glucose control affects risk, findings have been mixed. Mraovic and colleagues¹⁷ showed preoperative hyperglycemia to be an independent risk factor; Jämsen and colleagues,¹⁵ in a single-center analysis of more than 7000 TJAs, suggested preoperative blood glucose levels were not independently associated with PJI; and Iorio and colleagues¹⁶ found no association between surgical infections and hemoglobin A1c levels.

TJA incidence is higher in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) than in the general population.¹⁸ Dialysis users have a post-THA PJI rate as high as 13% to 19%.^19,20 Early clinical data suggested that outcomes are improved in dialysis users who undergo renal transplant, but this finding recently has been questioned.^19,21 Deegan and colleagues²² found an increased PJA rate of 3.5% even in low-level CKD (stage 1, 2, or 3), but this may be confounded by the increased association of CKD with other PJI-predisposing comorbidities.

Given a higher incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) among patients with PJI, some surgeons think UTIs predispose to PJIs by hematogenous seeding.^12,23,24 Symptomatic UTIs should be cleared before surgery and confirmed on urinalysis. Obstructive symptoms should prompt urologic evaluation. As asymptomatic pyuria and bacteriuria (colony counts, >1 × 105/mL) do not predispose to PJI, patients without symptoms do not require intervention.^25,26 Past history of malignancy may also have a role in PJI. In a case-control study of the Mayo Clinic arthroplasty experience from 1969 to 1991, Berbari and colleagues¹ found an association between malignancy and PJI (odds ratio, 2.4). They theorized the immunosuppressive effects of cancer treatment might be responsible for this increased risk.

Immunocompromising Medications

Immunocompromising medications are modifiable and should be adjusted before surgery. Stopping any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) more than 4 weeks before surgery is not recommended.²⁷

Corticosteroid use can lead to immunosuppression and increased protein catabolism, which impairs soft-tissue healing. To avoid flares or adrenal insufficiency, however, chronic corticosteroid users should continue their regular doses perioperatively.²⁸ On the day of surgery, they should also receive a stress dose of hydrocortisone 50 to 75 mg (for primary arthroplasty) or 100 to 150 mg (for revision arthroplasty), followed by expeditious tapering over 1 to 2 days.²⁹ DMARDs are increasingly used by rheumatologists. One of the most effective DMARDs is methotrexate. Despite its immunocompromising activity, methotrexate should be continued perioperatively, as stopping for even 2 days may increase flare-related complications.³⁰ Hydroxychloroquine can be continued perioperatively and has even been shown, by Johnson and Charnley,³¹ to prevent deep vein thromboses. Sulfasalazine can also be continued perioperatively—but with caution, as it may elevate international normalized ratio (INR) levels in patients receiving warfarin.²⁹ Most other DMARDs should be temporarily discontinued. Leflunomide and interleukin 1 antagonists, such as anakinra, should be stopped 1 to 2 days before surgery and restarted 10 to 14 days after surgery.²⁹ Rituximab should be stopped 1 week before surgery and restarted 10 to 14 days after surgery. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors should be discontinued for 2 half-lives before and after surgery.³² Etanercept has a half-life of 3 to 5 days; infliximab, 8 to 10 days; and adalimumab, 10 to 13 days. Most surgeons schedule surgery for the end of a dosing cycle and discontinue these biologic agents for another 10 to 14 days after surgery.

Metabolic Factors

Obese patients are susceptible to longer surgeries, more extensive dissection, poorly vascularized subcutaneous tissue, and higher requirements of weight-adjusted antibiotic dosing.¹³ Body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m² or more (morbid obesity) and BMI over 50 kg/m² have been associated with 9 times and 21.3 times increased risk of PJI, respectively.^13,14 Delaying surgery with dietary consultation has been suggested,^33,34 and bariatric surgery before TKA may decrease infection rates by 3.5 times.³⁵

Nutritional markers are considered before arthroplasty. According to most laboratories, a serum transferrin level under 200 mg/dL, albumin level under 3.5 g/dL, and total lymphocyte count under 1500 cells/mm³ indicate malnourishment, which can increase the incidence of wound complications by 5 to 7 times.³⁶ Patients should also have sufficient protein, vitamin, and mineral supplementation, particularly vitamins A and C, zinc, and copper.³⁷Smokers who cease smoking at least 4 to 6 weeks before surgery lower their wound complication rate by up to 26%.^38,39 When nicotine leaves the bloodstream, vasodilation occurs, oxygenation improves, and the immune system recovers.³⁹ Studies have found more SSIs in patients who abuse alcohol,40 and numerous authors have confirmed this finding in the arthroplasty population.^24,41,42 Alcohol inhibits platelet function and may predispose to a postoperative hematoma. In contrast to smoking cessation evidence, evidence regarding alcohol interventions in preventing postoperative infections is less conclusive.^43,44

MRSA Colonization

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a particularly difficult bacterium to eradicate in PJI. As the mean cost of treating a single case of MRSA-related prosthetic infection is $107,264 vs $68,053 for susceptible strains,45,46 many infection-containment strategies focus on addressing benign MRSA colonization before surgery.

MRSA is present in the nares of 25 million people in the United States. Nasal colonization increases the risk of bacteremia 4-fold⁴⁷ and SSI 2- to 9-fold.^48,49 Nasal swabs are analyzed with either a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, which provides results in 2 hours, or a bacterial culture, which provides results in 1 to 4 days. The PCR test is more expensive.

Eradication of MRSA colonization is increasingly prevalent. Several Scandinavian countries have instituted strict practices by which patients are denied elective surgery until negative nasal swabs are obtained.⁴⁹ Nasal decontamination is one method of colonization reduction. Topical mupirocin, which yields eradication in 91% of nasal carriers immediately after treatment and in 87% after 4 weeks,⁵⁰ is effective in reducing SSI rates only when used in conjunction with a body wash, which is used to clean the axilla and groin.⁵¹ There is no consensus on optimal timing, but Bode and colleagues⁵² found a significant decrease in deep SSIs when decontamination occurred just 24 hours before surgery.

Povidone-iodine showers went out of favor with the realization that chlorhexidine gluconate acts longer on the skin surface.^53,54 Preoperative showers involve rinsing with liquid chlorhexidine soap 24 to 48 hours before surgery. However, chlorhexidine binds preferentially to the cotton in washcloths instead of the skin. Edmiston and colleagues^54,55 found that 4% chlorhexidine liquid soaps achieve much lower skin chlorhexidine concentrations than 2% polyester cloths do. Use of these “chlorhexidine wipes” the night before and the day of surgery has decreased PJI after TKA from 2.2% to 0.6%.^56,57

Intraoperative Risk Prevention

Preparation

Which preoperative antibiotic to use is one of the first operative considerations in PJI prophylaxis (Table 2). Cefazolin is recommended as a first-line agent for its excellent soft-tissue penetration, long half-life, and activity against gram-positive bacteria such as skin flora.⁵⁸ Clindamycin may be considered for patients allergic to β-lactam antibiotics. Vancomycin may be considered for adjunctive use with cephalosporins in cases of known MRSA colonization. Vancomycin infusion should be started earlier than infusion with other antibiotics, as vancomycin must be infused slowly and takes longer to become therapeutic.

Antibiotic dosing should be based on local antibiograms, adjusted dosing weight, or BMI.⁵⁹ For revision arthroplasty, preoperative prophylaxis should not be stopped out of fear of affecting operative cultures.⁶⁰ Some surgeons pause antibiotic use if a preoperative joint aspirate has not been obtained. Infusion within 1 hour of incision is part of the pay-for-performance guidelines established by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.⁶¹ An antibiotic should be redosed if the operation will take longer than 2 half-lives of the drug.⁵⁹ Surgeons should consider administering a dose every 4 hours or whenever blood loss exceeds 1000 mL.⁶² Engesæter and colleagues⁶³ found that antibiotic prophylaxis was most effective given 4 times perioperatively (1 time before surgery, 3 times after surgery). Postoperative antibiotics should not be administered longer than 24 hours, as prolonged dosing confers no benefit.⁵⁸ Operating room conditions must be optimized for prophylaxis. More people and operating room traffic in nonsterile corridors increase contamination of instruments open to air.⁶⁴ Laminar airflow systems are commonly used. Although there is little dispute that laminar flow decreases the bacterial load of air, there are mixed results regarding its benefit in preventing PJI.^65-68 Skin preparation may address patient risk factors. Hair clipping is preferred to shaving, which may cause microabrasions and increased susceptibility to skin flora.69 Patients should be prepared with antiseptic solution. One randomized controlled trial found that 2% chlorhexidine gluconate mixed with 70% isopropyl alcohol was superior to 10% povidone-iodine in preventing SSIs.⁷⁰ However, a recent cohort study showed a lower rate of superficial wound infections when 1% povidone-iodine (vs 0.5% chlorhexidine) was used with alcohol.⁷¹ This finding may indicate the need for alcohol preparation, higher concentrations of chlorhexidine, or both.

Proper scrubbing and protective gear are needed to reduce surgeon risk factors. Hand washing is a routine part of any surgery. Alcohol-based hand scrubs are as effective as hand scrubbing.65 They reduce local skin flora by 95% immediately and by 99% with repeated applications.⁷² Lidwell and colleagues⁷³ found a 75% reduction in infection when body exhaust suits were used in combination with laminar flow in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 8052 patients. Sterile draping with impermeable drapes should be done over properly prepared skin. Ioban drapes (3M) are often used as a protective barrier. Interestingly, a Cochrane review found no benefit in using plastic adhesives impregnated with iodine over sterilely prepared skin.⁷⁴

Operative Considerations

Surgical gloves become contaminated in almost one third of cases, half the time during draping.⁷⁵ For this reason, many surgeons change gloves after draping. In addition, double gloving prevents a breech of aseptic technique should the outer glove become perforated.⁷⁶ Demircay and colleagues⁷⁷ assessed double latex gloving in arthroplasty and found the outer and inner gloves perforated in 18.4% and 8.4% of cases, respectively. Punctures are most common along the nondominant index finger, and then the dominant thumb.^77,78 Perforation is more common when 2 latex gloves are worn—vs 1 latex glove plus an outer cloth glove—and the chance of perforation increases with surgery duration. The inner glove may become punctured in up to 100% of operations that last over 3 hours.⁷⁹ Although Dodds and colleagues⁸⁰ found no change in bacterial counts on surgeons’ hands or gloves after perforation, precautions are still recommended. Al-Maiyah and colleagues⁸¹ went as far as to recommend glove changes at 20-minute intervals and before cementation.

Surgical instruments can be sources of contamination. Some authors change the suction tip every hour to minimize the risk of deep wound infection.^82-85 Others change it before femoral canal preparation and prosthesis insertion during THA.⁸⁶ The splash basin is frequently contaminated, and instruments placed in it should not be returned to the operative field.⁸⁷ Hargrove and colleagues⁸⁸ suggested pulsatile lavage decreases PJI more than bulb syringe irrigation does, whereas others argued that high-pressure lavage allows bacteria to penetrate more deeply, which could lead to retention of more bacteria.⁸⁹ Minimizing operating room time was found by Kurtz and colleagues⁹⁰ and Peersman and colleagues⁹¹ to decrease PJI incidence. Carroll and colleagues⁷¹ correlated longer tourniquet use with a higher rate of infection after TKA; proposed mechanisms include local tissue hypoxia and lowered concentrations of prophylactic antibiotics.

Similarly, minimizing blood loss and transfusion needs is another strategy for preventing infection. Allogenic transfusion may increase the risk of PJI 2 times.^23,71,92 The mechanism seems to be immune system modulation by allogenic blood, which impairs microcirculation and oxygen delivery at the surgical site.^23,75 Transfusions should be approached with caution, and consideration given to preoperative optimization and autologous blood donation. Cherian and colleagues⁹³ reviewed different blood management strategies and found preoperative iron therapy, intravenous erythropoietin, and autologous blood donation to be equally effective in reducing the need for allogenic transfusions. Numerous studies of tranexamic acid, thrombin-based hemostatic matrix (Floseal; Baxter Inc), and bipolar sealer with radiofrequency ablation (Aquamantys; Medtronic Inc) have found no alterations in infection rates, but most have used calculated blood loss, not PJI, as the primary endpoint.^94-105 Antibiotic cement also can be used to block infection.^63,106-110 Although liquid gentamicin may weaken bone cement,¹¹¹ most antibiotics, including powdered tobramycin and vancomycin, do not weaken its fatigue strength.^111-114 A recent meta-analysis by Parvizi and colleagues¹¹⁵ revealed that deep infection rates dropped from 2.3% to 1.2% with use of antibiotic cement for primary THAs. Cummins and colleagues,¹¹⁶ however, reported the limited cost-effectiveness of antibiotic cement in primary arthroplasty. Performing povidone-iodine lavage at the end of the case may be a more inexpensive alternative. Brown and colleagues¹¹⁷ found that rinsing with dilute povidone-iodine (.35%) for 3 minutes significantly decreased the incidence of PJI.

Closure techniques and sutures have been a focus of much of the recent literature. Winiarsky and colleagues³⁴ advocated using a longer incision for obese patients and augmenting closure in fattier areas with vertical mattress retention sutures, which are removed after 5 days. A barbed monofilament suture (Quill; Angiotech Inc) is gaining in popularity. Laboratory research has shown that bacteria adhere less to barbed monofilament sutures than to braided sutures.¹¹⁸ Smith and colleagues¹¹⁹ found a statistically nonsignificant higher rate of wound complications with barbed monofilament sutures, whereas Ting and colleagues120 found no difference in complications. These studies were powered to detect differences in time and cost, not postoperative complications. Skin adhesive (Dermabond; Ethicon Inc), also used in closure, may be superior to staples in avoiding superficial skin abscesses.¹²¹ Although expensive, silver-impregnated dressing has antimicrobial activity that reduces PJI incidence by up to 74%.¹²² One brand of this dressing (Aquacel; ConvaTec Inc) has a polyurethane waterproof barrier that allows it to be worn for 7 days.

Three factors commonly mentioned in PJI prevention show little supporting evidence. Drains, which are often used, may create a passage for postoperative infection and are associated with increased transfusion needs.^123,124 Adding antibiotics to irrigation solution¹²⁵ and routinely changing scalpel blades^126-129 also have little supporting evidence. In 2014, the utility of changing scalpel blades after incision was studied by Lee and colleagues,¹³⁰ who reported persistence of Propionibacterium acnes in the dermal layer after skin preparation. Their study, however, was isolated to the upper back region, not the hip or knee.

Postoperative Risk Prevention

Most arthroplasty patients receive anticoagulation after surgery, but it must be used with caution. Large hematomas can predispose to wound complications. Parvizi and colleagues¹³¹ associated wound drainage, hematoma, and subsequent PJI with an INR above 1.5 in the early postoperative period. Therefore, balanced anticoagulation is crucial. Postoperative glucose control is also essential, particularly for patients with diabetes. Although preoperative blood glucose levels may or may not affect PJI risk,^15,17,132 postoperative blood glucose levels of 126 mg/dL or higher are strongly associated with joint infections.¹³³ Even nondiabetic patients with postoperative morning levels over 140 mg/dL are 3 times more likely to develop an infection.¹⁷

Efforts should be made to discharge patients as soon as it is safe to do so. With longer hospital stays, patients are more exposed to nosocomial organisms and increased antibiotic resistance.^5,23,134 Outpatient antibiotics should be considered for dental, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary procedures. Oral antibiotic prophylaxis is controversial, as there is some evidence that dental procedures increase the risk of PJI only minimally.^10,135-138

Conclusion

PJI is a potentially devastating complication of TJA. For this reason, much research has been devoted to proper diagnosis and treatment. Although the literature on PJI prophylaxis is abundant, there is relatively little consensus on appropriate PJI precautions. Preoperative considerations should include medical comorbidities, use of immunocompromising medications, obesity, nutritional factors, smoking, alcohol use, and MRSA colonization. Surgeons must have a consistent intraoperative method of antibiotic administration, skin preparation, scrubbing, draping, gloving, instrument exchange, blood loss management, cementing, and closure. In addition, monitoring of postoperative anticoagulation and blood glucose management is important. Having a thorough understanding of PJI risk factors may help reduce the incidence of this devastating complication.

Nearly 2% of patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) develop a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) within 20 years of surgery, and 41% of these infections occur within the first 2 years.¹ PJI is the most common cause of TKA failure and the third leading complication of THA.² The estimated total hospital cost of treating PJI increased from $320 million in 2001 to $566 million in 2009, which can be extrapolated to $1.62 billion in 2020.³ By 2030, the projected increase in demand for TKA and THA will be 673% and 174% of what it was in 2005, respectively.⁴ Treatment of PJI of the knee is estimated to cost 3 to 4 times more than a primary TKA, and the cost of revision THA for PJI is almost $6000 more than that of revision TKA for PJI.³

In this article, we review the numerous preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative methods of decreasing PJI incidence after total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

Preoperative Risk Prevention

Medical Comorbidities

Preoperative medical optimization is a key element in PJI prevention (Table 1). An American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score of 3 or more has been associated with doubled risk for surgical site infections (SSIs) after THA.5 Autoimmune conditions confer a particularly higher risk. In a retrospective double-cohort study of 924 subjects, Bongartz and colleagues⁶ found that, compared with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis tripled the risk of PJI. Small case series originally suggested a higher risk of PJI in patients with psoriasis,^7,8 but more recent studies have contradicted that finding.^9,10 Nevertheless, psoriatic plaques have elevated bacterial counts,¹¹ and planned incisions should circumvent these areas.

Diabetes mellitus is a clear risk factor for PJI.^12-16 Regarding whether preoperative glucose control affects risk, findings have been mixed. Mraovic and colleagues¹⁷ showed preoperative hyperglycemia to be an independent risk factor; Jämsen and colleagues,¹⁵ in a single-center analysis of more than 7000 TJAs, suggested preoperative blood glucose levels were not independently associated with PJI; and Iorio and colleagues¹⁶ found no association between surgical infections and hemoglobin A1c levels.

TJA incidence is higher in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) than in the general population.¹⁸ Dialysis users have a post-THA PJI rate as high as 13% to 19%.^19,20 Early clinical data suggested that outcomes are improved in dialysis users who undergo renal transplant, but this finding recently has been questioned.^19,21 Deegan and colleagues²² found an increased PJA rate of 3.5% even in low-level CKD (stage 1, 2, or 3), but this may be confounded by the increased association of CKD with other PJI-predisposing comorbidities.

Given a higher incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) among patients with PJI, some surgeons think UTIs predispose to PJIs by hematogenous seeding.^12,23,24 Symptomatic UTIs should be cleared before surgery and confirmed on urinalysis. Obstructive symptoms should prompt urologic evaluation. As asymptomatic pyuria and bacteriuria (colony counts, >1 × 105/mL) do not predispose to PJI, patients without symptoms do not require intervention.^25,26 Past history of malignancy may also have a role in PJI. In a case-control study of the Mayo Clinic arthroplasty experience from 1969 to 1991, Berbari and colleagues¹ found an association between malignancy and PJI (odds ratio, 2.4). They theorized the immunosuppressive effects of cancer treatment might be responsible for this increased risk.

Immunocompromising Medications

Immunocompromising medications are modifiable and should be adjusted before surgery. Stopping any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) more than 4 weeks before surgery is not recommended.²⁷

Corticosteroid use can lead to immunosuppression and increased protein catabolism, which impairs soft-tissue healing. To avoid flares or adrenal insufficiency, however, chronic corticosteroid users should continue their regular doses perioperatively.²⁸ On the day of surgery, they should also receive a stress dose of hydrocortisone 50 to 75 mg (for primary arthroplasty) or 100 to 150 mg (for revision arthroplasty), followed by expeditious tapering over 1 to 2 days.²⁹ DMARDs are increasingly used by rheumatologists. One of the most effective DMARDs is methotrexate. Despite its immunocompromising activity, methotrexate should be continued perioperatively, as stopping for even 2 days may increase flare-related complications.³⁰ Hydroxychloroquine can be continued perioperatively and has even been shown, by Johnson and Charnley,³¹ to prevent deep vein thromboses. Sulfasalazine can also be continued perioperatively—but with caution, as it may elevate international normalized ratio (INR) levels in patients receiving warfarin.²⁹ Most other DMARDs should be temporarily discontinued. Leflunomide and interleukin 1 antagonists, such as anakinra, should be stopped 1 to 2 days before surgery and restarted 10 to 14 days after surgery.²⁹ Rituximab should be stopped 1 week before surgery and restarted 10 to 14 days after surgery. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors should be discontinued for 2 half-lives before and after surgery.³² Etanercept has a half-life of 3 to 5 days; infliximab, 8 to 10 days; and adalimumab, 10 to 13 days. Most surgeons schedule surgery for the end of a dosing cycle and discontinue these biologic agents for another 10 to 14 days after surgery.

Metabolic Factors

Obese patients are susceptible to longer surgeries, more extensive dissection, poorly vascularized subcutaneous tissue, and higher requirements of weight-adjusted antibiotic dosing.¹³ Body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m² or more (morbid obesity) and BMI over 50 kg/m² have been associated with 9 times and 21.3 times increased risk of PJI, respectively.^13,14 Delaying surgery with dietary consultation has been suggested,^33,34 and bariatric surgery before TKA may decrease infection rates by 3.5 times.³⁵

Nutritional markers are considered before arthroplasty. According to most laboratories, a serum transferrin level under 200 mg/dL, albumin level under 3.5 g/dL, and total lymphocyte count under 1500 cells/mm³ indicate malnourishment, which can increase the incidence of wound complications by 5 to 7 times.³⁶ Patients should also have sufficient protein, vitamin, and mineral supplementation, particularly vitamins A and C, zinc, and copper.³⁷Smokers who cease smoking at least 4 to 6 weeks before surgery lower their wound complication rate by up to 26%.^38,39 When nicotine leaves the bloodstream, vasodilation occurs, oxygenation improves, and the immune system recovers.³⁹ Studies have found more SSIs in patients who abuse alcohol,40 and numerous authors have confirmed this finding in the arthroplasty population.^24,41,42 Alcohol inhibits platelet function and may predispose to a postoperative hematoma. In contrast to smoking cessation evidence, evidence regarding alcohol interventions in preventing postoperative infections is less conclusive.^43,44

MRSA Colonization

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a particularly difficult bacterium to eradicate in PJI. As the mean cost of treating a single case of MRSA-related prosthetic infection is $107,264 vs $68,053 for susceptible strains,45,46 many infection-containment strategies focus on addressing benign MRSA colonization before surgery.

MRSA is present in the nares of 25 million people in the United States. Nasal colonization increases the risk of bacteremia 4-fold⁴⁷ and SSI 2- to 9-fold.^48,49 Nasal swabs are analyzed with either a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, which provides results in 2 hours, or a bacterial culture, which provides results in 1 to 4 days. The PCR test is more expensive.

Eradication of MRSA colonization is increasingly prevalent. Several Scandinavian countries have instituted strict practices by which patients are denied elective surgery until negative nasal swabs are obtained.⁴⁹ Nasal decontamination is one method of colonization reduction. Topical mupirocin, which yields eradication in 91% of nasal carriers immediately after treatment and in 87% after 4 weeks,⁵⁰ is effective in reducing SSI rates only when used in conjunction with a body wash, which is used to clean the axilla and groin.⁵¹ There is no consensus on optimal timing, but Bode and colleagues⁵² found a significant decrease in deep SSIs when decontamination occurred just 24 hours before surgery.

Povidone-iodine showers went out of favor with the realization that chlorhexidine gluconate acts longer on the skin surface.^53,54 Preoperative showers involve rinsing with liquid chlorhexidine soap 24 to 48 hours before surgery. However, chlorhexidine binds preferentially to the cotton in washcloths instead of the skin. Edmiston and colleagues^54,55 found that 4% chlorhexidine liquid soaps achieve much lower skin chlorhexidine concentrations than 2% polyester cloths do. Use of these “chlorhexidine wipes” the night before and the day of surgery has decreased PJI after TKA from 2.2% to 0.6%.^56,57

Intraoperative Risk Prevention

Preparation

Which preoperative antibiotic to use is one of the first operative considerations in PJI prophylaxis (Table 2). Cefazolin is recommended as a first-line agent for its excellent soft-tissue penetration, long half-life, and activity against gram-positive bacteria such as skin flora.⁵⁸ Clindamycin may be considered for patients allergic to β-lactam antibiotics. Vancomycin may be considered for adjunctive use with cephalosporins in cases of known MRSA colonization. Vancomycin infusion should be started earlier than infusion with other antibiotics, as vancomycin must be infused slowly and takes longer to become therapeutic.

Antibiotic dosing should be based on local antibiograms, adjusted dosing weight, or BMI.⁵⁹ For revision arthroplasty, preoperative prophylaxis should not be stopped out of fear of affecting operative cultures.⁶⁰ Some surgeons pause antibiotic use if a preoperative joint aspirate has not been obtained. Infusion within 1 hour of incision is part of the pay-for-performance guidelines established by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.⁶¹ An antibiotic should be redosed if the operation will take longer than 2 half-lives of the drug.⁵⁹ Surgeons should consider administering a dose every 4 hours or whenever blood loss exceeds 1000 mL.⁶² Engesæter and colleagues⁶³ found that antibiotic prophylaxis was most effective given 4 times perioperatively (1 time before surgery, 3 times after surgery). Postoperative antibiotics should not be administered longer than 24 hours, as prolonged dosing confers no benefit.⁵⁸ Operating room conditions must be optimized for prophylaxis. More people and operating room traffic in nonsterile corridors increase contamination of instruments open to air.⁶⁴ Laminar airflow systems are commonly used. Although there is little dispute that laminar flow decreases the bacterial load of air, there are mixed results regarding its benefit in preventing PJI.^65-68 Skin preparation may address patient risk factors. Hair clipping is preferred to shaving, which may cause microabrasions and increased susceptibility to skin flora.69 Patients should be prepared with antiseptic solution. One randomized controlled trial found that 2% chlorhexidine gluconate mixed with 70% isopropyl alcohol was superior to 10% povidone-iodine in preventing SSIs.⁷⁰ However, a recent cohort study showed a lower rate of superficial wound infections when 1% povidone-iodine (vs 0.5% chlorhexidine) was used with alcohol.⁷¹ This finding may indicate the need for alcohol preparation, higher concentrations of chlorhexidine, or both.

Proper scrubbing and protective gear are needed to reduce surgeon risk factors. Hand washing is a routine part of any surgery. Alcohol-based hand scrubs are as effective as hand scrubbing.65 They reduce local skin flora by 95% immediately and by 99% with repeated applications.⁷² Lidwell and colleagues⁷³ found a 75% reduction in infection when body exhaust suits were used in combination with laminar flow in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 8052 patients. Sterile draping with impermeable drapes should be done over properly prepared skin. Ioban drapes (3M) are often used as a protective barrier. Interestingly, a Cochrane review found no benefit in using plastic adhesives impregnated with iodine over sterilely prepared skin.⁷⁴

Operative Considerations

Surgical gloves become contaminated in almost one third of cases, half the time during draping.⁷⁵ For this reason, many surgeons change gloves after draping. In addition, double gloving prevents a breech of aseptic technique should the outer glove become perforated.⁷⁶ Demircay and colleagues⁷⁷ assessed double latex gloving in arthroplasty and found the outer and inner gloves perforated in 18.4% and 8.4% of cases, respectively. Punctures are most common along the nondominant index finger, and then the dominant thumb.^77,78 Perforation is more common when 2 latex gloves are worn—vs 1 latex glove plus an outer cloth glove—and the chance of perforation increases with surgery duration. The inner glove may become punctured in up to 100% of operations that last over 3 hours.⁷⁹ Although Dodds and colleagues⁸⁰ found no change in bacterial counts on surgeons’ hands or gloves after perforation, precautions are still recommended. Al-Maiyah and colleagues⁸¹ went as far as to recommend glove changes at 20-minute intervals and before cementation.

Surgical instruments can be sources of contamination. Some authors change the suction tip every hour to minimize the risk of deep wound infection.^82-85 Others change it before femoral canal preparation and prosthesis insertion during THA.⁸⁶ The splash basin is frequently contaminated, and instruments placed in it should not be returned to the operative field.⁸⁷ Hargrove and colleagues⁸⁸ suggested pulsatile lavage decreases PJI more than bulb syringe irrigation does, whereas others argued that high-pressure lavage allows bacteria to penetrate more deeply, which could lead to retention of more bacteria.⁸⁹ Minimizing operating room time was found by Kurtz and colleagues⁹⁰ and Peersman and colleagues⁹¹ to decrease PJI incidence. Carroll and colleagues⁷¹ correlated longer tourniquet use with a higher rate of infection after TKA; proposed mechanisms include local tissue hypoxia and lowered concentrations of prophylactic antibiotics.

Similarly, minimizing blood loss and transfusion needs is another strategy for preventing infection. Allogenic transfusion may increase the risk of PJI 2 times.^23,71,92 The mechanism seems to be immune system modulation by allogenic blood, which impairs microcirculation and oxygen delivery at the surgical site.^23,75 Transfusions should be approached with caution, and consideration given to preoperative optimization and autologous blood donation. Cherian and colleagues⁹³ reviewed different blood management strategies and found preoperative iron therapy, intravenous erythropoietin, and autologous blood donation to be equally effective in reducing the need for allogenic transfusions. Numerous studies of tranexamic acid, thrombin-based hemostatic matrix (Floseal; Baxter Inc), and bipolar sealer with radiofrequency ablation (Aquamantys; Medtronic Inc) have found no alterations in infection rates, but most have used calculated blood loss, not PJI, as the primary endpoint.^94-105 Antibiotic cement also can be used to block infection.^63,106-110 Although liquid gentamicin may weaken bone cement,¹¹¹ most antibiotics, including powdered tobramycin and vancomycin, do not weaken its fatigue strength.^111-114 A recent meta-analysis by Parvizi and colleagues¹¹⁵ revealed that deep infection rates dropped from 2.3% to 1.2% with use of antibiotic cement for primary THAs. Cummins and colleagues,¹¹⁶ however, reported the limited cost-effectiveness of antibiotic cement in primary arthroplasty. Performing povidone-iodine lavage at the end of the case may be a more inexpensive alternative. Brown and colleagues¹¹⁷ found that rinsing with dilute povidone-iodine (.35%) for 3 minutes significantly decreased the incidence of PJI.

Closure techniques and sutures have been a focus of much of the recent literature. Winiarsky and colleagues³⁴ advocated using a longer incision for obese patients and augmenting closure in fattier areas with vertical mattress retention sutures, which are removed after 5 days. A barbed monofilament suture (Quill; Angiotech Inc) is gaining in popularity. Laboratory research has shown that bacteria adhere less to barbed monofilament sutures than to braided sutures.¹¹⁸ Smith and colleagues¹¹⁹ found a statistically nonsignificant higher rate of wound complications with barbed monofilament sutures, whereas Ting and colleagues120 found no difference in complications. These studies were powered to detect differences in time and cost, not postoperative complications. Skin adhesive (Dermabond; Ethicon Inc), also used in closure, may be superior to staples in avoiding superficial skin abscesses.¹²¹ Although expensive, silver-impregnated dressing has antimicrobial activity that reduces PJI incidence by up to 74%.¹²² One brand of this dressing (Aquacel; ConvaTec Inc) has a polyurethane waterproof barrier that allows it to be worn for 7 days.

Three factors commonly mentioned in PJI prevention show little supporting evidence. Drains, which are often used, may create a passage for postoperative infection and are associated with increased transfusion needs.^123,124 Adding antibiotics to irrigation solution¹²⁵ and routinely changing scalpel blades^126-129 also have little supporting evidence. In 2014, the utility of changing scalpel blades after incision was studied by Lee and colleagues,¹³⁰ who reported persistence of Propionibacterium acnes in the dermal layer after skin preparation. Their study, however, was isolated to the upper back region, not the hip or knee.

Postoperative Risk Prevention

Most arthroplasty patients receive anticoagulation after surgery, but it must be used with caution. Large hematomas can predispose to wound complications. Parvizi and colleagues¹³¹ associated wound drainage, hematoma, and subsequent PJI with an INR above 1.5 in the early postoperative period. Therefore, balanced anticoagulation is crucial. Postoperative glucose control is also essential, particularly for patients with diabetes. Although preoperative blood glucose levels may or may not affect PJI risk,^15,17,132 postoperative blood glucose levels of 126 mg/dL or higher are strongly associated with joint infections.¹³³ Even nondiabetic patients with postoperative morning levels over 140 mg/dL are 3 times more likely to develop an infection.¹⁷

Efforts should be made to discharge patients as soon as it is safe to do so. With longer hospital stays, patients are more exposed to nosocomial organisms and increased antibiotic resistance.^5,23,134 Outpatient antibiotics should be considered for dental, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary procedures. Oral antibiotic prophylaxis is controversial, as there is some evidence that dental procedures increase the risk of PJI only minimally.^10,135-138

Conclusion

PJI is a potentially devastating complication of TJA. For this reason, much research has been devoted to proper diagnosis and treatment. Although the literature on PJI prophylaxis is abundant, there is relatively little consensus on appropriate PJI precautions. Preoperative considerations should include medical comorbidities, use of immunocompromising medications, obesity, nutritional factors, smoking, alcohol use, and MRSA colonization. Surgeons must have a consistent intraoperative method of antibiotic administration, skin preparation, scrubbing, draping, gloving, instrument exchange, blood loss management, cementing, and closure. In addition, monitoring of postoperative anticoagulation and blood glucose management is important. Having a thorough understanding of PJI risk factors may help reduce the incidence of this devastating complication.

Nearly 2% of patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) develop a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) within 20 years of surgery, and 41% of these infections occur within the first 2 years.¹ PJI is the most common cause of TKA failure and the third leading complication of THA.² The estimated total hospital cost of treating PJI increased from $320 million in 2001 to $566 million in 2009, which can be extrapolated to $1.62 billion in 2020.³ By 2030, the projected increase in demand for TKA and THA will be 673% and 174% of what it was in 2005, respectively.⁴ Treatment of PJI of the knee is estimated to cost 3 to 4 times more than a primary TKA, and the cost of revision THA for PJI is almost $6000 more than that of revision TKA for PJI.³

In this article, we review the numerous preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative methods of decreasing PJI incidence after total joint arthroplasty (TJA).

Preoperative Risk Prevention

Medical Comorbidities

Preoperative medical optimization is a key element in PJI prevention (Table 1). An American Society of Anesthesiologists classification score of 3 or more has been associated with doubled risk for surgical site infections (SSIs) after THA.5 Autoimmune conditions confer a particularly higher risk. In a retrospective double-cohort study of 924 subjects, Bongartz and colleagues⁶ found that, compared with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis tripled the risk of PJI. Small case series originally suggested a higher risk of PJI in patients with psoriasis,^7,8 but more recent studies have contradicted that finding.^9,10 Nevertheless, psoriatic plaques have elevated bacterial counts,¹¹ and planned incisions should circumvent these areas.

Diabetes mellitus is a clear risk factor for PJI.^12-16 Regarding whether preoperative glucose control affects risk, findings have been mixed. Mraovic and colleagues¹⁷ showed preoperative hyperglycemia to be an independent risk factor; Jämsen and colleagues,¹⁵ in a single-center analysis of more than 7000 TJAs, suggested preoperative blood glucose levels were not independently associated with PJI; and Iorio and colleagues¹⁶ found no association between surgical infections and hemoglobin A1c levels.

TJA incidence is higher in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) than in the general population.¹⁸ Dialysis users have a post-THA PJI rate as high as 13% to 19%.^19,20 Early clinical data suggested that outcomes are improved in dialysis users who undergo renal transplant, but this finding recently has been questioned.^19,21 Deegan and colleagues²² found an increased PJA rate of 3.5% even in low-level CKD (stage 1, 2, or 3), but this may be confounded by the increased association of CKD with other PJI-predisposing comorbidities.

Given a higher incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) among patients with PJI, some surgeons think UTIs predispose to PJIs by hematogenous seeding.^12,23,24 Symptomatic UTIs should be cleared before surgery and confirmed on urinalysis. Obstructive symptoms should prompt urologic evaluation. As asymptomatic pyuria and bacteriuria (colony counts, >1 × 105/mL) do not predispose to PJI, patients without symptoms do not require intervention.^25,26 Past history of malignancy may also have a role in PJI. In a case-control study of the Mayo Clinic arthroplasty experience from 1969 to 1991, Berbari and colleagues¹ found an association between malignancy and PJI (odds ratio, 2.4). They theorized the immunosuppressive effects of cancer treatment might be responsible for this increased risk.

Immunocompromising Medications

Immunocompromising medications are modifiable and should be adjusted before surgery. Stopping any disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) more than 4 weeks before surgery is not recommended.²⁷

Corticosteroid use can lead to immunosuppression and increased protein catabolism, which impairs soft-tissue healing. To avoid flares or adrenal insufficiency, however, chronic corticosteroid users should continue their regular doses perioperatively.²⁸ On the day of surgery, they should also receive a stress dose of hydrocortisone 50 to 75 mg (for primary arthroplasty) or 100 to 150 mg (for revision arthroplasty), followed by expeditious tapering over 1 to 2 days.²⁹ DMARDs are increasingly used by rheumatologists. One of the most effective DMARDs is methotrexate. Despite its immunocompromising activity, methotrexate should be continued perioperatively, as stopping for even 2 days may increase flare-related complications.³⁰ Hydroxychloroquine can be continued perioperatively and has even been shown, by Johnson and Charnley,³¹ to prevent deep vein thromboses. Sulfasalazine can also be continued perioperatively—but with caution, as it may elevate international normalized ratio (INR) levels in patients receiving warfarin.²⁹ Most other DMARDs should be temporarily discontinued. Leflunomide and interleukin 1 antagonists, such as anakinra, should be stopped 1 to 2 days before surgery and restarted 10 to 14 days after surgery.²⁹ Rituximab should be stopped 1 week before surgery and restarted 10 to 14 days after surgery. Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors should be discontinued for 2 half-lives before and after surgery.³² Etanercept has a half-life of 3 to 5 days; infliximab, 8 to 10 days; and adalimumab, 10 to 13 days. Most surgeons schedule surgery for the end of a dosing cycle and discontinue these biologic agents for another 10 to 14 days after surgery.

Metabolic Factors

Obese patients are susceptible to longer surgeries, more extensive dissection, poorly vascularized subcutaneous tissue, and higher requirements of weight-adjusted antibiotic dosing.¹³ Body mass index (BMI) of 40 kg/m² or more (morbid obesity) and BMI over 50 kg/m² have been associated with 9 times and 21.3 times increased risk of PJI, respectively.^13,14 Delaying surgery with dietary consultation has been suggested,^33,34 and bariatric surgery before TKA may decrease infection rates by 3.5 times.³⁵

Nutritional markers are considered before arthroplasty. According to most laboratories, a serum transferrin level under 200 mg/dL, albumin level under 3.5 g/dL, and total lymphocyte count under 1500 cells/mm³ indicate malnourishment, which can increase the incidence of wound complications by 5 to 7 times.³⁶ Patients should also have sufficient protein, vitamin, and mineral supplementation, particularly vitamins A and C, zinc, and copper.³⁷Smokers who cease smoking at least 4 to 6 weeks before surgery lower their wound complication rate by up to 26%.^38,39 When nicotine leaves the bloodstream, vasodilation occurs, oxygenation improves, and the immune system recovers.³⁹ Studies have found more SSIs in patients who abuse alcohol,40 and numerous authors have confirmed this finding in the arthroplasty population.^24,41,42 Alcohol inhibits platelet function and may predispose to a postoperative hematoma. In contrast to smoking cessation evidence, evidence regarding alcohol interventions in preventing postoperative infections is less conclusive.^43,44

MRSA Colonization

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a particularly difficult bacterium to eradicate in PJI. As the mean cost of treating a single case of MRSA-related prosthetic infection is $107,264 vs $68,053 for susceptible strains,45,46 many infection-containment strategies focus on addressing benign MRSA colonization before surgery.

MRSA is present in the nares of 25 million people in the United States. Nasal colonization increases the risk of bacteremia 4-fold⁴⁷ and SSI 2- to 9-fold.^48,49 Nasal swabs are analyzed with either a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, which provides results in 2 hours, or a bacterial culture, which provides results in 1 to 4 days. The PCR test is more expensive.

Eradication of MRSA colonization is increasingly prevalent. Several Scandinavian countries have instituted strict practices by which patients are denied elective surgery until negative nasal swabs are obtained.⁴⁹ Nasal decontamination is one method of colonization reduction. Topical mupirocin, which yields eradication in 91% of nasal carriers immediately after treatment and in 87% after 4 weeks,⁵⁰ is effective in reducing SSI rates only when used in conjunction with a body wash, which is used to clean the axilla and groin.⁵¹ There is no consensus on optimal timing, but Bode and colleagues⁵² found a significant decrease in deep SSIs when decontamination occurred just 24 hours before surgery.

Povidone-iodine showers went out of favor with the realization that chlorhexidine gluconate acts longer on the skin surface.^53,54 Preoperative showers involve rinsing with liquid chlorhexidine soap 24 to 48 hours before surgery. However, chlorhexidine binds preferentially to the cotton in washcloths instead of the skin. Edmiston and colleagues^54,55 found that 4% chlorhexidine liquid soaps achieve much lower skin chlorhexidine concentrations than 2% polyester cloths do. Use of these “chlorhexidine wipes” the night before and the day of surgery has decreased PJI after TKA from 2.2% to 0.6%.^56,57

Intraoperative Risk Prevention

Preparation

Which preoperative antibiotic to use is one of the first operative considerations in PJI prophylaxis (Table 2). Cefazolin is recommended as a first-line agent for its excellent soft-tissue penetration, long half-life, and activity against gram-positive bacteria such as skin flora.⁵⁸ Clindamycin may be considered for patients allergic to β-lactam antibiotics. Vancomycin may be considered for adjunctive use with cephalosporins in cases of known MRSA colonization. Vancomycin infusion should be started earlier than infusion with other antibiotics, as vancomycin must be infused slowly and takes longer to become therapeutic.

Antibiotic dosing should be based on local antibiograms, adjusted dosing weight, or BMI.⁵⁹ For revision arthroplasty, preoperative prophylaxis should not be stopped out of fear of affecting operative cultures.⁶⁰ Some surgeons pause antibiotic use if a preoperative joint aspirate has not been obtained. Infusion within 1 hour of incision is part of the pay-for-performance guidelines established by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.⁶¹ An antibiotic should be redosed if the operation will take longer than 2 half-lives of the drug.⁵⁹ Surgeons should consider administering a dose every 4 hours or whenever blood loss exceeds 1000 mL.⁶² Engesæter and colleagues⁶³ found that antibiotic prophylaxis was most effective given 4 times perioperatively (1 time before surgery, 3 times after surgery). Postoperative antibiotics should not be administered longer than 24 hours, as prolonged dosing confers no benefit.⁵⁸ Operating room conditions must be optimized for prophylaxis. More people and operating room traffic in nonsterile corridors increase contamination of instruments open to air.⁶⁴ Laminar airflow systems are commonly used. Although there is little dispute that laminar flow decreases the bacterial load of air, there are mixed results regarding its benefit in preventing PJI.^65-68 Skin preparation may address patient risk factors. Hair clipping is preferred to shaving, which may cause microabrasions and increased susceptibility to skin flora.69 Patients should be prepared with antiseptic solution. One randomized controlled trial found that 2% chlorhexidine gluconate mixed with 70% isopropyl alcohol was superior to 10% povidone-iodine in preventing SSIs.⁷⁰ However, a recent cohort study showed a lower rate of superficial wound infections when 1% povidone-iodine (vs 0.5% chlorhexidine) was used with alcohol.⁷¹ This finding may indicate the need for alcohol preparation, higher concentrations of chlorhexidine, or both.

Proper scrubbing and protective gear are needed to reduce surgeon risk factors. Hand washing is a routine part of any surgery. Alcohol-based hand scrubs are as effective as hand scrubbing.65 They reduce local skin flora by 95% immediately and by 99% with repeated applications.⁷² Lidwell and colleagues⁷³ found a 75% reduction in infection when body exhaust suits were used in combination with laminar flow in a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 8052 patients. Sterile draping with impermeable drapes should be done over properly prepared skin. Ioban drapes (3M) are often used as a protective barrier. Interestingly, a Cochrane review found no benefit in using plastic adhesives impregnated with iodine over sterilely prepared skin.⁷⁴

Operative Considerations

Surgical gloves become contaminated in almost one third of cases, half the time during draping.⁷⁵ For this reason, many surgeons change gloves after draping. In addition, double gloving prevents a breech of aseptic technique should the outer glove become perforated.⁷⁶ Demircay and colleagues⁷⁷ assessed double latex gloving in arthroplasty and found the outer and inner gloves perforated in 18.4% and 8.4% of cases, respectively. Punctures are most common along the nondominant index finger, and then the dominant thumb.^77,78 Perforation is more common when 2 latex gloves are worn—vs 1 latex glove plus an outer cloth glove—and the chance of perforation increases with surgery duration. The inner glove may become punctured in up to 100% of operations that last over 3 hours.⁷⁹ Although Dodds and colleagues⁸⁰ found no change in bacterial counts on surgeons’ hands or gloves after perforation, precautions are still recommended. Al-Maiyah and colleagues⁸¹ went as far as to recommend glove changes at 20-minute intervals and before cementation.

Surgical instruments can be sources of contamination. Some authors change the suction tip every hour to minimize the risk of deep wound infection.^82-85 Others change it before femoral canal preparation and prosthesis insertion during THA.⁸⁶ The splash basin is frequently contaminated, and instruments placed in it should not be returned to the operative field.⁸⁷ Hargrove and colleagues⁸⁸ suggested pulsatile lavage decreases PJI more than bulb syringe irrigation does, whereas others argued that high-pressure lavage allows bacteria to penetrate more deeply, which could lead to retention of more bacteria.⁸⁹ Minimizing operating room time was found by Kurtz and colleagues⁹⁰ and Peersman and colleagues⁹¹ to decrease PJI incidence. Carroll and colleagues⁷¹ correlated longer tourniquet use with a higher rate of infection after TKA; proposed mechanisms include local tissue hypoxia and lowered concentrations of prophylactic antibiotics.

Similarly, minimizing blood loss and transfusion needs is another strategy for preventing infection. Allogenic transfusion may increase the risk of PJI 2 times.^23,71,92 The mechanism seems to be immune system modulation by allogenic blood, which impairs microcirculation and oxygen delivery at the surgical site.^23,75 Transfusions should be approached with caution, and consideration given to preoperative optimization and autologous blood donation. Cherian and colleagues⁹³ reviewed different blood management strategies and found preoperative iron therapy, intravenous erythropoietin, and autologous blood donation to be equally effective in reducing the need for allogenic transfusions. Numerous studies of tranexamic acid, thrombin-based hemostatic matrix (Floseal; Baxter Inc), and bipolar sealer with radiofrequency ablation (Aquamantys; Medtronic Inc) have found no alterations in infection rates, but most have used calculated blood loss, not PJI, as the primary endpoint.^94-105 Antibiotic cement also can be used to block infection.^63,106-110 Although liquid gentamicin may weaken bone cement,¹¹¹ most antibiotics, including powdered tobramycin and vancomycin, do not weaken its fatigue strength.^111-114 A recent meta-analysis by Parvizi and colleagues¹¹⁵ revealed that deep infection rates dropped from 2.3% to 1.2% with use of antibiotic cement for primary THAs. Cummins and colleagues,¹¹⁶ however, reported the limited cost-effectiveness of antibiotic cement in primary arthroplasty. Performing povidone-iodine lavage at the end of the case may be a more inexpensive alternative. Brown and colleagues¹¹⁷ found that rinsing with dilute povidone-iodine (.35%) for 3 minutes significantly decreased the incidence of PJI.

Closure techniques and sutures have been a focus of much of the recent literature. Winiarsky and colleagues³⁴ advocated using a longer incision for obese patients and augmenting closure in fattier areas with vertical mattress retention sutures, which are removed after 5 days. A barbed monofilament suture (Quill; Angiotech Inc) is gaining in popularity. Laboratory research has shown that bacteria adhere less to barbed monofilament sutures than to braided sutures.¹¹⁸ Smith and colleagues¹¹⁹ found a statistically nonsignificant higher rate of wound complications with barbed monofilament sutures, whereas Ting and colleagues120 found no difference in complications. These studies were powered to detect differences in time and cost, not postoperative complications. Skin adhesive (Dermabond; Ethicon Inc), also used in closure, may be superior to staples in avoiding superficial skin abscesses.¹²¹ Although expensive, silver-impregnated dressing has antimicrobial activity that reduces PJI incidence by up to 74%.¹²² One brand of this dressing (Aquacel; ConvaTec Inc) has a polyurethane waterproof barrier that allows it to be worn for 7 days.

Three factors commonly mentioned in PJI prevention show little supporting evidence. Drains, which are often used, may create a passage for postoperative infection and are associated with increased transfusion needs.^123,124 Adding antibiotics to irrigation solution¹²⁵ and routinely changing scalpel blades^126-129 also have little supporting evidence. In 2014, the utility of changing scalpel blades after incision was studied by Lee and colleagues,¹³⁰ who reported persistence of Propionibacterium acnes in the dermal layer after skin preparation. Their study, however, was isolated to the upper back region, not the hip or knee.

Postoperative Risk Prevention

Most arthroplasty patients receive anticoagulation after surgery, but it must be used with caution. Large hematomas can predispose to wound complications. Parvizi and colleagues¹³¹ associated wound drainage, hematoma, and subsequent PJI with an INR above 1.5 in the early postoperative period. Therefore, balanced anticoagulation is crucial. Postoperative glucose control is also essential, particularly for patients with diabetes. Although preoperative blood glucose levels may or may not affect PJI risk,^15,17,132 postoperative blood glucose levels of 126 mg/dL or higher are strongly associated with joint infections.¹³³ Even nondiabetic patients with postoperative morning levels over 140 mg/dL are 3 times more likely to develop an infection.¹⁷

Efforts should be made to discharge patients as soon as it is safe to do so. With longer hospital stays, patients are more exposed to nosocomial organisms and increased antibiotic resistance.^5,23,134 Outpatient antibiotics should be considered for dental, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary procedures. Oral antibiotic prophylaxis is controversial, as there is some evidence that dental procedures increase the risk of PJI only minimally.^10,135-138

Conclusion

PJI is a potentially devastating complication of TJA. For this reason, much research has been devoted to proper diagnosis and treatment. Although the literature on PJI prophylaxis is abundant, there is relatively little consensus on appropriate PJI precautions. Preoperative considerations should include medical comorbidities, use of immunocompromising medications, obesity, nutritional factors, smoking, alcohol use, and MRSA colonization. Surgeons must have a consistent intraoperative method of antibiotic administration, skin preparation, scrubbing, draping, gloving, instrument exchange, blood loss management, cementing, and closure. In addition, monitoring of postoperative anticoagulation and blood glucose management is important. Having a thorough understanding of PJI risk factors may help reduce the incidence of this devastating complication.

Tendinopathy of the long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) is a common source of anterior shoulder pain. The LHB tendon is an intra-articular yet extrasynovial structure, ensheathed by the synovial lining of the articular capsule.¹ Branches of the anterior circumflex humeral artery course along the bicipital groove, but the gliding undersurface of the LHB remains avascular.² Tendon irritation is most common within the groove and usually produces “tendinosis,” characterized by collagen fiber atrophy, fibrinoid necrosis, and fibrocyte proliferation.¹ Neviaser and colleagues³ correlated such changes in the LHB tendon with rotator cuff pathology, as the 2 often coexist. Primary LHB tendinitis is less common and associated with younger patients who engage in overhead activities, such as baseball and volleyball.⁴

Nonoperative management, which is trialed initially, consists of rest, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and physical therapy. Corticosteroid injections are administered through the subacromial space or glenohumeral joint, which is continuous with the LHB sheath. Some physicians give ultrasound-guided injections into the LHB sheath. For fear of tendon atrophy from corticosteroid injections, some physicians prefer iontophoresis with a topical steroid over the bicipital groove. If conservative measures fail, the physician can choose from 2 primary surgical options: biceps tenotomy and tenodesis. Tenodesis can be performed within the groove (suprapectoral) or subpectoral. In this review, we highlight 5 key features of subpectoral biceps tenodesis to guide treatment and improve outcomes.

Examination and Indications

Management of LHB tendinopathy begins with a complete physical examination. Tenderness over the bicipital groove is the most consistent finding, but this region may be difficult to localize in large individuals. The arm should be internally rotated 10° to orient the groove anterior and palpated 7 cm below the acromion.⁵ Anterior shoulder pain after resisted elevation with the elbow extended and supinated represents a positive Speed test. A positive Yergason test produces pain with resisted forearm supination while the elbow is flexed to 90°.

Evaluation of biceps instability is important in deciding which type of management (operative or nonoperative) is appropriate for a patient. Medial biceps subluxation may be detected by bringing the flexed arm from abduction, external rotation into cross-body adduction, internal rotation with decreased arm flexion.⁶ Another maneuver that elicits biceps irritation is combined abduction–extension, which places tension on the biceps tendon. Similarly, coracoid impingement may disrupt the subscapularis roof of the biceps sheath and cause LHB instability. Dines and colleagues⁷ reproduced the painful clicking of coracoid impingement by placing the shoulder in forward elevation, internal rotation, and varying degrees of adduction. Belly-press, lift-off, and internal rotation strength are other tests that assess subscapularis integrity. Rotator cuff impingement signs should be evaluated, and the contralateral shoulder should be examined for comparison.

Plain radiographs may show a pathology, such as anterior acromial spurring or posterior overgrowth of the coracoid, for which surgery is more suited. T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may show an increased LHB signal, but this has shown poor concordance with arthroscopic findings of biceps pathology.⁸ Magnetic resonance arthrography can better detect medial dislocation of the LHB tendon from subscapularis tears. Ultrasound is cost-effective but highly operator-dependent.

Indications for biceps tenotomy or tenodesis include failed conservative management, partial-thickness LHB tears more than 25% to 50% in diameter, and medial subluxation of the LHB tendon with or without a subscapularis tear. Superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears in older patients are a relative indication. Intraoperative findings may also indicate the need for LHB surgery. During the diagnostic arthroscopy, the LHB tendon should be evaluated for synovial inflammation or fraying (Figures 1A, 1B). This may need to be done under dry conditions, as pump pressure can compress and blunt the inflamed appearance. The O’Brien maneuver can be performed to demonstrate incarceration of the LHB tendon within the anterior glenohumeral joint. A probe should be placed through an anterior portal to pull the intertubercular LHB tendon into view, as this region is most commonly inflamed (Figure 2). Probing of the tendon also allows assessment of the stability of the biceps sling.

Surgical Technique

When biceps surgery is indicated, the surgeon must choose between tenotomy and tenodesis. Tenotomy is a low-demand procedure indicated for low-demand patients. A “Popeye” deformity may occur in up to 62% of patients, but Boileau and colleagues⁹ reported that none of their patients were bothered by it. Another concern after tenotomy is fatigue-cramping of the biceps muscle belly. Kelly and colleagues¹⁰ reported that up to 40% of patients had soreness and decreased strength with elbow flexion. Such cramping is more common in patients under age 60 years. For these reasons, biceps tenotomy should be reserved for older, low-demand patients who are not concerned about cosmesis and less likely to comply with postoperative motion restrictions.² We tend to perform tenotomy in obese patients, who may have a Popeye deformity that is not detectable, and in patients with diabetes; the goal is to avoid a wound infection resulting from the close proximity of tenodesis incision and axilla.

Biceps tenodesis should preserve the length–tension relationship of the biceps muscle and maintain its normal contour. Tenodesis location may be proximal or distal. Proximal fixation can be performed arthroscopically, and its advocates argue that keeping the LHB tendon within the bicipital groove preserves muscle strength. Boileau and Neyton11 found biceps strength to be 90% that of the contralateral arm after arthroscopic tenodesis. The bicipital groove, however, is lined with synovium and is a primary site of LHB pathology. Up to 78% of intra-articular biceps tears extend through the groove outside the joint.¹² Proximal tenodesis thus retains a major pain generator. In a retrospective study of 188 patients, Sanders and colleagues^13,14 found a 36% revision rate after proximal arthroscopic tenodesis and a 13% rate after proximal open tenodesis with an intact biceps sheath—significantly lower than the 3% after distal tenodesis outside the bicipital groove.¹ For this reason, we advocate distal biceps tenodesis beneath the pectoralis major tendon. After tenotomy with an arthroscopic basket (Figure 3), the LHB tendon is retracted out of the glenohumeral joint by extending the elbow. For the mini-open incision, the head of the bed is lowered from the beach-chair position to 30°. The arm is abducted on a Mayo stand, and the inferior border of the pectoralis major tendon is palpated. A 3-cm vertical incision is made along the medial arm starting 1 cm superior to the inferior pectoralis edge. The subcutaneous tissues are mobilized, and dissection is carried down to the pectoralis major and coracobrachialis tendons. Visualization of the cephalic vein indicates that the exposure is too far lateral. The horizontal fibers of the pectoralis major are identified, and a small incision through the inferior overlying fascia is directed laterally and then distally in line with the long axis of the humerus. Digital palpation helps identify the anterior humerus and fusiform LHB tendon running vertically within the intertubercular groove (Figure 4). Cephalad retraction of the pectoralis major allows direct visualization of the LHB tendon. A right-angle clamp is positioned deep to the LHB tendon and directed medial to lateral to retrieve the LHB tendon out of the incision.

No. 2 looped Fiberwire (Arthrex) is then whip-stitched from the top of the myotendinous junction up 20 mm (Figure 5). The remaining 2 to 3 cm of LHB tendon proximal to the whip-stitching may be excised to remove inflammatory tissue. The pectoralis major is retracted superiorly with an Army-Navy retractor while a pointed Hohmann retractor is placed laterally. Medial retraction of the conjoined tendon should be done carefully with a Chandler elevator and minimal levering. In a cadaveric study, Dickens and colleagues¹⁵ found that the musculocutaneous nerve, radial nerve, and deep brachial artery were all within 1 cm of the standard medial retractor. Compared with internal rotation of the arm, external rotation moves the musculocutaneous nerve 11 mm farther from the tenodesis site.¹⁵

Once exposure is adequate, the appropriate length–tension of the LHB tendon must be established. The inferior edge of the pectoralis major is used as a landmark. Anatomical studies have shown that the top of the LHB myotendinous junction lies 20 to 31 mm proximal to the inferior pectoralis edge.^16,17 Therefore, the tenodesis site should be 2 to 3 cm superior to the inferior pectoralis edge and centered on the humerus. Overall, the subpectoral location offers unique landmarks for LHB length-tensioning and provides soft-tissue coverage of the tenodesis site.

After identification of the appropriate tenodesis site, the surgeon chooses from a variety of fixation techniques. The “bone-tunnel technique” involves drilling an 8-mm unicortical hole through the anterior humerus followed by 2 smaller suture tunnels inferior to it; the LHB tendon with Krackow stitches is passed retrograde through the large hole by pulling the sutures through the smaller tunnels and tying them down.¹⁸ Despite the ease of performing this type of fixation, Mazzocca and colleagues¹⁹ found more cyclic displacement with bone tunnels than with interference screws and suture anchors. Other, less common techniques include the keyhole method (passing a rolled knot of LHB tendon through a keyhole in the bone)²⁰ and soft-tissue tenodesis to the rotator interval or conjoined tendon.^21,22 Recently, however, attention has turned mostly to interference screw and suture anchor fixation.

Multiple laboratory studies have demonstrated the superiority of interference screw fixation. Kilicoglu and colleagues²³ and Ozalay and colleagues²⁴ evaluated various fixation types in a sheep model, and both groups found the highest loads to failure with interference screws. Patzer and colleagues²⁵ compared interference screws and knotless suture anchors in a human cadaveric study and noted significantly higher failure loads with interference screws. Some authors^26,27 have presented conflicting laboratory data, and Millett and colleagues²⁸ reported no difference in clinical outcomes between interference screws and suture anchors. However, these studies have not demonstrated inferiority of interference screws, and, in light of other evidence suggesting its biomechanical superiority, we prefer interference screw fixation.^19,23-25,29

Exposing the bony surface for fixation involves electrocautery and subsequent use of a periosteal elevator to reflect a 1-cm periosteal window. A guide wire is drilled unicortically through the anterior cortex at the tenodesis site and is overreamed with an 8-mm cannulated reamer (Figure 6). This tunnel is then tapped, and bone debris is irrigated and suctioned from the wound. Cadaveric studies have shown no difference in failure loads with varying screw lengths or diameters.29,30 We use an 8×12-mm BioTenodesis screw (Arthrex) to match the typical width of the LHB tendon (Figures 7A-7C). One suture limb from the tendon whip-stitch is passed through the BioTenodesis screw and screwdriver. An assistant then uses a right-angle clamp as a pulley on the tendon so that the tendon may be visualized and “dunked” into the tunnel under direct visualization. As the screw is inserted, axial pressure is applied and the insertion paddle firmly held. Care should be taken to avoid overtightening the screw lest it become intramedullary. After the screw is flush to bone, the 2 whip-stitch suture limbs are tied for additional fixation.

Postoperative Rehabilitation

The optimal postoperative protocol for subpectoral biceps tenodesis has not been rigorously studied and is guided by the procedures performed with the biceps tenodesis. For the immediate postoperative period, Provencher and colleagues⁵ and Mazzocca and colleagues³¹ recommended immobilization in a sling during sleep and during the day if the patient is out in public or having difficulty maintaining the elbow flexed passively.

For isolated biceps tenodesis cases, passive- and active-assisted range of motion (ROM) of the glenohumeral, elbow, and wrist joints are permitted during the initial 4 weeks. At 3 weeks, the sling is discontinued and active ROM permitted. At 6 weeks, strengthening of the biceps, rotator cuff, deltoid, and periscapular muscles may begin with isometric contractions and progress to elastic bands and handheld weights. The same protocol is used if acromioplasty is performed at time of tenodesis. These patients may progress to active-assisted and active ROM earlier than 4 weeks if advised of the risks. However, sustained isometric biceps contraction, biceps strengthening, and resisted supination should not be performed until 6 weeks after surgery. If rotator cuff repair is performed, the patient is immobilized in a sling and passive ROM of the glenohumeral, elbow, and wrist joints is permitted during the first 6 weeks. The patient may progress to active-assisted and active ROM over the next 6 weeks, after motion is restored but before formal strengthening is initiated.³² For overhead athletes, Werner and colleagues³³ advocated a throwing program starting 3 to 4 months after surgery.

Outcomes and Complications

Mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis is a safe, reliable, and effective treatment for LHB tendon pathology. This procedure provides excellent pain relief and functional outcomes^32,34,35 and has a low complication rate.^5,35-40 At a mean of 29 months after biceps tenodesis with an interference screw, Mazzocca and colleagues³² found statistically significant improvements on all clinical outcome measures: Rowe, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant-Murley, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). Biceps symmetry was restored in 35 of 41 patients. Millett and colleagues²⁸ reported that subpectoral biceps tenodesis relieved pain and improved function as measured by visual analog scale pain, ASES scores, and abbreviated Constant scores. Werner and colleagues³⁴ compared open subpectoral and arthroscopic suprapectoral techniques and found excellent clinical and functional outcomes with both techniques at a mean of 3.1 years. There were no significant differences in ROM, strength, or clinical outcome scores between the 2 techniques.

Potential complications include hematoma, seroma, hardware failure, reaction to biodegradable screw, persistent anterior shoulder pain, stiffness, humeral fracture, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, infection, nerve injury, and brachial artery injury. The musculocutaneous nerve can be lacerated during screw placement or even avulsed if the surgeon attempts to retrieve the LHB tendon blindly.⁴¹ In the most comprehensive study of tenodesis complications, Nho and colleagues35 recorded a 2% complication rate in 353 patients over 3 years. Persistent bicipital pain and fixation failure causing a Popeye deformity were the 2 most common complications (0.57% each). In a study of 103 patients, Abtahi and colleagues³⁹ found a 7% complication rate, with 4 superficial wound infections and 2 temporary nerve palsies. Millett and colleagues²⁸ reported low complication rates with both interference screw and suture anchor fixation. Neither technique had a fixation failure, and persistent bicipital groove tenderness occurred in just 3% of patients after interference screw fixation and in 7% after suture anchor fixation. Mazzocca and colleagues³² documented 1 fixation failure (2%) 1 year after interference screw fixation.

Werner and colleagues³⁴ encountered stiffness more than any other complication and found it to be more common in their arthroscopic group (9.4%) than in their open group (6.0%). They used intra-articular corticosteroid injections and physical therapy to successfully treat all cases of postoperative stiffness. Humeral fracture is uncommon after tenodesis.^37,42 In a recent biomechanical study, however, Euler and colleagues⁴⁰ found a significant reduction (25%) in humeral strength after a laterally eccentric, malpositioned biceps tenodesis. This decreased osseous strength may increase susceptibility to humeral shaft fracture, especially when interference screw fixation is used. Sears and colleagues³⁷ and Dein and colleagues⁴² presented case reports of humeral fracture after biceps tenodesis with an interference screw.

For patients with fixation failure or continued anterior shoulder pain, revision biceps tenodesis is safe and effective. Heckman and colleagues⁴³ and Gregory and colleagues⁴⁴ showed revision tenodesis can lead to excellent pain relief and functional outcomes, for it allows complete removal of the biceps from the groove and preserves biceps function. Gregory and colleagues⁴⁴ revised subpectoral biceps tenodesis for either continued pain or fixation failure and found significant improvements in pain and function a mean of 33.4 months after surgery. Anthony and colleagues⁴⁵ performed biceps tenodesis for failed surgical tenotomies and autorupture of the LHB tendon. In their study of 11 patients, this surgery resulted in symptom improvement, patient satisfaction, resolution of Popeye deformity, and predictable return to activity.

Conclusion

LHB tendon pathology is a significant source of anterior shoulder pain and functional limitation. Diagnosis and treatment of this pathology can be challenging, and it is important to identify any concomitant pathologies or other pain sources. After failed nonoperative management, surgeons have the option of mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis—a safe, reliable, and effective treatment with excellent outcomes. Although multiple fixation options are available, we think that, based on the current literature, fixation with a bioabsorbable interference screw remains the best option. This procedure has demonstrated efficacy for revision biceps tenodesis, failed biceps tenotomy, and autorupture of the biceps.

Tendinopathy of the long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) is a common source of anterior shoulder pain. The LHB tendon is an intra-articular yet extrasynovial structure, ensheathed by the synovial lining of the articular capsule.¹ Branches of the anterior circumflex humeral artery course along the bicipital groove, but the gliding undersurface of the LHB remains avascular.² Tendon irritation is most common within the groove and usually produces “tendinosis,” characterized by collagen fiber atrophy, fibrinoid necrosis, and fibrocyte proliferation.¹ Neviaser and colleagues³ correlated such changes in the LHB tendon with rotator cuff pathology, as the 2 often coexist. Primary LHB tendinitis is less common and associated with younger patients who engage in overhead activities, such as baseball and volleyball.⁴

Nonoperative management, which is trialed initially, consists of rest, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and physical therapy. Corticosteroid injections are administered through the subacromial space or glenohumeral joint, which is continuous with the LHB sheath. Some physicians give ultrasound-guided injections into the LHB sheath. For fear of tendon atrophy from corticosteroid injections, some physicians prefer iontophoresis with a topical steroid over the bicipital groove. If conservative measures fail, the physician can choose from 2 primary surgical options: biceps tenotomy and tenodesis. Tenodesis can be performed within the groove (suprapectoral) or subpectoral. In this review, we highlight 5 key features of subpectoral biceps tenodesis to guide treatment and improve outcomes.

Examination and Indications

Management of LHB tendinopathy begins with a complete physical examination. Tenderness over the bicipital groove is the most consistent finding, but this region may be difficult to localize in large individuals. The arm should be internally rotated 10° to orient the groove anterior and palpated 7 cm below the acromion.⁵ Anterior shoulder pain after resisted elevation with the elbow extended and supinated represents a positive Speed test. A positive Yergason test produces pain with resisted forearm supination while the elbow is flexed to 90°.

Evaluation of biceps instability is important in deciding which type of management (operative or nonoperative) is appropriate for a patient. Medial biceps subluxation may be detected by bringing the flexed arm from abduction, external rotation into cross-body adduction, internal rotation with decreased arm flexion.⁶ Another maneuver that elicits biceps irritation is combined abduction–extension, which places tension on the biceps tendon. Similarly, coracoid impingement may disrupt the subscapularis roof of the biceps sheath and cause LHB instability. Dines and colleagues⁷ reproduced the painful clicking of coracoid impingement by placing the shoulder in forward elevation, internal rotation, and varying degrees of adduction. Belly-press, lift-off, and internal rotation strength are other tests that assess subscapularis integrity. Rotator cuff impingement signs should be evaluated, and the contralateral shoulder should be examined for comparison.

Plain radiographs may show a pathology, such as anterior acromial spurring or posterior overgrowth of the coracoid, for which surgery is more suited. T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may show an increased LHB signal, but this has shown poor concordance with arthroscopic findings of biceps pathology.⁸ Magnetic resonance arthrography can better detect medial dislocation of the LHB tendon from subscapularis tears. Ultrasound is cost-effective but highly operator-dependent.

Indications for biceps tenotomy or tenodesis include failed conservative management, partial-thickness LHB tears more than 25% to 50% in diameter, and medial subluxation of the LHB tendon with or without a subscapularis tear. Superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears in older patients are a relative indication. Intraoperative findings may also indicate the need for LHB surgery. During the diagnostic arthroscopy, the LHB tendon should be evaluated for synovial inflammation or fraying (Figures 1A, 1B). This may need to be done under dry conditions, as pump pressure can compress and blunt the inflamed appearance. The O’Brien maneuver can be performed to demonstrate incarceration of the LHB tendon within the anterior glenohumeral joint. A probe should be placed through an anterior portal to pull the intertubercular LHB tendon into view, as this region is most commonly inflamed (Figure 2). Probing of the tendon also allows assessment of the stability of the biceps sling.

Surgical Technique

When biceps surgery is indicated, the surgeon must choose between tenotomy and tenodesis. Tenotomy is a low-demand procedure indicated for low-demand patients. A “Popeye” deformity may occur in up to 62% of patients, but Boileau and colleagues⁹ reported that none of their patients were bothered by it. Another concern after tenotomy is fatigue-cramping of the biceps muscle belly. Kelly and colleagues¹⁰ reported that up to 40% of patients had soreness and decreased strength with elbow flexion. Such cramping is more common in patients under age 60 years. For these reasons, biceps tenotomy should be reserved for older, low-demand patients who are not concerned about cosmesis and less likely to comply with postoperative motion restrictions.² We tend to perform tenotomy in obese patients, who may have a Popeye deformity that is not detectable, and in patients with diabetes; the goal is to avoid a wound infection resulting from the close proximity of tenodesis incision and axilla.

Biceps tenodesis should preserve the length–tension relationship of the biceps muscle and maintain its normal contour. Tenodesis location may be proximal or distal. Proximal fixation can be performed arthroscopically, and its advocates argue that keeping the LHB tendon within the bicipital groove preserves muscle strength. Boileau and Neyton11 found biceps strength to be 90% that of the contralateral arm after arthroscopic tenodesis. The bicipital groove, however, is lined with synovium and is a primary site of LHB pathology. Up to 78% of intra-articular biceps tears extend through the groove outside the joint.¹² Proximal tenodesis thus retains a major pain generator. In a retrospective study of 188 patients, Sanders and colleagues^13,14 found a 36% revision rate after proximal arthroscopic tenodesis and a 13% rate after proximal open tenodesis with an intact biceps sheath—significantly lower than the 3% after distal tenodesis outside the bicipital groove.¹ For this reason, we advocate distal biceps tenodesis beneath the pectoralis major tendon. After tenotomy with an arthroscopic basket (Figure 3), the LHB tendon is retracted out of the glenohumeral joint by extending the elbow. For the mini-open incision, the head of the bed is lowered from the beach-chair position to 30°. The arm is abducted on a Mayo stand, and the inferior border of the pectoralis major tendon is palpated. A 3-cm vertical incision is made along the medial arm starting 1 cm superior to the inferior pectoralis edge. The subcutaneous tissues are mobilized, and dissection is carried down to the pectoralis major and coracobrachialis tendons. Visualization of the cephalic vein indicates that the exposure is too far lateral. The horizontal fibers of the pectoralis major are identified, and a small incision through the inferior overlying fascia is directed laterally and then distally in line with the long axis of the humerus. Digital palpation helps identify the anterior humerus and fusiform LHB tendon running vertically within the intertubercular groove (Figure 4). Cephalad retraction of the pectoralis major allows direct visualization of the LHB tendon. A right-angle clamp is positioned deep to the LHB tendon and directed medial to lateral to retrieve the LHB tendon out of the incision.

No. 2 looped Fiberwire (Arthrex) is then whip-stitched from the top of the myotendinous junction up 20 mm (Figure 5). The remaining 2 to 3 cm of LHB tendon proximal to the whip-stitching may be excised to remove inflammatory tissue. The pectoralis major is retracted superiorly with an Army-Navy retractor while a pointed Hohmann retractor is placed laterally. Medial retraction of the conjoined tendon should be done carefully with a Chandler elevator and minimal levering. In a cadaveric study, Dickens and colleagues¹⁵ found that the musculocutaneous nerve, radial nerve, and deep brachial artery were all within 1 cm of the standard medial retractor. Compared with internal rotation of the arm, external rotation moves the musculocutaneous nerve 11 mm farther from the tenodesis site.¹⁵

Once exposure is adequate, the appropriate length–tension of the LHB tendon must be established. The inferior edge of the pectoralis major is used as a landmark. Anatomical studies have shown that the top of the LHB myotendinous junction lies 20 to 31 mm proximal to the inferior pectoralis edge.^16,17 Therefore, the tenodesis site should be 2 to 3 cm superior to the inferior pectoralis edge and centered on the humerus. Overall, the subpectoral location offers unique landmarks for LHB length-tensioning and provides soft-tissue coverage of the tenodesis site.

After identification of the appropriate tenodesis site, the surgeon chooses from a variety of fixation techniques. The “bone-tunnel technique” involves drilling an 8-mm unicortical hole through the anterior humerus followed by 2 smaller suture tunnels inferior to it; the LHB tendon with Krackow stitches is passed retrograde through the large hole by pulling the sutures through the smaller tunnels and tying them down.¹⁸ Despite the ease of performing this type of fixation, Mazzocca and colleagues¹⁹ found more cyclic displacement with bone tunnels than with interference screws and suture anchors. Other, less common techniques include the keyhole method (passing a rolled knot of LHB tendon through a keyhole in the bone)²⁰ and soft-tissue tenodesis to the rotator interval or conjoined tendon.^21,22 Recently, however, attention has turned mostly to interference screw and suture anchor fixation.

Multiple laboratory studies have demonstrated the superiority of interference screw fixation. Kilicoglu and colleagues²³ and Ozalay and colleagues²⁴ evaluated various fixation types in a sheep model, and both groups found the highest loads to failure with interference screws. Patzer and colleagues²⁵ compared interference screws and knotless suture anchors in a human cadaveric study and noted significantly higher failure loads with interference screws. Some authors^26,27 have presented conflicting laboratory data, and Millett and colleagues²⁸ reported no difference in clinical outcomes between interference screws and suture anchors. However, these studies have not demonstrated inferiority of interference screws, and, in light of other evidence suggesting its biomechanical superiority, we prefer interference screw fixation.^19,23-25,29

Exposing the bony surface for fixation involves electrocautery and subsequent use of a periosteal elevator to reflect a 1-cm periosteal window. A guide wire is drilled unicortically through the anterior cortex at the tenodesis site and is overreamed with an 8-mm cannulated reamer (Figure 6). This tunnel is then tapped, and bone debris is irrigated and suctioned from the wound. Cadaveric studies have shown no difference in failure loads with varying screw lengths or diameters.29,30 We use an 8×12-mm BioTenodesis screw (Arthrex) to match the typical width of the LHB tendon (Figures 7A-7C). One suture limb from the tendon whip-stitch is passed through the BioTenodesis screw and screwdriver. An assistant then uses a right-angle clamp as a pulley on the tendon so that the tendon may be visualized and “dunked” into the tunnel under direct visualization. As the screw is inserted, axial pressure is applied and the insertion paddle firmly held. Care should be taken to avoid overtightening the screw lest it become intramedullary. After the screw is flush to bone, the 2 whip-stitch suture limbs are tied for additional fixation.

Postoperative Rehabilitation

The optimal postoperative protocol for subpectoral biceps tenodesis has not been rigorously studied and is guided by the procedures performed with the biceps tenodesis. For the immediate postoperative period, Provencher and colleagues⁵ and Mazzocca and colleagues³¹ recommended immobilization in a sling during sleep and during the day if the patient is out in public or having difficulty maintaining the elbow flexed passively.

For isolated biceps tenodesis cases, passive- and active-assisted range of motion (ROM) of the glenohumeral, elbow, and wrist joints are permitted during the initial 4 weeks. At 3 weeks, the sling is discontinued and active ROM permitted. At 6 weeks, strengthening of the biceps, rotator cuff, deltoid, and periscapular muscles may begin with isometric contractions and progress to elastic bands and handheld weights. The same protocol is used if acromioplasty is performed at time of tenodesis. These patients may progress to active-assisted and active ROM earlier than 4 weeks if advised of the risks. However, sustained isometric biceps contraction, biceps strengthening, and resisted supination should not be performed until 6 weeks after surgery. If rotator cuff repair is performed, the patient is immobilized in a sling and passive ROM of the glenohumeral, elbow, and wrist joints is permitted during the first 6 weeks. The patient may progress to active-assisted and active ROM over the next 6 weeks, after motion is restored but before formal strengthening is initiated.³² For overhead athletes, Werner and colleagues³³ advocated a throwing program starting 3 to 4 months after surgery.

Outcomes and Complications

Mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis is a safe, reliable, and effective treatment for LHB tendon pathology. This procedure provides excellent pain relief and functional outcomes^32,34,35 and has a low complication rate.^5,35-40 At a mean of 29 months after biceps tenodesis with an interference screw, Mazzocca and colleagues³² found statistically significant improvements on all clinical outcome measures: Rowe, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant-Murley, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). Biceps symmetry was restored in 35 of 41 patients. Millett and colleagues²⁸ reported that subpectoral biceps tenodesis relieved pain and improved function as measured by visual analog scale pain, ASES scores, and abbreviated Constant scores. Werner and colleagues³⁴ compared open subpectoral and arthroscopic suprapectoral techniques and found excellent clinical and functional outcomes with both techniques at a mean of 3.1 years. There were no significant differences in ROM, strength, or clinical outcome scores between the 2 techniques.

Potential complications include hematoma, seroma, hardware failure, reaction to biodegradable screw, persistent anterior shoulder pain, stiffness, humeral fracture, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, infection, nerve injury, and brachial artery injury. The musculocutaneous nerve can be lacerated during screw placement or even avulsed if the surgeon attempts to retrieve the LHB tendon blindly.⁴¹ In the most comprehensive study of tenodesis complications, Nho and colleagues35 recorded a 2% complication rate in 353 patients over 3 years. Persistent bicipital pain and fixation failure causing a Popeye deformity were the 2 most common complications (0.57% each). In a study of 103 patients, Abtahi and colleagues³⁹ found a 7% complication rate, with 4 superficial wound infections and 2 temporary nerve palsies. Millett and colleagues²⁸ reported low complication rates with both interference screw and suture anchor fixation. Neither technique had a fixation failure, and persistent bicipital groove tenderness occurred in just 3% of patients after interference screw fixation and in 7% after suture anchor fixation. Mazzocca and colleagues³² documented 1 fixation failure (2%) 1 year after interference screw fixation.

Werner and colleagues³⁴ encountered stiffness more than any other complication and found it to be more common in their arthroscopic group (9.4%) than in their open group (6.0%). They used intra-articular corticosteroid injections and physical therapy to successfully treat all cases of postoperative stiffness. Humeral fracture is uncommon after tenodesis.^37,42 In a recent biomechanical study, however, Euler and colleagues⁴⁰ found a significant reduction (25%) in humeral strength after a laterally eccentric, malpositioned biceps tenodesis. This decreased osseous strength may increase susceptibility to humeral shaft fracture, especially when interference screw fixation is used. Sears and colleagues³⁷ and Dein and colleagues⁴² presented case reports of humeral fracture after biceps tenodesis with an interference screw.

For patients with fixation failure or continued anterior shoulder pain, revision biceps tenodesis is safe and effective. Heckman and colleagues⁴³ and Gregory and colleagues⁴⁴ showed revision tenodesis can lead to excellent pain relief and functional outcomes, for it allows complete removal of the biceps from the groove and preserves biceps function. Gregory and colleagues⁴⁴ revised subpectoral biceps tenodesis for either continued pain or fixation failure and found significant improvements in pain and function a mean of 33.4 months after surgery. Anthony and colleagues⁴⁵ performed biceps tenodesis for failed surgical tenotomies and autorupture of the LHB tendon. In their study of 11 patients, this surgery resulted in symptom improvement, patient satisfaction, resolution of Popeye deformity, and predictable return to activity.

Conclusion

LHB tendon pathology is a significant source of anterior shoulder pain and functional limitation. Diagnosis and treatment of this pathology can be challenging, and it is important to identify any concomitant pathologies or other pain sources. After failed nonoperative management, surgeons have the option of mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis—a safe, reliable, and effective treatment with excellent outcomes. Although multiple fixation options are available, we think that, based on the current literature, fixation with a bioabsorbable interference screw remains the best option. This procedure has demonstrated efficacy for revision biceps tenodesis, failed biceps tenotomy, and autorupture of the biceps.

Tendinopathy of the long head of the biceps brachii (LHB) is a common source of anterior shoulder pain. The LHB tendon is an intra-articular yet extrasynovial structure, ensheathed by the synovial lining of the articular capsule.¹ Branches of the anterior circumflex humeral artery course along the bicipital groove, but the gliding undersurface of the LHB remains avascular.² Tendon irritation is most common within the groove and usually produces “tendinosis,” characterized by collagen fiber atrophy, fibrinoid necrosis, and fibrocyte proliferation.¹ Neviaser and colleagues³ correlated such changes in the LHB tendon with rotator cuff pathology, as the 2 often coexist. Primary LHB tendinitis is less common and associated with younger patients who engage in overhead activities, such as baseball and volleyball.⁴

Nonoperative management, which is trialed initially, consists of rest, use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and physical therapy. Corticosteroid injections are administered through the subacromial space or glenohumeral joint, which is continuous with the LHB sheath. Some physicians give ultrasound-guided injections into the LHB sheath. For fear of tendon atrophy from corticosteroid injections, some physicians prefer iontophoresis with a topical steroid over the bicipital groove. If conservative measures fail, the physician can choose from 2 primary surgical options: biceps tenotomy and tenodesis. Tenodesis can be performed within the groove (suprapectoral) or subpectoral. In this review, we highlight 5 key features of subpectoral biceps tenodesis to guide treatment and improve outcomes.

Examination and Indications

Management of LHB tendinopathy begins with a complete physical examination. Tenderness over the bicipital groove is the most consistent finding, but this region may be difficult to localize in large individuals. The arm should be internally rotated 10° to orient the groove anterior and palpated 7 cm below the acromion.⁵ Anterior shoulder pain after resisted elevation with the elbow extended and supinated represents a positive Speed test. A positive Yergason test produces pain with resisted forearm supination while the elbow is flexed to 90°.

Evaluation of biceps instability is important in deciding which type of management (operative or nonoperative) is appropriate for a patient. Medial biceps subluxation may be detected by bringing the flexed arm from abduction, external rotation into cross-body adduction, internal rotation with decreased arm flexion.⁶ Another maneuver that elicits biceps irritation is combined abduction–extension, which places tension on the biceps tendon. Similarly, coracoid impingement may disrupt the subscapularis roof of the biceps sheath and cause LHB instability. Dines and colleagues⁷ reproduced the painful clicking of coracoid impingement by placing the shoulder in forward elevation, internal rotation, and varying degrees of adduction. Belly-press, lift-off, and internal rotation strength are other tests that assess subscapularis integrity. Rotator cuff impingement signs should be evaluated, and the contralateral shoulder should be examined for comparison.

Plain radiographs may show a pathology, such as anterior acromial spurring or posterior overgrowth of the coracoid, for which surgery is more suited. T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may show an increased LHB signal, but this has shown poor concordance with arthroscopic findings of biceps pathology.⁸ Magnetic resonance arthrography can better detect medial dislocation of the LHB tendon from subscapularis tears. Ultrasound is cost-effective but highly operator-dependent.

Indications for biceps tenotomy or tenodesis include failed conservative management, partial-thickness LHB tears more than 25% to 50% in diameter, and medial subluxation of the LHB tendon with or without a subscapularis tear. Superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears in older patients are a relative indication. Intraoperative findings may also indicate the need for LHB surgery. During the diagnostic arthroscopy, the LHB tendon should be evaluated for synovial inflammation or fraying (Figures 1A, 1B). This may need to be done under dry conditions, as pump pressure can compress and blunt the inflamed appearance. The O’Brien maneuver can be performed to demonstrate incarceration of the LHB tendon within the anterior glenohumeral joint. A probe should be placed through an anterior portal to pull the intertubercular LHB tendon into view, as this region is most commonly inflamed (Figure 2). Probing of the tendon also allows assessment of the stability of the biceps sling.

Surgical Technique

When biceps surgery is indicated, the surgeon must choose between tenotomy and tenodesis. Tenotomy is a low-demand procedure indicated for low-demand patients. A “Popeye” deformity may occur in up to 62% of patients, but Boileau and colleagues⁹ reported that none of their patients were bothered by it. Another concern after tenotomy is fatigue-cramping of the biceps muscle belly. Kelly and colleagues¹⁰ reported that up to 40% of patients had soreness and decreased strength with elbow flexion. Such cramping is more common in patients under age 60 years. For these reasons, biceps tenotomy should be reserved for older, low-demand patients who are not concerned about cosmesis and less likely to comply with postoperative motion restrictions.² We tend to perform tenotomy in obese patients, who may have a Popeye deformity that is not detectable, and in patients with diabetes; the goal is to avoid a wound infection resulting from the close proximity of tenodesis incision and axilla.

Biceps tenodesis should preserve the length–tension relationship of the biceps muscle and maintain its normal contour. Tenodesis location may be proximal or distal. Proximal fixation can be performed arthroscopically, and its advocates argue that keeping the LHB tendon within the bicipital groove preserves muscle strength. Boileau and Neyton11 found biceps strength to be 90% that of the contralateral arm after arthroscopic tenodesis. The bicipital groove, however, is lined with synovium and is a primary site of LHB pathology. Up to 78% of intra-articular biceps tears extend through the groove outside the joint.¹² Proximal tenodesis thus retains a major pain generator. In a retrospective study of 188 patients, Sanders and colleagues^13,14 found a 36% revision rate after proximal arthroscopic tenodesis and a 13% rate after proximal open tenodesis with an intact biceps sheath—significantly lower than the 3% after distal tenodesis outside the bicipital groove.¹ For this reason, we advocate distal biceps tenodesis beneath the pectoralis major tendon. After tenotomy with an arthroscopic basket (Figure 3), the LHB tendon is retracted out of the glenohumeral joint by extending the elbow. For the mini-open incision, the head of the bed is lowered from the beach-chair position to 30°. The arm is abducted on a Mayo stand, and the inferior border of the pectoralis major tendon is palpated. A 3-cm vertical incision is made along the medial arm starting 1 cm superior to the inferior pectoralis edge. The subcutaneous tissues are mobilized, and dissection is carried down to the pectoralis major and coracobrachialis tendons. Visualization of the cephalic vein indicates that the exposure is too far lateral. The horizontal fibers of the pectoralis major are identified, and a small incision through the inferior overlying fascia is directed laterally and then distally in line with the long axis of the humerus. Digital palpation helps identify the anterior humerus and fusiform LHB tendon running vertically within the intertubercular groove (Figure 4). Cephalad retraction of the pectoralis major allows direct visualization of the LHB tendon. A right-angle clamp is positioned deep to the LHB tendon and directed medial to lateral to retrieve the LHB tendon out of the incision.

No. 2 looped Fiberwire (Arthrex) is then whip-stitched from the top of the myotendinous junction up 20 mm (Figure 5). The remaining 2 to 3 cm of LHB tendon proximal to the whip-stitching may be excised to remove inflammatory tissue. The pectoralis major is retracted superiorly with an Army-Navy retractor while a pointed Hohmann retractor is placed laterally. Medial retraction of the conjoined tendon should be done carefully with a Chandler elevator and minimal levering. In a cadaveric study, Dickens and colleagues¹⁵ found that the musculocutaneous nerve, radial nerve, and deep brachial artery were all within 1 cm of the standard medial retractor. Compared with internal rotation of the arm, external rotation moves the musculocutaneous nerve 11 mm farther from the tenodesis site.¹⁵

Once exposure is adequate, the appropriate length–tension of the LHB tendon must be established. The inferior edge of the pectoralis major is used as a landmark. Anatomical studies have shown that the top of the LHB myotendinous junction lies 20 to 31 mm proximal to the inferior pectoralis edge.^16,17 Therefore, the tenodesis site should be 2 to 3 cm superior to the inferior pectoralis edge and centered on the humerus. Overall, the subpectoral location offers unique landmarks for LHB length-tensioning and provides soft-tissue coverage of the tenodesis site.

After identification of the appropriate tenodesis site, the surgeon chooses from a variety of fixation techniques. The “bone-tunnel technique” involves drilling an 8-mm unicortical hole through the anterior humerus followed by 2 smaller suture tunnels inferior to it; the LHB tendon with Krackow stitches is passed retrograde through the large hole by pulling the sutures through the smaller tunnels and tying them down.¹⁸ Despite the ease of performing this type of fixation, Mazzocca and colleagues¹⁹ found more cyclic displacement with bone tunnels than with interference screws and suture anchors. Other, less common techniques include the keyhole method (passing a rolled knot of LHB tendon through a keyhole in the bone)²⁰ and soft-tissue tenodesis to the rotator interval or conjoined tendon.^21,22 Recently, however, attention has turned mostly to interference screw and suture anchor fixation.

Multiple laboratory studies have demonstrated the superiority of interference screw fixation. Kilicoglu and colleagues²³ and Ozalay and colleagues²⁴ evaluated various fixation types in a sheep model, and both groups found the highest loads to failure with interference screws. Patzer and colleagues²⁵ compared interference screws and knotless suture anchors in a human cadaveric study and noted significantly higher failure loads with interference screws. Some authors^26,27 have presented conflicting laboratory data, and Millett and colleagues²⁸ reported no difference in clinical outcomes between interference screws and suture anchors. However, these studies have not demonstrated inferiority of interference screws, and, in light of other evidence suggesting its biomechanical superiority, we prefer interference screw fixation.^19,23-25,29

Exposing the bony surface for fixation involves electrocautery and subsequent use of a periosteal elevator to reflect a 1-cm periosteal window. A guide wire is drilled unicortically through the anterior cortex at the tenodesis site and is overreamed with an 8-mm cannulated reamer (Figure 6). This tunnel is then tapped, and bone debris is irrigated and suctioned from the wound. Cadaveric studies have shown no difference in failure loads with varying screw lengths or diameters.29,30 We use an 8×12-mm BioTenodesis screw (Arthrex) to match the typical width of the LHB tendon (Figures 7A-7C). One suture limb from the tendon whip-stitch is passed through the BioTenodesis screw and screwdriver. An assistant then uses a right-angle clamp as a pulley on the tendon so that the tendon may be visualized and “dunked” into the tunnel under direct visualization. As the screw is inserted, axial pressure is applied and the insertion paddle firmly held. Care should be taken to avoid overtightening the screw lest it become intramedullary. After the screw is flush to bone, the 2 whip-stitch suture limbs are tied for additional fixation.

Postoperative Rehabilitation

The optimal postoperative protocol for subpectoral biceps tenodesis has not been rigorously studied and is guided by the procedures performed with the biceps tenodesis. For the immediate postoperative period, Provencher and colleagues⁵ and Mazzocca and colleagues³¹ recommended immobilization in a sling during sleep and during the day if the patient is out in public or having difficulty maintaining the elbow flexed passively.

For isolated biceps tenodesis cases, passive- and active-assisted range of motion (ROM) of the glenohumeral, elbow, and wrist joints are permitted during the initial 4 weeks. At 3 weeks, the sling is discontinued and active ROM permitted. At 6 weeks, strengthening of the biceps, rotator cuff, deltoid, and periscapular muscles may begin with isometric contractions and progress to elastic bands and handheld weights. The same protocol is used if acromioplasty is performed at time of tenodesis. These patients may progress to active-assisted and active ROM earlier than 4 weeks if advised of the risks. However, sustained isometric biceps contraction, biceps strengthening, and resisted supination should not be performed until 6 weeks after surgery. If rotator cuff repair is performed, the patient is immobilized in a sling and passive ROM of the glenohumeral, elbow, and wrist joints is permitted during the first 6 weeks. The patient may progress to active-assisted and active ROM over the next 6 weeks, after motion is restored but before formal strengthening is initiated.³² For overhead athletes, Werner and colleagues³³ advocated a throwing program starting 3 to 4 months after surgery.

Outcomes and Complications

Mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis is a safe, reliable, and effective treatment for LHB tendon pathology. This procedure provides excellent pain relief and functional outcomes^32,34,35 and has a low complication rate.^5,35-40 At a mean of 29 months after biceps tenodesis with an interference screw, Mazzocca and colleagues³² found statistically significant improvements on all clinical outcome measures: Rowe, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant-Murley, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). Biceps symmetry was restored in 35 of 41 patients. Millett and colleagues²⁸ reported that subpectoral biceps tenodesis relieved pain and improved function as measured by visual analog scale pain, ASES scores, and abbreviated Constant scores. Werner and colleagues³⁴ compared open subpectoral and arthroscopic suprapectoral techniques and found excellent clinical and functional outcomes with both techniques at a mean of 3.1 years. There were no significant differences in ROM, strength, or clinical outcome scores between the 2 techniques.

Potential complications include hematoma, seroma, hardware failure, reaction to biodegradable screw, persistent anterior shoulder pain, stiffness, humeral fracture, reflex sympathetic dystrophy, infection, nerve injury, and brachial artery injury. The musculocutaneous nerve can be lacerated during screw placement or even avulsed if the surgeon attempts to retrieve the LHB tendon blindly.⁴¹ In the most comprehensive study of tenodesis complications, Nho and colleagues35 recorded a 2% complication rate in 353 patients over 3 years. Persistent bicipital pain and fixation failure causing a Popeye deformity were the 2 most common complications (0.57% each). In a study of 103 patients, Abtahi and colleagues³⁹ found a 7% complication rate, with 4 superficial wound infections and 2 temporary nerve palsies. Millett and colleagues²⁸ reported low complication rates with both interference screw and suture anchor fixation. Neither technique had a fixation failure, and persistent bicipital groove tenderness occurred in just 3% of patients after interference screw fixation and in 7% after suture anchor fixation. Mazzocca and colleagues³² documented 1 fixation failure (2%) 1 year after interference screw fixation.

Werner and colleagues³⁴ encountered stiffness more than any other complication and found it to be more common in their arthroscopic group (9.4%) than in their open group (6.0%). They used intra-articular corticosteroid injections and physical therapy to successfully treat all cases of postoperative stiffness. Humeral fracture is uncommon after tenodesis.^37,42 In a recent biomechanical study, however, Euler and colleagues⁴⁰ found a significant reduction (25%) in humeral strength after a laterally eccentric, malpositioned biceps tenodesis. This decreased osseous strength may increase susceptibility to humeral shaft fracture, especially when interference screw fixation is used. Sears and colleagues³⁷ and Dein and colleagues⁴² presented case reports of humeral fracture after biceps tenodesis with an interference screw.

For patients with fixation failure or continued anterior shoulder pain, revision biceps tenodesis is safe and effective. Heckman and colleagues⁴³ and Gregory and colleagues⁴⁴ showed revision tenodesis can lead to excellent pain relief and functional outcomes, for it allows complete removal of the biceps from the groove and preserves biceps function. Gregory and colleagues⁴⁴ revised subpectoral biceps tenodesis for either continued pain or fixation failure and found significant improvements in pain and function a mean of 33.4 months after surgery. Anthony and colleagues⁴⁵ performed biceps tenodesis for failed surgical tenotomies and autorupture of the LHB tendon. In their study of 11 patients, this surgery resulted in symptom improvement, patient satisfaction, resolution of Popeye deformity, and predictable return to activity.

Conclusion

LHB tendon pathology is a significant source of anterior shoulder pain and functional limitation. Diagnosis and treatment of this pathology can be challenging, and it is important to identify any concomitant pathologies or other pain sources. After failed nonoperative management, surgeons have the option of mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis—a safe, reliable, and effective treatment with excellent outcomes. Although multiple fixation options are available, we think that, based on the current literature, fixation with a bioabsorbable interference screw remains the best option. This procedure has demonstrated efficacy for revision biceps tenodesis, failed biceps tenotomy, and autorupture of the biceps.

Pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS) is a rare monoarticular disorder that affects the joints, bursae, or tendon sheaths of 1.8 per million patients.^1,2 PVNS is defined by exuberant proliferation of synovial villi and nodules. Although its etiology is unknown, PVNS behaves much as a neoplastic process does, with occasional chromosomal abnormalities, local tissue invasion, and the potential for malignant transformation.^3,4 Radiographs show cystic erosions or joint space narrowing, and magnetic resonance imaging shows characteristic low-signal intensity (on T1- and T2-weighted sequences) because of high hemosiderin content. Biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosis and reveals hemosiderin-laden macrophages, vascularized villi, mononuclear cell infiltration, and sporadic mitotic figures.⁵ Diffuse PVNS appears as a thickened synovium with matted villi and synovial folds; localized PVNS presents as a pedunculated, firm yellow nodule.⁶

PVNS has a predilection for large joints, most commonly the knee (up to 80% of cases) and the hip.^1,2,7 Treatment strategies for knee PVNS have been well studied and, as an aggregate, show no superiority of arthroscopic or open techniques.⁸ The literature on hip PVNS is less abundant and more case-based, making it difficult to reach a consensus on effective treatment. Open synovectomy and arthroplasty have been the mainstays of treatment over the past 60 years, but the advent of hip arthroscopy has introduced a new treatment modality.^1,9 As arthroscopic management becomes more readily available, it is important to understand and compare the effectiveness of synovectomy and arthroplasty.

We systematically reviewed the treatment modalities for PVNS of the hip to determine how synovectomy and arthroplasty compare with respect to efficacy and revision rates.

Methods

Search Strategy

We systematically reviewed the literature according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the PRISMA checklist.¹⁰ Searches were completed in July 2014 using the PubMed Medline database and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials. Keyword selection was designed to capture all level I to V evidence English-language studies that reported clinical and/or radiographic outcomes. This was accomplished with a keyword search of all available titles and manuscript abstracts: (pigmented [Title/Abstract] AND villonodular [Title/Abstract] AND synovitis [Title/Abstract]) AND (hip [Title/Abstract]) AND (English [lang])). Abstracts from the 75 resulting studies were reviewed for exclusion criteria, which consisted of any cadaveric, biomechanical, histologic, and/or kinematic results, as well as a lack of any clinical and/or radiographic data (eg, review or technique articles). Studies were also excluded if they did not have clinical follow-up of at least 2 years. Studies not dedicated to hip PVNS specifically were not immediately excluded but were reviewed for outcomes data specific to the hip PVNS subpopulation. If a specific hip PVNS population could be distinguished from other patients, that study was included for review. If a study could not be deconstructed as such or was entirely devoted to one of our exclusion criteria, that study was excluded from our review. This initial search strategy yielded 16 studies.^1,6,7,11-28

Bibliographical review of these 16 studies yielded several more for review. To ensure that no patients were counted twice, each study’s authors, data collection period, and ethnic population were reviewed and compared with those of the other studies. If there was any overlap in authorship, period, and place, only the study with the most relevant or comprehensive data was included. After accounting for all inclusion and exclusion criteria, we selected a total of 21 studies with 82 patients (86 hips) for inclusion (Figure 1).

Data Extraction

Details of study design, sample size, and patient demographics, including age, sex, and duration of symptoms, were recorded. Use of diagnostic biopsy, joint space narrowing on radiographs, treatment method, and use of radiation therapy were also abstracted. Some studies described multiple treatment methods. If those methods could not be differentiated into distinct outcomes groups, the study would have been excluded for lack of specific clinical data. Studies with sufficient data were deconstructed such that the patients from each treatment group were isolated.

Fewer than 5 studies reported physical examination findings, validated survey scores, and/or radiographic results. Therefore, the primary outcomes reported and compared between treatment groups were disease recurrence, clinical worsening defined as progressive pain or loss of function, and revision surgery. Revision surgery was subdivided into repeat synovectomy and eventual arthroplasty, arthrodesis, or revision arthroplasty. Time to revision surgery was also documented. Each study’s methodologic quality and bias were evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), described by Cowan and colleagues.29 MCMS is a 15-item instrument that has been used to assess randomized and nonrandomized patient trials.^30,31 It has a scaled potential score ranging from 0 to 100, with scores from 85 through 100 indicating excellent, 70 through 84 good, 55 through 69 fair, and under 55 poor.

Statistical Analysis

We report our data as weighted means (SDs). A mean was calculated for each study reporting on a respective data point, and each mean was then weighted according to the sample size of that study. We multiplied each study’s individual mean by the number of patients enrolled in that study and divided the sum of all the studies’ weighted data points by the number of eligible patients in all relevant studies. The result is that the nonweighted means from studies with a smaller sample size did not carry as much weight as those from larger studies. We then compared 2 groups of patients: those who had only a synovectomy and those who had a combination of synovectomy and arthroplasty. The synovectomy-only group was also compared with a group that underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) specifically (Figure 2). Groups were compared with Student t test (SPSS Version 18, IBM), and statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.

Results

Twenty-one studies (82 patients) were included in the final dataset (Table 1). Of these studies, 19 were retrospective case series (level IV evidence) in which the number of eligible hip PVNS patients ranged from 1 to 15. The other 2 studies were case reports (level V evidence). Mean (SD) MCMS was 25.0 (10.9).

Fifty-one patients (59.3%) were female. Mean (SD) age of all patients was 33.2 (12.6) years. Mean (SD) duration of symptoms was 4.2 (2.7) years. The right hip was affected in 59.5% of patients in whom laterality was documented. Sixty-eight patients (79.1%) had biopsy-proven PVNS; presence or absence of a biopsy was not documented for the other 18 patients.

Of the 82 patients in the study, 45 (54.9%) underwent synovectomy without arthroplasty. Staged radiation was used to augment the synovectomy in 2 of these 45 cases. One series in this group consisted of 15 cases of arthroscopic synovectomy.¹ The 37 patients (45.1%) in the other treatment group had arthroplasty at time of synovectomy. These patients underwent 22 THAs, 8 cup arthroplasties, 2 metal-on-metal hip resurfacings, and 1 hemiarthroplasty. The remaining 4 patients were treated nonoperatively (3) or with primary arthrodesis (1).

Comparisons between the synovectomy-only and synovectomy-with-arthroplasty groups are listed in Table 2. Synovectomy patients were younger on average than arthroplasty patients, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .28). Only 6 studies distinguished between local and diffuse PVNS histology, and the diffuse type was detected in 87.0%, with insufficient data to detect a difference between the synovectomy and arthroplasty groups. In studies with documented radiographic findings, 75.0% of patients had evidence of joint space narrowing, which was significantly (P = .03) more common in the arthroplasty group (96.7% vs 31.3%).

Mean (SD) clinical follow-up was 8.4 (5.9) years for all patients. A larger percentage of synovectomy-only patients experienced recurrence and worsened symptoms, but neither trend achieved statistical significance. The rate of eventual THA or arthrodesis after synovectomy alone was almost identical (P = .17) to the rate of revision THA in the synovectomy-with-arthroplasty group (26.2% vs 24.3%). Time to revision surgery, however, was significantly (P = .02) longer in the arthroplasty group. Two additional patients in the synovectomy-with-arthroplasty group underwent repeat synovectomy alone, but no patients in the synovectomy-only group underwent repeat synovectomy without arthroplasty.

One nonoperatively managed patient experienced symptom progression over the course of 10 years. The other 2 patients were stable after 2- and 4-year follow-up. The arthrodesis patient did not experience recurrence or have a revision operation in the 5 years after the index procedure.

Discussion

PVNS is a proliferative disorder of synovial tissue with a high risk of recurrence.^15,32 Metastasis is extremely rare; there is only 1 case report of a fatality, which occurred within 42 months.¹² Chiari and colleagues¹⁵ suggested that the PVNS recurrence rate is highest in the large joints. Therefore, in hip PVNS, early surgical resection is needed to limit articular destruction and the potential for recurrence. The primary treatment modalities are synovectomy alone and synovectomy with arthroplasty, which includes THA, cup arthroplasty, hip resurfacing, and hemiarthroplasty. According to our systematic review, about one-fourth of all patients in both treatment groups ultimately underwent revision surgery. Mean time to revision was significantly longer for synovectomy-with-arthroplasty patients (almost 12 years) than for synovectomy-only patients (6.5 years). One potential explanation is that arthroplasty component fixation may take longer to loosen than an inadequately synovectomized joint takes to recur. The synovectomy-only group did have a higher recurrence rate, though the difference was not statistically significant.

Open synovectomy is the most widely described technique for addressing hip PVNS. The precise pathophysiology of PVNS remains largely unknown, but most authors agree that aggressive débridement is required to halt its locally invasive course. Scott²⁴ described the invasion of vascular foramina from synovium into bone and thought that radical synovectomy was essential to remove the stalks of these synovial villi. Furthermore, PVNS most commonly affects adults in the third through fifth decades of life,7 and many surgeons want to avoid prosthetic components (which may loosen over time) in this age group. Synovectomy, however, has persistently high recurrence rates, and, without removal of the femoral head and neck, it can be difficult to obtain adequate exposure for complete débridement. Although adjuvant external beam radiation has been used by some authors,^17,19,33 its utility is unproven, and other authors have cautioned against unnecessary irradiation of reproductive organs.^1,24,34

The high rates of bony involvement, joint destruction, and recurrence after synovectomy have prompted many surgeons to turn to arthroplasty. González Della Valle and colleagues18 theorized that joint space narrowing is more common in hip PVNS because of the poor distensibility of the hip capsule compared with that of the knee and other joints. In turn, bony lesions and arthritis present earlier in hip PVNS.¹⁴ Yoo and colleagues¹⁴ found a statistically significant increase in Harris Hip Scale (HHS) scores and a high rate of return to athletic activity after THA for PVNS. However, they also reported revisions for component loosening and osteolysis in 2 of 8 patients and periprosthetic osteolysis without loosening in another 2 patients. Vastel and colleagues¹⁶ similarly reported aseptic loosening of the acetabular component in half their patient cohort. No studies have determined which condition—PVNS recurrence or debris-related osteolysis—causes the accelerated loosening in this demographic.

Byrd and colleagues¹ recently described use of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of PVNS. In a cohort of 13 patients, they found statistically significant improvements in HHS scores, no postoperative complications, and only 1 revision (THA 6 years after surgery). Although there is a prevailing perception that nodular (vs diffuse) PVNS is more appropriately treated with arthroscopic excision, no studies have provided data on this effect, and Byrd and colleagues¹ in fact showed a trend of slightly better outcomes in diffuse cases than in nodular cases. The main challenges of hip arthroscopy are the steep learning curve and adequate exposure. Recent innovations include additional arthroscopic portals and enlarged T-capsulotomy, which may be contributing to decreased complication rates in hip arthroscopy in general.³⁵

The limitations of this systematic review were largely imposed by the studies analyzed. The primary limitation was the relative paucity of clinical and radiographic data on hip PVNS. To our knowledge, studies on the treatment of hip PVNS have reported evidence levels no higher than IV. In addition, the studies we reviewed often had only 1 or 2 patient cases satisfying our inclusion criteria. For this reason, we included case reports, which further lowered the level of evidence of studies used. There were no consistently reported physical examination, survey, or radiographic findings that could be used to compare studies. All studies with sufficient data on hip PVNS treatment outcomes were rated poorly with the Modified Coleman Methodology Scoring system.²⁹ Selection bias was minimized by the inclusive nature of studies with level I to V evidence, but this led to a study design bias in that most studies consisted of level IV evidence.

Conclusion

Although the hip PVNS literature is limited, our review provides insight into expected outcomes. No matter which surgery is to be performed, surgeons must counsel patients about the high revision rate. One in 4 patients ultimately undergoes a second surgery, which may be required within 6 or 7 years after synovectomy without arthroplasty. Further development and innovation in hip arthroscopy may transform the treatment of PVNS. We encourage other investigators to conduct prospective, comparative trials with higher evidence levels to assess the utility of arthroscopy and other treatment modalities.

Pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS) is a rare monoarticular disorder that affects the joints, bursae, or tendon sheaths of 1.8 per million patients.^1,2 PVNS is defined by exuberant proliferation of synovial villi and nodules. Although its etiology is unknown, PVNS behaves much as a neoplastic process does, with occasional chromosomal abnormalities, local tissue invasion, and the potential for malignant transformation.^3,4 Radiographs show cystic erosions or joint space narrowing, and magnetic resonance imaging shows characteristic low-signal intensity (on T1- and T2-weighted sequences) because of high hemosiderin content. Biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosis and reveals hemosiderin-laden macrophages, vascularized villi, mononuclear cell infiltration, and sporadic mitotic figures.⁵ Diffuse PVNS appears as a thickened synovium with matted villi and synovial folds; localized PVNS presents as a pedunculated, firm yellow nodule.⁶

PVNS has a predilection for large joints, most commonly the knee (up to 80% of cases) and the hip.^1,2,7 Treatment strategies for knee PVNS have been well studied and, as an aggregate, show no superiority of arthroscopic or open techniques.⁸ The literature on hip PVNS is less abundant and more case-based, making it difficult to reach a consensus on effective treatment. Open synovectomy and arthroplasty have been the mainstays of treatment over the past 60 years, but the advent of hip arthroscopy has introduced a new treatment modality.^1,9 As arthroscopic management becomes more readily available, it is important to understand and compare the effectiveness of synovectomy and arthroplasty.

We systematically reviewed the treatment modalities for PVNS of the hip to determine how synovectomy and arthroplasty compare with respect to efficacy and revision rates.

Methods

Search Strategy

We systematically reviewed the literature according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the PRISMA checklist.¹⁰ Searches were completed in July 2014 using the PubMed Medline database and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials. Keyword selection was designed to capture all level I to V evidence English-language studies that reported clinical and/or radiographic outcomes. This was accomplished with a keyword search of all available titles and manuscript abstracts: (pigmented [Title/Abstract] AND villonodular [Title/Abstract] AND synovitis [Title/Abstract]) AND (hip [Title/Abstract]) AND (English [lang])). Abstracts from the 75 resulting studies were reviewed for exclusion criteria, which consisted of any cadaveric, biomechanical, histologic, and/or kinematic results, as well as a lack of any clinical and/or radiographic data (eg, review or technique articles). Studies were also excluded if they did not have clinical follow-up of at least 2 years. Studies not dedicated to hip PVNS specifically were not immediately excluded but were reviewed for outcomes data specific to the hip PVNS subpopulation. If a specific hip PVNS population could be distinguished from other patients, that study was included for review. If a study could not be deconstructed as such or was entirely devoted to one of our exclusion criteria, that study was excluded from our review. This initial search strategy yielded 16 studies.^1,6,7,11-28

Bibliographical review of these 16 studies yielded several more for review. To ensure that no patients were counted twice, each study’s authors, data collection period, and ethnic population were reviewed and compared with those of the other studies. If there was any overlap in authorship, period, and place, only the study with the most relevant or comprehensive data was included. After accounting for all inclusion and exclusion criteria, we selected a total of 21 studies with 82 patients (86 hips) for inclusion (Figure 1).

Data Extraction

Details of study design, sample size, and patient demographics, including age, sex, and duration of symptoms, were recorded. Use of diagnostic biopsy, joint space narrowing on radiographs, treatment method, and use of radiation therapy were also abstracted. Some studies described multiple treatment methods. If those methods could not be differentiated into distinct outcomes groups, the study would have been excluded for lack of specific clinical data. Studies with sufficient data were deconstructed such that the patients from each treatment group were isolated.

Fewer than 5 studies reported physical examination findings, validated survey scores, and/or radiographic results. Therefore, the primary outcomes reported and compared between treatment groups were disease recurrence, clinical worsening defined as progressive pain or loss of function, and revision surgery. Revision surgery was subdivided into repeat synovectomy and eventual arthroplasty, arthrodesis, or revision arthroplasty. Time to revision surgery was also documented. Each study’s methodologic quality and bias were evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), described by Cowan and colleagues.29 MCMS is a 15-item instrument that has been used to assess randomized and nonrandomized patient trials.^30,31 It has a scaled potential score ranging from 0 to 100, with scores from 85 through 100 indicating excellent, 70 through 84 good, 55 through 69 fair, and under 55 poor.

Statistical Analysis

We report our data as weighted means (SDs). A mean was calculated for each study reporting on a respective data point, and each mean was then weighted according to the sample size of that study. We multiplied each study’s individual mean by the number of patients enrolled in that study and divided the sum of all the studies’ weighted data points by the number of eligible patients in all relevant studies. The result is that the nonweighted means from studies with a smaller sample size did not carry as much weight as those from larger studies. We then compared 2 groups of patients: those who had only a synovectomy and those who had a combination of synovectomy and arthroplasty. The synovectomy-only group was also compared with a group that underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) specifically (Figure 2). Groups were compared with Student t test (SPSS Version 18, IBM), and statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.

Results

Twenty-one studies (82 patients) were included in the final dataset (Table 1). Of these studies, 19 were retrospective case series (level IV evidence) in which the number of eligible hip PVNS patients ranged from 1 to 15. The other 2 studies were case reports (level V evidence). Mean (SD) MCMS was 25.0 (10.9).

Fifty-one patients (59.3%) were female. Mean (SD) age of all patients was 33.2 (12.6) years. Mean (SD) duration of symptoms was 4.2 (2.7) years. The right hip was affected in 59.5% of patients in whom laterality was documented. Sixty-eight patients (79.1%) had biopsy-proven PVNS; presence or absence of a biopsy was not documented for the other 18 patients.

Of the 82 patients in the study, 45 (54.9%) underwent synovectomy without arthroplasty. Staged radiation was used to augment the synovectomy in 2 of these 45 cases. One series in this group consisted of 15 cases of arthroscopic synovectomy.¹ The 37 patients (45.1%) in the other treatment group had arthroplasty at time of synovectomy. These patients underwent 22 THAs, 8 cup arthroplasties, 2 metal-on-metal hip resurfacings, and 1 hemiarthroplasty. The remaining 4 patients were treated nonoperatively (3) or with primary arthrodesis (1).

Comparisons between the synovectomy-only and synovectomy-with-arthroplasty groups are listed in Table 2. Synovectomy patients were younger on average than arthroplasty patients, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .28). Only 6 studies distinguished between local and diffuse PVNS histology, and the diffuse type was detected in 87.0%, with insufficient data to detect a difference between the synovectomy and arthroplasty groups. In studies with documented radiographic findings, 75.0% of patients had evidence of joint space narrowing, which was significantly (P = .03) more common in the arthroplasty group (96.7% vs 31.3%).

Mean (SD) clinical follow-up was 8.4 (5.9) years for all patients. A larger percentage of synovectomy-only patients experienced recurrence and worsened symptoms, but neither trend achieved statistical significance. The rate of eventual THA or arthrodesis after synovectomy alone was almost identical (P = .17) to the rate of revision THA in the synovectomy-with-arthroplasty group (26.2% vs 24.3%). Time to revision surgery, however, was significantly (P = .02) longer in the arthroplasty group. Two additional patients in the synovectomy-with-arthroplasty group underwent repeat synovectomy alone, but no patients in the synovectomy-only group underwent repeat synovectomy without arthroplasty.

One nonoperatively managed patient experienced symptom progression over the course of 10 years. The other 2 patients were stable after 2- and 4-year follow-up. The arthrodesis patient did not experience recurrence or have a revision operation in the 5 years after the index procedure.

Discussion

PVNS is a proliferative disorder of synovial tissue with a high risk of recurrence.^15,32 Metastasis is extremely rare; there is only 1 case report of a fatality, which occurred within 42 months.¹² Chiari and colleagues¹⁵ suggested that the PVNS recurrence rate is highest in the large joints. Therefore, in hip PVNS, early surgical resection is needed to limit articular destruction and the potential for recurrence. The primary treatment modalities are synovectomy alone and synovectomy with arthroplasty, which includes THA, cup arthroplasty, hip resurfacing, and hemiarthroplasty. According to our systematic review, about one-fourth of all patients in both treatment groups ultimately underwent revision surgery. Mean time to revision was significantly longer for synovectomy-with-arthroplasty patients (almost 12 years) than for synovectomy-only patients (6.5 years). One potential explanation is that arthroplasty component fixation may take longer to loosen than an inadequately synovectomized joint takes to recur. The synovectomy-only group did have a higher recurrence rate, though the difference was not statistically significant.

Open synovectomy is the most widely described technique for addressing hip PVNS. The precise pathophysiology of PVNS remains largely unknown, but most authors agree that aggressive débridement is required to halt its locally invasive course. Scott²⁴ described the invasion of vascular foramina from synovium into bone and thought that radical synovectomy was essential to remove the stalks of these synovial villi. Furthermore, PVNS most commonly affects adults in the third through fifth decades of life,7 and many surgeons want to avoid prosthetic components (which may loosen over time) in this age group. Synovectomy, however, has persistently high recurrence rates, and, without removal of the femoral head and neck, it can be difficult to obtain adequate exposure for complete débridement. Although adjuvant external beam radiation has been used by some authors,^17,19,33 its utility is unproven, and other authors have cautioned against unnecessary irradiation of reproductive organs.^1,24,34

The high rates of bony involvement, joint destruction, and recurrence after synovectomy have prompted many surgeons to turn to arthroplasty. González Della Valle and colleagues18 theorized that joint space narrowing is more common in hip PVNS because of the poor distensibility of the hip capsule compared with that of the knee and other joints. In turn, bony lesions and arthritis present earlier in hip PVNS.¹⁴ Yoo and colleagues¹⁴ found a statistically significant increase in Harris Hip Scale (HHS) scores and a high rate of return to athletic activity after THA for PVNS. However, they also reported revisions for component loosening and osteolysis in 2 of 8 patients and periprosthetic osteolysis without loosening in another 2 patients. Vastel and colleagues¹⁶ similarly reported aseptic loosening of the acetabular component in half their patient cohort. No studies have determined which condition—PVNS recurrence or debris-related osteolysis—causes the accelerated loosening in this demographic.

Byrd and colleagues¹ recently described use of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of PVNS. In a cohort of 13 patients, they found statistically significant improvements in HHS scores, no postoperative complications, and only 1 revision (THA 6 years after surgery). Although there is a prevailing perception that nodular (vs diffuse) PVNS is more appropriately treated with arthroscopic excision, no studies have provided data on this effect, and Byrd and colleagues¹ in fact showed a trend of slightly better outcomes in diffuse cases than in nodular cases. The main challenges of hip arthroscopy are the steep learning curve and adequate exposure. Recent innovations include additional arthroscopic portals and enlarged T-capsulotomy, which may be contributing to decreased complication rates in hip arthroscopy in general.³⁵

The limitations of this systematic review were largely imposed by the studies analyzed. The primary limitation was the relative paucity of clinical and radiographic data on hip PVNS. To our knowledge, studies on the treatment of hip PVNS have reported evidence levels no higher than IV. In addition, the studies we reviewed often had only 1 or 2 patient cases satisfying our inclusion criteria. For this reason, we included case reports, which further lowered the level of evidence of studies used. There were no consistently reported physical examination, survey, or radiographic findings that could be used to compare studies. All studies with sufficient data on hip PVNS treatment outcomes were rated poorly with the Modified Coleman Methodology Scoring system.²⁹ Selection bias was minimized by the inclusive nature of studies with level I to V evidence, but this led to a study design bias in that most studies consisted of level IV evidence.

Conclusion

Although the hip PVNS literature is limited, our review provides insight into expected outcomes. No matter which surgery is to be performed, surgeons must counsel patients about the high revision rate. One in 4 patients ultimately undergoes a second surgery, which may be required within 6 or 7 years after synovectomy without arthroplasty. Further development and innovation in hip arthroscopy may transform the treatment of PVNS. We encourage other investigators to conduct prospective, comparative trials with higher evidence levels to assess the utility of arthroscopy and other treatment modalities.

Pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS) is a rare monoarticular disorder that affects the joints, bursae, or tendon sheaths of 1.8 per million patients.^1,2 PVNS is defined by exuberant proliferation of synovial villi and nodules. Although its etiology is unknown, PVNS behaves much as a neoplastic process does, with occasional chromosomal abnormalities, local tissue invasion, and the potential for malignant transformation.^3,4 Radiographs show cystic erosions or joint space narrowing, and magnetic resonance imaging shows characteristic low-signal intensity (on T1- and T2-weighted sequences) because of high hemosiderin content. Biopsy remains the gold standard for diagnosis and reveals hemosiderin-laden macrophages, vascularized villi, mononuclear cell infiltration, and sporadic mitotic figures.⁵ Diffuse PVNS appears as a thickened synovium with matted villi and synovial folds; localized PVNS presents as a pedunculated, firm yellow nodule.⁶

PVNS has a predilection for large joints, most commonly the knee (up to 80% of cases) and the hip.^1,2,7 Treatment strategies for knee PVNS have been well studied and, as an aggregate, show no superiority of arthroscopic or open techniques.⁸ The literature on hip PVNS is less abundant and more case-based, making it difficult to reach a consensus on effective treatment. Open synovectomy and arthroplasty have been the mainstays of treatment over the past 60 years, but the advent of hip arthroscopy has introduced a new treatment modality.^1,9 As arthroscopic management becomes more readily available, it is important to understand and compare the effectiveness of synovectomy and arthroplasty.

We systematically reviewed the treatment modalities for PVNS of the hip to determine how synovectomy and arthroplasty compare with respect to efficacy and revision rates.

Methods

Search Strategy

We systematically reviewed the literature according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the PRISMA checklist.¹⁰ Searches were completed in July 2014 using the PubMed Medline database and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials. Keyword selection was designed to capture all level I to V evidence English-language studies that reported clinical and/or radiographic outcomes. This was accomplished with a keyword search of all available titles and manuscript abstracts: (pigmented [Title/Abstract] AND villonodular [Title/Abstract] AND synovitis [Title/Abstract]) AND (hip [Title/Abstract]) AND (English [lang])). Abstracts from the 75 resulting studies were reviewed for exclusion criteria, which consisted of any cadaveric, biomechanical, histologic, and/or kinematic results, as well as a lack of any clinical and/or radiographic data (eg, review or technique articles). Studies were also excluded if they did not have clinical follow-up of at least 2 years. Studies not dedicated to hip PVNS specifically were not immediately excluded but were reviewed for outcomes data specific to the hip PVNS subpopulation. If a specific hip PVNS population could be distinguished from other patients, that study was included for review. If a study could not be deconstructed as such or was entirely devoted to one of our exclusion criteria, that study was excluded from our review. This initial search strategy yielded 16 studies.^1,6,7,11-28

Bibliographical review of these 16 studies yielded several more for review. To ensure that no patients were counted twice, each study’s authors, data collection period, and ethnic population were reviewed and compared with those of the other studies. If there was any overlap in authorship, period, and place, only the study with the most relevant or comprehensive data was included. After accounting for all inclusion and exclusion criteria, we selected a total of 21 studies with 82 patients (86 hips) for inclusion (Figure 1).

Data Extraction

Details of study design, sample size, and patient demographics, including age, sex, and duration of symptoms, were recorded. Use of diagnostic biopsy, joint space narrowing on radiographs, treatment method, and use of radiation therapy were also abstracted. Some studies described multiple treatment methods. If those methods could not be differentiated into distinct outcomes groups, the study would have been excluded for lack of specific clinical data. Studies with sufficient data were deconstructed such that the patients from each treatment group were isolated.

Fewer than 5 studies reported physical examination findings, validated survey scores, and/or radiographic results. Therefore, the primary outcomes reported and compared between treatment groups were disease recurrence, clinical worsening defined as progressive pain or loss of function, and revision surgery. Revision surgery was subdivided into repeat synovectomy and eventual arthroplasty, arthrodesis, or revision arthroplasty. Time to revision surgery was also documented. Each study’s methodologic quality and bias were evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), described by Cowan and colleagues.29 MCMS is a 15-item instrument that has been used to assess randomized and nonrandomized patient trials.^30,31 It has a scaled potential score ranging from 0 to 100, with scores from 85 through 100 indicating excellent, 70 through 84 good, 55 through 69 fair, and under 55 poor.

Statistical Analysis

We report our data as weighted means (SDs). A mean was calculated for each study reporting on a respective data point, and each mean was then weighted according to the sample size of that study. We multiplied each study’s individual mean by the number of patients enrolled in that study and divided the sum of all the studies’ weighted data points by the number of eligible patients in all relevant studies. The result is that the nonweighted means from studies with a smaller sample size did not carry as much weight as those from larger studies. We then compared 2 groups of patients: those who had only a synovectomy and those who had a combination of synovectomy and arthroplasty. The synovectomy-only group was also compared with a group that underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) specifically (Figure 2). Groups were compared with Student t test (SPSS Version 18, IBM), and statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.

Results

Twenty-one studies (82 patients) were included in the final dataset (Table 1). Of these studies, 19 were retrospective case series (level IV evidence) in which the number of eligible hip PVNS patients ranged from 1 to 15. The other 2 studies were case reports (level V evidence). Mean (SD) MCMS was 25.0 (10.9).

Fifty-one patients (59.3%) were female. Mean (SD) age of all patients was 33.2 (12.6) years. Mean (SD) duration of symptoms was 4.2 (2.7) years. The right hip was affected in 59.5% of patients in whom laterality was documented. Sixty-eight patients (79.1%) had biopsy-proven PVNS; presence or absence of a biopsy was not documented for the other 18 patients.

Of the 82 patients in the study, 45 (54.9%) underwent synovectomy without arthroplasty. Staged radiation was used to augment the synovectomy in 2 of these 45 cases. One series in this group consisted of 15 cases of arthroscopic synovectomy.¹ The 37 patients (45.1%) in the other treatment group had arthroplasty at time of synovectomy. These patients underwent 22 THAs, 8 cup arthroplasties, 2 metal-on-metal hip resurfacings, and 1 hemiarthroplasty. The remaining 4 patients were treated nonoperatively (3) or with primary arthrodesis (1).

Comparisons between the synovectomy-only and synovectomy-with-arthroplasty groups are listed in Table 2. Synovectomy patients were younger on average than arthroplasty patients, but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .28). Only 6 studies distinguished between local and diffuse PVNS histology, and the diffuse type was detected in 87.0%, with insufficient data to detect a difference between the synovectomy and arthroplasty groups. In studies with documented radiographic findings, 75.0% of patients had evidence of joint space narrowing, which was significantly (P = .03) more common in the arthroplasty group (96.7% vs 31.3%).

Mean (SD) clinical follow-up was 8.4 (5.9) years for all patients. A larger percentage of synovectomy-only patients experienced recurrence and worsened symptoms, but neither trend achieved statistical significance. The rate of eventual THA or arthrodesis after synovectomy alone was almost identical (P = .17) to the rate of revision THA in the synovectomy-with-arthroplasty group (26.2% vs 24.3%). Time to revision surgery, however, was significantly (P = .02) longer in the arthroplasty group. Two additional patients in the synovectomy-with-arthroplasty group underwent repeat synovectomy alone, but no patients in the synovectomy-only group underwent repeat synovectomy without arthroplasty.

One nonoperatively managed patient experienced symptom progression over the course of 10 years. The other 2 patients were stable after 2- and 4-year follow-up. The arthrodesis patient did not experience recurrence or have a revision operation in the 5 years after the index procedure.

Discussion

PVNS is a proliferative disorder of synovial tissue with a high risk of recurrence.^15,32 Metastasis is extremely rare; there is only 1 case report of a fatality, which occurred within 42 months.¹² Chiari and colleagues¹⁵ suggested that the PVNS recurrence rate is highest in the large joints. Therefore, in hip PVNS, early surgical resection is needed to limit articular destruction and the potential for recurrence. The primary treatment modalities are synovectomy alone and synovectomy with arthroplasty, which includes THA, cup arthroplasty, hip resurfacing, and hemiarthroplasty. According to our systematic review, about one-fourth of all patients in both treatment groups ultimately underwent revision surgery. Mean time to revision was significantly longer for synovectomy-with-arthroplasty patients (almost 12 years) than for synovectomy-only patients (6.5 years). One potential explanation is that arthroplasty component fixation may take longer to loosen than an inadequately synovectomized joint takes to recur. The synovectomy-only group did have a higher recurrence rate, though the difference was not statistically significant.

Open synovectomy is the most widely described technique for addressing hip PVNS. The precise pathophysiology of PVNS remains largely unknown, but most authors agree that aggressive débridement is required to halt its locally invasive course. Scott²⁴ described the invasion of vascular foramina from synovium into bone and thought that radical synovectomy was essential to remove the stalks of these synovial villi. Furthermore, PVNS most commonly affects adults in the third through fifth decades of life,7 and many surgeons want to avoid prosthetic components (which may loosen over time) in this age group. Synovectomy, however, has persistently high recurrence rates, and, without removal of the femoral head and neck, it can be difficult to obtain adequate exposure for complete débridement. Although adjuvant external beam radiation has been used by some authors,^17,19,33 its utility is unproven, and other authors have cautioned against unnecessary irradiation of reproductive organs.^1,24,34

The high rates of bony involvement, joint destruction, and recurrence after synovectomy have prompted many surgeons to turn to arthroplasty. González Della Valle and colleagues18 theorized that joint space narrowing is more common in hip PVNS because of the poor distensibility of the hip capsule compared with that of the knee and other joints. In turn, bony lesions and arthritis present earlier in hip PVNS.¹⁴ Yoo and colleagues¹⁴ found a statistically significant increase in Harris Hip Scale (HHS) scores and a high rate of return to athletic activity after THA for PVNS. However, they also reported revisions for component loosening and osteolysis in 2 of 8 patients and periprosthetic osteolysis without loosening in another 2 patients. Vastel and colleagues¹⁶ similarly reported aseptic loosening of the acetabular component in half their patient cohort. No studies have determined which condition—PVNS recurrence or debris-related osteolysis—causes the accelerated loosening in this demographic.

Byrd and colleagues¹ recently described use of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of PVNS. In a cohort of 13 patients, they found statistically significant improvements in HHS scores, no postoperative complications, and only 1 revision (THA 6 years after surgery). Although there is a prevailing perception that nodular (vs diffuse) PVNS is more appropriately treated with arthroscopic excision, no studies have provided data on this effect, and Byrd and colleagues¹ in fact showed a trend of slightly better outcomes in diffuse cases than in nodular cases. The main challenges of hip arthroscopy are the steep learning curve and adequate exposure. Recent innovations include additional arthroscopic portals and enlarged T-capsulotomy, which may be contributing to decreased complication rates in hip arthroscopy in general.³⁵

The limitations of this systematic review were largely imposed by the studies analyzed. The primary limitation was the relative paucity of clinical and radiographic data on hip PVNS. To our knowledge, studies on the treatment of hip PVNS have reported evidence levels no higher than IV. In addition, the studies we reviewed often had only 1 or 2 patient cases satisfying our inclusion criteria. For this reason, we included case reports, which further lowered the level of evidence of studies used. There were no consistently reported physical examination, survey, or radiographic findings that could be used to compare studies. All studies with sufficient data on hip PVNS treatment outcomes were rated poorly with the Modified Coleman Methodology Scoring system.²⁹ Selection bias was minimized by the inclusive nature of studies with level I to V evidence, but this led to a study design bias in that most studies consisted of level IV evidence.

Conclusion

Although the hip PVNS literature is limited, our review provides insight into expected outcomes. No matter which surgery is to be performed, surgeons must counsel patients about the high revision rate. One in 4 patients ultimately undergoes a second surgery, which may be required within 6 or 7 years after synovectomy without arthroplasty. Further development and innovation in hip arthroscopy may transform the treatment of PVNS. We encourage other investigators to conduct prospective, comparative trials with higher evidence levels to assess the utility of arthroscopy and other treatment modalities.