Are cementation quality and clinical outcomes affected by the use of tourniquet in primary total knee arthroplasty?

Impact of tourniquet use in total knee arthroplasty on functional recovery and postoperative pain: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Tourniquet use during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. The purpose of this study is to determine the impact of tourniquet use only during cementation compared with its use throughout the entire surgery concerning early outcomes in functional recovery, pain, quadriceps function, and rehabilitation.

METHODS

Between November 2019 and March 2020, 118 patients were enrolled in this study, with 59 patients undergoing TKA with a tourniquet during the entire surgery (group 1) and 59 patients with a tourniquet only during cementation (group 2). Twenty-eight patients were unable to complete follow-up leaving fifty in group 1 and forty in group 2. Primary endpoints were surgical time, postoperative knee and thigh pain, and functional recovery. Secondary endpoints were 6-month clinical scores and blood loss.

RESULTS

Patients in group 1 had statistically significantly increased knee pain on postoperative day 3 (p = 0.004), and thigh pain on postoperative day 1 (p < 0.001), 2 (p < 0.001), and 3 (p = 0.027), and longer time intervals to achieve straight leg raise maneuver (p = 0.006) compared to group 2. However, it did not affect overall narcotic consumption, knee pain (day 1-2), functional recovery, ROM, ability to do the first walk, Oxford knee score, length of stay, and complication rate. There was no statistically significant difference in terms of 6-month postoperative knee score, surgical time, and blood loss between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Tourniquet use diminishes quadriceps function and increases postoperative thigh pain and, to a lesser extent, knee pain. We, therefore, recommend the use of a tourniquet only during cementing.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

1; prospective randomized study.

Tibial implant design in primary TKA: retrospective comparison of two designs for the occurrence of radiolucent lines and aseptic loosening

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this retrospective study was to study the effect of tibial implant design on the occurrence of radiolucent lines (RLLs) and aseptic loosening (AL) by comparing two different total knee arthroplasty (TKA) designs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two types of total knee arthroplasty, different for tibial shape, size and keel design were compared, 255 for the first and 774 for the second. The occurrence of RLLs and radiological signs of micro- and macro-mobility and aseptic loosening was analyzed. Demographic data were compared, as well as the type and rate of RLLs, occurrence of aseptic loosening and the presence of potential risk factors.

RESULTS

The first implant design is morphometric and has a squarer keel than the second implant TKA. The overall rate of RLLs was similar (21% vs 23%), despite of a significantly lower rates of radiological signs of macro-mobility of the tibial component with the first implant (2% vs 17%). Survivorship of both designs was overall comparable (99.6% vs 98.8 %) the first implant group had more potential risk factors for poor bone quality than the second group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

A morphometric design is more anatomic and offers better bone coverage of the epiphyseal tibial surface. RLLs, as a sign of implant micro-mobility, were equally present in both designs. Radiological signs of macro-mobility at the metaphysis were less frequently observed in squared keel design. The morphometric implant did not show improved survivorship compared with a symmetric implant.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

The effects of tourniquet on cement penetration in total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

Aseptic loosening is a common cause of implant failure following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Cement penetration depth is a known factor that determines an implant's "strength" and plays an important role in preventing aseptic loosening. Tourniquet use is thought to facilitate cement penetration, but its use has mixed reviews. The aim of this study was to compare cement penetration depth between tourniquet and tourniquet-less TKA patients.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective review was conducted. Patients were randomized preoperatively to undergo TKA with or without the use of an intraoperative tourniquet. The variables collected were cement penetration measurements in millimeters (mm) within a 1-month post-operative period, length of stay (LOS), and baseline demographics. Measurements were taken by two independent raters and made in accordance to the zones described by the Knee Society Radiographic Evaluation System and methodology used in previous studies.

RESULTS

A total of 357 TKA patients were studied. No demographic differences were found between tourniquet (n = 189) and tourniquet-less (n = 168) cohorts. However, the tourniquet cohort had statistically, but not clinically, greater average cement penetration depth [2.4 ± 0.6 mm (range 1.2-4.1 mm) vs. 2.2 ± 0.5 mm (range 1.0-4.3 mm, p = 0.01)]. Moreover, the tourniquet cohort had a significantly greater proportion of patients with an average penetration depth within the accepted zone of 2 mm or greater (78.9% vs. 67.3%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Tourniquet use does not affect average penetration depth but increases the likelihood of achieving optimal cement penetration depth. Further study is warranted to determine whether this increased likelihood of optimal cement penetration depth yields lower revision rates.