Postoperative Continuous Passive Motion Does Not Improve the Range of Movement Achieved After Manipulation Under Anesthetic for Stiffness in Total Knee Replacement.

Background: Stiffness is a common complication following total knee arthroplasty. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) is an intervention that can potentially improve range of motion (ROM). Continuous passive motion (CPM) therapy has been utilized to enhance post-MUA ROM, but its effectiveness remains debated. This study assesses whether CPM therapy after MUA results in superior ROM outcomes compared to MUA alone. Methods: A retrospective analysis included patients undergoing MUA for stiff primary total knee arthroplasty between 2017 and 2022. Demographics and ROM data were collected. Patients were in 2 groups: those who received inpatient CPM post-MUA and those who received day-case MUA alone. Complications and further interventions were noted. Results: Of 126 patients, 39 underwent MUA only (day-case group), and 87 received CPM and MUA (inpatient group). Mean preoperative ROM was 69.4° (standard deviation [SD]:18.0°) and 73.9° (SD: 18.1°) for inpatient and day-case groups, respectively. Mean post-MUA ROM improved by 39.4° (SD: 17.7°) and 25.5° (SD: 11.1°) inpatient groups and day-case, respectively. The mean percentage of ROM gained at MUA maintained at final follow-up was 63.7% (40.8%) and 67.0% (47.5%) inpatient and day-case groups, respectively. Conclusions: This study found no advantage in the routine use of CPM post-MUA for stiff total knee replacement patients, suggesting it may not provide sustained ROM improvements compared to MUA alone. Cost-effectiveness and patient selection merit further investigation.

Lower Risk of Revision With 32- and 36-Millimeter Femoral Heads Compared With 28-mm Heads in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Comparative Single-Center Study (10,104 Hips).

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of different head sizes (28-, 32-, and 36- millimeter) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) at mean 6 years follow-up (range, 1 to 17.5 years). METHODS: This was a retrospective consecutive study of primary THA at our institution (2003 to 2019). Demographic and surgical data were collected. The primary outcome measures were all-cause revision, revision for dislocation, and all-cause revision excluding dislocation. Continuous descriptive statistics used means, median values, ranges, and 95% confidence intervals, where appropriate. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate time to revision. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were used to compare revision rates between the femoral head size groups. Adjustments were made for age at surgery, sex, primary diagnosis, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, articulation type, and fixation methods. There were 10,104 primary THAs included; median age was 69 years (range, 13 to 101) with 61.5% women. A posterior approach was performed in 71.6%. There were 3,295 hips with 28-mm heads (32.6%), 4,858 (48.1%) with 32-mm heads, and 1,951 (19.3%) with 36-mm heads. RESULTS: Overall rate of revision was 1.7% with the lowest rate recorded for the 36-mm group (2.7 versus 1.3 versus 1.1%). Cox regression analyses showed a decreased risk of all-cause revision for 32 and 36-mm head sizes as compared to 28-mm; this was statistically significant for the 32-mm group (P = .01). Risk of revision for dislocation was significantly reduced in both 32-mm (P = .03) and 36-mm (P = .03) head sizes. Analysis of all cause revision excluding dislocation showed no significant differences between head sizes. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significantly reduced risk of revision for all causes, but particularly revision for dislocation with larger head sizes. Concerns regarding increased risk of early revision for aseptic loosening, polyethylene wear, or taper corrosion with larger heads appear to be unfounded in this cohort of 10,104 patients with up to 17 years follow-up.

Dual-Mobility Acetabular Components in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Do Not Increase the Risk of Complication Compared to Conventional Articulations: A Matched Cohort Comparative Analysis.

Background: A recent National Joint Registry report suggests a higher local complication risk for dual-mobility (DM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared to conventional articulation THA. This report may be subject to data heterogeneity with multiple confounders. Controlling for these factors by matching demographic characteristics may give different results. We aim to compare 2-year local complication rates between matched DM and conventional THAs in primary hip osteoarthritis. Methods: Data were collected for consecutive primary THAs undertaken via a posterior approach. The conventional articulation and DM cohorts were matched 3:1 for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiology grade, body mass index, and operative time using a propensity score and nearest neighbor matching method. Outcome measures were 2-year local complication rates, reoperation rates, systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Demographic and outcome data were compared, and cumulative survival rates (%) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methodology with a 2-year local complication as the endpoint. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. Results: Four hundred twelve THAs were included: 309 conventional and 103 DM articulations. There were no statistically significant differences between DM and conventional articulation THAs for local complications (7 [6.8%] vs 23 [7.4%], P = .820), reoperations (3 [2.9%] vs 4 [1.3%], P = .374), systemic complications (3 [2.9%] vs 4 [1.3%], P = .374), or 90-day mortality (1 [1%] vs 2 [0.6%], P = 1.000). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated similar 2-year survival rates for conventional THAs compared to DM THAs (93.3% [standard error, 0.014] vs 91.9% [standard error, 0.031], P = .906). Conclusions: This matched study shows that there is no difference in local complication rates between DM and conventional THA articulations.

Initiating versus delaying treatment-dose anticoagulation in suspected venous thromboembolism (VTE) in post-operative hip and knee arthroplasty patients: Outcomes and risks.

Background: Hip and knee arthroplasty is a risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Initiation of treatment-dose anticoagulation in the post-operative period in suspected cases prior to confirmed diagnosis involves balancing increased bleeding risk to VTE-associated morbidity. Methods: A single-centre retrospective cohort study was undertaken comparing outcomes of empirical treatment of suspected VTE in post-operative elective lower-limb arthroplasty patients as opposed to delaying treatment until diagnosis is confirmed. All patients undergoing ultrasonography (US) or CT-pulmonary-angiogram (CTPA) for suspected VTE following elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between 05/05/17 and 19/07/21 were identified. Primary outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI), readmission, and other wound problems within 30-days of surgery. Results: 107 patients were included for analysis. 93 patients had suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT), 21 had suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), and 7 were investigated for both DVT and PE. Empirical treatment-dose anticoagulation was initiated in 4 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) prior to CTPA, and 34 patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prior to US. No significant differences were noted in 30-day readmission rate ([DVT: 12 % vs 23 %, p = 0.41], [PE: 50 % vs 33 %, p = 1.00]), SSI rate ([DVT: 6 % vs 3 %, p = 1.00], [PE: 0 % vs 11 %, p = 1.00]) or other wound complication rate ([DVT: 3 % vs 3 %, p = 1.00), [PE 0 % vs 11 %, p = 1.00]) between empirically and non-empirically treated groups respectively. Conclusion: Empirical initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation in post-operative lower limb arthroplasty patients with suspected VTE appears to be safe practice prior to a definitive diagnosis.

Return to driving post upper or lower extremity orthopaedic surgical procedures: a scoping review of current published literature.

Patients undergoing planned or unplanned orthopaedic procedures involving their upper or lower extremity can prevent them from safe and timely return to driving, where they commonly ask, 'Doctor, when can I drive?' Driving recommendations after such procedures are varied. The current evidence available is based on a heterogenous data set with varying degrees of sample size and markedly differing study designs. This instructional review article provides a scoping overview of studies looking at return to driving after upper or lower extremity surgery in both trauma and elective settings and, where possible, to provide clinical recommendations for return to driving. Medline, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases were searched according to a defined search protocol to elicit eligible studies. Articles were included if they reviewed adult drivers who underwent upper or lower extremity orthopaedic procedures, were written in English, and offered recommendations about driving. A total of 68 articles were included in the analysis, with 36 assessing the lower extremity and 37 reviewing the upper extremity. The evidence available from the studies reviewed was of poor methodological quality. There was a lack of adequately powered, high quality, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with large sample sizes to assess safe return to driving for differing subset of injuries. Many articles provide generic guidelines on return to driving when patients feel safe to perform an emergency stop procedure with adequate steering wheel control. In future, RCTs should be performed to develop definitive return to driving protocols in patients undergoing upper and lower extremity procedures.

The Feasibility of Hinged Knee Arthrodiastasis for Cartilage Regeneration: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Introduction: Knee joint distraction (KJD) is a potential technique for cartilage regeneration in young patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Static distraction has been utilised typically; however, a significant proportion of patients complain of knee stiffness post-distractor removal. The use of a hinged distractor may reduce the duration and severity of post-treatment knee stiffness by maintaining the range of motion during distraction. Furthermore, improved cartilage regeneration has been demonstrated in hinged ankle joint distraction as compared to static, and this may also be demonstrated at the knee. An evidence review was undertaken to inform further research and a potential change in practice. Aim: A systematic review of all primary research on hinged knee joint distraction for cartilage regeneration. Methods: An online systematic search of citation databases was conducted. Quality assessment and data extraction were undertaken by two separate researchers. Results: The literature search returned a small number of relevant studies, of which 7 were included. Three of these were animal studies, two cadaveric and two case series. The study quality was low or very low. There was significant methodological heterogeneity with difficulties encountered in the transfer of constructs from animal and cadaveric studies to humans. Issues faced included difficulties with hinge placement and pin site pain in motion. Conclusion: The feasibility of hinged knee joint distraction has yet to be proven. Any further research attempting to establish the benefits of hinged-over static knee distraction will have to take construct design considerations into account. How to cite this article: Lineham B, van Duren B, Harwood P, et al. The Feasibility of Hinged Knee Arthrodiastasis for Cartilage Regeneration: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2023;18(1):37-43.

Preoperative Templating for Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Method for Calibrating Digital Radiographs Using Patient Demographics and Anthropometric Measurements.

Background Preoperative templating aids the surgeon in estimating implant size and placement. Calibration markers are used to set the correct magnification of digital images before templating. Improper marker placement or complete absence can lead to inaccuracy or an inability to calibrate images altogether. Aims This study describes a method for calibrating images using a patient's femoral head size (FHS) predicted using demographics and anthropometric data. Materials and methods A formula predicting the FHS was derived from a cohort of 507 patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty for an intracapsular fractured neck of the femur through multivariate regression analysis. A separate validation cohort (n=50) who had undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA) had postoperative radiographs calibrated using the predicted FHS and the native contralateral hip as a surrogate calibration marker. The THA femoral head implant size was subsequently measured and compared with the actual implant size selected intraoperatively. Measurements were performed by two independent assessors to determine intra- and interobserver reliability. Results Multivariate regression analyses showed four variables significantly correlated with the size of the femoral head: gender (p < 0.001), height (p < 0.001), weight (p < 0.001), and race (Asian) (p = 0.01). Using these, a regression model to predict the FHS was obtained with an R2 value of 0.65 and a standard error of 2.18 mm. The validation cohort showed that THA head implant size could be accurately measured with an average root-mean-squared error (RMSE) of 1.41 mm (SD = 0.97 mm; %RMSE = 4.7%). The implant head size was measured to be within 5%, 10%, and 15% RMSE in 57.5%, 93.0%, and 100.0% of cases, respectively. There was excellent intraobserver (R2 = 0.94 and 0.95) and interobserver (R2 = 0.94) reliability. Conclusions The novel method proposed and validated in this study, using a predicted FHS to calibrate digital images, provides an alternative means of templating THA for fractured neck of the femur patients, in whom external calibration markers are often absent.

"Wearable Sensors to Guide Remote Rehabilitation Following Knee Arthroplasty Surgery".

Background: Total knee arthroplasty requires effective rehabilitation to achieve optimal results, but institutions often rely on unsupervised home exercises due to cost constraints. Wearable sensors have become increasingly popular as a potential method of monitoring patients remotely to ensure efficacy and compliance. This review assesses the current evidence for their use in remotely monitored rehabilitation following knee arthroplasty. Methods: A systematic review of the literature from 1st January 2000 to 17th February 2022 was undertaken. Devices were categorised as joint-specific or physical activity sensors. Studies were classified as those providing remotely supervised rehabilitation as an additional or as an alternative intervention. Results: Remotely supervised rehabilitation using wearable sensors demonstrated similar outcomes when provided as an alternative to standard care in most studies. One group found improved outcomes for knee-specific sensors compared with standard care. There were improved physical activity and healthcare resource use outcomes described in the literature where sensors were used in addition to standard care. Discussion: This review found evidence for the use of wearable sensors in remotely supervised rehabilitation following knee arthroplasty surgery. This included methodological heterogeneity, differing definitions of standard care, and variable follow-up periods. Robust randomised control trial data with a longer follow-up period are needed.

"Smart Knee Implants: An Overview of Current Technologies and Future Possibilities".

Background: This article focuses on clinical implementation of smart knee implants for total knee replacement and the future development of smart implant technology. With the number of total knee replacements undertaken growing worldwide, smart implants incorporating embedded sensor technology offer opportunity to improve post-operative recovery, reducing implant failure rates, and increasing overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A literature review on smart implants, historical prototypes, current clinically available smart implants, and the future potential for conventional implant instrumentation with embedded sensors and electronics was undertaken. Results: The overview of current and future technology describes use cases for various diagnostic and therapeutic treatment solutions. Conclusion: Smart knee implants are at an early development stage, with the first generation of smart implants being available to patients and with more novel technologies under development.

Doctor when can I drive? A systematic review and meta-analysis of return to driving after total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Advice given to patients on driving resumption after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is inconsistent. Due to a lack of clear guidelines, surgeons' recommendations range between 4-8 weeks after surgery to resume driving. Delays in driving return can have detrimental social and economic impact. However, it is important to ensure patients only resume driving once safe. This study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of driving simulation studies after THA to establish when patients can safely return to driving postoperatively. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines was undertaken. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion, data was extracted, and studies assessed for bias risk. Review Manager, was used for statistical analysis. Values for brake reaction time (BRT) were included for meta-analysis. RESULTS: 14 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 7 measured BRT and were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled means of both right and left THA showed BRT around or above preoperative baseline at 1 week, 2 weeks and 3 weeks, and below baseline at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 32 weeks and 52 weeks. Of these, the pooled means at 6, 32, and 52 weeks were significant (p < 0.05).Studies not meeting meta-analysis inclusion criteria were included in a qualitative analysis, examining self-reported postoperative driving return times which ranged from 6 days to over a year or in rare cases, never. Majority of patients (n = 960) self-reported driving return within approximately 6 weeks (pooling of mean values 32.9 days). CONCLUSIONS: The mean return to driving time recommended in the literature was 4.5 weeks. Based upon BRT meta-analysis, a return to baseline braking performance was noted at 6 weeks postoperatively. However, driving is a complex skill, and patient recommendation should be individualised based on factors such as vehicle transmission type, THA technique, surgical side, medication and comorbidities.

Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine Hydrochloride vs Bupivacaine Hydrochloride Alone as a Periarticular Anesthetic for Patients Undergoing Knee Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: More than half of patients who undergo knee replacement surgery report substantial acute postoperative pain. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine for recovery and pain management after knee replacement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, patient-blinded, pragmatic, randomized clinical superiority trial involved 533 participants at 11 institutions within the National Health Service in England. Adults undergoing primary unilateral knee replacement for symptomatic end-stage osteoarthritis were enrolled between March 29, 2018, and February 29, 2020, and followed up for 1 year after surgery. Follow-up was completed March 1, 2021. A per-protocol analysis for each coprimary outcome was performed in addition to the main intention-to-treat analysis. Interventions: Two hundred sixty-six milligrams of liposomal bupivacaine admixed with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride compared with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride alone (control) administered by periarticular injection at the time of surgery. Main Outcome and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) score at 72 hours and pain visual analog scale (VAS) score area under the curve (AUC) from 6 to 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included QoR-40 and mean pain VAS at days 0 (evening of surgery), 1, 2, and 3; cumulative opioid consumption for 72 hours; functional outcomes and quality of life at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year; and cost-effectiveness for 1 year. Adverse events and serious adverse events up to 12 months after randomization were also assessed. Results: Among the 533 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 69.0 (9.7) years; 287 patients were women (53.8%) and 246 were men (46.2%). Baseline characteristics were balanced between study groups. There was no difference between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups in QoR-40 score at 72 hours (adjusted mean difference, 0.54 [97.5% CI, -2.05 to 3.13]; P = .64) or the pain VAS score AUC at 6 to 72 hours (-21.5 [97.5% CI, -46.8 to 3.8]; P = .06). Analyses of pain VAS and QoR-40 scores demonstrated only 1 statistically significant difference, with the liposomal bupivacaine arm having lower pain scores the evening of surgery (adjusted difference -0.54 [97.5% CI, -1.07 to -0.02]; P = .02). No difference in cumulative opioid consumption and functional outcomes was detected. Liposomal bupivacaine was not cost-effective compared with the control treatment. No difference in adverse or serious adverse events was found between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found no difference in postoperative recovery or pain associated with the use of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride alone in patients who underwent knee replacement surgery. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN54191675.

The Effect of Perioperative Biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs on the Risk of Postoperative Complications: Surgical Site Infection, Delayed Wound Healing, and Disease Flares Following Orthopaedic Surgical Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) are effective in treating inflammatory diseases and have been increasingly utilized over the past decade. Patients who receive bDMARDs have been shown to be at an increased risk for surgical site infection following surgical procedures. The severe consequences of infection following orthopaedic surgery have led to the practice of withholding bDMARDs perioperatively; however, there has been no definitive evidence showing a clear benefit of withholding the use of bDMARDs, and in doing so, patients may be at an increased risk for higher disease activity. As such, the purpose of the present study was to compare the risk of infection, delayed wound healing, and disease flares associated with the use of bDMARDs in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgical procedures. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed CENTRAL databases for studies comparing continuing and withholding the use of bDMARDs in patients undergoing orthopaedic procedures. Inclusion criteria were established following the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) approach: Population = patients who underwent orthopaedic surgical procedures and who were taking bDMARDs. Intervention = withholding the use of bDMARDs. Comparator = continuing the use of bDMARDs. Outcomes = surgical site infection, delayed wound healing, and disease flares. Article titles and abstracts were screened prior to review of the full text. Overall odds ratios (ORs) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for pooled effects were calculated. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria, providing data for 7,344 patients, including 2,385 patients who continued and 4,959 who withheld their bDMARDs perioperatively. Continuing bDMARDs was associated with a significantly lower risk of disease flares (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.95; p = 0.04) and nonsignificant increases in surgical site infections (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.49; p = 0.49) and wound complications (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 0.48 to 9.85; p = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: The present systematic review highlights the limited evidence supporting the current practice of stopping bDMARDs perioperatively. These findings suggest that patients may not be at an increased risk for developing infection or wound complications if bDMARDs are continued but are at an increased risk for disease flare if bDMARDs are withheld. However, our conclusions are limited by the retrospective and heterogenous nature of the data, and possibly by a lack of study power. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Medial stabilised total knee arthroplasty achieves comparable clinical outcomes when compared to other TKA designs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical and patient-reported outcome measures of medially stabilised (MS) TKA when compared to other TKA designs. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses algorithm was used. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EMCARE databases were searched to June 2020. Studies with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up comparing an MS TKA design to any other TKA design were included. The statistical analysis was completed using Review Manager (RevMan), Version 5.3. RESULTS: The 22 studies meeting the inclusion criteria included 3011 patients and 4102 TKAs. Overall Oxford Knee Scores were significantly better (p = 0.0007) for MS TKA, but there was no difference in the Forgotten Joint Scores (FJS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Society Score (KSS)-Knee, KSS-Function, and range of motion between MS and non-MS TKA designs. Significant differences were noted for sub-group analyses; MS TKA showed significantly worse KSS-Knee (p = 0.02) and WOMAC (p = 0.03) scores when compared to Rotating Platform (RP) TKA while significantly better FJS (p = 0.002) and KSS-knee scores (p = 0.0001) when compared to cruciate-retaining (CR) TKA. CONCLUSION: This review and meta-analysis show that MS TKA designs result in both patient and clinical outcomes that are comparable to non-MS implants. These results suggest implant design alone may not provide further improvement in patient outcome following TKA, surgeons must consider other factors, such as alignment to achieve superior outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Impact of surgical drain output monitoring on patient outcomes in hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Surgical drains are widely utilized in hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery to prevent intra-abdominal collections and identify postoperative complications. Surgical drain monitoring ranges from simple-output measurements to specific analysis for constituents such as amylase. This systematic review aimed to determine whether surgical drain monitoring can detect postoperative complications and impact on patient outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was performed, and the following databases searched between 02/03/20 and 26/04/20: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov. All studies describing surgical drain monitoring of output and content in adult patients undergoing hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery were considered. Other invasive methods of intra-abdominal sampling were excluded. RESULTS: The search returned 403 articles. Following abstract review, 390 were excluded and 13 articles were included for full review. The studies were classified according to speciality and featured 11 pancreatic surgery and 2 hepatobiliary surgery studies with a total sample of 3262 patients. Postoperative monitoring of drain amylase detected pancreatic fistula formation and drain bilirubin testing facilitated bile leak detection. Both methods enabled early drain removal. Improved patient outcomes were observed through decreased incidence of postoperative complications (pancreatic fistulas, intra-abdominal infections, and surgical-site infections), length of stay, and mortality rate. Isolated monitoring of drain output did not confer any clinical benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical drain monitoring has advantages in the postoperative care for selected patients undergoing hepatopancreaticobiliary surgery. Enhanced surgical drain monitoring involving the testing of drain amylase and bilirubin improves the detection of complications in the immediate postoperative period.

Doctor when can I drive? Braking response after knee arthroplasty: A systematic review & meta-analysis of brake reaction time.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence available on return to driving for patients undergoing knee arthroplasty (KA). Primarily, surgeons have used brake reaction time as a surrogate measure of safe return to driving. The purpose of this study was to review existing literature and provide guidance on the recovery of braking performance following knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A literature search was performed for prospective studies on driving after KA. Two reviewers screened citations for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Values for total brake reaction-time (TBRT), movement-time (MT), reaction-time (RT), and braking-force (BF) were included for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twelve studies with 368 subjects were identified. TBRT, RT, MT, and BF relative to preoperative baseline were assessed. Meta-analysis of TBRT showed a significant improvement from preoperative baseline at 3 months & 1 year (p = 0.003 & p = 0.0001). MT showed a significant increase at 2 and 4 weeks (p = 0.00001 & p = 0.03) before returning to no being significantly different at 6 weeks and beyond. In contrast RTs were noted to improve significantly 2 weeks (p = 0.006), 4 weeks (p = 0.03), and 1 year (p = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in TBRT up until 3 months. RT increased significantly post-operatively suggesting it is not a reliable indicator. MT in contrast was significantly decreased post KA and may represent a more reliable measure of braking performance post KA. Surgeons should consider these recommendations and other patient factors that determine fitness to drive prior to advising their patients on a safe to return to driving.

Patients Generally May Return to Driving 4 Weeks After Hip Arthroscopy and 6 Weeks After Knee Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To consolidate the evidence from the available literature and undertake a meta-analysis to provide a reference for physicians to make evidence-based recommendations to their patients regarding the return to driving after hip or knee arthroscopic procedures. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The OVID, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through June 2020 for articles containing keywords and/or MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms "hip arthroscopy" and "knee arthroscopy" in conjunction with "total brake response time" or "reaction time" in the context of automobile driving. A title review and full article review were performed to assess quality and select relevant articles. A meta-analysis of qualifying articles was undertaken. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis of brake reaction time (BRT). Meta-analysis of all knee BRTs showed times slower than or equal to baseline BRTs through 5 weeks, with a trend of improving BRTs from 6 to 10 weeks (weeks 8 and 10 were significant, P < .05). Among all hip BRTs, week 2 showed times slower than baseline BRTs, but after week 4, a trend toward faster BRTs was observed through week 8 (week 8 was significant, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: BRTs met baseline or control values and continued to improve after 6 weeks after knee arthroscopy and after 4 weeks after hip arthroscopy. On the basis of these results, it would be safe to recommend a return to driving at 6 weeks after knee arthroscopic procedures and 4 weeks after hip arthroscopic procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These results can be used by surgeons to base their recommendations on to provide guidance for their patients on the resumption of driving. Although BRT is an important aspect of driving ability, there are additional factors that need to be taken into consideration when making these recommendations, including cessation of opioid analgesics, strength of the surgical limb, and range of motion.

Can the use of an inclinometer improve acetabular cup inclination in total hip arthroplasty? A review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: The angle of acetabular (cup) radiographic inclination is an important measurement in total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures. Abnormal radiographic inclination is associated with dislocation, edge loading and higher failure rates. Consistently achieving a satisfactory radiographic inclination remains a challenge. Inclinometers have been increasingly used over the last decade. This paper reviews the literature to determine whether using an inclinometer improves the accuracy of acetabular cup inclination in THA. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. The following search terms were used: ('hip' OR 'hip replacement' OR 'hip arthroplasty' OR 'primary hip replacement' OR 'THR' OR 'THA' OR 'Acetabular cup Inclination') AND ('Inclinometer'). Titles and abstracts were screened for relevance. Both radiographic and operative inclination comparisons were included. RESULTS: 7 studies met the inclusion criteria. 2 were randomised control trials with level I evidence, and the remaining studies were cohort studies with level III/IV evidence. 5 were clinical and 2 experimental. In total there were 16 cohorts: 7 using an inclinometer, 6 freehand, and 3 using MAG techniques. All studies comparing radiographic inclination and 1 of 2 studies comparing operative inclination showed an improvement in the attainment of the optimal inclination. Similarly, the use of an inclinometer showed a reduction in the number of outliers when compared to MAG and freehand techniques. DISCUSSION: This review demonstrates that using an inclinometer improved the surgeon's ability to achieve their intended inclination (both operative and radiographic) and reduced the incidence of positioning outside the safe-zone. However, only 2 of the studies were randomised control trials and these resulted in opposing conclusions. Therefore, further studies looking at the use of inclinometers would prove useful in understanding their true benefit.

How Accurate is the Use of Contralateral Implant Size as a Template in Bilateral Hemiarthroplasty?

PURPOSE: Accurately predicting implant size for hemiarthroplasties offers an important contribution to theatre efficiency and patients' intraoperative care. However, pre-operative sizing using templating of implants in hip fracture patients requiring a hemiarthroplasty is often difficult due to non-standard radiographs, absence of a calibration marker, poor marker placement, variable patient position, and in many institutions a lack of templating facilities. In patients who have previously undergone a hemiarthroplasty on the contralateral side, surgeons can use the contralateral implant size for pre-operative planning purposes. However, the accuracy of doing this has not previously been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of using an in situ contralateral implant as a predictor of implant size on the contralateral side. METHODS: A retrospective review of our local neck of femur fracture (NOF) database was undertaken to identify patients who had bilateral hip hemiarthroplasty. Operative records were reviewed to establish the size of prostheses used at operation. Correlation, agreement, and reliability analysis were performed using the least squares, Bland-Altman plot, and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) methods, respectively. RESULTS: Operative records were identified for 45 patients who had bilateral hemiarthroplasties. There was a difference in implant size used in 58% of cases. Of these 77% required a larger implant on the right. Implant sizes were within 1 mm of the contralateral side in 78% and within 2 mm in 91% of patients. However, in 9% of patients, there was a discrepancy greater than 2 mm with some cases having up to 6 mm discrepancy. Correlation coefficient was 0.83 and the ICC 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: The findings in this study indicated that using the size of a contralateral implant can be used as a reliable indicator of head size in cases of bilateral hemiarthroplasty. However, the surgeon should remain cautious as there is a one in ten chance of there being a 3 mm or more difference in implant size.

Changing Device Regulations in the European Union: Impact on Research, Innovation and Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Up until 2017, medical devices were placed on the European Union's (EU) single market in accordance with either Medical Device Directive 93/42/EEC for general medical devices or Medical Device Directive 90/385/EEC for active implantable devices. However, some devices that complied with these directives still failed catastrophically. In the orthopaedic device field, these failures were most pronounced in metal-on-metal hip devices causing severe patient morbidity with increased need for revision surgery which had unpredictable outcomes. Subsequently, the newly introduced Medical Device Regulations 2017/745 are aimed at addressing patient safety based on previous experience and thorough device assessment prior to and post-release on the EU single market; to accommodate for this they are substantially different (and more stringent). This poses a greater challenge for manufacturers and regulatory bodies in terms of time and resources. METHODS: A review of the EU directives and published literature was undertaken. This review provides the rationale behind this change and its potential impact on research, industry, and clinical practice. DISCUSSION: The change in legal requirements for the medical devices to be put on the EU single market ultimately leads to increased patient safety, which is supported by clinical professionals. The new requirements for data transparency, post-market surveillance, and implant information availability increase the chance of catastrophic failure prevention. However, the exact method of implementation remains uncertain, and some essential rules on the data requirements for compliance have not yet been published by the EU. These limitations may limit the availability of products on the market including withdrawal of existing devices and a decrease in new medical device innovation. It is speculated that lack of new technologies within the medical device area can dramatically affect patient safety itself by not allowing potentially safer materials and methods on the EU single market, as the focus for the manufacturer becomes existing devices.