Effectiveness of oral versus intravenous tranexamic acid in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty: a randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces rates of blood transfusion for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Although the use of oral TXA rather than intravenous (i.v.) TXA might improve safety and reduce cost, it is not clear whether oral administration is as effective. METHODS: This noninferiority trial randomly assigned consecutive patients undergoing primary THA or TKA under neuraxial anaesthesia to either one preoperative dose of oral TXA or one preoperative dose of i.v. TXA. The primary outcome was calculated blood loss on postoperative day 1. Secondary outcomes were transfusions and complications within 30 days of surgery. RESULTS: Four hundred participants were randomised (200 THA and 200 TKA). The final analysis included 196 THA patients (98 oral, 98 i.v.) and 191 TKA patients (93 oral, 98 i.v.). Oral TXA was non-inferior to i.v. TXA in terms of calculated blood loss for both THA (effect size=-18.2 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -113 to 76.3; P<0.001) and TKA (effect size=-79.7 ml; 95% CI, -178.9 to 19.6; P<0.001). One patient in the i.v. TXA group received a postoperative transfusion. Complication rates were similar between the two groups (5/191 [2.6%] oral vs 5/196 [2.6%] i.v.; P=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Oral TXA can be administered in the preoperative setting before THA or TKA and performs similarly to i.v. TXA with respect to blood loss and transfusion rates. Switching from i.v. to oral TXA in this setting has the potential to improve patient safety and decrease costs.

Three-Column Spine Fracture After Direct Anterior Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Case Report.

CASE: This report describes a case of an unstable spine fracture in the setting of severe degenerative disc disease in a patient who underwent a direct anterior total hip arthroplasty (THA). The patient was positioned supine on a standard operating room table and postoperatively complained of back pain and neurologic deficits. Advanced imaging identified a T12-L1 extension-distraction injury, and the patient ultimately required surgical decompression and spinal fusion. CONCLUSION: This case outlines a serious complication of THA that can occur in patients with degenerative spine disease and highlights the importance of taking precautions to reduce stress on the spine during surgery.

Evaluating Alternate Registration Planes for Imageless, Computer-Assisted Navigation During Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Imageless computer navigation improves component placement accuracy in total hip arthroplasty (THA), but variations in the registration process are known to impact final accuracy measurements. We sought to evaluate the registration accuracy of an imageless navigation device during THA performed in the lateral decubitus position. METHODS: A prospective, observational study of 94 patients undergoing a primary THA with imageless navigation assistance was conducted. Patient position was registered using 4 planes of reference: the patient's coronal plane (standard method), the long axis of the surgical table (longitudinal plane), the lumbosacral spine (lumbosacral plane), and the plane intersecting the greater trochanter and glenoid fossa (hip-shoulder plane). Navigation measurements of cup position for each plane were compared to measurements from postoperative radiographs. RESULTS: Mean inclination from radiographs (41.5° ± 5.6°) did not differ significantly from inclination using the coronal plane (40.9° ± 3.9°, P = .39), the hip-shoulder plane (42.4° ± 4.7°, P = .26), or the longitudinal plane (41.2° ± 4.3°, P = .66). Inclination measured using the lumbosacral plane (45.8° ± 4.3°) differed significantly from radiographic measurements (P < .0001). Anteversion measured from radiographs (mean: 26.1° ± 5.4°) did not differ significantly from the hip-shoulder plane (26.6° ± 5.2°, P = .50). All other planes differed significantly from radiographs: coronal (22.6° ± 6.8°, P = .001), lumbosacral (32.5° ± 6.4°, P < .0001), and longitudinal (23.7° ± 5.2°, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Patient registration using any plane approximating the long axis of the body provided a frame of reference that accurately measured intraoperative cup position. Registration using a plane approximating the hip-shoulder axis, however, provided the most accurate and consistent measurement of acetabular component position.