Efficacy and safety of limb position on blood loss and range of motion after total knee arthroplasty without tourniquet: A randomized clinical trial

Effects of tourniquet on surgical site wound infection and pain after total knee arthroplasty: A meta-analysis

The application of a tourniquet (TNQ) for haemostasis in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is controversial and lacking systematic evaluation. This meta-analysis assessed relevant international data to quantitatively evaluate the implications of using TNQ in TKA, further guide clinical diagnosis and treatment, and improve postoperative outcomes. A comprehensive computerised search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, and Wanfang databases was conducted to retrieve randomised controlled trials on the application of TNQ in TKA published from database inception to August 2023. The included data, ultimately comprising 1482 patients in 16 studies, were collated and subjected to meta-analysis using Stata 17.0 software. The results showed that the use of TNQ during TKA led to significantly higher rates of postoperative surgical site wound infection (3.96% vs. 1.79%, odds ratio: 2.15, 95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 1.11-4.16, p = 0.023) and wound pain scores on the first (standardised mean difference [SMD]: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.35-0.94, p < 0.001), second (SMD: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.01-1.31, p = 0.045), and third (SMD: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.31-1.05, pP < 0.001) day after the procedure. In conclusion, the application of TNQ in TKA increases the risk of postoperative surgical site wound infection and worsens short-term postoperative wound pain; therefore, TNQ should be used sparingly during TKA, or its use should be decided in conjunction with the relevant clinical indications and the surgeon's experience.

The Fragility of Tourniquet Use in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Physicians utilize P-values to interpret clinical trial data and guide patient-care decisions. Fragility analysis assesses the stability of statistical findings in relation to outcome event reversals. This study assessed the statistical fragility of recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating tourniquet use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

We queried PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for RCTs comparing outcomes in TKA based on tourniquet use. Fragility index (FI) and reverse fragility index (reverse FI) were calculated - for significant and nonsignificant outcomes, respectively - as the number of outcome reversals required to change statistical significance. The fragility quotient (FQ) was calculated by dividing the FI or reverse FI by the sample size. Median overall FI and FQ were calculated for all included outcomes, and sub-analyses were performed by reported significance. The literature search yielded 23 studies reporting 91 total dichotomous outcomes.

RESULTS

Overall median FI was 4 with an interquartile range (IQR) of 3 to 6. Overall median FQ was 0.0476 (IQR 0.0291 to 0.0867). A total of 11 outcomes were statistically significant with a median FI and FQ of 2 (IQR 1.5 to 5) and 0.0200 (IQR 0.0148 to 0.0484), respectively. There were 80 outcomes that were nonsignificant with a median reverse FI of 4 (IQR 3 to 6). Loss to follow-up was greater than the median FI in 17.6% of outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Altering a small number of outcomes is often sufficient to reverse findings in RCTs evaluating tourniquet use in TKA. We recommend including fragility analyses to increase reliability in the interpretation of study conclusions.

Tourniquet use in total knee arthroplasty and the risk of infection: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Purpose

The intra-operative use of tourniquets during Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) is common practice. The advantages of tourniquet use include decreased operating time and the creation of a bloodless visualisation field. However, tourniquet use has recently been linked with increased post-operative pain, reduced range of motion, and slower functional recovery. Importantly, there is limited evidence of the effect of tourniquet use on infection risk. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to fill this gap in the literature by synthesising data pertaining to the association between tourniquet use and infection risk in TKA.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed on Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov up to May 2021. Randomized control trials were included, comparing TKA outcomes with and without tourniquet use. The primary outcome was overall infection rate. Secondary outcomes included superficial and deep infection, skin necrosis, skin blistering, DVT rate, and transfusion rate.

Results

14 RCTs with 1329 patients were included. The pooled incidence of infection in the tourniquet group (4.0%, 95% CI = 2.7–5.4) was significantly higher compared to the non-tourniquet group (2.0%, 95% CI = 1.1–3.1) with an OR of 1.9 (95% CI = 1.1–3.76, p = 0.03). The length of hospital stay, haemoglobin drop (0.33 95% CI =0.12–0.54), P = 0.002) and transfusion rates (OR of 2.7, 95%CI = 1.4–5.3, P = < 0.01) were higher in the tourniquet group than the non-tourniquet group. The difference in the length of inhospital stay was 0.24 days favouring the non-tourniquet group (95% CI = 0.10–0.38, P = < 0.01). The incidence of skin blistering (OR 2.6, 95% CI = 0.7–9.9, p = 0.17), skin necrosis (OR 3.0, 95% CI = 0.50–19.3, p = 0.25), and DVT rates (OR 1.5, 95% CI = 0.60–3.60, p = 0.36) did not differ between the two groups.

Conclusion

Quantitative synthesis of the data suggested tourniquet use was associated with an increased overall risk of infection, intraoperative blood loss, need for blood transfusion and longer hospital stay. Findings of this meta-analysis do not support the routine use of tourniquet in TKA and arthroplasty surgeons should consider any potential additional risks associated with its use.

Level of evidence

meta-analysis, Level II.

Association of Use of Tourniquets During Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Elderly Patients With Post-operative Pain and Return to Function

Objective

During total knee arthroplasty (TKA), tourniquet may negatively impact post-operative functional recovery. This study aimed at investigating the effects of tourniquet on pain and return to function.

Methods

Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to February 15th, 2020. Search terms included; total knee arthroplasty, tourniquet, and randomized controlled trial. RCTs evaluating the efficacies of tourniquet during and after operation were selected. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Effect estimates with 95% CIs were pooled using the random-effects model. Dichotomous data were calculated as relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Mean differences (MD) with 95% CI were used to measure the impact of consecutive results. Primary outcomes were the range of motion (ROM) and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores.

Results

Thirty-three RCTs involving a total of 2,393 patients were included in this study. The mean age is 65.58 years old. Compared to no tourniquet group, the use of a tourniquet resulted in suppressed ROM on the 3rd post-operative day [MD, −4.67; (95% CI, −8.00 to −1.35)] and the 1st post-operative month [MD, −3.18; (95% CI, −5.92 to −0.44)]. Pain increased significantly when using tourniquets on the third day after surgery [MD, 0.39; (95% CI, −0.19 to 0.59)]. Moreover, tourniquets can reduce intra-operative blood loss [MD, −127.67; (95% CI, −186.83 to −68.50)], shorter operation time [MD, −3.73; (95% CI, −5.98 to −1.48)], lower transfusion rate [RR, 0.85; (95% CI, 0.73–1.00)], higher superficial wound infection rates RR, 2.43; [(5% CI, 1.04–5.67)] and higher all complication rates [RR, 1.98; (95% CI, 1.22–3.22)].

Conclusion

Moderate certainty evidence shows that the use of a tourniquet was associated with an increased risk of higher superficial wound infection rates and all complication rates. Therefore, the findings did not support the routine use of a tourniquet during TKA.

Effect of an Elevated Preoperative International Normalized Ratio on Transfusion and Complications in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol

Objective

To verify whether an elevated preoperative international normalized ratio (INR) increases transfusion and complications independently in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with the management of an enhanced recovery after surgery (EARS) protocol.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the database of adults who underwent primary THA between 2014 and 2018 by the same surgeon. A total of 552 patients were assigned into three groups by preoperative INR class: INR ≤ 0.9, 0.9 < INR < 1.0, and INR ≥ 1.0. We regarded transfusion within 90 days during the same hospitalization as the primary outcome. We also included perioperative blood loss, maximum Hb drop, postoperative anaemia requiring medicine, and length of hospital stay (LOS) during the same hospitalization in the study. Complications and reoperation at 90 days and mortality at 90 days and 12 months were also included in the study. Univariable analyses were utilized to compare baselines and outcomes among the three groups. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to adjust for differences at baseline among the groups.

Results

All patients had an INR < 1.5 preoperatively and were managed with the ERAS protocol. Among them, 93 (16.8%) patients had INR ≤ 0.9, 268 (48.6%) patients had 0.9 < INR < 1.0, and 191 (34.6%) patients had INR ≥ 1.0. In the univariable analyses, as the INR increased, the transfusion rates increased from 1.08% for INR ≤ 0.9, to 1.12% for 0.9 < INR < 1.0 and to 5.76% for INR ≥ 1.0 (P < 0.05). The overall complication rate increased from 10.8% for INR ≤ 0.9, to 16.4% for 0.9 < INR < 1.0, and to 22.5% for INR ≥ 1.0 (P < 0.05). The length of stay (LOS) in the INR ≥ 1.0 group was 5.7 ± 2.2 days, which was significantly longer than that in the INR ≤ 0.9 group (4.7 ± 1.6 days, P = 0.000) and 0.9 < INR < 1.0 group (5.1 ± 2.0 days, P = 0.007). No statistical significance was detected among the groups regarding blood loss, maximum Hb drop, or the incidence of postoperative anaemia that required medicine. There was no significant difference in reoperation or mortality among the groups. When controlling for demographic and comorbidity characteristics, there was no statistically significant difference in the odds of transfusion during the same hospitalization or overall complications at 90 days among the groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Elevated preoperative INR cannot increase transfusion or complication rates independently in primary THA with the management of the ERAS protocol. With the improvement in the ERAS protocol and the use of tranexamic acid (TXA), an INR < 1.5 is still a conventional safe threshold for THA surgery.

A comparison of thrombosis in total knee arthroplasty with and without a tourniquet: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Tourniquets are widely used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but the issue of their safety remains controversial. Previous studies have focused on TKA blood loss, duration of surgery, and hemostatic drugs. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to analyze the effect of tourniquet use on postoperative deep venous thrombosis (DVT).

Methods

PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized clinical trials published before April 17, 2020, that compared the effect of tourniquet use on postoperative DVT, knee circumference, D-dimers, and pain measured using the visual analog scale (VAS).

Results

Fourteen clinical trials that included 1321 unique participants were included in the meta-analysis. Among the total, 721 and 600 participants were randomized to the tourniquet and non-tourniquet groups, respectively. The incidence of postoperative thrombosis in the tourniquet group was significantly higher than in the non-tourniquet group (RR 2.30, 95% CI 1.51–3.49, P < 0.0001, I² = 0%). On the 1st, 3rd, and 5th to 21st days, and 3 to 6 weeks after surgery, the knee circumference difference of the tourniquet group was significantly larger than that of the non-tourniquet group (P < 0.05). However, 4 to 6 months after the surgery, no significant difference in knee circumference was found between the two groups (MD 0.14, 95% CI −0.02–0.31, P = 0.09, I² = 0%). The VAS score of the tourniquet group was higher than the non-tourniquet group on the 3rd and 5th days after surgery (P < 0.05). However, this difference was not significant (MD 0.31, 95% CI −0.05–0.66, P = 0.09, I² = 89%).

Conclusion

Results of this meta-analysis indicate that tourniquet application could increase the incidence of postoperative DVT and aggravate postoperative pain and swelling in the short term.

Level of evidence

Level III

Time to reconsider the routine use of tourniquets in total knee arthroplasty surgery

Aims

Many surgeons choose to perform total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery with the aid of a tourniquet. A tourniquet is a device that fits around the leg and restricts blood flow to the limb. There is a need to understand whether tourniquets are safe, and if they benefit, or harm, patients. The aim of this study was to determine the benefits and harms of tourniquet use in TKA surgery.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, and trial registries up to 26 March 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing TKA with a tourniquet versus without a tourniquet. Outcomes included: pain, function, serious adverse events (SAEs), blood loss, implant stability, duration of surgery, and length of hospital stay.

Results

We included 41 RCTs with 2,819 participants. SAEs were significantly more common in the tourniquet group (53/901 vs 26/898, tourniquet vs no tourniquet respectively) (risk ratio 1.73 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.73). The mean pain score on the first postoperative day was 1.25 points higher (95% CI 0.32 to 2.19) in the tourniquet group. Overall blood loss did not differ between groups (mean difference 8.61 ml; 95% CI -83.76 to 100.97). The mean length of hospital stay was 0.34 days longer in the group that had surgery with a tourniquet (95% CI 0.03 to 0.64) and the mean duration of surgery was 3.7 minutes shorter (95% CI -5.53 to -1.87).

Conclusion

TKA with a tourniquet is associated with an increased risk of SAEs, pain, and a marginally longer hospital stay. The only finding in favour of tourniquet use was a shorter time in theatre. The results make it difficult to justify the routine use of a tourniquet in TKA surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):830–839.

Tourniquet use for knee replacement surgery

BACKGROUND

Many surgeons prefer to perform total knee replacement surgery with the aid of a tourniquet. A tourniquet is an occlusive device that restricts distal blood flow to help create a bloodless field during the procedure. A tourniquet may be associated with increased risk of pain and complications.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of tourniquet use in knee replacement surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to 26 March 2020. We searched clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization trials portal, and several international registries and joint registries up to March 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing knee replacement with use of a tourniquet versus without use of a tourniquet and non-randomised studies with more than 1000 participants. Major outcomes included pain, function, global assessment of success, health-related quality of life, serious adverse events (including venous thromboembolism, infection, re-operation, and mortality), cognitive function, and survival of the implant. Minor outcomes included blood loss, economic outcomes, implant stability, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened abstracts and full texts, extracted data, performed risk of bias assessments, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 RCTs with 2819 participants. Trials included from 20 to 199 participants. Mean age ranged between 58 and 84 years. More than half of the RCTs had unclear risk of selection bias and unclear risk of performance and detection bias due to absence of blinding of participants and surgeons. Major outcomes Pain: at postoperative day 1, pain (on a scale from zero to 10, with higher scores indicating worse pain) was ranked at 4.56 points after surgery without a tourniquet and at 1.25 points (MD) higher (95% CI 0.32 higher to 2.19 higher) with a tourniquet (8 studies; 577 participants), for an absolute difference of 12.5% higher pain scores (95% CI 3.2% higher to 21.9% higher) and a relative difference of 19% higher pain scores (95% CI 3.4% higher to 49% higher) with a tourniquet. Evidence for these findings was of moderate certainty, downgraded due to risk of bias. Knee replacement with a tourniquet probably led to higher postoperative pain scores at day 1, although this difference may or may not be noticeable to patients (based on a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 1.0). Function: at 12 months, tourniquet use probably makes little or no difference to function, based on an MCID of 5.3 for Knee Society Score (KSS) and 5.0 for Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Mean function (on a scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes) was 90.03 points after surgery without a tourniquet and was 0.29 points worse (95% CI 1.06 worse to 0.48 better) on a 0 to 100 scale, absolute difference was 0.29% worse (1.06% worse to 0.48% better), with a tourniquet (5 studies; 611 participants). This evidence was downgraded to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. Global assessment of success: low-certainty evidence (downgraded due to bias and imprecision) indicates that tourniquet use may have little or no effect on success. At six months, 47 of 50 (or 940 per 1000) reported overall successful treatment after surgery without a tourniquet and 47 of 50 (or 940 per 1000) with a tourniquet (risk ratio (RR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10) based on one study with 100 participants. Health-related quality of life: at six months, tourniquet may have little or no effect on quality of life. The 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) score (mental component from zero to 100 (100 is best)) was 54.64 after surgery without a tourniquet and 1.53 (MD) better (95% CI 0.85 worse to 3.91 better) with a tourniquet (1 study; 199 participants); absolute difference was 1.53% better (0.85% worse to 3.91% better). Evidence was of low certainty, downgraded due to risk of bias and small number of participants. Serious adverse events: the risk of serious adverse events was probably higher with tourniquet; 26 of 898 (29 per 1000) reported events following surgery without a tourniquet compared to 53 of 901 (59 per 1000) with a tourniquet (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.73) in 21 studies (1799 participants). Twenty-nine more per 1000 patients (95% CI 3 to 50 more per 1000 patients) had a serious adverse event with a tourniquet. Forty-eight (95% CI 20 to 345) participants would need to have surgery without a tourniquet to avoid one serious adverse event. This evidence was downgraded to moderate certainty due to risk of bias. Cognitive function: one study reported cognitive function as an outcome; however the data were incompletely reported and could not be extracted for analysis. Survival of implant: it is uncertain if tourniquet has an effect on implant survival due to very low certainty evidence (downgraded for bias, and twice due to very low event rates); 2 of 107 (19 per 1000) required revision surgery in the surgery with a tourniquet group compared to 1 of 107 (9 per 1000) without a tourniquet group at up to two years' follow-up (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 8.92). This equates to a 0.4% (0.7% lower to 7% more) increased absolute risk in surgery with a tourniquet.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence shows that knee replacement surgery with a tourniquet is probably associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events. Surgery with a tourniquet is also probably associated with higher postoperative pain, although this difference may or may not be noticeable to patients. Surgery with a tourniquet does not appear to confer any clinically meaningful benefit on function, treatment success or quality of life. Further research is required to explore the effects of tourniquet use on cognitive function and implant survival, to identify any additional harms or benefits. If a tourniquet continues to be used in knee replacement surgery, patients should be informed about the potential increased risk of serious adverse events and postoperative pain.