The negative effect of joint line elevation after total knee arthroplasty on outcome.

PURPOSE: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is widely used as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis. However, still up to 20% of the patients are dissatisfied. Joint line elevation after TKA might be a contributing factor as it alters knee kinematics. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of joint line elevation on outcome. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to select studies that reported on joint line alterations after primary or revision TKA and outcome. Studies with comparable outcome parameters were included in a correlation analysis. RESULTS: In total, 396 studies were identified, of which 27 met the inclusion criteria. 8 studies could be included in the correlation analysis. Mean joint line elevation after primary TKA was 3.0 mm and after revision TKA this was 3.6 mm. A statistically significant negative correlation was found between joint line elevation and the postoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) function score (ρ = - 0.496, p < 0.001). In a pooled analysis, the maintained joint line revision TKA group had statistically significant better postoperative KSS total scores compared to an elevated joint line group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In this systematic review, a negative correlation between joint line elevation and outcome was found. Furthermore, revision TKAs with a maintained joint line have statistically significant better postoperative KSS scores compared to an elevated joint line group. To achieve optimal outcome after TKA, restoration of the joint line is one of the parameters that should be pursued and introduced elevation should not exceed 4 mm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Impact of secondary transfer on patients with severe traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Within a trauma network in the Netherlands, neurosurgical facilities are usually limited to Level I hospitals. Initial transport to a district hospital of patients who are later found to require neurosurgical intervention may cause delay. The purpose of this study was to assess the influence on outcome and time intervals of secondary transfer in trauma patients requiring emergency neurosurgical intervention. METHODS: In a 3-year period, all patients who sustained a severe traumatic brain injury and underwent a neurosurgical intervention within 6 hours after admission to a Level I trauma center were included. Patients were classified into two groups: direct presentation to the Level I trauma center (TC) group or requiring secondary transport after having been diagnosed for neurosurgical intervention in other hospitals (transfer group). RESULTS: Eighty patients were included for analyses. Twenty-four patients in the transfer group had a better Glasgow Coma Scale on-scene but a higher 30-day mortality compared with patients who were primarily presented to the Level I trauma center (33% vs. 27%; p = 0.553). In the transfer group, time to operation was 304 minutes compared with 151 minutes in the TC group (p < 0.001). Most delay occurred during the initial trauma evaluation and the interval between the first computed tomography and the transfer ambulance departure at the referring hospital. CONCLUSION: Patients requiring an emergency neurosurgical intervention appear to have a clinically relevant worse outcome after secondary transfer to a neurosurgical service. Therefore, patient care can probably be improved by better triage on-scene and standardized procedures in case of a secondary transfer.