Impact of intra- and extramedullary alignment on blood loss in total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: There is a scarcity of scientific data regarding the correlation between alignment techniques during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and blood loss as well as transfusion rates. This study's hypothesis posited that intramedullary-aligned (IM) TKA exhibits higher blood loss and transfusion rates when contrasted with extramedullary-aligned (EM) TKA. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective examination of 883 patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in 2021 at a solitary orthopedic center in Germany. These patients were divided into two groups based on their tibial alignment technique: extramedullary alignment and intramedullary tibial alignment. RESULTS: In the intramedullary tibial alignment (IM) group, we observed a blood loss of 0.91 L, while in the extramedullary tibial alignment (EM) group, the blood loss was 0.89 L. These values did not demonstrate a significant difference (p = 0.69). Transfusion rates were 0.99% in the IM group and 0.21% in the EM group, and there was no significant distinction between them (Chi-squared test: p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: We observed no statistically significant variance in blood loss between the IM and EM groups. Likewise, there was no substantial disparity in transfusion rates between these groups. It can be concluded that the selection of a knee arthroplasty system incorporating either intramedullary tibial alignment or extramedullary alignment does not significantly impact blood loss.

Indications and techniques for non-articulating spacers in massive bone loss following prosthetic knee joint infection: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a destructive complication of knee replacement surgery (KR). In two-stage revision a spacer is required to maintain limb length and alignment and provide a stable limb on which to mobilise. Spacers may be articulating or static with the gold standard spacer yet to be defined. The aims of this scoping review were to summarise the types of static spacer used to treat PJI after KR, their indications for use and early complication rates. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's "JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis" Scoping review reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2005 to 2022 for studies on the use of static spacers for PJI after KR. RESULTS: 41 studies (1230 patients/knees) were identified describing 42 static spacer constructs. Twenty-three (23/42 [54.2%]) incorporated cement augmented with metalwork, while nineteen (19/42, [45.9%]) were made of cement alone. Spacers were most frequently anchored in the diaphysis (22/42, [53.3%]), particularly in the setting of extensive bone loss (mean AORI Type = F3/T3; 11/15 studies 78.3% diaphyseal anchoring). 7.1% (79 of 1117 knees) of static spacers had a complication requiring further surgery prior to planned second stage with the most common complication being infection (86.1%). CONCLUSIONS: This study has summarised the large variety in static spacer constructs used for staged revision KR for PJI. Static spacers were associated with a high risk of complications and further work in this area is required to improve the quality of care in this vulnerable group.