BackgroundVarious pre- and perioperative risk factors have been reported in association with blood loss in knee arthroplasty. However, the effect of the uncovered cancellous surface on blood loss in simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (SBTKA) by different prosthetic designs is not well elucidated. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the blood loss and transfusion rate between different knee prostheses in SBTKA and to identify risk factors that influence blood loss and transfusion after SBTKA.MethodsDemographic and perioperative data of patients who underwent SBTKA using either a closed-box or an open-box femoral component of posterior-stabilized fixed-bearing (PS FB) knee system were retrospectively reviewed. The calculated blood loss (CBL) and blood transfusion rate were compared by using Student t-test and confirmed with multivariate regression analysis.ResultsThere was no significant difference in preoperative parameters between 54 closed-box and 56 open-box PS FB TKAs. The CBL of the closed-box TKA group was 135.23 mL less (95% confidence interval [CI], −215.30 to −55.16; p = 0.001) than that of the open-box TKA group. However, the blood transfusion rates of the closed- and open-box TKA groups were not significantly different (24.1% and 38.5%, p = 0.11). For each additional minute of total operative time, 3.75 mL (95% CI, 1.75 to 5.76; p < 0.001) of blood loss was anticipated. For each additional mg/dL of preoperative hemoglobin, 71% (p < 0.001) reduction of blood transfusion probability was predicted.ConclusionsThe use of closed- and open-box knee prostheses resulted in a significant difference in blood loss in SBTKA. Prolonged operative time also significantly increased CBL. Therefore, strategies to control the bleeding surface and shorten operative duration may be considered if blood loss is of special concern. The preoperative hemoglobin was the only factor that affects the probability of blood transfusion in SBTKA.
Background
Given no consensus on optimal timeframe of periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI) in knee osteoarthritis patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), this study was aimed to compare the postoperative pain and the functional recovery in patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral TKA (SBTKA) and received PMDI at the different intraoperative time points.
Methods
This prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial study included 48 patients who underwent SBTKA and received PMDI mixture, either before prosthetic implantation (late PMDI), or just after knee arthrotomy (early PMDI). Each subject’s knees were randomly selected to different PMDI administration time points. The outcome parameters were postoperative pain assessed by using a visual analog scale (VAS), the maximal angle of knee flexion, and quadriceps function from day 1 to 6 weeks after surgery.
Results
Late PMDI revealed slightly higher VAS at 6 and 12 h after the operation than early PMDI administration. Afterward, the VAS tended to be lower in the late than early PMDI administration until the end of the study, but without statistical significance. The time difference between early and late PMDI had no effect on postoperative VAS, while older age resulted in significantly less pain. No statistical differences between the two groups in all other outcome parameters were observed.
Conclusions
Postoperative pain reduction and functional recovery of SBTKA with early and late PMDI administration were not significantly different. The time interval of PMDI between knees did not confound the comparison of postoperative pain and functional recovery in SBTKA.
Trial registration
The protocol of this study was retrospectively registered in the Thai Clinical Trials Registry database No.
TCTR20170617001
on 16 June 2017.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.