Are reinfusion drains safe to use with periarticular liposomal bupivacaine? An analysis of systemic bupivacaine toxicity.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative periarticular injection (PAI) with local anesthetic is an important component of multimodal pain control in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). A potential risk of this practice is serum anesthetic toxicity resulting from the autotransfusion of blood collected from a reinfusion drain. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the levels of bupivacaine in blood collected in an autotransfusion system after use of a PAI in TJA. METHODS: In this prospective study, each TJA patient had an identical PAI consisting of 20 cc of liposomal bupivacaine, 30 cc of 0.25% bupivacaine with epinephrine, and 10 cc of normal saline. An autologous reinfusion drain was utilized in all patients. At 2 and 5 hours postoperatively, blood was collected from the autotransfusion canister and sent to the laboratory to quantify bupivacaine levels. The sums of these levels were compared to the lowest reported serum bupivacaine dose associated with toxicity (1.1 mg/kg). RESULTS: Eleven unilateral TJA patients were enrolled (6 total knee arthroplasties, 5 total hip arthroplasties). The average 2-hour serum bupivacaine level was 2.9 µg (range 0.8-5.6) while the average 5-hour serum bupivacaine level was 4.5 µg (range 0.4-10.0). The average sum of the 2-hour and 5-hour serum bupivacaine level was 5.6 µg (range 0.8-13.6). Each of the 11 patient samples were well below their minimum serum bupivacaine dose toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a reinfusion drain after PAI with liposomal bupivacaine in TJA appears safe, as bupivacaine levels in the autotransfused blood remains well below the reported minimum serum toxic dose. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Clinical Results and Survivorship of the GENESIS II Total Knee Arthroplasty at a Minimum of 15 Years.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the 15-year survivorship and long-term clinical outcomes of the GENESIS II total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: Patients who underwent TKA with the GENESIS II system between 1995 and 1999 were retrieved from our institutional database. We report a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis as well as Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, the Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12), and the Knee Society Scores at a mean of 16 years. RESULTS: Four-hundred sixty-nine TKAs were performed with a mean patient age of 68 years. Patients were followed up prospectively for a mean of 16 years (range, 14.8-19.5 years). The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis at 15 years, with revision for any reason as the end point, was 96.4% (95.5%-97.3%). The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index and the Knee Society Scores were significantly improved (P < .001) from the preoperative period to the latest follow-up. Patients had a significant improvement (P < .001) from the preoperative to the latest follow-up on the Physical Health Composite Score of the SF-12, but no change was noted on the Mental Health Composite Score of the SF-12. CONCLUSION: The unique design features of the GENESIS II TKA system have remained a constant over the duration of its clinical use, a rarity for contemporary TKA systems which are often altered before the publication of long-term results. The GENESIS II continues to demonstrate excellent long-term survivorship and improvements in health-related outcomes at a mean of 15 years, representing the standard for TKA systems at our institution.

Predictors of Functional Recovery Following Periprosthetic Distal Femur Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for periprosthetic distal femur fractures include open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) and distal femoral replacement (DFR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the complications, and functional recovery (ambulatory status, living situation, mortality) in patients undergoing operative treatment (DFR and ORIF) of periprosthetic distal femur fractures. METHODS: A retrospective review of 58 patients with distal femoral periprosthetic fractures treated with either ORIF or DFR was conducted. Surgical complications, discharge disposition, ambulatory status, living situation at 1 year, and mortality at 1 year were compared between patients treated with ORIF and DFR. Outcomes at 1 year were also compared between patients older and younger than 85 years of age. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients with a mean age of 80 years (range, 61-95 years) met inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up was 29.5 months (range, 5-81 months). Patients undergoing DFR were significantly older than those who underwent ORIF (83 vs 78, P < .01). The 1-year mortality rate was 20.6%. There was no difference between groups with respect to mortality, complications, discharge disposition, or ambulatory status and living situation at 1 year. Patients who lost the ability to ambulate at 1 year were significantly older than patients who maintained the ability to ambulate (87.5 vs 76.4 years, P < .05). Patients older than 85 years were more likely to lose the ability to ambulate and to live in a skilled nursing facility at 1 year (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Distal femoral periprosthetic fractures have a high morbidity and mortality. Age at time of injury, not treatment rendered, is predictive of ambulatory status and living independence after periprosthetic distal femur fractures.

Open Reduction vs Distal Femoral Replacement Arthroplasty for Comminuted Distal Femur Fractures in the Patients 70 Years and Older.

BACKGROUND: The ideal management of distal femur fractures in the elderly is unclear. Acute arthroplasty has the theoretical advantage of earlier mobilization. We examined the outcomes of patients 70 years and older who underwent open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) vs distal femoral replacement (DFR) for comminuted, intra-articular distal femur fractures. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients with AO/OTA classification 33C distal femur fractures treated with either ORIF or DFR was performed. Outcomes including all-cause reoperation, length of stay, fracture union, postoperative complications, use of ambulatory device and living situation at 1 year, and mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: The study cohort included 38 patients: 10 underwent DFR and 28 ORIF. Mean patient age for both cohorts was 82 years. No difference in comorbidities or mechanism of injury was found between groups. The incidence of reoperation was 11% in the ORIF group and 10% in the DFR group. In the ORIF group, the average time to fracture union was 24 weeks, with a nonunion incidence of 18%. Twenty-three percent of ORIF group were wheelchair dependent vs none in the DFR cohort, although not statistically significant. Differences between the groups with respect to all-cause reoperation, living situation or need for ambulatory device at 1 year, and 1-year mortality did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Nearly 1 in 5 patients older than 70 years developed a nonunion after ORIF of an intra-articular distal femur fracture. At 1-year follow-up, all patients in DFR group were ambulatory while 1 in 4 in the ORIF group were wheelchair bound.