Dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1) in plasma and synovial fluid is inversely correlated with radiographic severity of knee osteoarthritis patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common degenerative joint disease causing pain, stiffness, reduced motion, swelling, crepitus, and disability. Dickkopf-1 (Dkk-1) is a critical mediator of osteoblastogenesis and regulates the joint remodeling. The aim of this study was to examine plasma and synovial fluid Dkk-1 levels of patients with primary knee OA and to investigate their relationship with disease severity.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Thirty-five patients aged 55-83 years with knee OA and 15 healthy individuals were recruited into this study. Disease severity was determined using weight-bearing anteroposterior radiographs of the affected knee. The radiological grading of OA in the knee was performed according to the Kellgren-Lawrence grading system. Dkk-1 levels in both plasma and synovial fluid were evaluated using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The average concentration of circulating Dkk-1 in the knee OA patients was remarkably lower than that of healthy controls (396.0 ± 258.8, 95%CI 307.1-484.9 vs 2348.8 ± 2051.5, 95%CI 1164.3-3533.3 pg/ml, p < 0.0001). Dkk-1 levels in synovial fluid were significantly lower than in paired plasma samples (58.6 ± 31.8, 95%CI 47.7-69.6 vs 396.0 ± 258.8, 95%CI 307.1-484.9 pg/ml, p < 0.001). Furthermore, both plasma and synovial fluid Dkk-1 levels were inversely correlated with radiographic severity (r = -0.78, p < 0.001 and r = -0.42, p = 0.01, respectively). Plasma Dkk-1 levels were also significantly correlated with synovial fluid Dkk-1 levels (r = 0.72, p < 0.001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Dkk-1 levels in plasma and synovial fluid are inversely related to the severity of joint damage in knee OA. Dkk-1 could serve as a biochemical marker for determining disease severity and might play a potential role in the pathogenesis of the degenerative process of OA.</p

Minimally invasive total knee replacement : techniques and results

In this review, we outlined the definition of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) in total knee replacement (TKR) and described the different surgical approaches reported in the literature. Afterwards we went through the most recent studies assessing MIS TKR. Next, we searched for potential limitations of MIS knee replacement and tried to answer the following questions: Are there selective criteria and specific patient selection for MIS knee surgery? If there are, then what are they? After all, a discussion and conclusion completed this article. There is certainly room for MIS or at least less invasive surgery (LIS) for appropriate selected patients. Nonetheless, there are differences between approaches. Mini medial parapatellar is easy to master, quick to perform and potentially extendable, whereas mini subvastus and mini midvastus are trickier and require more caution related to risk of hematoma and VMO nerve damage. Current evidence on the safety and efficacy of mini-incision surgery for TKR does not appear fully adequate for the procedure to be used without special arrangements for consent and for audit or continuing research. There is an argument that a sudden jump from standard TKR to MIS TKR, especially without computer assistance such as navigation, patient specific instrumentation (PSI) or robotic, may breach a surgeon's duty of care toward patients because it exposes patients to unnecessary risks. As a final point, more evidence is required on the long-term safety and efficacy of this procedure which will give objective shed light on real benefits of MIS TKR

Comparison of Adductor Canal Block Versus Local Infiltration Analgesia on Postoperative Pain and Functional Outcome after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is associated with intense postoperative pain for which effective analgesia is essential to facilitate early postoperative recovery. Adductor canal block (ACB) and local infiltration analgesia (LIA) have become increasingly involved in postoperative pain management after TKA. We aimed to compare their efficacy and outcomes in patients undergoing TKA. Materials and Methods: Sixty patients undergoing unilateral TKA were randomized to receive either postoperative single-injection ACB (Group A) or LIA (Group L) during the operation. All patients received spinal anaesthesia. Primary outcome was total morphine consumption over postoperative 24 hours. Visual analog pain scale, time to first and total dosage of rescue analgesia, performance-based evaluations [timed-up and go (TUG) test, quadriceps strength], side-effects, length of hospital stay and patient satisfaction were measured. Results: Fifty-seven patients were available for analysis. Median total morphine consumption over 24 and 48 postoperative hours of Group A were significantly less than Group L (6/10 mg vs 13/25 mg, p, 0.008 and 0.001, respectively). Similarly, Group A had significantly lower VAS at postoperative 6, 12 and 18 hours, VAS at ambulation on postoperative (POD) 1-3, better TUG tests on POD 2 and during POD 3 than those of Group L. However, quadriceps strength and patient satisfaction were not different between both groups. Conclusion: Patients undergoing TKA with single-injection ACB required less postoperative opioids than those with LIA. Furthermore, multimodal analgesia using ACB provided better postoperative analgesia, as well as performance-based activities, than those with LIA