Aims

Limited implant survival due to aseptic cup loosening is most commonly responsible for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Advances in implant designs and materials have been crucial in addressing those challenges. Vitamin E-infused highly cross-linked polyethylene (VEPE) promises strong wear resistance, high oxidative stability, and superior mechanical strength. Although VEPE monoblock cups have shown good mid-term performance and excellent wear patterns, long-term results remain unclear. This study evaluated migration and wear patterns and clinical and radiological outcomes at a minimum of ten years’ follow-up.

Aims. We investigated the efficacy and safety profile of commonly used venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis agents following hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and OrthoSearch was performed. Prophylaxis agents investigated were aspirin (< 325 mg and ≥ 325 mg daily), enoxaparin, dalteparin, fondaparinux, unfractionated heparin, warfarin, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran. The primary efficacy outcome of interest was the risk of VTE, whereas the primary safety outcomes of interest were the risk of major bleeding events (MBE) and wound complications (WC). VTE was defined as the confirmed diagnosis of any deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. Network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence was performed. Cluster rank analysis using the surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was applied to compare each intervention group, weighing safety and efficacy outcomes. Results. Of 86 studies eligible studies, cluster rank analysis showed that aspirin < 325 mg daily (SUCRA-VTE 89.3%; SUCRA-MBE 75.3%; SUCRA-WC 71.1%), enoxaparin (SUCRA-VTE 55.7%; SUCRA-MBE 49.8%; SUCRA-WC 45.2%), and dabigatran (SUCRA-VTE 44.9%; SUCRA-MBE 52.0%; SUCRA-WC 41.9%) have an overall satisfactory efficacy and safety profile. Conclusion. We recommend the use of either aspirin < 325 mg daily, enoxaparin, or dabigatran for VTE prophylaxis following hip and knee arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):924–934

Aims. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylactic treatments in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Using nationwide medical registries, we identified patients with a primary TKA performed in Denmark between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018 who received thromboprophylactic treatment. We examined the 90-day risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), major bleeding, and all-cause mortality following surgery. We used a Cox regression model to compute hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, pairwise comparing treatment with dalteparin or dabigatran with rivaroxaban as the reference. The HRs were both computed using a multivariable and a propensity score matched analysis. Results. We identified 27,736 primary TKA patients who received thromboprophylactic treatment (rivaroxaban (n = 18,846); dalteparin (n = 5,767); dabigatran (n = 1,443); tinzaparin (n = 1,372); and enoxaparin (n = 308)). In the adjusted multivariable analysis and compared with rivaroxaban, treatment with dalteparin (HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.92)) or dabigatran (HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.70)) was associated with a decreased risk of VTE. No statistically significant differences were observed for major bleeding or all-cause mortality. The propensity score matched analysis yielded similar results. Conclusion. Treatment with dalteparin or dabigatran was associated with a decreased 90-day risk of VTE following primary TKA surgery compared with treatment with rivaroxaban. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1571–1577

Aims

Current guidelines recommend surgery within 48 hours among patients presenting with hip fractures; however, optimal surgical timing for patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs) remains unclear. Individual studies are limited by small sample sizes and heterogeneous outcomes. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the effect of pre-injury OACs on time-to-surgery (TTS) and all-cause mortality among older adults with hip fracture treated surgically.

Aims

Malignancy and surgery are risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). We undertook a systematic review of the literature concerning the prophylactic management of VTE in orthopaedic oncology patients.

The number of arthroplasties being performed increases each year. Patients undergoing an arthroplasty are at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and appropriate prophylaxis has been recommended. However, the optimal protocol and the best agent to minimise VTE under these circumstances are not known. Although many agents may be used, there is a difference in their efficacy and the risk of bleeding. Thus, the selection of a particular agent relies on the balance between the desire to minimise VTE and the attempt to reduce the risk of bleeding, with its undesirable, and occasionally fatal, consequences.

Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) is an agent for VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty. Many studies have shown its efficacy in minimising VTE under these circumstances. It is inexpensive and well-tolerated, and its use does not require routine blood tests. It is also a ‘milder’ agent and unlikely to result in haematoma formation, which may increase both the risk of infection and the need for further surgery. Aspirin is also unlikely to result in persistent wound drainage, which has been shown to be associated with the use of agents such as low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and other more aggressive agents.

The main objective of this review was to summarise the current evidence relating to the efficacy of aspirin as a VTE prophylaxis following arthroplasty, and to address some of the common questions about its use.

There is convincing evidence that, taking all factors into account, aspirin is an effective, inexpensive, and safe form of VTE following arthroplasty in patients without a major risk factor for VTE, such as previous VTE.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1420–30.

Aims. There is uncertainty regarding the optimal means of thromboprophylaxis following total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA). This systematic review presents the evidence for acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) as a thromboprophylactic agent in THA and TKA and compares it with other chemoprophylactic agents. Materials and Methods. A search of literature published between 2004 and 2014 was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 13 studies were eligible for inclusion. Results. Evidence from one good quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) showed no difference in rates of venous thrombo-embolism (VTE) in patients given aspirin or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) following TKA. There was insufficient evidence from trials with moderate to severe risk of bias being present to suggest aspirin is more or less effective than LMWH, warfarin or dabigatran for the prevention of VTE in TKA or THA. Compared with aspirin, rates of asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in TKA may be reduced with rivaroxaban but insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate an effect on incidence of symptomatic DVT. Compared with aspirin there is evidence of more wound complications following THA and TKA with dabigatran and in TKA with rivaroxaban. Some studies highlighted concerns over bleeding complications and efficacy of aspirin. Conclusion. The results suggest aspirin may be considered a suitable alternative to other thromboprophylactic agents following THA and TKA. Further investigation is required to fully evaluate the safety and efficacy of aspirin. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1056–61

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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:434–41.

Since the introduction of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on thromboprophylaxis and the use of extended thromboprophylaxis with new oral agents, there have been reports of complications arising as a result of their use. We have looked at the incidence of wound complications after the introduction of dabigatran for thromboprophylaxis in our unit. We investigated the rate of venous thromboembolism and wound leakage in 1728 patients undergoing primary joint replacement, both before and after the introduction of dabigatran, and following its subsequent withdrawal from our unit. We found that the use of dabigatran led to a significant increase in post-operative wound leakage (20% with dabigatran, 5% with a multimodal regimen; p < 0.001), which also resulted in an increased duration of hospital stay. The rate of thromboembolism in patients receiving dabigatran was higher (1.3%) than in those receiving the multimodal thromboprophylaxis regimen, including low molecular weight heparin as an inpatient and the extended use of aspirin (0.3%, p = 0.047). We have ceased the use of dabigatran for thromboprophylaxis in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:122–6

This paper reports the cost of outpatient venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis following 388 injuries of the lower limb requiring immobilisation in our institution, from a total of 7408 new patients presenting between May and November 2011. Prophylaxis was by either self-administered subcutaneous dalteparin (n = 128) or oral dabigatran (n = 260). The mean duration of prophylaxis per patient was 46 days (6 to 168). The total cost (pay and non-pay) for prophylaxis with dalteparin was £107.54 and with dabigatran was £143.99. However, five patients in the dalteparin group required nurse administration (£23 per home visit), increasing the cost of dalteparin to £1142.54 per patient. The annual cost of VTE prophylaxis in a busy trauma clinic treating 12 700 new patients (2010/11), would be £92 526.33 in the context of an income for trauma of £1.82 million, which represents 5.3% of the outpatient tariff. Outpatient prophylaxis in a busy trauma clinic is achievable and affordable in the context of the clinical and financial risks involved. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:673–7

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains an immediate threat to patients following total hip and knee replacement. While there is a strong consensus that steps should be taken to minimise the risk to patients by utilising some forms of prophylaxis for the vast majority of patients, the methods utilised have been extremely variable. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been published by various professional organisations for over 25 years to provide recommendations to standardise VTE prophylaxis. Historically, these recommendations have varied widely depending in underlying assumptions, goals, and methodology of the various groups. This effort has previously been exemplified by the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). The former group of medical specialists targeted minimising venographically proven deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (the vast majority of which are asymptomatic) as their primary goal prior to 2012. The latter group of surgeons targeted minimising symptomatic VTE. As a result prior to 2012, the recommendations of the two groups were widely divergent. In the past year, both groups have reassessed the current literature with the principal goals of minimising symptomatic VTE events and bleeding complications. As a result, for the first time the CPGs of these two major subspecialty organisations are in close agreement.

The October 2012 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether you can escape your genes; oral prophylaxis for DVT; non-responders and the internet; metal-on-metal, mice and damaged livers; sleeping on the job; cartilage contact stress in the normal human hip; and a perfect reason to subscribe to 360.

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.

Antiplatelet agents are widely prescribed for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events. A common clinical problem facing orthopaedic and trauma surgeons is how to manage patients receiving these agents who require surgery, either electively or following trauma. The dilemma is to balance the risk of increased blood loss if the antiplatelet agents are continued peri-operatively against the risk of coronary artery/stent thrombosis and/or other vascular event if the drugs are stopped. The traditional approach of stopping these medications up to two weeks before surgery appears to pose significant danger to patients and may require review.

This paper covers the important aspects regarding the two most commonly prescribed antiplatelet agents, aspirin and clopidogrel.

We report an audit of 208 patients with a mean age of 39 years (16 to 65) attending the Orthopaedic Assessment Unit at the Wellington Hospital between January 2006 and December 2007 with an injury of the tendo Achillis requiring immobilisation in a cast. Information on assessment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk, prophylactic measures and VTE events for all patients was obtained from the medical records. A VTE risk factor was documented in the records of three (1%) patients. One of the 208 patients received aspirin prophylaxis; none received low molecular weight heparin. In all, 13 patients (6.3%, 95% confidence interval 3.4 to 10.5) developed symptomatic VTE during immobilisation in a cast, including six with a distal deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), four with a proximal DVT, and three with a confirmed pulmonary embolus. This incidence of symptomatic VTE is similar to that reported following elective hip replacement.

We propose that consideration is given to VTE prophylaxis during prolonged immobilisation of the lower limbs in a cast, to ensure that the same level of protection is provided as for patients undergoing elective hip replacement.

Following the publication in 2007 of the guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) for patients undergoing surgery, concerns were raised by British orthopaedic surgeons as to the appropriateness of the recommendations for their clinical practice. In order to address these concerns NICE and the British Orthopaedic Association agreed to engage a representative panel of orthopaedic surgeons in the process of developing expanded VTE guidelines applicable to all patients admitted to hospital. The functions of this panel were to review the evidence and to consider the applicability and implications in orthopaedic practice in order to advise the main Guideline Development Group in framing recommendations.

The panel considered both direct and indirect evidence of the safety and efficacy, the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis and its implication in clinical practice for orthopaedic patients. We describe the process of selection of the orthopaedic panel, the evidence considered and the contribution of the panel to the latest guidelines from NICE on the prophylaxis against VTE, published in January 2010.