Rivaroxaban for Thromboprophylaxis After Nonelective Orthopedic Trauma Surgery in Switzerland.

This study investigated the effectiveness and the outcomes of rivaroxaban vs the standard of care for venous thromboembolic prophylaxis in patients undergoing fracture-related surgery. A total of 413 patients undergoing fracture-related surgery from 9 Swiss orthopedic and trauma centers were enrolled. The authors selected the type of venous thromboembolic prophylaxis according to standardized medical practice at the participating centers before the inclusion of patients: 208 patients received rivaroxaban and 205 received the standard of care. Data on symptomatic thromboembolic and bleeding events, surgery-related complications, death, adverse events, time to mobilization, and hospital discharge were collected. Symptomatic thromboembolic events were reported in 1 patient (0.5%) and 2 patients (1.0%) and treatment-emergent major bleeding events were reported in 1 patient (0.5%) and 2 patients (1.0%) receiving rivaroxaban and the standard of care, respectively. The durations of hospital stay and venous thromboembolic prophylaxis were similar in the 2 groups. In both groups, adverse events related to venous thromboembolic prophylaxis were reported in 12 patients. The proportion of patients with minor and major fracture surgery was 74.3% and 25.7%, respectively. In patients undergoing minor fracture surgery receiving rivaroxaban (n=167) and the standard of care (n=140), no symptomatic thromboembolic events and no major bleeding events were reported. Outcomes of this study indicate that rivaroxaban might be an appropriate oral alternative for venous thromboembolic prophylaxis in routine medical care after fracture-related major and minor surgery. Reported results were comparable to those from other large-scale, noninterventional and randomized controlled studies. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(2):109-116.].

Robotic hip arthroscopy in human anatomy.

BACKGROUND: Robotic technology offers technical advantages that might offer new solutions for hip arthroscopy. METHODS: Two hip arthroscopies were performed in human cadavers using the da Vinci surgical system. During both surgeries, a robotic camera and 5 or 8 mm da Vinci trocars with instruments were inserted into the hip joint for manipulation. RESULTS: Introduction of cameras and working instruments, docking of the robotic system and instrument manipulation was successful in both cases. The long articulating area of 5 mm instruments limited movements inside the joint; an 8 mm instrument with a shorter area of articulation offered an improved range of motion. CONCLUSIONS: Hip arthroscopy using the da Vinci standard system appears a feasible alternative to standard arthroscopy. Instruments and method of application must be modified and improved before routine clinical application but further research in this area seems justified, considering the clinical value of such an approach.