A Comparison of Operative Time and Intraoperative Blood Volume Loss Between Stemless and Short-stem Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Single Institution's Experience.

INTRODUCTION: There has been increasing interest in the use of stemless humeral implants for total shoulder arthroplasty when compared with both short-stem (SS) and standard-length implants. Although evidence for decreased surgical time and blood loss exists for stemless versus standard-length stems, far less literature exists comparing these clinical parameters for stemless versus SS implants. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) cases conducted by a single, fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon was undertaken from January 2016 through January 2022 with the exception of March 2020 through January 2021 secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic patient and surgical data, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, prior ipsilateral shoulder arthroscopy, surgical time, use of a Hemovac drain and/or tranexamic acid, hospital length of stay (LOS), and both postoperative day #1 (POD 1) and discharge visual analog scores. The use of a stemless or SS implant was recorded. Intraoperative total blood volume loss (TBVL) was calculated, in addition to the need for either intraoperative or postoperative transfusions. Nonparametric analysis of covariance was used to examine effects of stemless versus SS aTSA on surgical time and intraoperative TBVL adjusted for demographic, clinical, and surgical variables. RESULTS: There were 47 SS and 83 stemless anatomic implants included, of which 74 patients (57%) overall were women. The median surgical time for the stemless cohort was 111 minutes (IQR 96-130) versus 137 minutes (IQR 113-169) for the SS cohort (P < 0.00001). The median intraoperative TBVL for the stemless cohort was 298.3 mL (IQR 212.6-402.8) versus 359.7 mL (IQR 253.9-415.0) for the SS cohort (P = 0.05). After multivariable regression analysis, use of stemless humeral implants was independently associated with both decreased surgical time and intraoperative blood loss (P < 0.001 and P = 0.005, respectively). There was a shorter median hospital LOS in the stemless group (2 days [IQR 1-2] versus 2 days [IQR 2-3], P = 0.03). The visual analog score pain score at discharge was lower among the stemless cohort (0 [IQR 0-3] versus 4 [IQR 2-6], P < 0.00001). Increased surgical time was associated with intraoperative TBVL (r = 0.340, P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Stemless aTSA is associated with a markedly decreased surgical time and intraoperative TBVL when compared with a SS aTSA. Furthermore, the use of a stemless implant results in a shorter hospital LOS and lower discharge pain scores.

Impact of microprocessor prosthetic knee on mobility and quality of life in patients with lower limb amputation: a systematic review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Advanced technologies have made available the development of microprocessor prosthetic knee (MPK) to improve autonomy of patients with lower limb amputation. In the present systematic review, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the use of all types of MPK on patients' functional status and quality of life. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We conducted this review according to the PRISMA Guidelines on Medline (via Ovid), Scopus and SportDiscuss. All identified articles were screened for their eligibility by two reviewers using Covidence software. The Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB) or the NIH Quality Assessment Tool were used to assess the quality of the studies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen articles were included in the present review (7 randomized controlled trials - RCT), 6 cross-sectional and 5 follow-up studies). Number of participants included varied from 20 to 602, protocols' length varied from a single session to 12 weeks of use of MPK. Taken together, MPK users compared to NMPK users tend to present better functional status and mobility. Quality of life was also positively impacted in MPK users. On the other hand, the superiority of more advanced MPKs such as the Genium® is less clear, especially given the improvements over time of other MPKs such as the C-leg® and the Rheo knee®. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our results, while it is clear that MPKs outperform NMPKs both for functional status and quality of life, additional benefits of one MPK over another is less clear. Future studies are needed to clarify these aspects.

Treating diabetic all-comers with contemporary drug-eluting stents: Prespecified comparisons from the BIO-RESORT and the BIONYX randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes have more extensive coronary disease, resulting in higher risks of adverse clinical events following stenting. In all-comer patients, contemporary DES have shown excellent safety and efficacy, but data on diabetic patients are scarce. Separately for the BIO-RESORT and BIONYX trials, we assessed the 2-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients, treated with various contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: We performed two prespecified secondary analyses of two randomized DES trials, which both stratified for diabetes. The main endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Follow-up was finished before the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In BIO-RESORT, 624/3514 (17.8%) had diabetes: 211 received Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), 203 Synergy everolimus-eluting stents (EES), and 210 Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (RI-ZES). TVF did not differ between SES (10.2%) and EES (10.0%) versus RI-ZES (12.7%) (SES vs. RI-ZES HR:0.78, 95%-CI [0.44-1.40]; p = 0.40, EES vs. RI-ZES HR:0.79, 95%-CI [0.44-1.40]; p = 0.42). In BIONYX, 510/2488 (20.5%) patients had diabetes: 250 received SES and 260 Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stents (RO-ZES). There was no difference in TVF between SES (10.7%) versus RO-ZES (12.2%) (HR:0.88, 95%-CI [0.52-1.48]; p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in 2-year clinical outcome among patients with diabetes, who were treated with SES, or EES, versus RI-ZES. In addition there was no difference in clinical outcome in diabetic patients, who were treated with SES versus RO-ZES. These findings may be considered as a signal of safety and efficacy of the studied DES in patients with diabetes.