No abstract

Background: The wide-awake local anesthesia with no tourniquet (WALANT) technique has become popularized for various hand/upper extremity procedures. Before surgery, patients receive local anesthetic, consisting of lidocaine with epinephrine, and remain awake for the entire procedure. The purpose of this review was to investigate the advantages, diverse application, outcomes, cost benefits, use in challenging environments, patient considerations, and contraindications associated with WALANT. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature on the WALANT technique was conducted. Search terms included: WALANT, wide-awake surgery, no tourniquet, local anesthesia, hand, wrist, cost, and safety. Results: The WALANT technique has proven to be successful for common procedures such as flexor tendon repair, tendon transfer, trigger finger releases, Depuytren disease, and simple bony procedures. Recently, the use of WALANT has expanded to more extensive soft-tissue repair, fracture management, and bony manipulation. Advantages include negating preoperative evaluation and testing for anesthesia clearance, eliminating risk of monitored anesthesia care, removal of anesthesia providers and ancillary staff, significant cost savings, and less waste produced. Intraoperative evaluations can be performed through active patient participation, and postoperative recovery and monitoring time are reduced. WALANT is associated with high patient satisfaction rates and low infection rates. Conclusions: The WALANT technique has proven to be valuable to both patients and providers, optimizing patient satisfaction and providing substantial healthcare savings. As its application continues to grow, current literature suggests positive outcomes.

Aims Earlier studies dealing with trends in the management of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) identified an increasing rate of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and a decreasing rate of joint-preserving procedures between 1992 and 2008. In an effort to assess new trends in the management of this condition, this study evaluated the annual trends of joint-preserving versus arthroplasties for patients aged < or > 50 years old, and the incidence of specific operative management techniques. Methods A total of 219,371 patients with ONFH were identified from a nationwide database between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2015. The mean age was 54 years (18 to 90) and 105,298 (48%) were female. The diagnosis was made using International Classification of Disease, Ninth revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) procedure codes. The percentage of patients managed using each procedure during each year was calculated and compared between years. The trends in the use of the types of procedure were also evaluated. Results The rate of joint-preserving procedures was significantly higher in patients aged < 50 years compared with those aged > 50 years (4.93% vs 1.52%; p < 0.001). For the overall cohort, rates of arthroplasty were far greater than those for joint-preserving procedures. THA was the most commonly performed procedure (291,114; 94.03%), while osteotomy (3,598; 1.16%), partial arthroplasty (9,171; 2.96%), core decompression (1,200; 0.39%), and bone graft (3,026; 0.98%) were performed markedly less frequently. The annual percentage of patients managed using a THA (93.56% to 89.52%; p < 0.001), resurfacing (1.22% to 0.19%; p < 0.001), and osteotomy (1.31% to 1.05%; p < 0.001) also decreased during the study period. Conclusion We found that patients with ONFH have been most commonly managed with non-joint-preserving procedures. Our findings provide valuable insight into the current management of this condition and should increase efforts being made to save the hip joint. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):122–128.

No abstract

No abstract

Overall, the mean IF for peer-reviewed orthopaedic journals has increased in the past years, as has the number of journals. English journals from the United States continue to have the largest impact when compared to non-English journals and journals from outside the United States. Future studies should aim to better qualify journal impact, while limiting confounders such as self-citation.

No abstract

Purpose  The purpose of the present study was to assess perception of pain and pain management in smokers versus nonsmokers who received a total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods  Patients who underwent THA from 2010 to 2016 were propensity score matched 1:1 based on race, body mass index, age, and sex. This yielded 124 smokers and 124 nonsmokers. Pain intensity was quantified using area under the curve for visual analog scale pain scores. Opioid consumption was determined using a morphine milliequivalent (mEq) conversion algorithm. An independent samples t -test and Chi-square analysis was conducted to assess continuous and categorical variables respectively. Results  Smokers experienced a nonsignificantly increased pain intensity (198.1 vs. 185.7; p  = 0.063). Smokers demonstrated significantly higher opioid consumption in both immediate postoperative (65.9 vs. 59.3 mEq; p  = 0.045) and 90 days postoperative periods (619.9 vs. 458.9 mEq; p  = 0.029). Conclusion  Our study demonstrated a nonsignificantly increased pain intensity, and (in both the immediate and 90 days postoperative periods) a significantly higher opioid consumption following THA in patients who smoke cigarettes. This may be due to a relatively small effect size, warranting the need for larger prospective studies. Nevertheless, arthroplasty surgeons should encourage preoperative smoking cessation and alternative nonopioid analgesics to smoking patients receiving THA. Level of Evidence  This is a level III, retrospective cohort study.