Enhanced Recovery Protocol (ERP) for elective total hip or total knee replacement has become the gold standard. The main principles are to reduce bleeding, both with a tranexamic acid infusion and local injection of adrenaline, and to reduce the risk of postoperative thrombo-embolic complications by early mobilisation, enabled by local anaesthetic infiltration at time of surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of the ERP. A retrospective review was performed including all patients who underwent primary hip or knee arthroplasty surgery between January 2011 and December 2013. The ERP was implemented in our department in August 2012 thus creating two cohorts; the traditional postoperative group and those undergoing ERP. Outcome measurements of length of stay, postoperative transfusion, thrombo-embolic complications and number of re-admissions were assessed.Introduction
Methods
Trochanteric bursitis is described as pain over the lateral side of the hip and thigh. The usual treatment is rest, administration of NSAIDs and injection of local anaesthetic and corticosteroid. Occasionally it is resistant to these measures. Whilst performing an ablation of the trochanteric bursa we noticed that the fascia lata looked particularly tight. Therefore a z-plasty of the fascia lata was performed.Introduction
Background
Hip and knee arthroplasty has been associated with relatively high rates of thromboembolic events and the majority of UK orthopaedic surgeons use at least one form of prophylaxis. Of the many different subgroups of thromboembolic rates that are commonly presented in the literature, symptomatic proximal deep vein thrombosis (spDVT) and fatal pulmonary embolism (fPE) are perhaps the most important clinical outcomes. To determine the effectiveness of common chemical and mechanical prophylactic methods in preventing spDVT and fPE in patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty. A systematic review of the literature from 1981 to December 2002 was performed. Predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Studies where more than one method of prophylaxis was used were excluded from analysis. For each individual method of prophylaxis, data was extracted, combined and converted to give estimates of the rates of spDVT, fPE and major bleeding events. Absolute risk reduction estimates for spDVT, fPE and major bleeding events were calculated by comparing the thromboembolic rates for each method of prophylaxis with using no prophylaxis of any kind. 992 studies were identified of which 162 met the inclusion criteria. No method of prophylaxis was statistically significantly more effective at preventing spDVT and fPE than using nothing. There were at least as many major bleeding complications as spDVTs. The number of fPEs prevented was very small. When complications such as major bleeding are considered, the evidence behind the use of any prophylaxis is unconvincing.
