The incidence and risk factors of osteoarthritis following osteochondritis dissecans of the knees: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to pool together the incidence and risk factors of osteoarthritis following osteochondritis dissecans of the knee. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A search was conducted using PubMed and Cochrane Library with the keywords being "knee" and "osteochondritis dissecans" or "osteochondral lesion". All original human studies that reported the incidence or risk factors of osteoarthritis following osteochondritis dissecans of the knee were included. RESULTS: Nine studies with 496 patients were included. The incidence of osteoarthritis following osteochondritis dissecans is 0.39 (95% CI 0.19-0.59). Patients with a body mass index greater than 25 kg/m2 had a significantly increased risk of osteoarthritis. Fragment excision had an increased relative risk of 1.89 (95% CI 1.19-3.01) of osteoarthritis as compared to fragment preservation. Significant heterogeneity was identified when comparing between juvenile and adult osteochondritis dissecans. The size of the lesions moderated the between-study heterogeneity with regards to the incidence of osteoarthritis, with the relative risk of osteoarthritis in lesions bigger than 4 cm2 being 2.29 (95% CI 1.24-4.23). No other risk factors, including gender of the patient, location of osteochondritis dissecans, stability of osteochondritis dissecans, and surgical versus non-surgical management were significant risk factors. CONCLUSION: Significant risk factors for osteoarthritis were increased body mass index and fragment excision. Probable but inconclusive risk factors were the age of the patients and the size of the osteochondritis dissecans. The gender of the patient, location of osteochondritis dissecans, the stability of osteochondritis dissecans, and surgical versus non-surgical management of osteochondritis dissecans when appropriate were not significant risk factors.

Perioperative pregabalin does not reduce opioid requirements in total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study was to determine if pregabalin, when given perioperatively in addition to patient-controlled analgesia morphine, paracetamol and etoricoxib, is effective in reducing morphine requirements and moderating pain scores after primary total knee arthroplasty. We hypothesize that there would be no difference in postoperative opioid requirements, postoperative pain scores, and functional scores with the use of perioperative pregabalin. METHODS: Eighty-seven patients who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty were randomised and allocated to two groups. One group received capsules containing pregabalin 75 mg, and the other a placebo-one capsule before surgery and one capsule once per night up till postoperative day 2. Multimodal analgesia provided for all patients in this study included femoral nerve block, intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (morphine), paracetamol and etoricoxib. The primary outcome of patient's pain control was based on the measurement of cumulative morphine consumption during the first 72 h postoperatively. RESULTS: Pregabalin did not reduce the cumulative or effective morphine consumption at 48 h and 72 h post-operation. There were also no significant differences noted in pain scores at 48 h and 72 h after surgery, functional range of motion of the operated knee at 72 h post-op, or outcomes recorded on the Knee Society Score (KSS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) questionnaires at 3 and 6 months post-op. None of the patients demonstrated common adverse reactions to pregabalin. CONCLUSION: This study showed no reduction in postoperative opioid requirements, or improvement in early postoperative pain scores or functional outcomes at 6 months, with perioperative use of pregabalin. Orthopaedic surgeons may consider this when selecting an analgesic regimen for their patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.