Blood management protocols attempt to reduce blood loss by strategies including autologous blood donation, red cell salvage, normovolaemic haemodilution and haemostatic agents such as tranexamic acid (TXA). TXA usage in particular has become increasingly commonplace with numerous studies demonstrating a significant reduction in peri-operative blood loss and proportion of patients requiring transfusion, without increasing the risk of venous thromboembolism. Tourniquet usage has now become ubiquitous in TKA operations with reported benefits of improved visualization, shorter operative time and decreased intra-operative bleeding. However, its use is not without considerable complications including wounding dehiscence, increased venous thromboembolism, superficial wound infection and skin blistering. It is therefore imperative that we review tourniquet usage in light of ever evolving blood management strategies. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of stopping tourniquet usage in primary TKRs, performed by an experienced surgeon, in light of new blood reduction measures, such as a TXA. A retrospective analysis identified a total of 31 patients who underwent primary TKR without the use of a tourniquet from January 2018 to March 2019. This was compared to an earlier group of patients from the same surgeon undergoing TKR with the use of a tourniquet; dating from July 2016 to November 2017. All surgeries were performed within the same hospital (CXH). Peri-operative factors and outcome measures were collected for analysis. There was no significant difference in post-operative haemoglobin drop (Tourniquet, 23.1 g/L; No Tourniquet, 24.4 g/: p=0.604) and fall in haematocrit (Tourniquet, 0.082; No Tourniquet, 0.087: p=0.604). Allogenic blood transfusion rates were the same in both groups at 12.9% (2 patients) and blood loss was not found to be significantly different (Tourniquet, 1067ml; No tourniquet, 1058mls). No significant difference was found in operative time (Tourniquet, 103 minutes; No Tourniquet, 111.7 minutes: p=0.152) or length of stay (Tourniquet, 5.5 days; No Tourniquet, 5.2 days: p=0.516). Tranexamic acid usage was not found to be significant (p=1.000). ROM of motion and analgesia requirement was significantly better in the no tourniquet group on one post-operative day out of five analysed (p=0.025, p=00.011). No post-operative thromboembolic events were reported in either group. There was no significant difference in readmission rates (p=0.492) or complications (p=0.238). The increase in minor complications and potential increased VTE risk with tourniquet usage must be balanced against an improved visual field and reduced blood loss in TKR patients. Our study found no difference in post-operative blood loss and transfusion rates between tourniquet and no tourniquet groups. With ever evolving and improving blood loss management strategies, including the use of TXA, the application of tourniquet may not be needed. Further prospective RCTs are needed to assess the impact of tourniquet usage in light of this.
‘VTE disease is the new MRSA’, with much attention received in the media and the political world. Following the 2010 NICE guidelines all patients admitted to hospital should have VTE prophylaxis considered and a formal VTE risk assessment done with documentation and review in a 24 hour period. We carried out a completed audit cycle to identify our adherence to these guidelines and introduced a novel method to ensure compliance. An audit of 400 patients admitted to the orthopaedic department was carried out with review of case notes. Three key parameters were investigated: Firstly the compliance of carrying out a risk assessment for VTE disease with correct documentation, secondly investigating how many patients got re-assessed in 24 hours and finally if patients received appropriate VTE prophylaxis. The data was re-audited following the introduction of a new drug chart with a box section for VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis on the chart itself.Introduction
Materials/Methods
An anaesthetist recently remarked that orthopaedic surgeons are ‘twice as strong as an ox but half as smart’. We set out to ascertain if this had any evidence basis by conducting an observational study. We compared 36 male orthopaedic surgeons to 40 male anaesthetists across 3 hospitals to ascertain if there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of Intelligence Quotient (IQ) and strength. We tested the IQ of each doctor using an official MENSA IQ test. We assessed the strength as reflected by the grip strength using a hand-grip dynamometer. Un-paired t-tests were used to assess statistical significance. Orthopaedic surgeons had a significantly greater mean grip strength 47.25Kg (SD=6.95) compared to anaesthetists 43.83Kg (SD=7.57) (p=0.04). The mean IQ of orthopaedic surgeons was also significantly greater at 105.19 (SD=10.85) than anaesthetists at 98.38 (SD=14.45) (p=0.02). Furthermore, the IQ of orthopaedic surgeons seems to increase with increasing age and seniority (an IQ jump of 5 IQ points from Registrar to Consultant). We have concluded that this proverb should be revised to orthopaedic surgeons are as strong as an ox and twice as smart, although further studies are advocated to ascertain the IQ of Ox.
We present the 12 month data on the relatively novel drug Dabigatran Etexilate (Pradaxa), a new oral anticoagulant which was introduced to combat the risk of post operative venous-thromboembolic disease (VTED) in orthopaedic surgery. This drug was introduced at our hospital in March 2010 and we present our modified protocol of: using 5000u subcutaneous Dalteparin whilst in hospital and giving Dabigatran only on discharge, and at a lower dose (150mg compared to 220mg). We carried out a retrospective analysis of the notes and imaging of every patient who underwent elective hip and knee arthroplasty over 12 months since the drug was introduced. We evaluated the rate of VTED complications and the rate of transfusion and bleeding post operatively. The case series of 370 patients showed a 1% risk of deep vein thrombosis with no pulmonary emboli and 1 death due to an unrelated cause. There was a transfusion rate of 11% with 0.5% patients taken back to theatre for evacuation of haematomas. There were no reported adverse effects of Dabigatran. We argue that our modified protocol for this novel drug should be followed as it is both safe and effective for postoperative anticoagulation.