Routine Use of Closed Suction Drains Following Revision Arthroplasty May Not be Necessary.

BACKGROUND: There are numerous studies demonstrating that closed suction drainage (CSD) usage after primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has little to no benefit. There are little data on the role of CSDs after revision TJA. The purpose of our study was to evaluate whether there is any clinical advantage to CSD usage after revision TJA. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated the clinical records of 2,030 patients undergoing revision TJA between 2007 and 2021. CSD was used in 472 patients and not used in 1,558 patients. Primary outcome was blood transfusion rate and secondary outcomes included total blood loss (TBL), as determined by Gross formula, wound complications (hematoma, infection, and dehiscence), and length of hospital stay. Patients undergoing revision TJA for oncologic reasons or those with incomplete datasets were excluded. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in rates of allogeneic blood transfusion, TBL, and wound complications (hematoma, infection, and dehiscence) between the two groups (P = .159, .983, .192, .334, and .548, respectively). When adjusted for demographic and surgical confounders, there was no difference in transfusion and TBL rates between groups (Odds Ratio 1.04, 95% Confidence Interval 0.78-1.38, P = .780 and estimate -105.71 mL, 95% confidence interval -333.96 to 122.55, P = .364, respectively). CSD cohort had a shorter length of stay (4.30 versus 5.82 days, P < .001). CONCLUSION: We acknowledge that there is a role for CSD usage in a selected group of patients. Nevertheless, our study revealed that routine use of CSD after revision TJA does not provide an additional clinical benefit.

Treatment Outcomes of Meniscal Root Tears: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To report changes in outcomes for these 3 treatment options for meniscal root tears. METHODS: We systematically searched databases including PubMed, SCOPUS, and ScienceDirect for relevant articles. Criteria from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute was used for a quality assessment of the included studies. A meta-analysis was performed to analyze changes in outcomes for meniscal repair. RESULTS: Nineteen studies, 12 level III and 7 level IV, were included in this systematic review, with a total of 1086 patients. Conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) following partial meniscectomy ranged from 11% to 54%, 31% to 35% for nonoperative, conservative treatment, and 0% to 1% for meniscal repair. Studies comparing repair with either meniscectomy or conservative treatment found greater improvement and slower progression of Kellgren-Lawrence grade with meniscal repair. A meta-analysis of the studies included in the systematic review using forest plots showed repair to have the greatest mean difference for functional outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm Activity Scale) and the lowest change in follow-up joint space. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who experience meniscal root tears, meniscal repair may provide the greatest improvement in function and lowest risk of conversion to TKA when compared with partial meniscectomy or conservative methods. Partial meniscectomy appears to provide no benefit over conservative treatment, placing patients at a high risk of requiring TKA in the near future. However, future high-quality studies-both comparative studies and randomized trials-are needed to draw further conclusions and better impact treatment decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of level III and level IV evidence.

Outcomes of Revisions for Failed Trapeziometacarpal Joint Arthritis Surgery.

PURPOSE: We compare outcomes of revision surgery for trapeziometacarpal (TM) arthritis with outcomes for both primary and revision surgery for TM arthritis reported in the literature. We hypothesized that patients undergoing revision surgery for TM arthritis would demonstrate pain and functional outcome scores that were worse than those of patients undergoing primary TM surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing revision TM surgery at a single institution from 1995 to 2015 was performed. Eighty-three patients (86 hands) met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 25 patients (27 hands) were available for follow-up via phone survey or clinical examination; 58 patients (59 hands) were available for chart review only. Patients available for phone survey or clinical examination were evaluated with the visual analog scale, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score, and the Conolly-Rath evaluation method. Patients available for clinical examination were also evaluated with grip strength, pinch strength, and radiographs. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 8.5 years (range, 2.0-21.2 years). Twenty percent of patients experienced postoperative complications, most commonly pin problems (7%). Of the 27 hands available for interview or clinical examination, 15 were dominant and 12 were nondominant. The average visual analog scale was 28.2 (SD, 29.7). Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores averaged 32.0 (SD, 20.8). According to the Conolly and Rath criteria, 10 patients had a good outcome, 7 were fair, and 10 were poor. For the group of 13 patients who underwent physical examination, average adduction was 42° in the affected side versus 51° in the nonaffected side. Radial abduction was 58° in the affected side versus 65° in the nonaffected side. Palmar abduction was 53° versus 85° in each group, respectively. Tip finger pinch was 3.4 kg for the affected hand versus 4.0 kg for the nonaffected side. Key pinch was 4.7 and 5.5 kg, respectively. Grip strength was measured as 22.1 kg in the affected side versus 27.6 kg in the contralateral side when adjusted for dominance. CONCLUSIONS: In our study group, revision surgery for unsuccessful primary TM surgery demonstrated results inferior to those previously reported for primary surgery for TM arthritis but similar to prior studies of revision TM surgery. Revision surgery, however, can result in satisfactory long-term outcomes particularly when metacarpophalangeal joint pathology is addressed and complications are avoided. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.