The risk of venous thromboembolism in patients following arthroplasty may be reduced by continuing chemical thromboprophylaxis for up to 35 days post-operatively. This prospective cohort study investigated the compliance of 40 consecutive consenting patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty with self-administration of a recommended subcutaneous chemotherapeutic agent for six weeks after surgery. Compliance was assessed by examination of the patient for signs of injection, number of syringes used, and a self-report diary at the end of the six-week period. A total of 40 patients, 15 men and 25 women, were recruited. One woman was excluded because immediate post-operative complications prevented her participation. Self-administration was considered feasible in 87% of patients (95% confidence interval (CI) 76 to 98) at the
Currently, there is no single, comprehensive national guideline for analgesic strategies for total joint replacement. We compared inpatient and outpatient opioid requirements following total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to determine risk factors for increased inpatient and outpatient opioid requirements following total hip or knee arthroplasty. Outcomes after 92 primary total knee (n = 49) and hip (n = 43) arthroplasties were analyzed. Patients with repeat surgery within 90 days were excluded. Opioid use was recorded while inpatient and 90 days postoperatively. Outcomes included total opioid use, refills, use beyond 90 days, and unplanned clinical encounters for uncontrolled pain. Multivariate modelling determined the effect of surgery, regional nerve block (RNB) or neuraxial anesthesia (NA), and non-opioid medications after adjusting for demographics, ength of stay, and baseline opioid use.Aims
Methods
As of April 2010 all NHS institutions in the United Kingdom are required to publish data on surgical site infection, but the method for collecting this has not been decided. We examined 7448 trauma and orthopaedic surgical wounds made in patients staying for at least two nights between 2000 and 2008 at our institution and calculated the rate of surgical site infection using three definitions: the US Centers for Disease Control, the United Kingdom Nosocomial Infection National Surveillance Scheme and the ASEPSIS system. On the same series of wounds, the infection rate with outpatient follow-up according to Centre for Disease Control was 15.45%, according to the UK Nosocomial infection surveillance was 11.32%, and according to ASEPSIS was 8.79%. These figures highlight the necessity for all institutions to use the same method for diagnosing surgical site infection. If different methods are used, direct comparisons will be invalid and published rates of infection will be misleading.
