Does Closed Incision Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Reduce Surgical Site Infection in Endometrial Carcinoma Patients Undergoing Laparotomy? A Multicentre Retrospective Cohort Study

Abstract Background: Endometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological cancer and has a strong association with obesity. Surgical site infection (SSI) carries high morbidity and is more frequent in obese patients. Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy (ciNPWT) has been proposed to reduce wound morbidity but is more expensive than standard dressings whilst the evidence has been very heterogenous. There is limited evidence to justify this expensive dressing as related to its effectiveness in gynaecological oncology patients. ciNPWT was introduced in New Zealand in 2017 based on the available evidence from studies on SSI in the obstetric population. The aim of this study is to investigate the rate of SSI in patients with endometrial carcinoma undergoing laparotomy using standard surgical dressings compared to ciNPWT. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 170 patients who underwent a laparotomy for endometrial carcinoma between 2018 and 2019 across three hospitals in New Zealand after the introduction of ciNPWT. Dressings were applied according to individual surgeons’ preferences. Standard dressings and ciNPWT were compared in the occurrence of SSI, wound dehiscence, readmission and return to theatre rates using logistic regression in order to account for potential confounding due to the patient demographics and oncologic and surgical characteristics. Results: There were 129 patients in the standard dressing group and 41 patients in the ciNPWT group. The mean age was 60.4 years (range 25–86). The mean body mass index (BMI) was 38.2 kg/m2 (range 20–69 kg/m2). The percentage of patients who experienced a SSI was higher in the ciNPWT group (34.2% vs. 20.9%; p = 0.159). There was no significant difference between the dressing groups in the occurrence of superficial SSI rate, return to theatre, or readmission. Wound dehiscence and deep/organ space SSI were however worse with ciNPWT (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 4.09 and aOR 7.19, respectively). Conclusions: This study demonstrated no evidence for the benefit of ciNPWT, and higher rates of deep/organ space SSI. More randomised trials are needed to investigate whether gynaecological oncology patients may benefit from ciNPWT thus justifying the extra cost of this dressing

The dissatisfied total knee arthroplasty patient. New technologies-the white knight in shining armor coming to their rescue?

No abstract availabl

Measuring Appropriate Need for Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Results of the MANUKA study

PURPOSE: Indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are controversial. Studies based solely on radiographic criteria suggest up to 49% of patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) are suitable for UKA. In contrast, the ‘Appropriate use criteria’ (AUC), developed by the AAOS, apply clinical and radiographic criteria to guide surgical treatment of knee OA. The aim of this study was to analyze patient suitability for TKA, UKA and osteotomy using both radiographic criteria and AUC in a cohort of 300 consecutive knee OA patients. METHODS: Included were consecutive patients with clinical and radiographic signs of knee OA referred to a specialist clinic. Collected were demographic data, radiographic wear patterns and clinical findings that were analyzed using the AUC. A comparison of the radiographic wear patterns with the treatment suggested by the AUC as well as the Surgeon Treatment Decision was performed. RESULTS: There were 397 knees in 300 patients available for analysis. Median age was 68 [IQR 15], BMI 30 [6] with 55% females. Excellent consistency for both the radiographic criteria and the AUC criteria was found. Based on radiological criteria, 41% of knees were suitable for UKA. However, when using the AUC criteria, UKA was the appropriate treatment in only 13.3% of knees. In 19.1% of knees, no surgical treatment was appropriate at the visit, based on the collected data. CONCLUSION: Application of isolated radiologic criteria in patients with knee OA results in a UKA candidacy is misleadingly high. AUC that are based on both radiological and clinical criteria suggest UKA is appropriate in less than 15% of patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III retrospective study

Low percentage of surgeons meet the minimum recommended unicompartmental knee arthroplasty usage thresholds : Analysis of 3037 Surgeons from Three National Joint Registries

Purpose: The reported usage of UKA is around 10% in the UK, Australian and New Zealand joint registries. However, some authors recommend that a higher UKA usage of 20%, or a minimum 12 UKA cases per year, would reduce revision rates. The purpose of this study was to analyze the percentage of surgeons performing the recommended thresholds in these 3 registries. Methods: Data from the UK, Australian and New Zealand registry databases was utilized from the time period since their respective introduction until 2017. All primary TKA and UKA performed for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis by surgeons with more than 100 recorded knee arthroplasties in their respective registry were included. The results between the registries were compared and a pooled analysis was performed. The number of surgeons meeting the recommended caseload of > 20% UKA yearly or 12 UKA cases yearly was calculated. Results: We identified 3037 knee surgeons performing 1,556,440 knee arthroplasties, of which 131,575 were UKA (8.45%). Over 50% of knee surgeons in each registry had a proportion of less than 5% UKA of their knee replacement procedures. After pooling of data, median surgeon UKA usage was 2.0% (IQR 0–9.1%). The percentage of surgeons meeting the proposed caseload criteria was highest in New Zealand, 16.3%, followed by the UK at 12.4% and Australia 11.3% (p = 0.28). Conclusion: More than 50% of knee surgeons in UK, Australian and New Zealand joint registries perform less than 5% of UKA yearly. The majority of experienced knee surgeons are not meeting the recommended minimum thresholds, which might indicate that the recommended thresholds are not feasible for the vast majority of knee surgeons. The reasons behind this require further research. Level of Evidence: Level III retrospective registry study