No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The purpose of this review is to examine the validity of positive claims regarding the direct anterior approach (DAA) with a fracture table for total hip arthroplasty. Recent literature regarding the DAA was searched and specific claims investigated including improved early outcomes, speed of recovery, component placement, dislocation rates, and complication rates. Recent literature is positive regarding the effects of total hip arthroplasty with the anterior approach. While the data is not definitive at present, patients receiving the anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty tend to recover more quickly and have improved early outcomes. Component placement with the anterior approach is more often in the "safe zone" than with other approaches. Dislocation rates tend to be less than 1% with the anterior approach. Complication rates vary widely in the published literature. A possible explanation is that the variance is due to surgeon and institutional experience with the anterior approach procedure. Concerns remain regarding the "learning curve" for both surgeons and institutions. In conclusion, it is not a matter of should this approach be used, but how should it be implemented.

Background Mobile bearings have been compared with fixed bearings used in TKA. However, rotating platforms, a specific type of mobile bearing, have not been compared with fixed-bearings using meta-analysis. Questions/purposes We asked whether the performance of a rotating-platform bearing is superior to, comparable to, or worse than a fixed bearing. Four areas were investigated: clinical performance, component alignment, adverse event rates, and revision rates. Methods Searches of Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane databases, combined with reference lists from published meta-analyses and systematic reviews of mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses used in TKAs, provided 17 nonlanguage-restricted studies consisting of 1910 TKAs (966 rotating platform versus 944 fixed bearing). Random-effect modeling was used for all meta-analyses, thereby mitigating possible effects of heterogeneity among studies. All meta-analyses were examined for publication bias using funnel plots; publication bias was not detected for any meta-analysis. Results There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in clinical performance (clinical scores, ROM, and radiographic evaluation), component alignment, revision rates, or adverse event rates except for tibial component alignment in the AP plane, which favored TKA with fixed-bearings (p = 0.020; standardized mean difference, 0.229; 95% CI, 0.035-0.422), but the effect size was small enough that it was not considered clinically important. Conclusions Based on our findings, which agree substantially with those of prior systematic reviews of TKAs with mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses, there is no compelling case for either rotating-platform or fixedbearing implant design in terms of clinical performance, component alignment, adverse event frequencies, or survivorship. This dataset, which was limited to a maximum 6 years followup, is insufficient to address questions related to wear or late revisions. We therefore suggest that implant choice should be made on the basis of other factors, perhaps including cost or surgeon experience.

Previous meta-analyses established that tranexamic acid confers benefits when used during total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, 2 of these meta-analyses included a variety of routes of administration of tranexamic acid in THA (topical, intravenous, oral, and intra-articular), another meta-analysis included a variety of antifibrinolytic drugs (not restricted to a single drug), and the final meta-analysis included nonrandomized controlled trials. This meta-analysis focused on a single medication, tranexamic acid, administered in a specific way, intravenously in patients undergoing primary THA, using data reported only in randomized controlled studies. Outcomes were restricted to blood loss, allogeneic transfusion rates, and complications. Other outcomes, such as return to function or clinical scores, could not be evaluated because of lack of consistent reporting. To better understand the effects of intravenous tranexamic acid in THA on clinical outcomes, such as recovery, return to function, and patient-reported outcome measures, it would be helpful to have more controlled trials examining these measures in a standardized manner. Intravenous tranexamic acid was beneficial for blood loss intraoperatively, blood loss through drains, and total blood loss during hospitalization, in addition to reducing allogeneic transfusion rates. No difference between intravenous tranexamic acid and placebo was found for most complications, except deep venous thrombosis, which showed favorable results with placebo. [Orthopedics.2016; 39(5):e883-e892.].