Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical outcomes that resulted from the use of a new proposed VTE risk stratification protocol for selecting a suitable extended VTE prophylaxis for post TKR surgery patients administered in conjunction with patient education programs.
Method: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in two medical centers in Saudi Arabia. A total of 242 patients were enrolled in the study, 121 patients in each group. The experimental group (A) was assessed by using the proposed VTE risk stratification protocol and also took part in patient education programs about TKR and its complications. The control group (B) was assessed by using the 2005 Caprini risk assessment tool and no education programs were given to this group. Both groups were followed for 35 days post operation.
Results: The mean age of the participants was 65.86 (SD 8.67) and the majority of them were female 137 (56.6%). The mean body mass index of the study sample was 32.46 (SD 5.51). There were no significant differences between the two groups except for surgery type; the proportion of bilateral TKR in group A was higher than in group B (69/121 (28.5%) vs. 40/121(16.5%), p<0.05). There were no confirmed pulmonary embolism cases in the study sample and diagnosis of deep-vein thrombosis was confirmed in 12/242 (5.0%) of patients: 1/121 (0.8%) in group A and 11/121 (9.1%) in group B (p<0.05). The readmission rate for all patients was 2.5% (6/242), all of whom were in group B (p<0.05).
Conclusion: The proposed VTE risk stratification protocol that was applied in conjunction with patient education programs reduced VTE complications and readmission events, post TKR surgery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier: NCT04031859.
METHODS: Orthopaedic surgeons nationwide were invited through email and text messages to answer an online self-administered questionnaire collecting demographic information, COVID-19 exposure experience, perception of risk, and impact on orthopaedic practice.
RESULTS: Of the respondents, 4.7% and 14.0% were involved in frontline treatment for COVID-19 patients with non-orthopaedic and orthopaedic problem, respectively. Respondents working in Ministry of Health had highest percentage of involvement as frontliner, 7.8% (8/103) and 20.4% (21/103) for non-orthopaedic and orthopaedic related COVID-19 treatment, respectively (not significant). Their main concern was an infection of family members (125/235, 53.2%). Majority of respondents were still working (223/235, 94.9%), running outpatient clinics (168/223, 75.3%), and continued with their semi-emergency (190/223, 85.2%) and emergency surgeries (213/223, 95.5%). Of the surgeons, 11.2% (25/223) did not screen their patients for COVID-19 prior to elective surgeries, 30.9% (69/223) did not have any training on proper handling of personal protective equipment (PPE), 84.8% (189/223) make decision to manage more conservatively due to COVID-19 and 61.9% (138/223) had their income affected. Of the surgeons, 19.3% (43/223) started using telehealth facilities.
CONCLUSION: Direct exposure to treatment of COVID-19 patients among the respondent is low and the main concern was infecting their family member. There are still several surgeons who did not conduct preoperative COVID-19 screening and practice without proper PPE training.
METHODS: Literature search was performed to identify all level I and II studies reporting the clinical and structural outcome of any ACI generation in human knees using the following medical electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and NICE healthcare database. The level of evidence, sample size calculation and risk of bias were determined for all included studies to enable quality assessment.
RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in the analysis, reporting on a total of 1094 patients. Of the 20 studies, 13 compared ACI with other treatment modalities, seven compared different ACI cell delivery methods, and one compared different cell source for implantation. Studies included were heterogeneous in baseline design, preventing meta-analysis. Data showed a trend towards similar outcomes when comparing ACI generations with other repair techniques and when comparing different cell delivery methods and cell source selection. Majority of the studies (80 %) were level II evidence, and overall the quality of studies can be rated as average to low, with the absence of power analysis in 65 % studies.
CONCLUSION: At present, there are insufficient data to conclude any superiority of ACI techniques. Considering its two-stage operation and cost, it may be appropriate to reserve ACI for patients with larger defects or those who have had inadequate response to other repair procedures until hard evidence enables specific clinical recommendations be made.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.