Blood Flow Restriction Resistance Exercise as a Rehabilitation Modality Following Orthopaedic Surgery: A Review of Venous Thromboembolism Risk.

Synopsis Restoration of skeletal muscle mass and strength is critical to successful outcomes following orthopaedic surgery. Blood flow restriction (BFR) resistance exercise has emerged as a promising means of augmenting traditional low-intensity physical rehabilitation exercise and has yielded successful outcomes in a wide range of applications. Though BFR is well tolerated and safe for most individuals, patients who have undergone orthopaedic surgery may be an exception, due to their heightened risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). While the pathogenesis of VTE is multifactorial and specific to the individual, it is commonly described as a combination of blood stasis, endothelial injury, and alterations in the constituents of the blood leading to hypercoagulability. The collective literature suggests that, given the pathogenic mechanisms of VTE, limited use of a wide, partially occluding cuff during resistance exercise should be low risk, and the likelihood that BFR would directly cause a VTE event is remote. Alternatively, it is plausible that BFR may enhance blood flow and promote fibrinolysis. Of greater concern is the individual with pre-existing asymptomatic VTE, which could be dislodged during BFR. However, it is unknown whether the direct risk associated with BFR is greater than the risk accompanying traditional exercise alone. Presently, there are no universally agreed-upon standards indicating which postsurgical orthopaedic patients may perform BFR safely. While excluding all these patients from BFR may be overly cautious, clinicians need to thoroughly screen for VTE signs and symptoms, be cognizant of each patient's risk factors, and use proper equipment and prescription methods prior to initiating BFR. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2019;49(1):17-27. Epub 12 Sep 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2019.8375.

Learning laparoscopic donor nephrectomy safely: a report on 100 cases.

HYPOTHESIS: There is concern that learning laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy (LLDN) is associated with increased morbidity. We propose that with a team approach LLDN can be learned safely, without increased donor morbidity or graft failure, even during the early portion of a learning curve. DESIGN: Case series with cohort comparison. SETTING: Tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: The laparoscopic group consisted of 100 donors and 100 recipients; the open group, 50 donors and 50 recipients. INTERVENTIONS: A team approach that combines laparoscopic and urologic expertise was used to perform 100 cases of LLDN. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Donor morbidity and graft function in the laparoscopic group were compared with those in the open group. RESULTS: Laparoscopic live donor nephrectomy was completed in 99 patients. One patient required conversion to open donor nephrectomy because of intraoperative hemorrhage. Minor complications occurred in 6 laparoscopic group donors (6%) and 3 open group donors (6%). Laparoscopic and open group donors were of similar age. Operative times were longer for laparoscopic group donors (231 vs 209 minutes). Mean hospital stay was shorter for laparoscopic group donors (3.3 vs 4.7 days). Graft function was comparable between the laparoscopic and open groups, with equivalent postoperative creatinine levels. Graft survival was comparable. Recipient ureteral complications occurred with less frequency (2% vs 6%) in the laparoscopic group. CONCLUSIONS: By forming an operative team that combines expertise in laparoscopy with expertise in live donor nephrectomy, surgeons can learn LLDN safely. Adoption of the techniques developed by those who pioneered the procedure can further minimize the morbidity associated with a learning curve.