Aims. Complex joint fractures of the lower extremity are often accompanied by soft-tissue swelling and are associated with prolonged hospitalization and soft-tissue complications. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of vascular impulse technology (VIT) on soft-tissue conditioning in comparison with conventional elevation. Methods. A total of 100 patients were included in this prospective, randomized, controlled monocentre study allocated to the three subgroups of dislocated ankle fracture (n = 40), pilon fracture (n = 20), and intra-articular calcaneal fracture (n = 40). Patients were randomized to the two study groups in a 1:1 ratio. The effectiveness of VIT (intervention) compared with elevation (control) was analyzed separately for the whole study population and for the three subgroups. The primary endpoint was the time from admission until operability (in days). Results. The mean length of time until operability was 8.2 days (SD 3.0) in the intervention group and 10.2 days (SD 3.7) in the control group across all three fractures groups combined (p = 0.004). An analysis of the subgroups revealed that a significant reduction in the time to operability was achieved in two of the three: with 8.6 days (SD 2.2) versus 10.6 days (SD 3.6) in ankle fractures (p = 0.043), 9.8 days (SD 4.1) versus 12.5 days (SD 5.1) in pilon fractures (p = 0.205), and 7.0 days (SD 2.6) versus 8.4 days (SD 1.5) in calcaneal fractures (p = 0.043). A lower length of stay (p = 0.007), a reduction in pain (p. preop. = 0.05; p. discharge. < 0.001) and need for narcotics (p. preop. = 0.064; p. postop. = 0.072), an increased reduction in swelling (p < 0.001), and a lower revision rate (p = 0.044) could also be seen, and a trend towards fewer complications (p = 0.216) became apparent. Conclusion. Compared with elevation, VIT results in a significant reduction in the time to achieve operability in complex joint fractures of the lower limb. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):746–754

Aims

Although periarticular injection plays an important role in multimodal pain management following total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is no consensus on the optimal composition of the injection. In particular, it is not clear whether the addition of a corticosteroid improves the pain relief achieved nor whether it is associated with more complications than are observed without corticosteroid. The aim of this study was to quantify the safety and effectiveness of cortocosteroid use in periarticular injection during THA.

There is conflicting evidence about the benefit of using corticosteroid in periarticular injections for pain relief after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We carried out a double-blinded, randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of using corticosteroid in a periarticular injection to control pain after TKA.

A total of 77 patients, 67 women and ten men, with a mean age of 74 years (47 to 88) who were about to undergo unilateral TKA were randomly assigned to have a periarticular injection with or without corticosteroid. The primary outcome was post-operative pain at rest during the first 24 hours after surgery, measured every two hours using a visual analogue pain scale score. The cumulative pain score was quantified using the area under the curve.

The corticosteroid group had a significantly lower cumulative pain score than the no-corticosteroid group during the first 24 hours after surgery (mean area under the curve 139, 0 to 560, and 264, 0 to 1460; p = 0.024). The rate of complications, including surgical site infection, was not significantly different between the two groups up to one year post-operatively.

The addition of corticosteroid to the periarticular injection significantly decreased early post-operative pain. Further studies are needed to confirm the safety of corticosteroid in periarticular injection.

Take home message: The use of corticosteroid in periarticular injection offered better pain relief during the initial 24 hours after TKA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:194–200.