Doctor when can I drive? A systematic review and meta-analysis of return to driving after total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Advice given to patients on driving resumption after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is inconsistent. Due to a lack of clear guidelines, surgeons' recommendations range between 4-8 weeks after surgery to resume driving. Delays in driving return can have detrimental social and economic impact. However, it is important to ensure patients only resume driving once safe. This study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of driving simulation studies after THA to establish when patients can safely return to driving postoperatively.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines was undertaken. Titles and abstracts were screened for inclusion, data was extracted, and studies assessed for bias risk. Review Manager, was used for statistical analysis. Values for brake reaction time (BRT) were included for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

14 articles met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 7 measured BRT and were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled means of both right and left THA showed BRT around or above preoperative baseline at 1 week, 2 weeks and 3 weeks, and below baseline at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 32 weeks and 52 weeks. Of these, the pooled means at 6, 32, and 52 weeks were significant (p < 0.05).Studies not meeting meta-analysis inclusion criteria were included in a qualitative analysis, examining self-reported postoperative driving return times which ranged from 6 days to over a year or in rare cases, never. Majority of patients (n = 960) self-reported driving return within approximately 6 weeks (pooling of mean values 32.9 days).

CONCLUSIONS

The mean return to driving time recommended in the literature was 4.5 weeks. Based upon BRT meta-analysis, a return to baseline braking performance was noted at 6 weeks postoperatively. However, driving is a complex skill, and patient recommendation should be individualised based on factors such as vehicle transmission type, THA technique, surgical side, medication and comorbidities.

Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine Hydrochloride vs Bupivacaine Hydrochloride Alone as a Periarticular Anesthetic for Patients Undergoing Knee Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Question

Among patients undergoing knee replacement surgery, does liposomal bupivacaine and bupivacaine hydrochloride administered at the surgical site improve postoperative recovery at 72 hours and postoperative pain from 6 to 72 hours compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride alone?

Findings

In this randomized clinical trial of 533 patients undergoing knee replacement surgery, no difference in the coprimary outcomes of Quality of Recovery 40 score at 72 hours or pain visual analog scale score area under the curve from 6 to 72 hours was detected between patients receiving liposomal bupivacaine and bupivacaine hydrochloride and those receiving bupivacaine hydrochloride alone. In addition, liposomal bupivacaine was not found to be cost-effective.

Meaning

This study found that liposomal bupivacaine did not improve postoperative recovery or pain compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride alone among patients undergoing knee replacement surgery.

Importance

More than half of patients who undergo knee replacement surgery report substantial acute postoperative pain.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine for recovery and pain management after knee replacement.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This multicenter, patient-blinded, pragmatic, randomized clinical superiority trial involved 533 participants at 11 institutions within the National Health Service in England. Adults undergoing primary unilateral knee replacement for symptomatic end-stage osteoarthritis were enrolled between March 29, 2018, and February 29, 2020, and followed up for 1 year after surgery. Follow-up was completed March 1, 2021. A per-protocol analysis for each coprimary outcome was performed in addition to the main intention-to-treat analysis.

Interventions

Two hundred sixty-six milligrams of liposomal bupivacaine admixed with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride compared with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride alone (control) administered by periarticular injection at the time of surgery.

Main Outcome and Measures

The coprimary outcomes were Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) score at 72 hours and pain visual analog scale (VAS) score area under the curve (AUC) from 6 to 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included QoR-40 and mean pain VAS at days 0 (evening of surgery), 1, 2, and 3; cumulative opioid consumption for 72 hours; functional outcomes and quality of life at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year; and cost-effectiveness for 1 year. Adverse events and serious adverse events up to 12 months after randomization were also assessed.

Results

Among the 533 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 69.0 (9.7) years; 287 patients were women (53.8%) and 246 were men (46.2%). Baseline characteristics were balanced between study groups. There was no difference between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups in QoR-40 score at 72 hours (adjusted mean difference, 0.54 [97.5% CI, −2.05 to 3.13]; P = .64) or the pain VAS score AUC at 6 to 72 hours (−21.5 [97.5% CI, −46.8 to 3.8]; P = .06). Analyses of pain VAS and QoR-40 scores demonstrated only 1 statistically significant difference, with the liposomal bupivacaine arm having lower pain scores the evening of surgery (adjusted difference −0.54 [97.5% CI, −1.07 to −0.02]; P = .02). No difference in cumulative opioid consumption and functional outcomes was detected. Liposomal bupivacaine was not cost-effective compared with the control treatment. No difference in adverse or serious adverse events was found between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study found no difference in postoperative recovery or pain associated with the use of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride alone in patients who underwent knee replacement surgery.

Trial Registration

isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN54191675

Teaching basic trauma: validating FluoroSim, a digital fluoroscopic simulator for guide-wire insertion in hip surgery

Background and purpose - Simulation is an adjunct to surgical education. However, nothing can accurately simulate fluoroscopic procedures in orthopedic trauma. Current options for training with fluoroscopy are either intraoperative, which risks radiation, or use of expensive and unrealistic virtual reality simulators. We introduce FluoroSim, an inexpensive digital fluoroscopy simulator without the need for radiation. Patients and methods - This was a multicenter study with 26 surgeons in which everyone completed 1 attempt at inserting a guide-wire into a femoral dry bone using surgical equipment and FluoroSim. 5 objective performance metrics were recorded in real-time to assess construct validity. The surgeons were categorized based on the number of dynamic hip screws (DHS) performed: novices (< 10), intermediates (10-39) and experts (≥ 40). A 7-point Likert scale questionnaire assessed the face and content validity of FluoroSim. Results - Construct validity was present for 2 clinically validated metrics in DHS surgery. Experts and intermediates statistically significantly outperformed novices for tip-apex distance and for cut-out rate. Novices took the least number of radiographs. Face and content validity were also observed. Interpretation - FluoroSim discriminated between novice and intermediate or expert surgeons based on tip-apex distance and cut-out rate while demonstrating face and content validity. FluoroSim provides a useful adjunct to orthopedic training. Our findings concur with results from studies using other simulation modalities. FluoroSim can be implemented for education easily and cheaply away from theater in a safe and controlled environment.