There is conflicting evidence about the benefit
of using corticosteroid in periarticular injections for pain relief
after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We carried out a double-blinded,
randomised controlled trial to assess the efficacy of using corticosteroid
in a periarticular injection to control pain after TKA. A total of 77 patients, 67 women and ten men, with a mean age
of 74 years (47 to 88) who were about to undergo unilateral TKA
were randomly assigned to have a periarticular injection with or
without corticosteroid. The primary outcome was post-operative pain
at rest during the first 24 hours after surgery, measured every
two hours using a visual analogue pain scale score. The cumulative
pain score was quantified using the area under the curve. The corticosteroid group had a significantly lower cumulative
pain score than the no-corticosteroid group during the first 24
hours after surgery (mean area under the curve 139, 0 to 560, and
264, 0 to 1460; p = 0.024). The rate of complications, including
surgical site infection, was not significantly different between
the two groups up to one year post-operatively. The addition of corticosteroid to the periarticular injection
significantly decreased early post-operative pain. Further studies
are needed to confirm the safety of corticosteroid in periarticular
injection.
Cite this article:
Oxidised zirconium was introduced as a material for femoral components
in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) as an attempt to reduce polyethylene
wear. However, the long-term survival of this component is not known. We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected
database to assess the ten year survival and clinical and radiological
outcomes of an oxidised zirconium total knee arthroplasty with the
Genesis II prosthesis. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis
Index (WOMAC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)
and a patient satisfaction scale were used to assess outcome.Aims
Methods
Accurate, reproducible outcome measures are essential
for the evaluation of any orthopaedic procedure, in both clinical
practice and research. Commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have
drawbacks such as ‘floor’ and ‘ceiling’ effects, limitations of
worldwide adaptability and an inability to distinguish pain from
function. They are also unable to measure the true outcome of an
intervention rather than a patient’s perception of that outcome. Performance-based functional outcome tools may address these
problems. It is important that both clinicians and researchers are
aware of these measures when dealing with high-demand patients,
using a new intervention or implant, or testing a new rehabilitation
protocol. This article provides an overview of some of the clinically-validated
performance-based functional outcome tools used in the assessment
of patients undergoing hip and knee surgery. Cite this article:
This review considers the surgical treatment
of displaced fractures involving the knee in elderly, osteoporotic patients.
The goals of treatment include pain control, early mobilisation,
avoidance of complications and minimising the need for further surgery.
Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) frequently results in
loss of reduction, which can result in post-traumatic arthritis
and the occasional conversion to total knee replacement (TKR). TKR
after failed internal fixation is challenging, with modest functional
outcomes and high complication rates. TKR undertaken as treatment
of the initial fracture has better results to late TKR, but does
not match the outcome of primary TKR without complications. Given
the relatively infrequent need for late TKR following failed fixation,
ORIF is the preferred management for most cases. Early TKR can be
considered for those patients with pre-existing arthritis, bicondylar
femoral fractures, those who would be unable to comply with weight-bearing restrictions,
or where a single definitive procedure is required.
We report the clinical and radiological results of a two- to three-year prospective randomised study which was designed to compare a minimally-invasive technique with a standard technique in total knee replacement and was undertaken between January 2004 and May 2007. The mini-midvastus approach was used on 50 patients (group A) and a standard approach on 50 patients (group B). The mean follow-up in both groups was 23 months (24 to 35). The functional outcome was better in group A up to nine months after operation, as shown by statistically significant differences in the mean function score, mean total score and the mean Oxford knee score (all, p = 0.05). Patients in group A had statistically significant greater early flexion (p = 0.04) and reached their greatest mean knee flexion of 126.5° (95° to 135°) 21 days after operation. However, at final follow-up there was no significant difference in the mean maximum flexion between the groups (p = 0.08). Technical errors were identified in six patients from group A (12%) on radiological evaluation. Based on these results, the authors currently use minimally-invasive techniques in total knee replacement in selected cases only.
We undertook a prospective randomised controlled trial to investigate the efficacy of autologous retransfusion drains in reducing the need for allogenic blood requirement after unilateral total knee replacement. We also monitored the incidence of post-operative complications. There were 86 patients in the control group, receiving standard care with a vacuum drain, and 92 who received an autologous drain and were retransfused postoperatively. Following serial haemoglobin measurements at 24, 48 and 72 hours, we found no difference in the need for allogenic blood between the two groups (control group 15.1%, retransfusion group 13% (p = 0.439)). The incidence of post-operative complications, such as wound infection, deep-vein thrombosis and chest infection, was also comparable between the groups. There were no adverse reactions associated with the retransfusion of autologous blood. Based on this study, the cost-effectiveness and continued use of autologous drains in total knee replacement should be questioned.