The role of lumbar lordosis and pelvic sagittal balance in femoroacetabular impingement.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate spinopelvic mechanics from standing and sitting positions in subjects with and without femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). We hypothesize that FAI patients will experience less flexion at the lumbar spine and more flexion at the hip whilst changing from standing to sitting positions than subjects without FAI. This increase in hip flexion may contribute to symptomatology in FAI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Male subjects were prospectively enrolled to the study (n = 20). Mean age was 31 years old (22 to 41). All underwent clinical examination, plain radiographs, and dynamic imaging using EOS. Subjects were categorized into three groups: non-FAI (no radiographic or clinical FAI or pain), asymptomatic FAI (radiographic and clinical FAI but no pain), and symptomatic FAI (patients with both pain and radiographic FAI). FAI was defined as internal rotation less than 15° and alpha angle greater than 60°. Subjects underwent standing and sitting radiographs in order to measure spine and femoroacetabular flexion. RESULTS: Compared with non-FAI controls, symptomatic patients with FAI had less flexion at the spine (mean 22°, sd 12°, vs mean 35°, sd 8°; p = 0.04) and more at the hip (mean 72°, sd 6°, vs mean 62°, sd 8°; p = 0.047). Subjects with asymptomatic FAI had more spine flexion and similar hip flexion when compared to symptomatic FAI patients. Both FAI groups also sat with more anterior pelvic tilt than control patients. There were no differences in standing alignment among groups. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic patients with FAI require more flexion at the hip to achieve sitting position due to their inability to compensate through the lumbar spine. With limited spine flexion, FAI patients sit with more anterior pelvic tilt, which may lead to impingement between the acetabulum and proximal femur. Differences in spinopelvic mechanics between FAI and non-FAI patients may contribute to the progression of FAI symptoms. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1275-9.

Pregabalin and pain after total knee arthroplasty: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multidose trial.

BACKGROUND: Pregabalin may reduce postoperative pain and opioid use. Higher doses may be more effective, but may cause sedation and confusion. This prospective, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled study tested the hypothesis that pregabalin reduces pain at 2 weeks after total knee arthroplasty, but increases drowsiness and confusion. METHODS: Patients (30 per group) received capsules containing pregabalin (0, 50, 100, or 150 mg); two capsules before surgery, one capsule twice a day until postoperative day (POD) 14, one on POD15, and one on POD16. Multimodal analgesia included femoral nerve block, epidural analgesia, oxycodone-paracetamol, and meloxicam. The primary outcome was pain with flexion (POD14). RESULTS: Pregabalin did not reduce pain at rest, with ambulation, or with flexion at 2 weeks (P=0.69, 0.23, and 0.90, respectively). Pregabalin increased POD1 drowsiness (34.5, 37.9, 55.2, and 58.6% in the 0, 50, 100, and 150 mg arms, respectively; P=0.030), but did not increase confusion (0, 3.5, 0, and 3.5%, respectively; P=0.75). Pregabalin had no effect on acute or chronic pain, opioid consumption, or analgesic side-effects. Pregabalin reduced POD14 patient satisfaction [1-10 scale, median (first quartile, third quartile): 9 (8, 10), 8 (7, 10), 8 (5, 9), and 8 (6, 9.3), respectively; P=0.023). Protocol compliance was 63% by POD14 (50.0, 70.0, 76.7, and 56.7% compliance, respectively), with no effect of dose on compliance. Per-protocol analysis of compliant patients showed no effect of pregabalin on pain scores. CONCLUSIONS: Pregabalin had no beneficial effects, but increased sedation and decreased patient satisfaction. This study does not support routine perioperative pregabalin for total knee arthroplasty patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT01333956.

Analgesia after total knee replacement: local infiltration versus epidural combined with a femoral nerve blockade: a prospective, randomised pragmatic trial.

In a randomised controlled pragmatic trial we investigated whether local infiltration analgesia would result in earlier readiness for discharge from hospital after total knee replacement (TKR) than patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) plus femoral nerve block. A total of 45 patients with a mean age of 65 years (49 to 81) received a local infiltration with a peri-articular injection of bupivacaine, morphine and methylprednisolone, as well as adjuvant analgesics. In 45 PCEA+femoral nerve blockade patients with a mean age of 67 years (50 to 84), analgesia included a bupivacaine nerve block, bupivacaine/hydromorphone PCEA, and adjuvant analgesics. The mean time until ready for discharge was 3.2 days (1 to 14) in the local infiltration group and 3.2 days (1.8 to 7.0) in the PCEA+femoral nerve blockade group. The mean pain scores for patients receiving local infiltration were higher when walking (p = 0.0084), but there were no statistically significant differences at rest. The mean opioid consumption was higher in those receiving local infiltration. The choice between these two analgesic pathways should not be made on the basis of time to discharge after surgery. Most secondary outcomes were similar, but PCEA+femoral nerve blockade patients had lower pain scores when walking and during continuous passive movement. If PCEA+femoral nerve blockade is not readily available, local infiltration provides similar length of stay and similar pain scores at rest following TKR.

Cementless fixation in total knee arthroplasty: down the boulevard of broken dreams - affirms.

There has been a recent increase in interest for non-cemented fixation in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), however the superiority of cement fixation is an ongoing debate. Whereas the results based on Level III and IV evidence show similar survivorship rates between the two types of fixation, Level I and II evidence strongly support cemented fixation. United Kingdom, Australia, Sweden, and New Zealand registry data show lower failure rates and greater usage of cemented than non-cemented fixation. Case series studies have also indicated greater functional outcomes and lower revision rates among cemented TKAs. Non-cemented fixation involves more patellofemoral complications, including increased susceptibility to wear due to a thinner polyethylene bearing on the cementless metal-backed component. The combination of results from registry data, prospective randomised studies, and meta-analyses support the current superiority of cemented fixation in TKAs.