A Randomized Controlled Study on the Use of Tourniquet in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

Background The use and the optimal timing of tourniquet during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is controversial. Most previous studies failed to show clinically significant differences in different strategies. The aim of this study was to determine how three strategies of tourniquet application affect the outcome in TKA patients. Methods This was a prospective randomized controlled study. Patients who undergo TKA were randomized into one of the three groups (1:1:1 ratio): tourniquet inflated from skin incision to cement hardening, tourniquet from cement application to hardening, and tourniquet from skin incision to skin closure. The perioperative blood loss, limb swelling, and complications were recorded. The level of hemoglobin, hematocrit, C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin (IL)-6, creatine kinase (CK), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) were determined. Patients' thigh and TKA wound pain, Knee Society knee score (KSKS) and Knee Society functional assessment (KSFA) scores, and rehabilitation parameters were evaluated. Results A total of 90 patients were enrolled. The baseline characteristics were comparable. We only found significant difference in the intraoperative blood loss (skin to cement: 58.7 ± 36.1 mL, cement-only: 147.8 ± 107.9 mL, skin to skin: 16.3 ± 13.1 mL, p < 0.0001). There were no statistical differences in postoperative drainage, thigh/knee circumference, change of hemoglobin/hematocrit, CRP, IL-6, CK, and LDH on day 1 to day 4 after surgery. The thigh/TKA wound Visual Analogue Scale scores, KSKS score, KSFA score, and rehabilitation parameters were not significantly different at up to 6-month follow-up. No thromboembolic events were noted. Conclusion Our results revealed that there was no best tourniquet strategy in TKA. Different tourniquet methods can be utilized based on surgeon preference without affecting outcomes.

Cefazolin remains the linchpin for preventing acute periprosthetic joint infection following primary total knee arthroplasty

Aims Despite recent literature questioning their use, vancomycin and clindamycin often substitute cefazolin as the preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), especially in the setting of documented allergy to penicillin. Topical povidone-iodine lavage and vancomycin powder (VIP) are adjuncts that may further broaden antimicrobial coverage, and have shown some promise in recent investigations. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to compare the risk of acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary TKA patients who received cefazolin and VIP to those who received a non-cephalosporin alternative and VIP. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of 11,550 primary TKAs performed at an orthopaedic hospital between 2013 and 2019. The primary outcome was PJI occurring within 90 days of surgery. Patients were stratified into two groups (cefazolin vs non-cephalosporin) based on their preoperative antibiotic. All patients also received the VIP protocol at wound closure. Bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to control for potential confounders and identify the odds ratio of PJI. Results In all, 10,484 knees (90.8%) received cefazolin, while 1,066 knees (9.2%) received a non-cephalosporin agent (either vancomycin or clindamycin) as preoperative prophylaxis. The rate of PJI in the cefazolin group (0.5%; 48/10,484) was significantly lower than the rate of PJI in the non-cephalosporin group (1.0%; 11/1,066) (p = 0.012). After controlling for confounding variables, the odds ratio (OR) of developing a PJI was increased in the non-cephalosporin cohort compared to the cefazolin cohort (OR 2.389; 1.2 to 4.6); p = 0.01). Conclusion Despite the use of topical irrigant solutions and addition of local antimicrobial agents, the use of a non-cephalosporin perioperative antibiotic continues to be associated with a greater risk of TKA PJI compared to cefazolin. Strategies that increase the proportion of patients receiving cefazolin rather than non-cephalosporin alternatives must be emphasized. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):35–41.