Drain use in total knee arthroplasty is neither associated with a greater transfusion rate nor a longer hospital stay.

PURPOSE: In recent years, the exclusion of a drain in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is gaining popularity. This retrospective study aims to investigate a tertiary hospital's experience with the use of a drain in TKA. The authors hypothesise that the use of a drain will: (1) increase the peri-operative total blood loss (TBL) and transfusion rate; (2) increase the length of hospital stay (LOS); (3) reduce the 30-day readmission rate and incidence of additional surgical procedure performed. METHODS: Patients who underwent a unilateral primary TKA in 2012 were included. Seven surgeons performed 575 TKAs with the use of drains, while nine other surgeons performed 902 TKAs without the use of drains. The patients were prospectively followed-up for two years. Peri-operative TBL was calculated using the haemoglobin balance method. All patients followed the hospital's transfusion and post-operative rehabilitation protocol. RESULTS: There was a bigger drop in haemoglobin level by 0.5 g/dl (95 % CI, 0.4, 0.6) and greater TBL by 169 ml (95 % CI, 126, 181) in the drain group (both p < 0.001). However, the transfusion rate was 37/575 (6.4 %) and 48/902 (5.3 %) in the drain and no drain groups respectively (p = 0.370), while the LOS was four (IQR, 4, 5) and four (IQR 3, 5) days respectively (p = 0.228). The 30-day readmission rate was 10/575 (1.7 %) in the drain group, compared with 26/902 (2.9 %) in the no-drain group (p = 0.165). The incidence of additional surgical procedure performed was 5/575 (0.9 %) in the drain group, compared with 15/902 (1.7 %) in the no-drain group (p = 0.198). CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of a drain in TKA is associated with greater peri-operative TBL, this additional amount of blood loss does not translate into an increased transfusion rate or a longer LOS. It also does not reduce the 30-day readmission rate and incidence of additional surgical procedure performed on the same knee.

Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference on the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Shoulder Instability.

BACKGROUND: The literature on minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for patient-reported outcome measures assessing shoulder instability is limited, with none addressing the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS). The OSIS was developed to provide a standardized method for assessing shoulder function after surgery for shoulder instability, and previous studies have demonstrated its high reliability, low interrater variability, and ease of administration. PURPOSE: To identify the MCID for the OSIS after arthroscopic Bankart repair for recurrent shoulder instability. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A longitudinally maintained institutional registry was queried for patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair from 2010 to 2016 for recurrent shoulder instability secondary to a Bankart lesion without significant glenoid bone loss. The OSIS was completed preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively. Patients were categorized into "expectations met" and "expectations unmet" groups using a questionnaire evaluating expectation fulfilment. The MCID of the OSIS at 1 year was calculated using 3 anchor-based approaches and a distribution-based approach. The 3 anchor-based approaches comprised (1) simple linear regression analysis, (2) receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and (3) calculation of mean differences in change for the OSIS between the "expectations met" and "expectations unmet" groups. RESULTS: The study cohort comprised 68 men and 11 women aged 29.9 ± 12.7 years (mean ± SD). Duration of follow-up for all patients exceeded 1 year. The MCIDs for the OSIS based on the 4 calculation approaches yielded a narrow range of values, ranging from 7.7 to 8.5 for the anchor-based methods and 8.6 for the distribution-based method. CONCLUSION: Study results indicated that patients with recurrent shoulder instability without significant bone loss who undergo primary arthroscopic Bankart repair and have at least 8.6 points of improvement on their OSIS experience a clinically significant change at 1 year postoperatively.

What is the optimal surgical intervention for patients with frozen shoulder and a concomitant partial-thickness rotator cuff tear?

BACKGROUND: Patients with recalcitrant frozen shoulder traditionally undergo arthroscopic capsular release. Some patients may have a concomitant partial-thickness rotator cuff tear (PTT). There is limited evidence if these PTT require repair at the same setting. We aim to compare if patients undergoing concomitant rotator cuff repair do better than patients undergoing capsular release alone. Secondarily, we aim to determine if outcomes after arthroscopic capsular release differ for patients with and without PTT. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with frozen shoulders undergoing arthroscopic capsular release between 2012 and 2016 was performed. Patients with partial-thickness tears and patients without rotator cuff tears were included. Clinical outcomes were collected preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12 months after operation. RESULTS: There were 33 patients with PTT-15 underwent capsular release without repair (CR group), whereas 18 underwent capsular release with rotator cuff repair (RCR group). A total of 62 control patients without rotator cuff tears (No Tear) underwent arthroscopic capsular release only. For patients with PTT, there were no significant differences in preoperative demographics and function between the CR and RCR group. The CR group had significantly worse preoperative pain. At 1-year follow-up, the RCR group had significantly better internal rotation, lesser pain, and better function than the CR group. For patients undergoing capsular release only, the No Tear group had better internal rotation, lesser pain, and better function at 1 year compared with the CR group. CONCLUSION: Patients with a stiff, frozen shoulder and concomitant PTT do benefit from arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with capsular release. The benefit is evident at 1-year follow-up.

Subchondroplasty for Bone Marrow Lesions in the Arthritic Knee Results in Pain Relief and Improvement in Function.

Subchondroplasty is a relatively new joint preserving procedure, which involves the localized injection of calcium pyrophosphate bone substitute into the bone marrow lesion. The advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has greatly facilitated the identification of these bone marrow lesions. We investigated the clinical efficacy of subchondroplasty in the treatment of symptomatic bone marrow lesions in the knee, including knees with preexisting osteoarthritis. This study comprised of 12 patients whose knees were evaluated with standard radiographs and MRI to identify and localize the bone marrow lesions. They then underwent subchondroplasty under intraoperative radiographic guidance. Preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, and Knee Injury and Arthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) were obtained. VAS scores improved significantly from 7.5 ± 1.8 before surgery to 5.2 ± 2.7 after surgery. This further improved to 2.1 ± 2.4 at the one-year follow-up. KOOS scores improved significantly from 38.5 ± 17.0 before surgery to 73.2 ± 19.0 at the one-year follow-up. WOMAC scores improved significantly from 47.8 ± 20.5 before surgery to 14.3 ± 13.2 at the one-year follow-up. Subchondroplasty offers an effective way to treat subchondral bone marrow lesions in the arthritic knee, resulting in improvement in symptoms and early return to activity. Long-term studies are required to evaluate if these benefits can last. This is a Level II study.

Arthroscopic undersurface rotator cuff repair versus conventional arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair - Comparable results at 2-year follow-up.

AIM: The aim of our study is to compare the improvement in clinical outcomes after conventional arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair and arthroscopic undersurface rotator cuff repair. METHOD: A consecutive series of 120 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was analysed. Sixty-one patients underwent conventional double-row rotator cuff repair and 59 patients underwent undersurface rotator cuff repair. Several clinical outcomes, including numerical pain rating scale (NPRS), constant shoulder score (CSS), Oxford shoulder score (OSS) and University of California Los Angeles shoulder score (UCLASS), were prospectively recorded by a trained healthcare professional preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. RESULT: Comparing both groups, there were no differences in age, gender and preoperative NPRS, CSS, OSS and UCLASS. However, the tear size was 0.7 ± 0.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3-1.1) cm larger in the conventional group ( p = 0.002). There was no difference in the improvement of NPRS, CSS, OSS and UCLASS at all time points of follow-up, that is, at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. The duration of operation was shorter by 35 ± 3 (95% CI 28-42) min in the undersurface group ( p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both arthroscopic undersurface rotator cuff repair and conventional arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair showed marked improvements in clinical scores when compared preoperatively, and there was no difference in improvements between both groups. Arthroscopic undersurface rotator cuff repair is a faster technique compared to the conventional arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair.