METHODS: This is a nationwide retrospective audit on the documentation of Dabigatran Prescribing and Dispensing Checklist for a period of two years from January 2013 till December 2014. Data from these Dabigatran Checklists (indication, dose, duration, renal function and adverse drug reactions encountered) were extracted by the pharmacist at MOH healthcare facilities.
RESULTS: A total of 52 out of 56 (92.9%) of MOH facilities complied to usage of checklist at their centres involving a total of 582 patients of which 569 (97.7%) patients were initiated on dabigatran for the approved indications. The recommended dose of dabigatran was used correctly in 501 (99.6%) of patients. Reason for switching to DOACs use was only documented in 76.7% (131/171) of patients. The most common reason for switching from warfarin was poor INR control (n=39), history of bleeding/overwarfarinisation (n=22) and unable to attend regular INR clinic (n=21). There were 75 cases of adverse events reported. The most common adverse event reported were abdominal discomfort (n=10) followed by gum bleeding (n=9) and dizziness (n=5).
CONCLUSIONS: Compliance to the dabigatran check list was high with 70% of patients prescribed the appropriate dosing.
Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction using anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We hypothesized that the outcomes of low tibial tunnel placement would be superior to those of anatomic tibial tunnel placement at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction.
Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data for patients who underwent remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction between March 2011 and January 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (N = 63). On the basis of the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, the patients were divided into those with anatomic placement (group A; n = 31) and those with low tunnel placement (group L; n = 32). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity level), range of motion, complications, and stability test outcomes at follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. Graft signal on 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans was compared between 22 patients in group A and 17 patients in group L.
Results: There were no significant differences between groups regarding clinical scores or incidence of complications, no between-group differences in posterior drawer test results, and no side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs (5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A vs 5.1 ± 2.8 mm in group L; P = .900). Postoperative 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans showed excellent graft healing in both groups, with no significant difference between them.
Conclusion: The clinical and radiologic outcomes and complication rate were comparable between anatomic tunnel placement and low tibial tunnel placement at 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that both tibial tunnel positions are clinically feasible for remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction.