Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revised to total knee arthroplasty versus primary total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis of matched studies.

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) offers a less invasive alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but is accompanied by a high revision risk. The aim of our study was to perform a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of UKA revised to TKA versus primary TKA, to assess if UKA is an effective treatment option, despite its potential need for revision. METHODS: Studies comparing matched cohorts of patients with UKA revised to TKA versus primary TKA were identified via the PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and Scopus databases. The following outcome measures were compared between treatment modalities: postoperative reoperation or revision, total complications, range of motion, patient-reported outcome measures, and length of stay. RESULTS: Ten studies were included with 1,070 patients: 410 UKA to TKA and 660 primary TKA. At an average follow-up of 5.6 years in the UKA to TKA cohort and 5.7 years in the primary TKA cohort, there were no significant difference in risk of revision (p = 0.81), total complications (p = 0.54), range of motion (p = 0.09), or length of stay (p = 0.31). Both objective and functional Knee Society Score were significantly higher in patients with primary TKA (p < 0.01). However, there was no difference in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) or pain scores (p = 0.13 and p = 0.21, respectively). CONCLUSION: UKA revised to TKA produced comparable clinical and patient-reported outcomes to a primary TKA. UKA may be an effective treatment option in unicompartmental arthritis that would allow for improved functionality and satisfaction without the concern of outcomes deteriorating in patients where a revision becomes necessary.

Preexisting anticoagulation is an independent predictor of mortality in geriatric trauma patients - a retrospective cohort study.

Introduction: Preexisting anticoagulation is common among geriatric trauma patients. Geriatric trauma patients have a higher risk of mortality compared to younger patients. We sought to evaluate the association of preexisting anticoagulation with mortality in a group of geriatric trauma patients. Methods: A retrospective review of geriatric trauma patients was conducted for those admitted to a Level 1 trauma center from January 2018 to December 2020. Vital signs, demographics, injury characteristics, laboratory data, and mortality were all collected. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed for the association of preexisting anticoagulation and a primary endpoint of all-cause mortality. These groups were controlled for preexisting comorbidities, injury severity scores, and systolic blood pressure in the emergency department. Results: Four thousand four hundred thirty-two geriatric patients were admitted during the study period. This cohort was made up of 36.9% men and 63.1% women. Three thousand eight hundred fifty-nine (87.2%) were white; the average age was 81±8.5 years, and the median injury severity score (ISS) was 5. The mean systolic blood pressure was 150±32 mmHg, mean heart rate was 81±16 bpm, mean lactate was 2.3±1.3, mean hematocrit was 37.3±8.8, and mean international normalized ratio (INR) was 1.7±10.3. One thousand five hundred ninety-two (35.9%) patients were on anticoagulation (AC) upon presentation. One hundred and sixty-five (3.7%) mortalities were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression analysis results show that preexisting anticoagulation [ odds ratio (OR) 1.92, 95% CI 1.36-2.72] was independently predictive of death. The analysis was adjusted for systolic BP in the emergency department less than90 mmHg (OR 5.55, 95% CI 2.83-10.9), having more than 1 comorbidity (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.57-3.38) and ISS (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.10-1.15). Conclusion: Our study indicates that preexisting anticoagulation is associated with mortality among geriatric trauma patients.

Opioid-free anesthesia versus opioid-based anesthesia in patients undergoing cardiovascular and thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite their extensive clinical use, opioids are characterized by several side effects. These complications, coupled with the ongoing opioid epidemic, have favored the rise of opioid-free-anesthesia (OFA). Herein, we perform the first pairwise meta-analysis of clinical outcomes for OFA vs opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) in patients undergoing cardiovascular and thoracic surgery. METHODS: We comprehensively searched medical databases to identify studies comparing OFA and OBA in patients undergoing cardiovascular or thoracic surgery. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or standard mean differences (SMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Our pooled analysis included 919 patients (8 studies), of whom 488 underwent surgery with OBA and 431 with OFA. Among cardiovascular surgery patients, compared to OBA, OFA was associated with significantly reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.57; P = .042), inotrope need (RR .84, P = .045), and non-invasive ventilation (RR, .54; P = .028). However, no differences were observed for 24hr pain score (SMD, -.35; P = .510) or 48hr morphine equivalent consumption (SMD, -1.09; P = .139). Among thoracic surgery patients, there was no difference between OFA and OBA for any of the explored outcomes, including post-operative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.41; P = .025). CONCLUSION: Through the first pooled analysis of OBA vs OFA in a cardiothoracic-exclusive cohort, we found no significant difference in any of the pooled outcomes for thoracic surgery patients. Although limited to 2 cardiovascular surgery studies, OFA was associated with significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting, inotrope need, and non-invasive ventilation in these patients. With growing use of OFA in invasive operations, further studies are needed to assess their efficacy and safety in cardiothoracic patients.

General Anesthesia Versus Local Anesthesia in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: For patients with aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a less invasive treatment modality than conventional surgical valve replacement. Although the surgery is performed traditionally under general anesthesia (GA), recent studies have described success with TAVR using local anesthesia (LA) and/or conscious sedation. The study authors performed a pairwise meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of TAVR based on operative anesthesia management. DESIGN: A random effects pairwise meta-analysis via the Mantel-Haenszel method. SETTING: Not applicable, as this is a meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: No individual patient data were used. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable, as this is a meta-analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors comprehensively searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing TAVR performed using LA or GA. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RR) or standard mean differences (SMD) and their 95% CIs. The authors' pooled analysis included 14,388 patients from 40 studies (7,754 LA; 6,634 GA). Compared to GA TAVR, LA TAVR was associated with significantly lower rates of 30-day mortality (RR 0.69; p < 0.01) and stroke (RR 0.78; p = 0.02). Additionally, LA TAVR patients had lower rates of 30-day major and/or life-threatening bleeding (RR 0.64; p = 0.01), 30-day major vascular complications (RR 0.76; p = 0.02), and long-term mortality (RR 0.75; p = 0.009). No significant difference was seen between the 2 groups for a 30-day paravalvular leak (RR 0.88, p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed using LA is associated with lower rates of adverse clinical outcomes, including 30-day mortality and stroke. No difference was seen between the 2 groups for a 30-day paravalvular leak. These results support the use of minimally invasive forms of TAVR without GA.

Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Propensity-Matched Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes have poorer outcomes with coronary artery disease (CAD) and pose a unique clinical population for revascularization. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis of randomized trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched observational studies (PMS) to compare the clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify RCT and PMS studies comparing CABG with PCI in patients with diabetes with concurrent CAD. Studies were pooled using the random-effects model to perform a pairwise meta-analysis. Primary outcomes included long-term all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and repeat revascularization. Meta-regression was used to explore the effects of baseline risk factors on primary outcomes with moderate to high heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 18 RCTs and 9 PMS with 28,846 patients were included. PCI was associated with increased long-term all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 1.34, P < 0.001), cardiac mortality (RR = 1.52, P < 0.001), MI (RR = 1.51, P = 0.009), MACCE (RR = 1.65, P < 0.001), and repeat revascularization (RR = 2.48, P < 0.001) compared with CABG. There was no difference in long-term stroke between the 2 groups (RR = 0.95, P = 0.82). At meta-regression, a greater proportion of female patients in studies was associated with a decreased protective benefit for CABG for long-term all-cause mortality but an increased protective benefit for long-term MI and repeat revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Revascularization of patients with diabetes using CABG is associated with significantly reduced long-term mortality, MI, MACCE, and repeat revascularizations. Future studies exploring the influence of gender on revascularization outcomes are necessary to elucidate the ideal treatment modality in patients with diabetes.

Polyionic vaccine adjuvants: another look at aluminum salts and polyelectrolytes.

Adjuvants improve the adaptive immune response to a vaccine antigen by modulating innate immunity or facilitating transport and presentation. The selection of an appropriate adjuvant has become vital as new vaccines trend toward narrower composition, expanded application, and improved safety. Functionally, adjuvants act directly or indirectly on antigen presenting cells (APCs) including dendritic cells (DCs) and are perceived as having molecular patterns associated either with pathogen invasion or endogenous cell damage (known as pathogen associated molecular patterns [PAMPs] and damage associated molecular patterns [DAMPs]), thereby initiating sensing and response pathways. PAMP-type adjuvants are ligands for toll-like receptors (TLRs) and can directly affect DCs to alter the strength, potency, speed, duration, bias, breadth, and scope of adaptive immunity. DAMP-type adjuvants signal via proinflammatory pathways and promote immune cell infiltration, antigen presentation, and effector cell maturation. This class of adjuvants includes mineral salts, oil emulsions, nanoparticles, and polyelectrolytes and comprises colloids and molecular assemblies exhibiting complex, heterogeneous structures. Today innovation in adjuvant technology is driven by rapidly expanding knowledge in immunology, cross-fertilization from other areas including systems biology and materials sciences, and regulatory requirements for quality, safety, efficacy and understanding as part of the vaccine product. Standardizations will aid efforts to better define and compare the structure, function and safety of adjuvants. This article briefly surveys the genesis of adjuvant technology and then re-examines polyionic macromolecules and polyelectrolyte materials, adjuvants currently not known to employ TLR. Specific updates are provided for aluminum-based formulations and polyelectrolytes as examples of improvements to the oldest and emerging classes of vaccine adjuvants in use.