Innovations in total knee replacement: new trends in operative treatment and changes in peri-operative management

The human knee joint can sustain damage due to injury, or more usually osteoarthritis, to one, two or all three of the knee compartments: the medial femorotibial, the lateral femorotibial and the patellofemoral compartments. When pain associated with this damage is unmanageable using nonsurgical techniques, knee replacement surgery might be the most appropriate course of action. This procedure aims to restore a pain-free, fully functional and durable knee joint. Total knee replacement is a well-established treatment modality, and more recently, partial knee replacement—more commonly known as bi- or unicompartmental knee replacement—has seen resurgence in interest and popularity. Combined with the use of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques, gender-specific prosthetics and computer-assisted navigation systems, orthopaedic surgeons are now able to offer patients knee replacement procedures that are associated with (1) minimal risks during and after surgery by avoiding fat embolism, reducing blood loss and minimising soft tissue disruption; (2) smaller incisions; (3) faster and less painful rehabilitation; (4) reduced hospital stay and faster return to normal activities of daily living; (5) an improved range of motion; (6) less requirement for analgesics; and (7) a durable, well-aligned, highly functional knee. With the ongoing advancements in surgical technique, medical technology and prosthesis design, knee replacement surgery is constantly evolving. This review provides a personal account of the recent innovations that have been made, with a particular emphasis on the potential use of MIS techniques combined with computer-assisted navigation systems to treat younger, more physically active patients with resurfacing partial/total implant knee arthroplasty

Urinary prothrombin fragment 1+2 in patients with venous thrombosis and myocardial infarction

<p>Patients with venous-thromboembolism (VTE) and myocardial infarction (MI) have elevated prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F1+2) levels. In patients with postoperative VTE, urinary F1+2 (uF1+2) was higher than in individuals without VTE. To explore the relationship between plasma and uF1+2 we performed a pilot study in patients with thrombotic events and healthy controls. In 40 patients with VTE or MI, and 25 age-and sex-matched healthy controls, F1+2 and D-dimer levels were measured in urine and plasma within 48 h after diagnosis. In addition, in all subjects renal function was assessed. Plasma and uF1+2 levels were positively correlated. Compared to controls, patients with VTE had higher levels of both plasma F1+2 (271 vs 160 pmol L-1, p <0.05) and uF1+2 levels (38 vs 28 pmol L-1), the latter, however, was not statistically significant. Patients with acute MI had similar F1+2 levels as controls in both plasma and urine. Differences in urinary F1+2 levels could not be attributed to differences in concentrations of creatinine or albumin in spot urine samples. Overall, D-dimer and F1+2 levels in urine were extremely low in all groups.</p>

Rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty.”

10BACKGROUND: We investigated the efficacy of rivaroxaban, an orally active direct factor Xa inhibitor, in preventing venous thrombosis after total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, 2531 patients who were to undergo total knee arthroplasty received either oral rivaroxaban, 10 mg once daily, beginning 6 to 8 hours after surgery, or subcutaneous enoxaparin, 40 mg once daily, beginning 12 hours before surgery. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of any deep-vein thrombosis, nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or death from any cause within 13 to 17 days after surgery. Secondary efficacy outcomes included major venous thromboembolism (i.e., proximal deep-vein thrombosis, nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or death related to venous thromboembolism) and symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 79 of 824 patients (9.6%) who received rivaroxaban and in 166 of 878 (18.9%) who received enoxaparin (absolute risk reduction, 9.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9 to 12.4; P<0.001). Major venous thromboembolism occurred in 9 of 908 patients (1.0%) given rivaroxaban and 24 of 925 (2.6%) given enoxaparin (absolute risk reduction, 1.6%; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.8; P=0.01). Symptomatic events occurred less frequently with rivaroxaban than with enoxaparin (P=0.005). Major bleeding occurred in 0.6% of patients in the rivaroxaban group and 0.5% of patients in the enoxaparin group. The incidence of drug-related adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal, was 12.0% in the rivaroxaban group and 13.0% in the enoxaparin group. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was superior to enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty, with similar rates of bleeding.; Autore interno incluso nel Gruppo RECORD3 Investigators. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00361894.reservedmixedLASSEN MR; AGENO W; BORRIS LC; LIEBERMAN JR; ROSENCHER N; BANDEL TJ; MISSELWITZ F; TURPIE AG; DELLA ROCCA G; RECORD INVESTIGATORSLassen, Mr; Ageno, W; Borris, Lc; Lieberman, Jr; Rosencher, N; Bandel, Tj; Misselwitz, F; Turpie, Ag; DELLA ROCCA, Giorgio; Record, Investigator

Rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the efficacy of rivaroxaban, an orally active direct factor Xa inhibitor, in preventing venous thrombosis after total knee arthroplasty. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, 2531 patients who were to undergo total knee arthroplasty received either oral rivaroxaban, 10 mg once daily, beginning 6 to 8 hours after surgery, or subcutaneous enoxaparin, 40 mg once daily, beginning 12 hours before surgery. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of any deep-vein thrombosis, nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or death from any cause within 13 to 17 days after surgery. Secondary efficacy outcomes included major venous thromboembolism (i.e., proximal deep-vein thrombosis, nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or death related to venous thromboembolism) and symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 79 of 824 patients (9.6%) who received rivaroxaban and in 166 of 878 (18.9%) who received enoxaparin (absolute risk reduction, 9.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.9 to 12.4; P<0.001). Major venous thromboembolism occurred in 9 of 908 patients (1.0%) given rivaroxaban and 24 of 925 (2.6%) given enoxaparin (absolute risk reduction, 1.6%; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.8; P=0.01). Symptomatic events occurred less frequently with rivaroxaban than with enoxaparin (P=0.005). Major bleeding occurred in 0.6% of patients in the rivaroxaban group and 0.5% of patients in the enoxaparin group. The incidence of drug-related adverse events, mainly gastrointestinal, was 12.0% in the rivaroxaban group and 13.0% in the enoxaparin group. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban was superior to enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty, with similar rates of bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00361894.

Rivaroxaban versus enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis after hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND: This phase 3 trial compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, an oral direct inhibitor of factor Xa, with those of enoxaparin for extended thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we assigned 4541 patients to receive either 10 mg of oral rivaroxaban once daily, beginning after surgery, or 40 mg of enoxaparin subcutaneously once daily, beginning the evening before surgery, plus a placebo tablet or injection. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of deep-vein thrombosis (either symptomatic or detected by bilateral venography if the patient was asymptomatic), nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or death from any cause at 36 days (range, 30 to 42). The main secondary efficacy outcome was major venous thromboembolism (proximal deep-vein thrombosis, nonfatal pulmonary embolism, or death from venous thromboembolism). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 3153 patients were included in the superiority analysis (after 1388 exclusions), and 4433 were included in the safety analysis (after 108 exclusions). The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 18 of 1595 patients (1.1%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 58 of 1558 patients (3.7%) in the enoxaparin group (absolute risk reduction, 2.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 3.7; P<0.001). Major venous thromboembolism occurred in 4 of 1686 patients (0.2%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 33 of 1678 patients (2.0%) in the enoxaparin group (absolute risk reduction, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.5; P<0.001). Major bleeding occurred in 6 of 2209 patients (0.3%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 2 of 2224 patients (0.1%) in the enoxaparin group (P=0.18). CONCLUSIONS: A once-daily, 10-mg oral dose of rivaroxaban was significantly more effective for extended thromboprophylaxis than a once-daily, 40-mg subcutaneous dose of enoxaparin in patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty. The two drugs had similar safety profiles. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00329628.