Randomized Controlled Trial of Sensor-Guided Knee Balancing Compared to Standard Balancing Technique in Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) technology, up to 1 in 5 patients remain dissatisfied. This study sought to evaluate if sensor-guided knee balancing improves postoperative clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction compared to a conventional gap balancing technique. METHODS: We undertook a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial of patients presenting for elective primary TKA to determine a difference in TKA soft tissue balance between a standard gap balancing (tensiometer) approach compared to augmenting the balance using a sensor-guided device. The sensor-guided experimental group had adjustments made to achieve a balanced knee to within 15 pounds of intercompartmental pressure difference. Secondary outcomes included differences in clinical outcome scores at 6 months and 1 year postoperative, including the Oxford Knee Score and Knee Society Score and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The sample comprised of 152 patients, 76 controls and 76 experimental sensor-guided cases. Within the control group, 36% (27/76) of knees were unbalanced based on an average coronal plane intercompartmental difference >15 pounds, compared to only 5.3% (4/76) within the experimental group (P < .0001). There were no significant differences in 1-year postoperative flexion, Knee Society Score, or Oxford scores. Overall, TKA patient satisfaction at 1 year was comparable, with 81% of controls and experimental cases reporting they were very satisfied (P = .992). CONCLUSION: Despite the use of the sensor-guided knee balancer device to provide additional quantitative feedback in the evaluation of the soft tissue envelope during TKA, we were unable to demonstrate improved clinical outcomes or patient satisfaction compared to our conventional gap balancing technique.

Efficacy and safety of controlled-release oxycodone and standard therapies for postoperative pain after knee or hip replacement.

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy (ST) for postoperative pain after knee and hip replacement at the Hamilton Health Sciences Henderson Hospital consists of epidural analgesia or patient-controlled analgesia for the first 48 hours, followed by oral or parenteral analgesics, or both, on an as-needed basis. We compared the efficacy and safety of scheduled controlled-release (CR) oxycodone hydrochloride (OxyContin; Purdue Pharma, Pickering, Ont.) and ST for postoperative pain 48 hours after primary knee and hip replacement. METHODS: In 2 separate 3-week studies of similar design, pain intensity, pain relief, length of hospital stay, analgesic use and side effects of CR oxycodone (n = 70) and ST (n = 101) were evaluated. In the CR oxycodone trial, a dose de-escalation protocol was used. RESULTS: At the time of discharge from hospital, patients in the CR oxycodone group recorded lower mean (and standard deviation) pain intensity scores than the ST group (20.2 [17.9] v. 27.7 [21.5] mm on a 100-mm visual analogue scale; p = 0.021). Length of hospital stay was 5.5 and 6.4 days for the CR oxycodone and ST groups respectively (p < 0.001). CR oxycodone patients used less opioid (morphine equivalent) while in hospital than ST patients (p < 0.001), and the average number of daily administrations of analgesics in hospital was 2.1 and 3.5 for CR oxycodone and ST patients respectively (p < 0.001). ST patients reported more nausea and vomiting, pruritus and fever than the CR oxycodone patients, but less somnolence, constipation, dizziness, confusion and tachycardia. CONCLUSIONS: CR oxycodone every 12 hours is as effective as ST in treating postoperative pain but length of hospital stay was shorter and analgesic administration in the hospital was used less frequently, providing potential hospital cost savings and reduced use of health care resources.

Intra-articular steroid hip injection for osteoarthritis: a survey of orthopedic surgeons in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: Intra-articular steroid hip injection (IASHI) has been prescribed for painful hip arthritis since the 1950s, but with advances in medical and surgical management its role is less certain today. There are very few published data on the utility or prescribing patterns of IASHI. METHODS: We developed a questionnaire to seek expert opinion on IASHI that we distributed to practising Ontario-based members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association. We systematically describe the current practices and expert opinion of 99 hip surgeons (73% response rate), focusing on indications, current use and complications experienced with IASHI. RESULTS: Only 56% of surgeons felt that IASHI was therapeutically useful, with 72% of surgeons estimating that 60% or less of their patients achieved even transient benefit from IASHI. One-quarter of the surgeons believe that IASHI accelerates arthritis progression, most of whom had stated that it would be no great loss if IASHI was no longer available. Nineteen percent of the surgeons believed that the infection rate related to total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be increased after IASHI, and this was associated with fewer IASHIs ordered per year, compared with the number prescribed by those who did not feel that infection rates would increase. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic collection of expert opinions demonstrates that substantial numbers of surgeons felt that, in their patients, IASHI was not therapeutically helpful, may accelerate arthritis progression or may cause increased infectious complications after subsequent THA.