The aims of this study were to compare the efficacy of two agents,
aspirin and warfarin, for the prevention of venous thromboembolism
(VTE) after simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (SBTKA),
and to elucidate the risk of VTE conferred by this procedure compared
with unilateral TKA (UTKA). A retrospective, multi-institutional study was conducted on 18
951 patients, 3685 who underwent SBTKA and 15 266 who underwent
UTKA, using aspirin or warfarin as VTE prophylaxis. Each patient
was assigned an individualised baseline VTE risk score based on
a system using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Symptomatic VTE,
including pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT),
were identified in the first 90 days post-operatively. Statistical
analyses were performed with logistic regression accounting for
baseline VTE risk.Aims
Patients and Methods
The purpose of this study was to investigate
whether a gender-specific high-flexion posterior-stabilised (PS)
total knee replacement (TKR) would offer advantages over a high-flex
PS TKR regarding range of movement (ROM), ‘feel’ of the knee, pain
and satisfaction, as well as during activity. A total of 24 female
patients with bilateral osteoarthritis entered this prospective,
blind randomised trial in which they received a high-flex PS TKR
in one knee and a gender-specific high-flexion PS TKR in the other
knee. At follow-up, patients were assessed clinically measuring
ROM, and questioned about pain, satisfaction and daily ‘feel’ of
each knee. Patients underwent gait analysis pre-operatively and
at one year, which yielded kinematic, kinetic and temporospatial
parameters indicative of knee function during gait. At final follow-up
we found no statistically significant differences in ROM (p = 0.82).
The median pain score was 0 (0 to 8) in both groups (p = 0.95).
The median satisfaction score was 9 (4 to 10) in the high-flex group
and 8 (0 to 10) in the gender-specific group (p = 0.98). The median
‘feel’ score was 9 (3 to 10) in the high-flex group and 8 (0 to
10) in the gender-specific group (p = 0.66). Gait analysis showed
no statistically significant differences between the two prosthetic
designs in any kinematic, kinetic or temporospatial parameters. Both designs produced good clinical results with