Aims. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, incidence of
Drug therapy forms an integral part of the management
of many orthopaedic conditions. However, many medicines can produce
serious adverse reactions if prescribed inappropriately, either
alone or in combination with other drugs. Often these hazards are
not appreciated. In response to this, the European Union recently
issued legislation regarding safety measures which member states
must adopt to minimise the risk of errors of medication. In March 2014 the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory
Agency and NHS England released a Patient Safety Alert initiative
focussed on errors of medication. There have been similar initiatives
in the United States under the auspices of The National Coordinating
Council for Medication Error and The Joint Commission on the Accreditation
of Healthcare Organizations. These initiatives have highlighted
the importance of informing and educating clinicians. Here, we discuss common drug interactions and contra-indications
in orthopaedic practice. This is germane to safe and effective clinical
care. Cite this article:
Osteoporosis is common and the health and financial
cost of fragility fractures is considerable. The burden of cardiovascular
disease has been reduced dramatically by identifying and targeting
those most at risk. A similar approach is potentially possible in
the context of fragility fractures. The World Health Organization
created and endorsed the use of FRAX, a fracture risk assessment
tool, which uses selected risk factors to calculate a quantitative,
patient-specific, ten-year risk of sustaining a fragility fracture.
Treatment can thus be based on this as well as on measured bone
mineral density. It may also be used to determine at-risk individuals,
who should undergo bone densitometry. FRAX has been incorporated
into the national osteoporosis guidelines of countries in the Americas,
Europe, the Far East and Australasia. The United Kingdom National
Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence also advocates its
use in their guidance on the assessment of the risk of fragility
fracture, and it may become an important tool to combat the health
challenges posed by fragility fractures.
We report the results of six trauma and orthopaedic
projects to Kenya in the last three years. The aims are to deliver both
a trauma service and teaching within two hospitals; one a district
hospital near Mount Kenya in Nanyuki, the other the largest public
hospital in Kenya in Mombasa. The Kenya Orthopaedic Project team
consists of a wide range of multidisciplinary professionals that
allows the experience to be shared across those specialties. A follow-up
clinic is held three months after each mission to review the patients.
To our knowledge there are no reported outcomes in the literature
for similar projects. A total of 211 operations have been performed and 400 patients
seen during the projects. Most cases were fractures of the lower
limb; we have been able to follow up 163 patients (77%) who underwent
surgical treatment. We reflect on the results so far and discuss
potential improvements for future missions.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis
to compare the efficacy of intermittent mechanical compression combined
with pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, against either mechanical
compression or pharmacological prophylaxis in preventing deep-vein
thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism in patients undergoing hip
or knee replacement. A total of six randomised controlled trials,
evaluating a total of 1399 patients, were identified. In knee arthroplasty,
the rate of DVT was reduced from 18.7% with anticoagulation alone
to 3.7% with combined modalities (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, p = 0.03;
number needed to treat: seven). There was moderate, albeit non-significant,
heterogeneity (I2 = 42%). In hip replacement, there was
a non-significant reduction in DVT from 8.7% with mechanical compression
alone to 7.2% with additional pharmacological prophylaxis (RR 0.84)
and a significant reduction in DVT from 9.7% with anticoagulation
alone to 0.9% with additional mechanical compression (RR 0.17, p
<
0.001; number needed to treat: 12), with no heterogeneity (I2 =
0%). The included studies had insufficient power to demonstrate
an effect on pulmonary embolism. We conclude that the addition of intermittent mechanical leg
compression augments the efficacy of anticoagulation in preventing
DVT in patients undergoing both knee and hip replacement. Further
research on the role of combined modalities in thromboprophylaxis
in joint replacement and in other high-risk situations, such as fracture
of the hip, is warranted.
Over a 13-year period we studied all patients who underwent major hip and knee surgery and were diagnosed with objectively confirmed symptomatic venous thromboembolism, either deep venous thrombosis or non-fatal pulmonary embolism, within six months after surgery. Low-molecular-weight heparin had been given while the patients were in hospital. There were 5607 patients. The cumulative incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism was 2.7% (150 of 5607), of which 1.1% had developed pulmonary embolism, 1.5% had deep venous thrombosis and 0.6% had both. Patients presented with deep venous thrombosis at a median of 24 days and pulmonary embolism at 17 days after surgery for
This study was undertaken to evaluate the safety and efficacy of retrievable inferior vena cava filters in high-risk orthopaedic patients. A total of 58 patients had a retrievable inferior vena cava filter placed as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, most commonly for a history of previous deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, polytrauma, or expected prolonged immobilisation. In total 56 patients (96.6%) had an uncomplicated post-operative course. Two patients (3.4%) died in the peri-operative period for unrelated reasons. Of the 56 surviving patients, 50 (89%) were available for follow-up. A total of 32 filters (64%) were removed without complication at a mean of 37.8 days (4 to 238) after placement. There were four filters (8%) which were retained because of thrombosis at the filter site, and four (8%) were retained because of incorporation of the filter into the wall of the inferior vena cava. In ten cases (20%) the retrievable filter was left in place to continue as primary prophylaxis. No patient had post-removal thromboembolic complications. A retrievable inferior vena cava filter, as an adjunct to chemical and mechanical prophylaxis, was a safe and effective means of reducing the acute risk of pulmonary embolism in this high-risk group of patients. Although most filters were removed without complications, thereby avoiding the long-term complications that have plagued permanent indwelling filters, a relatively high percentage of filters had to be left