Prophylactic antibiotics are important in reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty. Their effectiveness depends on the choice of antibiotic and the optimum timing of their administration, to ensure adequate tissue concentrations. Cephalosporins are typically used, but an increasing number of resistant organisms are causing PJI, leading to the additional use of vancomycin. There are difficulties, however, with the systemic administration of vancomycin including its optimal timing, due to the need for prolonged administration, and potential adverse reactions. Intraosseous regional administration distal to a tourniquet is an alternative and attractive mode of delivery due to the ease of obtaining intraosseous access. Many authors have reported the effectiveness of intraosseous prophylaxis in achieving higher concentrations of antibiotic in the tissues compared with intravenous administration, providing equal or enhanced prophylaxis while minimizing adverse effects. This annotation describes the technique of intraosseous administration of antibiotics and summarizes the relevant clinical literature to date. Cite this article:
The purpose of this article was to review the current literature
pertaining to the use of mobile compression devices (MCDs) for venous
thromboembolism (VTE) following total joint arthroplasty (TJA),
and to discuss the results of data from our institution. Previous studies have illustrated higher rates of post-operative
wound complications, re-operation and re-admission with the use
of more aggressive anticoagulation regimens, such as warfarin and
factor Xa inhibitors. This highlights the importance of the safety,
as well as efficacy, of the chemoprophylactic regimen.Aims
Patients and Methods
Obesity is a worldwide epidemic that has both
economic and health implications of enormous consequence. The obese
patients tend to have earlier symptoms related to osteoarthritis,
more peri-operative medical problems, higher rates of infection
and more technical difficulties intra-operatively following hip
and knee arthroplasty. Nevertheless, these patients have good long-term
clinical outcomes and implant survival rates and are often some of
the most satisfied patients after joint arthroplasty. Therefore,
obese patients should not be denied surgery based on their weight
alone. Cite this article:
In a systematic review, reports from national registers and clinical studies were identified and analysed with respect to revision rates after joint replacement, which were calculated as revisions per 100 observed component years. After primary hip replacement, a mean of 1.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen. The results after
National registers compare implants by their revision rates, but the validity of the method has never been assessed. The New Zealand Joint Registry publishes clinical outcomes (Oxford knee scores, OKS) alongside revision rates, allowing comparison of the two measurements. In the two types of knee replacement, unicompartmental (UKR) had a better knee score than total replacement (TKR), but the revision rate of the former was nearly three times higher than that of the latter. This was because the sensitivity of the revision rate to clinical failure was different for the two implants. For example, of knees with a very poor outcome (OKS <
20 points), only about 12% of TKRs were revised compared with about 63% of UKRs with similar scores. Revision therefore is not an objective measurement and should not be used to compare these two types of implant. Furthermore, revision is much less sensitive than the OKS to clinical failure in both types and therefore exaggerates the success of knee replacements, particularly of TKR.
