Simultaneous bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) has been reported to bring greater patient satisfaction, reduce in-patient stay and recovery, with similar outcomes to single sided or staged TKA, but higher complication rates. No validated selection criteria exist. We report the results of a single surgeon's experience of simultaneous bilateral TKA, using set guidelines for patient selection. A prospectively maintained database of all simultaneous bilateral TKA performed between 2002 and 2008 was retrospectively analysed, supplemented by case-note review. Outcome measures included length of stay, blood loss and transfusion rates, complications and functionality and validated outcome scores. 40 patients were included, 23 male and 17 female, all with osteoarthritis. Mean age was male 64.9 and female 61.3 years. Mean ASA grade was 1.8. All fitted selection criteria. Mean tourniquet time was right 79.1 minutes and left 83.6 minutes. Preoperative mean haemoglobin level was 141.8 g/dl and mean post operative level of 87.3 g/dl. 13 patients received purely autologous blood transfusion, 16 patients purely allogenic and 6 patients received both. There was 1 intraoperative complication (Medial collateral injury), 3 minor post operative complications which recovered prior to discharge. There were no thromboembolic events or deaths. Mean follow-up was 32.7 months (range 3-79 months). Mean in-patient stay was 7.5 days. Mean range of movement at most recent follow up was right 1.0 to 119.1 degrees flexion and left 1.0 to 120.8 degrees flexion. Mean Knee Society Scores pre- versus post-operatively were: 67 knee/62 function versus 90 knee/82 function. Oxford Knee Scores, Pre- versus post-operatively were: 43 versus 35 (Scoring 0-60, lowest best outcome). We demonstrate that with appropriate selection criteria, simultaneous bilateral TKA is safe and successful, giving excellent functional outcomes.
- 10/22 participants had not previously attended an ex-fix course. - Pre- vs. post-course score (out of 4) = 2.5 vs. 3.7 (p<
0.001, Mann-Whitney U) - All participants Teaching Hospitals vs. DGHs: - Pre-course scores = 2.9 vs. 1.9 (p<
0.01) - Post-course scores = 3.6 vs. 3.8 (not significant) - Pre-course scores by grade of participant: - SHO vs. Senior SHO = 2.6 vs. 1.5 (p<
0.05) - SpR vs. Senior SHO = 3.0 vs. 1.5 (p<
0.05) - SpR vs. SHO = 3.0 vs. 2.6 (not significant) - Post-course scores by grade: - SpR vs. Senior SHO vs. SHO = 4.0 vs. 3.8 vs. 3.3 (not significant).
Participation in a simple ex-fix course improves knowledge of ex-fix design. Retention of knowledge must be reassessed after several months. This course fills a gap in education of basic external fixation for orthopaedic trainees. We recommend every region with a tertiary referral system for complex trauma utilises this course.
- Ex-fix trays per unit (all manufacturers) mean = 4.14 (1–9) - Majority equipment in unit = Orthofix (11), Hoffman II (5), AO (1) - 12/15 SpRs reported insufficient ex-fix equipment for pelvis, 4 long bones and bridging knees (Damage Control Orthopaedics = DCO) - 7/15 SpRs reported insufficient ex-fix for 4 long bones/ bridging knees
- mean year of training = 2.2 - Experience: Generic trauma course (9) Specific ExFix (6) Manufacturer (9) - 14/15 would value specific regional ex-fix course - DCO patient scenario SpR unable to fix -lack of knowledge vs. lack of equipment 7/15 vs. 12/15 p<
0.01
- 7/31 aware of transfer protocol - 31/31 want referral routes clearly identified - 12/15 would value regular regional audit
All trainees had attended ex-fix teaching. Those who had only attended generic courses were less confident in DCO scenarios. Most favoured a specific regional ex-fix course. Tertiary care protocols have been distributed, but many units are unaware of their existence. A regular regional audit of trauma referrals would provide protocol reinforcement and opportunity for feedback.
- 97 grade III open fractures in 95 patients - 64 required temporary spanning ex-fix: - 23 applied at trauma centre / 41 at DGH - 14/64 ex-fixes required revision (prior to definitive Ilizarov): - poor plastics access (6) / instability (2) /both (6) - All 14 revised were applied in a DGH, i.e. 14/41 DGH ex-fix needed revision (34%) - Ex fixes revised after application at trauma centre vs. DGH = 0/23 vs. 14/41, p<
0.01 X2 - Revision of Hoffman hybrid vs. monolateral ex fix = 4/4 vs. 10/60 p<
0.001 X2 - Non modular system (Orthofix) vs. modular systems (Hoffman II / AO) = 7/17 vs. 0/39 (p<
0.001)
All Hoffman hybrids needed revision, due to instability and plastics access. Significantly more non modular (Orthofix) ex-fixes required revision compared to modular, for poor plastics access. We recommend modular external fixator application (Hoffman II or AO) to avoid problems with temporary external fixation of open tibial fractures. Hybrid temporary external fixation should be abandoned in such injuries.