-
1.
Venous Thromboembolic Prophylaxis After Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.
Lieberman, JR, Bell, JA
The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume. 2021;(16):1556-1564
Abstract
➤: The selection of an agent for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a balance between efficacy and safety. The goal is to prevent symptomatic VTE while limiting the risk of bleeding. ➤: The optimal agent for VTE prophylaxis has not been identified. The American College of Chest Physicians guidelines recommend that, after total hip or total knee arthroplasty, patients receive at least 10 to 14 days of 1 of the following prophylaxis agents: aspirin, adjusted-dose vitamin K antagonist, apixaban, dabigatran, fondaparinux, low-molecular-weight heparin, low-dose unfractionated heparin, rivaroxaban, or portable home mechanical compression. ➤: The use of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis has increased in popularity over the past decade because it is effective, and it is an oral agent that does not require monitoring. The true efficacy of aspirin needs to be determined in multicenter randomized clinical trials. ➤: Validated risk stratification protocols are essential to identify the safest and most effective regimen for VTE prophylaxis for individual patients. There is no consensus regarding the optimal method for risk stratification; the selection of a prophylaxis agent should be determined by shared decision-making with the patient to balance the risk of thrombosis versus bleeding. ➤: Patients with atrial fibrillation being treated with chronic warfarin therapy or direct oral anticoagulants should stop the agent 3 to 5 days prior to surgery. Patients do not typically require bridging therapy prior to surgery.
-
2.
Bleeding complications of thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran, nadroparin or rivaroxaban for 6 weeks after total knee arthroplasty surgery: a randomised pilot study.
van der Veen, L, Segers, M, van Raay, JJ, Gerritsma-Bleeker, CL, Brouwer, RW, Veeger, NJ, van Hulst, M
BMJ open. 2021;(1):e040336
Abstract
OBJECTIVES For the non-vitamin-K oral anticoagulants, data on bleeding when used for 42 days as thromboprophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are scarce. This pilot study assessed feasibility of a multicentre randomised clinical trial to evaluate major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding during 42-day use of dabigatran, nadroparin and rivaroxaban after TKA. PATIENTS AND METHODS In 70 weeks, between July 2012 and November 2013, 198 TKA patients were screened for eligibility in the Martini Hospital (Groningen, the Netherlands). Patients were randomly assigned to dabigatran (n=45), nadroparin (n=45) or rivaroxaban (n=48). The primary outcome was the combined endpoint of major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Secondary endpoints of this study were the occurrence of clinical venous thromboembolism (VTE) (pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis), compliance, duration of hospital stay, rehospitalisation, adverse events and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). RESULTS The primary outcome was observed in 33.3% (95% CI 20.0% to 49.0%), 24.4% (95% CI 12.9% to 39.5%) and 27.1% (95% CI 15.3% to 41.8%) of patients who received dabigatran, nadroparin or rivaroxaban, respectively (p=0.67). Major bleeding was found in two patients who received nadroparin (p=0.21). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding was observed in 33.3% (95% CI 20.0% to 49.0%), 22.2% (95% CI 11.2% to 37.1%) and 27.1% (95% CI 15.3% to 41.8%) for dabigatran, nadroparin and rivaroxaban, respectively (p=0.51). Wound haematoma was the most observed bleeding event. VTE was found in one patient who received dabigatran (p=0.65). The presurgery and postsurgery KOOS qQuestionnaires were available for 32 (71%), 35 (77%) and 35 (73%) patients for dabigatran, nadroparin and rivaroxaban, respectively. KOOS was highly variable, and no significant difference between treatment groups in mean improvement was observed. CONCLUSIONS A multicentre clinical trial may be feasible. However, investments will be substantial. No differences in major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding events were found between dabigatran, nadroparin and rivaroxaban during 42 days after TKA. KOOS may not be suitable to detect functional loss due to bleeding. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT01431456.
-
3.
Tibial tray debonding from the cement mantle is associated with deformation of the backside of polyethylene tibial inserts.
Bhalekar, RM, Nargol, ME, Shyam, N, Nargol, AVF, Wells, SR, Collier, R, Pabbruwe, M, Joyce, TJ, Langton, DJ
The bone & joint journal. 2021;(12):1791-1801
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate whether wear and backside deformation of polyethylene (PE) tibial inserts may influence the cement cover of tibial trays of explanted total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). METHODS At our retrieval centre, we measured changes in the wear and deformation of PE inserts using coordinate measuring machines and light microscopy. The amount of cement cover on the backside of tibial trays was quantified as a percentage of the total surface. The study involved data from the explanted fixed-bearing components of four widely used contemporary designs of TKA (Attune, NexGen, Press Fit Condylar (PFC), and Triathlon), revised for any indication, and we compared them with components that used previous generations of PE. Regression modelling was used to identify variables related to the amount of cement cover on the retrieved trays. RESULTS A total of 114 explanted fixed-bearing TKAs were examined. This included 76 used with contemporary PE inserts which were compared with 15 used with older generation PEs. The Attune and NexGen (central locking) trays were found to have significantly less cement cover than Triathlon and PFC trays (peripheral locking group) (p = 0.001). The median planicity values of the PE inserts used with central locking trays were significantly greater than of those with peripheral locking inserts (205 vs 85 microns; p < 0.001). Attune and NexGen inserts had a characteristic pattern of backside deformation, with the outer edges of the PE deviating inferiorly, leaving the PE margins as the primary areas of articulation. CONCLUSION Explanted TKAs with central locking mechanisms were significantly more likely to debond from the cement mantle. The PE inserts of these designs showed characteristic patterns of deformation, which appeared to relate to the manufacturing process and may be exacerbated in vivo. This pattern of deformation was associated with PE wear occurring at the outer edges of the articulation, potentially increasing the frictional torque generated at this interface. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1791-1801.
-
4.
A randomized comparative evaluation of local infiltration analgesia, extended nerve blocks, and conventional analgesia in pain management after total knee arthroplasty.
Kopitkó, C, Czermann, R, Orosz, M, Hangody, G, Kiss, D, Szabó, Z, Hangody, L
Joint diseases and related surgery. 2021;(2):290-298
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to analyze the postoperative effects of extended nerve blocks and local infiltration analgesia (LIA) on postoperative pain control, muscle weakness, and blood loss after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between February 24th 2020 and July 10th 2020, a total of 161 patients (55 males, 106 females; median age: 69.0 years [IQR 63.0-75.0], range, 41 to 81 years) who underwent primary TKA were randomly allocated into three parallel groups according to their concomitant procedure in a double-blind fashion: (i) those to whom nerve blockade was performed after competition of surgery under the duration of spinal anesthesia (n=50); (ii) those to whom LIA was performed during surgery (n=52), and (iii) control group (n=59). The content of LIA was 10-10 mL of 20 mg lidocaine with 0.01 mg adrenalin and 100 mg ropivacaine, 1 mL (30 mg) ketorolac, and 5 mL (500 mg) tranexamic acid was diluted by 50 mL 0.9% NaCl under aseptic conditions. Outcome parameters were the evaluation of pain until the evening of first postoperative day (24 to 36 h), mobilization, and blood loss within the first three postoperative days. RESULTS The pain was maximal between 4 and 8 h postoperatively, when the effect of the spinal anesthetic drugs disappeared. During this critical period, tolerable pain (Numerical Rating Scale, NRS ≤3) was observed in 52%, 42%, and 19% of nerve blockade in LIA and control groups, respectively. None of the patients complained of high-intensity pain (NRS >8) in the LIA group, which was a significant difference from the block and control groups (10% and 14%, p<0.008, respectively). There was no significant muscle weakness associated with the use of this extended block. The decrease in hemoglobin level was significantly lower in the LIA group than in the control and block groups (odds ratio [OR]: 0.379, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.165-0.874 for nerve blockade vs. LIA, OR: 1.189, 95% CI: 0.491-2.880 for nerve blockade vs. control, OR: 0.319, 95% CI: 0.140-0.727, respectively). The common language effect size for pain in each referred interval in each group and for decrease of hemoglobin between the first and third postoperative days fell between 0.507 and 0.680. CONCLUSION This study demonstrates that LIA technique offers a fast and safe treatment option for pain relief after TKA. No clinically relevant muscle weakness was observed among groups according to field block applications. Significant advantages were also achieved in blood loss.
-
5.
A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the systemic inflammatory response in conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty versus robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty.
Kayani, B, Tahmassebi, J, Ayuob, A, Konan, S, Oussedik, S, Haddad, FS
The bone & joint journal. 2021;(1):113-122
Abstract
AIMS: The primary aim of this study was to compare the postoperative systemic inflammatory response in conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty (conventional TKA) versus robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty (robotic TKA). Secondary aims were to compare the macroscopic soft tissue injury, femoral and tibial bone trauma, localized thermal response, and the accuracy of component positioning between the two treatment groups. METHODS This prospective randomized controlled trial included 30 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee undergoing conventional TKA versus robotic TKA. Predefined serum markers of inflammation and localized knee temperature were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at six hours, day 1, day 2, day 7, and day 28 following TKA. Blinded observers used the Macroscopic Soft Tissue Injury (MASTI) classification system to grade intraoperative periarticular soft tissue injury and bone trauma. Plain radiographs were used to assess the accuracy of achieving the planned postioning of the components in both groups. RESULTS Patients undergoing conventional TKA and robotic TKA had comparable changes in the postoperative systemic inflammatory and localized thermal response at six hours, day 1, day 2, and day 28 after surgery. Robotic TKA had significantly reduced levels of interleukin-6 (p < 0.001), tumour necrosis factor-α (p = 0.021), ESR (p = 0.001), CRP (p = 0.004), lactate dehydrogenase (p = 0.007), and creatine kinase (p = 0.004) at day 7 after surgery compared with conventional TKA. Robotic TKA was associated with significantly improved preservation of the periarticular soft tissue envelope (p < 0.001), and reduced femoral (p = 0.012) and tibial (p = 0.023) bone trauma compared with conventional TKA. Robotic TKA significantly improved the accuracy of achieving the planned limb alignment (p < 0.001), femoral component positioning (p < 0.001), and tibial component positioning (p < 0.001) compared with conventional TKA. CONCLUSION Robotic TKA was associated with a transient reduction in the early (day 7) postoperative inflammatory response but there was no difference in the immediate (< 48 hours) or late (day 28) postoperative systemic inflammatory response compared with conventional TKA. Robotic TKA was associated with decreased iatrogenic periarticular soft tissue injury, reduced femoral and tibial bone trauma, and improved accuracy of component positioning compared with conventional TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):113-122.
-
6.
Cost-effectiveness of total knee replacement in addition to non-surgical treatment: a 2-year outcome from a randomised trial in secondary care in Denmark.
Skou, ST, Roos, E, Laursen, M, Arendt-Nielsen, L, Rasmussen, S, Simonsen, O, Ibsen, R, Larsen, AT, Kjellberg, J
BMJ open. 2020;(1):e033495
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the 24-month cost-effectiveness of total knee replacement (TKR) plus non-surgical treatment compared with non-surgical treatment with the option of later TKR if needed. METHODS 100 adults with moderate-to-severe knee osteoarthritis found eligible for TKR by an orthopaedic surgeon in secondary care were randomised to TKR plus 12 weeks of supervised non-surgical treatment (exercise, education, diet, insoles and pain medication) or to supervised non-surgical treatment alone. Including quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) data from baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months, effectiveness was measured as change at 24 months. Healthcare costs and transfer payments were derived from national registries. Incremental healthcare costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted and the probability of cost-effectiveness was estimated at the 22 665 Euros/QALY threshold defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. RESULTS TKR plus non-surgical treatment was more expensive (mean of 23 076 vs 14 514 Euros) but also more effective than non-surgical treatment (mean 24-month improvement in QALY of 0.195 vs 0.056). While cost-effective in the unadjusted scenario (ICER of 18 497 Euros/QALY), TKR plus non-surgical treatment was not cost-effective compared with non-surgical treatment with the option of later TKR if needed in the adjusted (age, sex and baseline values), base-case scenario (ICER of 32 611 Euros/QALY) with a probability of cost-effectiveness of 23.2%. Including deaths, TKR plus non-surgical treatment was still not cost-effective (ICERs of 46 277 to 64 208 Euros/QALY). CONCLUSIONS From a 24-month perspective, TKR plus non-surgical treatment does not appear to be cost-effective compared with non-surgical treatment with the option of later TKR if needed in patients with moderate-to-severe knee osteoarthritis and moderate intensity pain in secondary care in Denmark. Results were sensitive to changes, highlighting the need for further confirmatory research also assessing the long-term cost-effectiveness of TKR. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01410409).
-
7.
Patient Blood Management for primary hip and knee replacement. A survey among POWER.2 study researchers.
Abad-Motos, A, Ripollés-Melchor, J, Jericó, C, Basora, M, Aldecoa, C, Cabellos-Olivares, M, Navarro-Pérez, R, Bisbe, E, García-Erce, JA
Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion. 2020;(5):237-244
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implementation of Patient Blood Management programs remain variable in Europe, and even in centres with well-established PBM programs variability exists in transfusion practices. OBJECTIVES AND METHODS We conducted a survey in order to assess current practice in perioperative Patient Blood Management in patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement among researchers involved in POWER.2 Study in Spain (an observational prospective study evaluating enhanced recovery pathways in orthopaedic surgery). RESULTS A total of 322 responses were obtained (37.8%). Half of responders check Haemoglobin levels in patients at least 4 weeks before surgery; 35% treat all anaemic patients, although 99.7% consider detection and treatment of preoperative anaemia could influence the postoperative outcomes. Lack of infrastructure (76%) and lack of time (51%) are the main stated reasons not to treat anaemic patients. Iron status is routinely checked by 19% before surgery, and 36% evaluate it solely in the anaemic patient. Hb<9.9 g/dl is the threshold to delay surgery for 61% of clinicians, and 22% would consider transfusing preoperatively clinically stable patients without active bleeding. The threshold to transfuse patients without cardiovascular disease is 8 g/dl for 43%, and 7 g/dl for 34% of the responders; 75% of clinicians consider they use "restrictive thresholds", and 90% follow the single unit transfusion policy. CONCLUSIONS The results of our survey show variability in clinical practice in Patient Blood Management in major orthopaedic surgery, despite being the surgery with the greatest tradition in these programs.
-
8.
Postoperative intravenous parecoxib sodium followed by oral celecoxib post total knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis patients (PIPFORCE): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.
Zhuang, Q, Tao, L, Lin, J, Jin, J, Qian, W, Bian, Y, Li, Y, Dong, Y, Peng, H, Li, Y, et al
BMJ open. 2020;(1):e030501
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate the morphine-sparing effects of the sequential treatment versus placebo in subjects undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the effects on pain relief, inflammation control and functional rehabilitation after TKA and safety. DESIGN Double-blind, pragmatic, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING Four tertiary hospitals in China. PARTICIPANTS 246 consecutive patients who underwent elective unilateral TKA because of osteoarthritis (OA). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomised 1:1 to the parecoxib/celecoxib group or the control group. The patients in the parecoxib/celecoxib group were supplied sequential treatment with intravenous parecoxib 40 mg (every 12 hours) for the first 3 days after surgery, followed by oral celecoxib 200 mg (every 12 hours) for up to 6 weeks. The patients in the control group were supplied with the corresponding placebo under the same instructions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES The primary endpoint was the cumulative opioid consumption at 2 weeks post operation (intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary endpoints included the Knee Society Score, patient-reported outcomes and the cumulative opioid consumption. RESULTS The cumulative opioid consumption at 2 weeks was significantly smaller in the parecoxib/celecoxib group than in the control group (median difference, 57.31 (95% CI 34.66 to 110.33)). The parecoxib/celecoxib group achieving superior Knee Society Scores and EQ-5D scores and greater Visual Analogue Scale score reduction during 6 weeks. Interleukin 6, erythrocyte sedation rate and C-reactive protein levels were reduced at 72 hours, 2 weeks and 4 weeks and prostaglandin E2 levels were reduced at 48 hours and 72 hours in the parecoxib/celecoxib group compared with the placebo group. The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) was significantly lower in the parecoxib/celecoxib group. CONCLUSIONS The sequential intravenous parecoxib followed by oral celecoxib regimen reduces morphine consumption, achieves better pain control and functional recovery and leads to less AEs than placebo after TKA for OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT02198924).
-
9.
Osteoarthritis Preoperative Package for care of Orthotics, Rehabilitation, Topical and oral agent Usage and Nutrition to Improve ouTcomes at a Year (OPPORTUNITY); a feasibility study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Simpson, AHRW, Howie, CR, Kinsella, E, Hamilton, DF, Conaghan, PG, Hankey, C, Simpson, SA, Bell-Higgs, A, Craig, P, Clement, ND, et al
Trials. 2020;(1):209
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients' pre-operative health and physical function is known to influence their post-operative outcomes. In patients with knee osteoarthritis, pharmacological and non-pharmacological options are often not optimised prior to joint replacement. This results in some patients undergoing surgery when they are not as fit as they could be. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a pre-operative package of non-operative care versus standard care prior to joint replacement. METHODS/DESIGN This is a multicentre, randomised controlled feasibility trial of patients undergoing primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis. Sixty patients will be recruited and randomised (2:1) to intervention or standard care arms. Data will be collected at baseline (before the start of the intervention), around the end of the intervention period and a minimum of 90 days after the planned date of surgery. Adherence will be reviewed each week during the intervention period (by telephone or in person). Participants will be randomised to a pre-operative package of non-operative care or standard care. The non-operative care will consist of (1) a weight-loss programme, (2) a set of exercises, (3) provision of advice on analgesia use and (4) provision of insoles. The intervention will be started as soon as possible after patients have been added to the waiting list for joint replacement surgery to take advantage of the incentive for behavioural change that this will create. The primary outcomes of this study are feasibility outcomes which will indicate whether the intervention and study protocol is feasible and acceptable and whether a full-scale effectiveness trial is warranted. The following will be measured and used to inform study feasibility: rate of recruitment, rate of retention at 90-day follow-up review after planned surgery date, and adherence to the intervention estimated through review questionnaires and weight change (for those receiving the weight-loss aspect of intervention). In addition the following information will be assessed qualitatively: analysis of qualitative interviews exploring acceptability, feasibility, adherence and possible barriers to implementing the intervention, and acceptability of the different outcome measures. DISCUSSION The aims of the study specifically relate to testing the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed effectiveness trial intervention and the feasibility of the trial methods. This study forms the important first step in developing and assessing whether the intervention has the potential to be assessed in a future fully powered effectiveness trial. The findings will also be used to refine the design of the effectiveness trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96684272. Registered on 18 April 2018.
-
10.
Does an Antimicrobial Incision Drape Prevent Intraoperative Contamination? A Randomized Controlled Trial of 1187 Patients.
Hesselvig, AB, Arpi, M, Madsen, F, Bjarnsholt, T, Odgaard, A, ,
Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2020;(5):1007-1015
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), a serious complication after arthroplasty, has not changed for years. Interventions such as eradication of Staphylococcus aureus and antibiotic bone cement are used to diminish infection risk but despite these efforts, the percentage of infection in TKA remains constant. Antimicrobial drapes have a dual action, acting both as a physical and antimicrobial barrier to counter bacterial contamination of the surgical wound. To study the effect of antimicrobial drapes, we used intraoperative contamination as a proxy for infection in our investigation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES (1) Do antimicrobial surgical drapes reduce the risk of intraoperative microbial contamination in patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty? (2) Are other factors such as sex, season, age, type of arthroplasty and duration of surgery associated with an increased risk of contamination in patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty? (3) Does loosening of the antimicrobial drape increase contamination risk? METHODS An investigator-initiated, two-arm, non-blinded, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was performed at five different hospitals in the capital and central regions of Denmark. Twenty-four surgeons participated in the study. Participants were patients older than 18 years undergoing primary knee arthroplasty. We excluded patients with an iodine allergy, previous open knee surgery, previous septic arthritis, any antibiotics taken 4 weeks before surgery, and if they were unable to understand the implications of study participation. Patients were randomly assigned to operation with an antimicrobial drape (intervention group) or operation without (control group). We screened 1769 patients, of which 100 were ineligible and 10 declined to participate. In all, 94% (1659 of 1769) of patients consented and were randomized to the intervention group (51%, 838 of 1659) and control group (49%, 821 of 1659), respectively. In all, 36% (603 of 1659) of patients in the intervention group and 35% (584 of 1659) patients in the control group were available for final analysis. No crossover was performed, and analysis was done per-protocol. Patients were excluded due to logistic failures like lack of utensils, samples disappearing en route to the laboratory mainly caused by implementation of a new electronic patient chart (EPIC, Verona, WI, USA), and forgetful surgeons. Intraoperatively, we swabbed for bacteria at the surgical site and in a rinse from the surgeons' gloves. All samples were sent for cultivation, and colony forming units (CFUs) counts ≥ 1 were deemed contaminated. The primary outcome measure was the difference in the proportion of contaminated patients between the two randomized groups. Secondary outcome measures were the affiliation of sex, season, age, type of implant used, and duration of surgery on contamination risk. To investigate whether other factors were affiliated with contamination risk, we did a logistic regression to control for confounding variables, including sex, age, season, type of implant and duration of surgery. RESULTS Use of iodinated drapes reduced contamination, with contamination detected in 10% (60 of 603) procedures where iodinated drapes were used compared with 15% (90 of 584) when they were not (odds ratio 0.61 [95% CI 0.43 to 0.87]; p = 0.005), with a relative risk reduction of 35% (95% CI 12.3 to 52.5) and a number needed to treat of 18 patients. After controlling for confounding variables such as sex, age, type of implant, and duration of surgery, we found that not using an antimicrobial drape increased contamination risk by a factor of 1.6 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.35; p = 0.02). Female sex and undergoing surgery in the central region were associated with lower odds of contamination (OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.39 to 0.8]; p = 0.002 and OR 0.45 [95% CI 0.25 to 0.8]; p = 0.006, respectively). Patients with more than a 10-mm separation of the drape from the skin had higher odds of contamination (OR 3.54 [95% CI 1.64 to 11.05]; p = 0.0013). CONCLUSIONS The use of an antimicrobial drape resulted in lower contamination risk than operating without an antimicrobial drape. Our findings suggest that antimicrobial drapes are useful in infection prevention, but further studies are needed to investigate the effect of antimicrobial drapes on infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level I, therapeutic study.