Aims

Surgical site infection (SSI) is a common complication of surgery with an incidence of about 1% in the United Kingdom. Sutures can lead to the development of a SSI, as micro-organisms can colonize the suture as it is implanted. Triclosan-coated sutures, being antimicrobical, were developed to reduce the rate of SSI. Our aim was to assess whether triclosan-coated sutures cause a reduction in SSIs following arthroplasty of the hip and knee.

Purpose: Recent animal evidence has suggested that Bupivicaine may be harmful to articular cartilage. The purpose of this study was establish whether, following arthroscopy of the knee, infiltration of Bupivicaine around the portals is as effective as intra-articular infiltration for post-operative analgesia.

Method: Consecutive patients attending for knee arthroscopy were consented and randomised to one of two groups. Following arthroscopy, Group I received 20mls 0.5% Bupivicaine infiltrated into the joint; Group II received 20mls 0.5% Bupivicaine infiltrated around the portals. A Visual Analogue Score (VAS) was collected at one hour post-operatively and rescue analgesia recorded. A power calculation was performed. Ethical approval was granted.

Results: There were 68 patients in Group I (intra-articular) and 69 patients in Group II (portal). There was no significant difference in the age or sex distribution of patients in either group. The mean VAS score was 3.04 in Group I and 3.24 in Group II. There was no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.619). There was also no significant difference in the need for rescue analgesia (p=0.930). The study has demonstrated equivalence between the two groups, within one VAS point (Power = 80%).

Conclusion: We would recommend that following knee arthroscopy, Bupivicaine should be infiltrated around the portals, avoiding intra-articular infiltration.

The administration of intra-articular local anaesthetic is common following arthroscopy of the knee. However, recent evidence has suggested that bupivacaine may be harmful to articular cartilage. This study aimed to establish whether infiltration of bupivacaine around the portals is as effective as intra-articular injection.

We randomised 137 patients to receive either 20 ml 0.5% bupivacaine introduced into the joint (group 1) or 20 ml 0.5% bupivacaine infiltrated only around the portals (group 2) following arthroscopy. A visual analogue scale was administered one hour post-operatively to assess pain relief. Both patients and observers were blinded to the treatment group. A power calculation was performed.

The mean visual analogue score was 3.24 (sd 2.20) in group I and 3.04 (sd 2.31) in group 2. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.62).

Infiltration of bupivacaine around the portals had an equivalent effect on pain scores at one hour, and we would therefore recommend this technique to avoid the possible chondrotoxic effect of intra-articular bupivacaine.

To determine whether resection of osteophyte at TKR improves movement, 139 TKRs were performed on knees with pre-operative posterior osteophyte. Randomisation was to have either resection of distal femoral osteophyte guided by a custom made ruler or no resection. After preparation of the femoral bone cuts the ruler measuring 19 mm was placed just proximal to the posterior chamfer cut. The proximal end of this ruler marked the bone to be resected and this was performed using an osteotome at 45 degrees. Knees randomised to no resection had no further femoral bony cuts. Three months after implantation the patients had range of motion assessed.

One hundred and fourteen suitable knees were assessed, with 59 knees (57 patients) in the resection group and 55 knees (54 patients) in the no resection group. Full extension was more likely in the resection group (62%) than the group without resection (41%)(p=0.08). Flexion to at least 110 degrees was, however, less in the resection group (37%) than the no resection group (54%) (p=0.09).

Our study failed to show a statistically significant difference if the bony osteophyte is removed. There were however sharp trends, with statistically a one in ten chance these results would be different if the trial was repeated. Although there is no indication as to the cause of improved extension this could be explained by the release of the posterior capsular structures allowing full extension. The reduction in flexion is harder to explain and this may be due to increase in perioperative trauma and resultant swelling, possibly with fibrosis. Range of movement, particularly flexion, is known to improve up to 1 year post-operatively and assessment of these groups at that stage would be beneficial.