Oral Hydration Before and After Hip Replacement: The Notion Behind Every Action.

Introduction: Even though nearly 20 patients undergo hip replacement every hour just in Italy and the United Kingdom, it is unclear what are the most appropriate oral hydration practices that patients should follow before and after surgery. Improper administration can cause postoperative fluid disturbances or exacerbate pre-existing conditions, which are not an uncommon find in older subjects. Significance: Considering that the number of hip operations is expected to increase in the next years as well as the age of patients, it is important to recall the notions behind water balance, especially in light of modern surgical and anesthetic practices. This technical perspective discusses the perioperative changes in the hydration status that occur during hip replacement and provides the concepts that help clinicians to better manage how much water the patient can drink. Results: The points of view of the surgeon, the anesthetist, and the nurse are offered together with the description of mineral waters intended for human consumption. Before surgery, water should be always preferred over caffeinated, sugar-sweetened, and alcoholic beverages. The drinking requirements on the day of surgery should consider the water output from urine, feces, respiration, exudation, and bleeding along with the water input from metabolic production and intravenous administration of fluids and medications. Healthy eating habits provide water and should be promoted before and after surgery. Conclusions: The judgment on which is the most appropriate approach to oral hydration practices must be the responsibility of the multidisciplinary perioperative team. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to argue that, in the presence of a patient with no relevant illness and who follows a healthy diet, it is more appropriate to stay closer to dehydration than liberalizing water intake both prior to surgery and in the early postoperative hours until the resumption of normal physiological functions.

Early results of fixed-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement designed for the lateral compartment.

BACKGROUND: Isolated lateral compartment knee arthritis is less prevalent than medial. While the reported results of medial unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) have been good and comparable to total knee replacement, the results of lateral UKR have been mixed. We present the short-term results and survivorship of a fixed-bearing UKR designed specifically for the lateral compartment. METHODS: We report the result of 130 primary fixed-bearing lateral Oxford (FLO) UKRs (123 patients) performed between 2015 and 2019 with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. The indications for lateral UKR were: isolated lateral osteoarthritis (n = 122), post-trauma (n = 5) and osteonecrosis (n = 3). The mean age was 69.1 (± 11.6), mean BMI 28.4 (± 4.9), 66.9% female, 60% right-sided, and mean follow-up 3 (range 1-4.8 years, standard deviation ± 1) years. The primary outcome measure was the Oxford knee score (OKS). Survival analysis was performed with "revision for any reason", "reoperation", and "implant failure" as the endpoints. RESULTS: Six patients died from unrelated reasons. None of the implants failed. One required the addition of a medial UKR for medial arthritis. There were no other reoperations. At 4 years, the survival for implant failure was 100% and for both revision and all reoperations was 99.5% (95% CI 96.7-99.9%). At the last review, at a mean of 3 years, the mean Oxford knee score was 41. CONCLUSION: The good survivorship and outcome scores suggest that UKR designed for the lateral compartment is an excellent alternative to total knee replacement in selected patients with isolated lateral tibiofemoral arthritis at short-term follow-up.

High mortality following revision hip arthroplasty for periprosthetic femoral fracture.

AIMS: To determine mortality risk after first revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF), and to compare this to mortality risk after primary and first revision THA for other common indications. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of THAs recorded in the National Joint Registry between 2003 and 2015, linked to national mortality data. First revision THAs for PFF, infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening were identified. We used a flexible parametric model to estimate the cumulative incidence function of death at 90 days, one year, and five years following first revision THA and primary THA, in the presence of further revision as a competing risk. Analysis covariates were age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. RESULTS: A total of 675,078 primary and 74,223 first revision THAs were included (of which 6,131 were performed for PFF). Following revision for PFF, mortality ranged from 9% at 90 days, 21% at one year, and 60% at five years in the highest risk group (males, ≥ 75 years, ASA ≥ 3) to 0.6%, 1.4%, and 5.5%, respectively, for the lowest risk group (females, < 75 years, ASA ≤ 2). Mortality was greater in all groups following first revision THA for PFF than for primary THA. Compared to mortality risk after first revision THA for infection, dislocation, or aseptic loosening, revision for PFF was associated with higher five-year mortality in all groups except males < 75 years with an ASA ≤ 2. CONCLUSION: Mortality risk after revision THA for PFF is high, reaching 60% at five years in the highest risk patient group. In comparison to other common indications for revision, PFF demonstrated the highest overall risk of mortality at five years. These estimates can be used in the surgical decision-making process and when counselling patients and carers regarding surgical risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1670-1674.

Patient relevant outcomes of unicompartmental versus total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To present a clear and comprehensive summary of the published data on unicompartmental knee replacement (UKA) or total knee replacement (TKA), comparing domains of outcome that have been shown to be important to patients and clinicians to allow informed decision making. DESIGN: Systematic review using data from randomised controlled trials, nationwide databases or joint registries, and large cohort studies. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinical Trials.gov, searched between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies published in the past 20 years, comparing outcomes of primary UKA with TKA in adult patients. Studies were excluded if they involved fewer than 50 participants, or if translation into English was not available. RESULTS: 60 eligible studies were separated into three methodological groups: seven publications from six randomised controlled trials, 17 national joint registries and national database studies, and 36 cohort studies. Results for each domain of outcome varied depending on the level of data, and findings were not always significant. Analysis of the three groups of studies showed significantly shorter hospital stays after UKA than after TKA (-1.20 days (95% confidence interval -1.67 to -0.73), -1.43 (-1.53 to -1.33), and -1.73 (-2.30 to -1.16), respectively). There was no significant difference in pain, based on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), but significantly better functional PROM scores for UKA than for TKA in both non-trial groups (mean difference -0.58 (-0.88 to -0.27) and -0.32 (-0.48 to -0.15), respectively). Regarding major complications, trials and cohort studies had non-significant results, but mortality after TKA was significantly higher in registry and large database studies (risk ratio 0.27 (0.16 to 0.45)), as were venous thromboembolic events (0.39 (0.27 to 0.57)) and major cardiac events (0.22 (0.06 to 0.86)). Early reoperation for any reason was higher after TKA than after UKA, but revision rates at five years remained higher for UKA in all three study groups (risk ratio 5.95 (1.29 to 27.59), 2.50 (1.77 to 3.54), and 3.13 (1.89 to 5.17), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: TKA and UKA are both viable options for the treatment of isolated unicompartmental osteoarthritis. By directly comparing the two treatments, this study demonstrates better results for UKA in several outcome domains. However, the risk of revision surgery was lower for TKA. This information should be available to patients as part of the shared decision making process in choosing treatment options. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42018089972.

Intron retention is regulated by altered MeCP2-mediated splicing factor recruitment.

While intron retention (IR) is considered a widely conserved and distinct mechanism of gene expression control, its regulation is poorly understood. Here we show that DNA methylation directly regulates IR. We also find reduced occupancy of MeCP2 near the splice junctions of retained introns, mirroring the reduced DNA methylation at these sites. Accordingly, MeCP2 depletion in tissues and cells enhances IR. By analysing the MeCP2 interactome using mass spectrometry and RNA co-precipitation, we demonstrate that decreased MeCP2 binding near splice junctions facilitates IR via reduced recruitment of splicing factors, including Tra2b, and increased RNA polymerase II stalling. These results suggest an association between IR and a slower rate of transcription elongation, which reflects inefficient splicing factor recruitment. In summary, our results reinforce the interdependency between alternative splicing involving IR and epigenetic controls of gene expression.