Browse

This comprehensive systematic review aims to assess the literature regarding the risk of postoperative complications in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) with concomitant thyroid dysfunction.

Studies were identified by searching PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov (end of search: May 2022).

Randomized control and case-control studies, cohort and observational clinical studies were included, which focused on postoperative complications and outcomes of patients undergoing TJA operations of major joints (knee, hip, ankle, elbow). All studies were assessed according to their level of evidence, the number and age of patients, and treatment complications.

Nine studies were included in this review that demonstrated a higher risk of postoperative anemia, perioperative blood loss, hemoglobin decrease, and transfusion rates in hypothyroid patients after TJA.

Hypothyroidism has been identified as a potential but modifiable risk factor for increased rates of deep venous thrombosis, acute kidney injury, pneumonia, and non-specified cardiac complications among hypothyroid patients who underwent TJA as well as increased rates of periprosthetic joint infection. No significant differences in the prosthesis-related mechanical complication rates have been calculated when comparing hypothyroid and euthyroid patients.

During the past decades, robotic-assisted technology has experienced an incredible advancement in the field of total joint arthroplasty (TJA), which demonstrated promise in improving the accuracy and precision of implantation and alignment in both primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, revision TJA remains a technically challenging procedure with issues of large-scale bone defects and damage to nearby anatomical structures. Thus, surgeons are trying to harness the abilities of robotic-assisted technology for revision TJA surgery.

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were comprehensively searched to identify relevant publications that reported the application of robotic-assisted technology in revision TJA.

Overall, ten studies reported the use of the robotic system in revision TJA, including active (ROBODOC) and semi-active (MAKO and NAVIO) systems. One clinical case reported conversion from hip fusion to THA, and three studies reported revision from primary THA to revision THA. Moreover, four studies reported that robotic-assisted technology is helpful in revising unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) to TKA, and two case reports converted primary TKA to revision TKA. In this study, we present the latest evolvements, applications, and technical obstacles of robotic-assisted technology in the revision of TJA and the current state-of-the-art.

Current available evidence suggests that robotic-assisted technology may help surgeons to reproducibly perform preoperative plans and accurately achieve operative targets during revision TJA. However, concerns remain regarding preoperative metal artifacts, registration techniques, closed software platforms, further bone loss after implant removal, and whether robotic-assisted surgery will improve implant positioning and long-term survivorship.

Patients undergoing major orthopedic surgeries, such as total hip replacement (THR), total knee replacement (TKR), and trauma surgery, are at an elevated risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), causing significant morbidity and mortality. Previous studies have investigated aspirin as a thromboprophylactic agent for arthroplasty, besides trauma surgery. Therefore, we sought to analyze the efficacy of aspirin compared to that of other anticoagulants for VTE prophylaxis in patients undergoing major orthopedic surgeries.

This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The study protocol was registered with the PROSPERO register. Randomized controlled trials that investigated the use of aspirin for thromboprophylaxis in major orthopedic lower limb surgeries were included and analyzed. Quality analysis of the literature and level of evidence were assessed. The primary clinical outcome was VTE. Secondary clinical outcomes included mortality, bleeding events, and wound complications.

Eight high-quality studies with level 2 evidence (published within 2006–2021) were included, comprising 6220 patients. The incidence of VTE with aspirin was not found to be more significant than other anticoagulants (risk ratio (RR) = 1.18, 95% CI: 0.89–1.58, P = 0.25). Regarding secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between aspirin and other anticoagulants (mortality (RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 0.27–7.23, P = 0.69), bleeding events (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.57–1.39, P = 0.61), or wound complications (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.30–1.35, P = 0.24)).

The current meta-analysis did not show any difference between aspirin and other anticoagulants as thromboprophylactic agents in preventing VTE in patients who underwent major orthopedic surgeries.

Incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) has shown effectiveness in the treatment of high-risk surgical wounds. Especially patients with diabetes-induced peripheral arterial disease undergoing major limb amputation have a high intrinsic risk for post-surgical wound infections. While normal gauze wound dressings do not cause stimulation of microvasculature, iNPWT might improve wound healing and reduce wound complications. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature for rates of wound complications and readmissions, as well as post-surgical 30-day mortality.

We conducted a systematic review searching the Cochrane, PubMed, and Ovid databases. Inclusion criteria were the modified Coleman methodology Score >60, non-traumatic major limb amputation, and adult patients. Traumatic amputations and animal studies were excluded. Relevant articles were reviewed independently by referring to the title and abstract. In a meta-analysis, we compared 3 studies and 457 patients.

A significantly overall lower rate of postoperative complications is associated with usage of iNPWT (odds ratio (OR) = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30–0.89; P = 0.02). There was no significant improvement for 30-day mortality, when iNPWT was used (OR= 081; 95% CI: 0.46 – 1.45; P = 0.48). Nevertheless, we did not note a significant difference in the readmission rate or revision surgery between the two groups.

Overall, the usage of iNPWT may reduce the risk of postoperative wound complications in major lower limb amputations but does not improve 30-day mortality rates significantly. However, to anticipate surgical-site infection, iNPWT has shown effectiveness and thus should be used whenever applicable.

Considering the adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for treating osteoarthritis (OA), development of drugs that are more effective and better tolerated than existing treatments is urgently needed. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-nerve growth factor (NGF) monoclonal antibodies vs active comparator therapy, such as NSAIDs and oxycodone, in treating hip or knee OA.

Databases were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before January 2022. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed.

Six RCTs that included 4325 patients were identified. Almost all the RCTs indicated that moderate doses of anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment significantly improved efficacy outcomes based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score, the WOMAC physical function score and the Patient’s Global Assessment compared with those of the active comparator. At least half of the RCTs indicated that the incidence of severe adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) and total joint replacement were not significantly different between anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment and active comparator therapy, but the outcomes of some studies may have been limited by a short duration of follow-up. Most RCTs suggested that anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular AEs. However, the majority of RCTs reported a higher incidence of abnormal peripheral sensation with anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment. Furthermore, the higher incidence of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA) with anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment should also not be overlooked, and the identification of patient characteristics that increase the risk of RPOA is critical in further studies.

Based on the current research evidence, anti-NGF monoclonal antibodies are not yet a replacement for analgesic drugs such as NSAIDs but might be a new treatment option for hip or knee OA patients who are intolerant or unresponsive to nonopioid or opioid treatment. Notably, however, considering the inconsistency and inconclusive evidence on the safety outcomes of recent studies, more research is needed, and long-term follow-up is required.