Gastric protection and gastrointestinal bleeding with aspirin thromboprophylaxis in hip and knee joint replacements.

INTRODUCTION: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in patients who undergo hip and knee arthroplasty tends to be associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, steroid intake, pre-existing peptic ulcers and smoking. The use of aspirin for thromboprophylaxis is an added risk for the occurrence of GI bleed. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of upper GI bleeding and whether the use of peri-operative oral ranitidine reduces the incidence of upper GI bleeding when aspirin thromboprophylaxis is used for hip and knee arthroplasty. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 1491 and 886 patients who underwent hip and knee replacements at the James Cook University Hospital (group 1) and at Friarage Hospital, Northallerton (group 2), respectively, were analysed in retrospect. All patients received 150 mg of aspirin per day for a period of 6 weeks from the day of surgery. Additionally, patients operated at the Friarage Hospital received 300 mg of oral ranitidine per day, for three postoperative days. RESULTS: We observed that patients in group 1 had a higher incidence of overt upper GI haemorrhage, which was statistically significant (P <0.014) compared to patients in group 2. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this experience, we recommend the use of peri-operative gastric protection with ranitidine when aspirin is used for thromboprophylaxis in hip and knee arthroplasty.

Clinical examination, MRI and arthroscopy in meniscal and ligamentous knee Injuries - a prospective study.

Data from 565 knee arthroscopies performed by two experienced knee surgeons between 2002 and 2005 for degenerative joint disorders, ligament injuries, loose body removals, lateral release of the patellar retinaculum, plica division, and adhesiolysis was prospectively collected. A subset of 109 patients from the above group who sequentially had clinical examination, MRI and arthroscopy for suspected meniscal and ligament injuries were considered for the present study and the data was reviewed. Patients with previous menisectomies, knee ligament repairs or reconstructions and knee arthroscopies were excluded from the study. Patients were categorised into three groups on objective clinical assessment: those who were positive for either meniscal or cruciate ligament injury [group 1]; both meniscal and cruciate ligament injury [group 2] and those with highly suggestive symptoms and with negative clinical signs [group 3]. MRI was requested for confirmation of diagnosis and for additional information in all these patients. Two experienced radiologists reported MRI films. Clinical and MRI findings were compared with Arthroscopy as the gold standard. A thorough clinical examination performed by a skilled examiner more accurately correlated at Arthroscopy. MRI added no information in group 1 patients, valuable information in group 2 and was equivocal in group 3 patients. A negative MRI did not prevent an arthroscopy. In this study, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were more favourable for clinical examination though MRI was more sensitive for meniscal injuries. The use of MRI as a supplemental tool in the management of meniscal and ligament injuries should be highly individualised by an experienced surgeon.