The Effect of Femoral Nerve Block Versus Adductor Canal Block on the Quality of early Recovery after Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty, a retrospective Study

Background Multimodal pain analgesia strategies are common in perioperative management of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), although the role of adductor canal blocks (ACB) versus femoral nerve block on early postoperative recovery for revision knee surgery is not investigated. Aim The purpose of this study is to independently evaluate the effect of ACB on short-term postoperative outcomes including (1) length of stay (LOS), (2) postoperative narcotic utilization, and (3) function with physical therapy in revision TKA. Methods We retrospectively identified a cohort study of consecutive 40 patients from January 2021 to July 2021 who had undergone unilateral revision TKA using a single-shot ACB (19 patients) vs femoral nerve block (21 patients) under spinal anesthesia ( hyperbaric 0.5% Marcaine 2.5 ml and 20 microgram fentanyl) in addition to a standardized multimodal pain analgesia protocol. These 2 groups were compared using independent sample t-tests with primary end points of interest being distance ambulated after surgery, and inpatient narcotic use. Results Quadriceps strength was better preserved in adductor group than in femoral group. Walking meters and going upstairs were better results in adductor group. IV morphine consumption within the first 48 hours period were less in adductor group comparing to femoral group. Conclusion Adductor nerve block showed better early recovery in revision TKA when comparing to femoral nerve block (FNB).

Different Doses of Intravenous Tranexamic Acid in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Study

Purpose This article assessed the efficacy and safety of different doses of intravenous tranexamic acid (TXA) in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods We retrospectively identified 122 patients in our institution who underwent revision TKA with a history of perioperative intravenous TXA utilization. According to the sum of intravenous TXA documented, all patients were divided into three groups: 1 g intravenous TXA, 2 g intravenous TXA, and equal or greater than 3 g intravenous TXA. The primary outcomes included total blood loss (TBL), hidden blood loss (HBL), transfusion rate, and the incidence of symptomatic venous thromboembolism among the three groups. A correlation analysis was conducted to analyze the correlation between the dose of TXA and the blood loss. Results In total, there was no significance difference in TBL and revised HBL (rHBL) between the first two groups (1 g/dL for intravenous TXA, 2 g/dL for intravenous TXA; p = 0.486; p = 0.525). Equal or greater than 3 g intravenous TXA (≥3 g/dL for intravenous TXA) reached a significant reduction in TBL, rHBL, and length of stay compared with the first two groups (p = 0.01; p = 0.01; p = 0.01). The rate of transfusion between the three groups did not differ significantly (p = 0.21). Due to the limitations in sample size, only one symptomatic venous thromboembolism was reported in the 1 g intravenous TXA group. Conclusion Applying the dose of intravenous TXA equal or greater than 3 g in revision TKA might further reduce the blood loss and shorten the length of stay.

Poor outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty in patients with septic loosening compared to patients with aseptic loosening

Background The purpose of this study was to compare the functional outcomes, activity levels, mortalities, implant survival rates, and complications in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) of patients with septic loosening with those in patients with aseptic loosening over a minimum 10-year follow-up period. Methods A cohort of 78 patients (36 septic loosening and 42 aseptic loosening) was selected between January 2008 and December 2009. The functional outcomes, activity levels, mortalities, implant survival rates, and complications of revision TKA in patients with septic and aseptic loosening were compared. Results The mean Knee Society knee scores in the septic and aseptic groups improved from 36.7 and 37.4 preoperatively to 65.3 and 76.8 points at the final follow-up, respectively (p < 0.05). Outdoor ambulatory patients at the final follow-up included 20 of 29 (69.0%) patients in the septic group and 35 of 39 (89.7%) patients in the aseptic group (p < 0.05). The cumulative mortality rates in the septic and aseptic groups were 19.4% (7/36) and 7.1% (3/42) (p = 0.102) at final follow-up, respectively. Kaplan–Meier survivorship analysis with re-revision of either component as an endpoint in the septic and aseptic groups estimated 86.5% and 95.5% chance of survival for 10 years, respectively. Conclusions Revision TKA in patients with septic loosening had worse functional outcomes and higher mortality over a minimum 10-year follow-up period compared with that in patients with aseptic loosening. Level of evidence IV.

Zonal Fixation in Revision TKA: The Key Is Metaphyseal Fixation

As the volume of primary total knee arthroplasties continues to rise, so will the volume of revision arthroplasties. Bone loss is commonly encountered in revision surgery and must be managed appropriately to optimize outcomes. The concept of zonal fixation highlights the importance of attaining secure fixation within each of the three major osseous zones: the epiphysis, the metaphysis, and the diaphysis. While each zone is important, the metaphysis carries particular significance. The development of new implants such as metaphyseal cones and sleeves has greatly expanded the orthopedic surgeon's armamentarium to allow for solid metaphyseal fixation in virtually every case.

Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty With the Use of Restricted Kinematic Alignment Protocol: Surgical Technique and Initial Results

Purpose: Kinematic alignment (KA) for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been shown to provide equivalent or better results to mechanical alignment (MA). The use of KA in revision TKA to restore the individual knee anatomy, kinematics, and soft-tissue balance, has not been documented yet. The purpose of this study is to describe the technique for performing TKA revision using the restricted KA (rKA) protocol and to report (1) rerevision rate and adverse events, (2) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and (3) radiological signs of implant dysfunction related to this technique.Methods: The rKA protocol was used in 43 selected TKA revisions cases suitable for the technique. Adverse events, reoperation, revision, and their causes were recorded. In addition, PROMs assessed by WOMAC score and radiographic evaluation to identify signs of implant dysfunction were documented at last follow-up.Results: After a mean follow-up of 4.0 years (0.9–7.7, ±2), only one rerevision (2.3%) was required for persisting instability (polyethylene liner exchange from posterior stabilized to a semi-constrained). Short-cemented stems were used for both the femur and tibia in 28 (65%) cases, for the femur alone in 13 (30%) cases, and no stems in two cases. In 31 (72%) cases, a standard posterior stabilized tibial insert was used, while 12 (28%) cases required a semi-constrained insert. The mean WOMAC score was 34.4 (0–80, ±21.7). Mean postoperative arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) was 0.8° varus (from 5° varus to 4° valgus), mean mechanical distal femoral angle was 1.7° valgus (from 2° varus to 5° valgus), and mean mechanical tibia proximal angle was 2.2° varus (from 5° varus to 1° valgus). No radiological evidence of aseptic loosening or periprosthetic radiolucencies were identified.Conclusion: Although current revision TKA implants are not ideal for revision TKA performed with rKA, they are an appealing alternative to MA, especially in cases of early, non-wear-related, unsuccessful MA TKAs. rKA TKA revision using short-cemented stems in conjunction with meticulous preoperative planning is safe in the mid-term.Level of evidence: IV

Cost of septic and aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

Background The increasing incidence of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has led to an increase in both the incidence and the cost burden of revision TKA procedures. This study aimed to review the literature on the cost of revision TKA for septic and aseptic causes and to identify the major cost components contributing to the cost burden. Methods We searched MEDLINE (OvidSp), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies. Selection, data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias and cost transparency within the studies were conducted by two independent reviewers, after which the cost data were analysed narratively for 1- or 2-stage septic revision without re-revision; 2-stage septic revision with re-revision; and aseptic revision with and without re-revision, respectively. The major cost components identified in the respective studies were also reported. Results The direct medical cost from the healthcare provider perspective for high-income countries for 2-stage septic revision with re-revision ranged from US$66,629 to US$81,938, which can be about 2.5 times the cost of 1- or 2-stage septic revision without re-revision, (range: US$24,027 – US$38,109), which can be about double the cost of aseptic revision without re-revision (range: US$13,910 – US$29,213). The major cost components were the perioperative cost (33%), prosthesis cost (28%), and hospital ward stay cost (22%). Conclusions Septic TKA revision with re-revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) increases the cost burden of revision TKA by 4 times when compared to aseptic single-stage revision and by 2.5 times when compared to septic TKA revision that does not undergo re-revision. Cost reductions can be achieved by reducing the number of primary TKA that develop PJI, avoidance of re-revisions for PJI, and reduction in the length of stay after revision. Trial registration PROSPERO; CRD42020171988.