ABSTRACT
Introduction "When can I fly after my hip or knee replacement?" is a question frequently encountered by surgeons. Both air travel and arthroplasty increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE); however, few studies examine the risk of air travel following arthroplasty. This study aimed to review the advice given to patients by surgeons, airlines, and insurance providers about flying after arthroplasty. We also review the current literature and available guidelines. Materials and methods A survey was sent to consultants with a special interest in hip or knee arthroplasty at 14 hospital trusts in the United Kingdom (UK) asking how long they would advise patients to avoid flying after surgery. We contacted all UK commercial airlines asking if they imposed any limitations on flying after arthroplasty. We contacted 15 UK insurance providers to determine whether they would provide insurance coverage following arthroplasty. Results A total of 110 knee surgeons and 105 hip surgeons were contacted. The response rate was 42% for hip surgeons and 44% for knee surgeons. Advised time to avoid flying varied widely from 14 to 180 days. A total of 22 airlines were contacted, and the response rate was 63% (n=14). Five airlines would not allow passengers to fly following arthroplasty and seven airlines required certification from a doctor. Fifteen insurance providers were contacted and the response rate was 73% (n=11). Seven insurance providers had restrictions on providing cover to passengers after arthroplasty. Conclusion Advice given to patients by surgeons, airlines, and insurance providers about flying following arthroplasty varies greatly. There is an absence of evidence-based guidelines to inform such advice. Further study is required to provide the evidence on which to base such advice. Therefore, we recommend that surgeons exercise caution when providing advice to patients.
ABSTRACT
Background: Clavicle fractures are a common presentation to the emergency department after falls and sporting injuries. During 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought with it a long period of social isolation, resulting in a change of behavior patterns and, in return, the presentation of fractures to our local hospitals. The effects of this global pandemic on the presentation and management of clavicles were noted with particular interest to the change in mechanism and its future implications. Methods: We performed a longitudinal observational study in 10 hospitals in the North West of England, reviewing all patients presenting with a clavicle fracture during 6 weeks in the first peak of COVID-19 pandemic and compared these with the same period in 2019. Collection points included the patient demographics, fracture characteristics, mechanism of injury, and management. Results: A total of 427 clavicle fractures were assessed with lower numbers of patients presenting with a clavicle fracture during the COVID-2020 period (n = 177) compared with 2019 (n = 250). Cycling-related clavicle fractures increased 3-fold during the pandemic compared with the 2019 control group. We also noted an overall increase in clavicle fractures resulting from higher energy trauma as opposed to low energy or fragility fracture. We also found a faster time to surgery in the COVID cohort by 2.7 days on average when compared with 2019. Conclusions: Government restrictions and the encouragement of social distancing led to behavioral changes with a vast increase in cyclists on the road. This created a significant rise in clavicle fractures related to this activity. This is likely to be further driven by the government pledge to double cyclists on the road by 2025 in the United Kingdom. We forecast that this increase in cyclists, a behavior change accelerated by the pandemic, is a reliable predictor for future trauma trends.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Infection following arthroplasty can have devastating effects for the patient and necessitate further surgery. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is required to minimize the risk of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Anticoagulation has been demonstrated to interfere with wound-healing and increase the risk of infection. We hypothesized that different anticoagulation regimes will have differing effects on rates of periprosthetic joint infection. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical site infection risk between the use of warfarin, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and aspirin for VTE prophylaxis following total knee or hip arthroplasty. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in November 2018 using the PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases to identify studies that compared warfarin, LMWH, and/or aspirin with regard to surgical site infection rates following hip or knee arthroplasty. Meta-analyses were performed to compare the infection and VTE risks between groups. RESULTS: Nine articles involving 184,037 patients met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis showed that warfarin prophylaxis was associated with a higher risk of deep infection (or infection requiring reoperation) (odds ratio [OR] = 1.929, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.197 to 3.109, p = 0.007) and surgical site infection overall (OR = 1.610, 95% CI = 1.028 to 2.522, p = 0.038) compared with aspirin in primary total joint arthroplasty, with similar findings also seen when primary and revision procedures were combined. There was no significant difference in infection risk between warfarin and LMWH and between LMWH and aspirin. There was a nonsignificant trend for VTE risk to be higher with warfarin compared with aspirin therapy for primary procedures (OR = 1.600, 95% CI = 0.875 to 2.926, p = 0.127), and this was significant when both primary and revision cases were included (OR = 2.674, 95% CI = 1.143 to 6.255, p = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: These findings caution against the use of warfarin for VTE prophylaxis for hip and knee arthroplasty. Further randomized head-to-head trials and mechanistic studies are warranted to determine how specific anticoagulants impact infection risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
