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.

Take home message: The use of corticosteroid in periarticular injection offered better pain relief during the initial 24 hours after TKA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:194–200.

Aims

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.

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: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1431–5.

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.