User login
Safest, most effective medications for spine-related pain in older adults?
, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.
Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.
Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.
However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.
Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.
“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.
“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.
The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
Recommendations, warnings
With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.
Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.
Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.
These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.
They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
‘Rational therapeutic choices’
Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.
Other findings include the following:
- Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
- Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
- Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.
However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.
Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.
“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.
“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.
They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.
The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.
Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.
Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.
However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.
Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.
“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.
“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.
The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
Recommendations, warnings
With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.
Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.
Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.
These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.
They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
‘Rational therapeutic choices’
Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.
Other findings include the following:
- Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
- Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
- Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.
However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.
Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.
“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.
“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.
They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.
The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
, a new comprehensive literature review suggests.
Investigators assessed the evidence for medications used for this indication in older adults by reviewing 138 double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.
Among their key findings and recommendations: Acetaminophen has a favorable safety profile for spine-related pain but nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have greater efficacy.
However, NSAIDs should be used in lower doses in the short term, with gastrointestinal precaution, the researchers note.
Corticosteroids have the least evidence for treating nonspecific back pain, they add.
“Most older people experience neck or low back pain at some point, bothersome enough to see their doctor,” coinvestigator Michael Perloff, MD, PhD, department of neurology, Boston University, said in a news release.
“Our findings provide a helpful medication guide for physicians to use for spine pain in an older population that can have a complex medical history,” Dr. Perloff added.
The results were published online in Drugs and Aging.
Recommendations, warnings
With the graying of the U.S. population, spine-related pain is increasingly common, the investigators note.
Medications play an important role in pain management, but their use has limitations in the elderly, owing to reduced liver and renal function, comorbid medical problems, and polypharmacy.
Other key findings from the literature review include that, although the nerve pain medications gabapentin and pregabalin may cause dizziness or difficulty walking, they also have some demonstrated benefit for neck and back nerve pain, such as sciatica, in older adults.
These agents should be used in lower doses with smaller dose adjustments, the researchers note.
They caution that the muscle relaxants carisoprodol, chlorzoxazone, cyclobenzaprine, metaxalone, methocarbamol, and orphenadrine should be avoided in older adults because of their association with risk for sedation and falls.
‘Rational therapeutic choices’
Three other muscle relaxants – tizanidine, baclofen, and dantrolene – may be helpful for neck and back pain. The most evidence favors tizanidine and baclofen. These should be used in reduced doses. Tizanidine should be avoided in patients with liver disease, and for patients with kidney disease, the dosing of baclofen should be reduced, the investigators write.
Other findings include the following:
- Older tricyclic antidepressants should typically be avoided in this population because of their side effects, but nortriptyline and desipramine may be better tolerated for neck and back nerve pain at lower doses.
- Newer antidepressants, particularly the selective serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor duloxetine, have a better safety profile and good efficacy for spine-related nerve pain.
- Traditional opioids are typically avoided in the treatment of spine-related pain in older adults, owing to their associated risks.
However, low-dose opioid therapy may be helpful for severe refractory pain, with close monitoring of patients, the researchers note.
Weaker opioids, such as tramadol, may be better tolerated by older patients. They work well when combined with acetaminophen, but they carry the risk for sedation, upset stomach, and constipation.
“Medications used at the correct dose, for the correct diagnosis, adjusting for preexisting medical problems can result in better use of treatments for spine pain,” coinvestigator Jonathan Fu, MD, also with the department of neurology, Boston University, said in the release.
“Rational therapeutic choices should be targeted to spine pain diagnosis, such as NSAIDs and acetaminophen for arthritic and myofascial-based complaints, gabapentinoids or duloxetine for neuropathic and radicular symptoms, antispastic agents for myofascial-based pain, and combination therapy for mixed etiologies,” the investigators write.
They also emphasize that medications should be coupled with physical therapy and exercise programs, as well as treatment of the underlying degenerative disease process and medical illness, while keeping in mind the need for possible interventions and/or corrective surgery.
The research had no specific funding. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM DRUGS AND AGING
A Veteran With Recurrent, Painful Knee Effusion
Case Presentation: A 39-year-old Air Force veteran was admitted to the US Department of Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) for evaluation of recurrent, painful right knee effusions. On presentation, his vital signs were stable, and the examination was significant for a right knee with a large effusion and tenderness to palpation without erythema or warmth. His white blood cell count was 12.0 cells/L with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 23 mm/h and C-reactive protein of 11.87 mg/L. He was in remission from alcohol use but had relapsed on alcohol in the past day to treat the pain. He had a history of IV drug use but was in remission. He was previously active and enjoyed long hikes. Nine months prior to presentation, he developed his first large right knee effusion associated with pain. He reported no antecedent trauma. At that time, he presented to another hospital and underwent arthrocentesis with orthopedic surgery, but this did not lead to a diagnosis, and the effusion reaccumulated within 24 hours. Four months later, he received a corticosteroid injection that provided only minor, temporary relief. He received 5 additional arthrocenteses over 9 months, all without definitive diagnosis and with rapid reaccumulation of the fluid. His most recent arthrocentesis was 3 weeks before admission.
►Lauren E. Merz, MD, MSc, Chief Medical Resident, VABHS: Dr. Jindal, what is your approach and differential diagnosis for joint effusions in hospitalized patients?
►Shivani Jindal, MD, MPH, Hospitalist, VABHS, Instructor in Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM): A thorough history and physical examination are important. I specifically ask about chronicity, pain, and trauma. A medical history of potential infectious exposures and the history of the present illness are also important, such as the risk of sexually transmitted infections, exposure to Lyme disease or other viral illnesses. Gonococcal arthritis is one of the most common causes of nontraumatic monoarthritis in young adults but can also present as a migratory polyarthritis.1
It sounds like he was quite active and liked to hike so a history of tick exposure is important to ascertain. I would also ask about eye inflammation and back pain to assess possible ankylosing spondyarthritis. Other inflammatory etiologies, such as gout are common, but it would be surprising to miss this diagnosis on repeated arthocenteses. A physical examination can confirm monoarthritis over polyarthritis and assess for signs of inflammatory arthritis (eg, warmth and erythema). The most important etiology to assess for and rule out in a person admitted to the hospital is septic arthritis. The severe pain, mild leukocytosis, and mildly elevated inflammatory markers could be consistent with this diagnosis but are nonspecific. However, the chronicity of this patient’s presentation and hemodynamic stability make septic arthritis less likely overall and a more indolent infection or other inflammatory process more likely.
►Dr. Merz: The patient’s medical history included posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and antisocial personality disorder with multiple prior suicide attempts. He also had a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) with prior overdose and alcohol use disorder (AUD). Given his stated preference to avoid opioids and normal liver function and liver chemistry testing, the initial treatment was with acetaminophen. After this failed to provide satisfactory pain control, IV hydromorphone was added.
Dr. Jindal, how do you approach pain control in the hospital for musculoskeletal issues like this?
►Dr. Jindal: Typically, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) are most effective for musculoskeletal pain, often in the form of ketorolac or ibuprofen. However, we are often limited in our NSAID use by kidney disease, gastritis, or cardiovascular disease.
►Dr. Merz: On hospital day 1, the patient asked to leave to consume alcohol to ease unremitting pain. He also expressed suicidal ideation and discharge was therefore felt to be unsafe. He was reluctant to engage with psychiatry and became physically combative while attempting to leave the hospital, necessitating the use of sedating medications and physical restraints.
Dr. Shahal, what factors led to the decision to place an involuntary hold, and how do you balance patient autonomy and patient safety?
►Dr. Talya Shahal, MD, Consult-Liaison Psychiatry Service, VABHS, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School: This is a delicate balance that requires constant reassessment. The patient initially presented to the emergency department with suicidal ideation, stating he was not able to tolerate the pain and thus resumed alcohol consumption after a period of nonuse. He had multiple risk factors for suicide, including 9 prior suicide attempts with the latest less than a year before presentation, active substance use with alcohol and other recreational drugs, PTSD, pain, veteran status, male sex, single status, and a history of trauma.3,4 He was also displaying impulsivity and limited insight, did not engage in his psychiatric assessment, and attempted to assault staff. As such, his suicide risk was assessed to be high at the time of the evaluation, which led to the decision to place an involuntary hold. However, we reevaluate this decision at least daily in order to reassess the risk and ensure that the balance between patient safety and autonomy are maintained.
►Dr. Merz: The involuntary hold was removed within 48 hours as the patient remained calm and engaged with the primary and consulting teams. He requested escalating doses of opioids as he felt the short-acting IV medications were not providing sustained relief. However, he was also noted to be walking outside of the hospital without assistance, and he repeatedly declined nonopioid pain modalities as well as buprenorphine/naloxone. The chronic pain service was consulted but was unable to see the patient as he was frequently outside of his room.
Dr. Shahal, how do you address OUD, pain, and stigma in the hospital?
►Dr. Shahal: It is important to remember that patients with substance use disorder (SUD) and mental illness frequently have physical causes for pain and are often undertreated.5 Patients with SUD may also have higher tolerance for opioids and may need higher doses to treat the pain.5 Modalities like buprenorphine/naloxone can be effective to treat OUD and pain, but these usually cannot be initiated while the patient is on short-acting opioids as this would precipitate withdrawal.6 However, withdrawal can be managed while inpatient, and this can be a good time to start these medications as practitioners can aggressively help with symptom control. Proactively addressing mental health concerns, particularly anxiety, AUD, insomnia, PTSD, and depression, can also have a direct impact on the perception of pain and assist with better control.2 In addition, nonpharmacologic options, such as meditation, deep breathing, and even acupuncture and Reiki can be helpful and of course less harmful to treat pain.2
► Dr. Merz: An X-ray of the knee showed no acute fracture or joint space narrowing. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed a large knee effusion with no evidence of ligament injury. Synovial fluid showed turbid, yellow fluid with 14,110 nucleated cells (84% segmented cells and 4000 RBCs). Gram stain was negative, culture had no growth, and there were no crystals. Anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), rheumatoid factor, HIV testing, and HLA-B27 were negative.
Dr. Serrao, what do these studies tell us about the joint effusion and the possible diagnoses?
► Dr. Richard Serrao, MD, Infectious Disease, VABHS, Clinical Associate Professor in Medicine, BUSM: I would expect the white blood cell (WBC) count to be > 50,000 cells with > 75% polymorphonuclear cells and a positive Gram stain if this was a bacterial infection resulting in septic arthritis.7 This patient’s studies are not consistent with this diagnosis nor is the chronicity of his presentation. There are 2 important bacteria that can present with inflammatory arthritis and less pronounced findings on arthrocentesis: Borrelia burgdorferi (the bacteria causing Lyme arthritis) and Neisseria gonorrhea. Lyme arthritis could be consistent with this relapsing remitting presentation as you expect a WBC count between 3000 and 100,000 cells with a mean value between 10,000 and 25,000 cells, > 50% polymorphonuclear leukocytes, and negative Gram stains.8 Gonococcal infections often do not have marked elevations in the WBC count and the Gram stain can be variable, but you still expect the WBC count to be > 30,000 cells.7 Inflammatory causes such as gout or autoimmune conditions such as lupus often have a WBC count between 2000 and 100,000 with a negative Gram stain, which could be consistent with this patient’s presentation.7 However, the lack of crystals rules out gout and the negative anti-CCP, rheumatoid factor, and HLA-B27 make rheumatologic diseases less likely.
►Dr. Merz: The patient received a phone call from another hospital where an arthrocentesis had been performed 3 weeks before. The results included a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Lyme disease in the synovial fluid. A subsequent serum Lyme screen was positive for 1 of 3 immunoglobulin (Ig) M bands and 10 of 10 IgG bands.
Dr. Serrao, how does Lyme arthritis typically present, and are there aspects of this case that make you suspect the diagnosis? Does the serum Lyme test give us any additional information?
►Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of Lyme disease. Patients typically have persistent or intermittent arthritis, and large joints are more commonly impacted than small joints. Monoarthritis of the knee is the most common, but oligoarthritis is possible as well. The swelling usually begins abruptly, lasts for weeks to months, and effusions typically recur quickly after aspiration. These findings are consistent with the patient’s clinical history.
For diagnostics, the IgG Western blot is positive if 5 of the 10 bands are positive.9 This patient far exceeds the IgG band number to diagnose Lyme disease. All patients with Lyme arthritis will have positive IgG serologies since Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of the infection. IgM reactivity may be present, but are not necessary to diagnose Lyme arthritis.10 Synovial fluid is often not analyzed for antibody responses as they are susceptible to false positive results, but synovial PCR testing like this patient had detects approximately 70% of patients with untreated Lyme arthritis.11 However, PCR positivity does not necessarily equate with active infection. Serologic testing for Lyme disease by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and Western blot as well as careful history and the exclusion of other diagnoses are usually sufficient to make the diagnosis.
► Dr. Merz: On further history the patient reported that 5 years prior he found a tick on his skin with a bull’s-eye rash. He was treated with 28 days of doxycycline at that time. He did not recall any tick bites or rashes in the years since.
Dr. Serrao, is it surprising that he developed Lyme arthritis 5 years after exposure and after being treated appropriately? What is the typical treatment approach for a patient like this?
►Dr. Serrao: It is atypical to develop Lyme arthritis 5 years after reported treatment of what appeared to be early localized disease, namely, erythema migrans. This stage is usually cured with 10 days of treatment alone (he received 28 days) and is generally abortive of subsequent stages, including Lyme arthritis. Furthermore, the patient reported no symptoms of arthritis until recently since that time. Therefore, one can argue that the excessively long span of time from treatment to these first episodes of arthritis suggests the patient could have been reinfected. When available, comparing the types and number of Western blot bands (eg, new and/or more bands on subsequent serologic testing) can support a reinfection diagnosis. A delayed postinfectious inflammatory process from excessive proinflammatory immune responses that block wound repair resulting in proliferative synovitis is also possible.12 This is defined as the postinfectious, postantibiotic, or antibiotic-refractory Lyme arthritis, a diagnosis of exclusion more apparent only after patients receive appropriate antibiotic courses for the possibility of untreated Lyme as an active infection.12
Given the inherent diagnostic uncertainty between an active infection and posttreatment Lyme arthritis syndromes, it is best to approach most cases of Lyme arthritis as an active infection first especially if not yet treated with antibiotics. Diagnosis of postinflammatory processes should be considered if symptoms persist after appropriate antibiotics, and then short-term use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, rather than further courses of antibiotics, is recommended.
► Dr. Merz: The patient was initiated on doxycycline with the plan to transition to ceftriaxone if there was no response. One day after diagnosis and treatment initiation and in the setting of continued pain, the patient again asked to leave the hospital to drink alcohol. After eloping and becoming intoxicated with alcohol, he returned to his room. He remained concerned about his continued pain and lack of adequate pain control. At the time, he was receiving hydromorphone, ketorolac, lorazepam, gabapentin, and quetiapine.
Dr. Serrao, do you expect this degree of pain from Lyme arthritis?
► Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is typically less painful than other forms of infectious or inflammatory arthritis. Pain is usually caused by the pressure from the acute accumulation and reaccumulation of fluid. In this case, the rapid accumulation of fluid that this patient experienced as well as relief with arthrocentesis suggests that the size and acuity of the effusion was causing great discomfort. Repeated arthrocentesis can prove to be a preventative strategy to minimize synovial herniation.
►Dr. Merz: Dr. Shahal, how do you balance the patient subjectively telling you that they are in pain with objective signs that they may be tolerating the pain like walking around unassisted? Is there anything else that could have been done to prevent this adverse outcome?
►Dr. Shahal: This is one of the hardest pieces of pain management. We want to practice beneficence by believing our patients and addressing their discomfort, but we also want to practice nonmaleficence by avoiding inappropriate long-term pain treatments like opioids that have significant harm as well as avoiding exacerbating this patient’s underlying SUD. An agent like buprenorphine/naloxone could have been an excellent fit to treat pain and SUD, but the patient’s lack of interest and the frequent use of short-acting opioids were major barriers. A chronic pain consult early on is helpful in cases like this as well, but they were unable to see him since he was often out of his room. Repeated arthrocentesis may also have helped the pain. Treatment of anxiety and insomnia with medications like hydroxyzine, trazodone, melatonin, gabapentin, or buspirone as well as interventions like sleep hygiene protocols or spiritual care may have helped somewhat as well.
We know that there is a vicious cycle between pain and poorly controlled mood symptoms. Many of our veterans have PTSD, anxiety, and SUD that are exacerbated by hospitalization and pain. Maintaining optimal communication between the patient and the practitioners, using trauma-informed care, understanding the patient’s goals of care, setting expectations and limits, and attempting to address the patient’s needs while attempting to minimize stigma might be helpful. However, despite optimal care, sometimes these events cannot be avoided.
►Dr. Merz: The patient was ultimately transferred to an inpatient psychiatric unit where a taper plan for the short-acting opioids was implemented. He was psychiatrically stabilized and discharged a few days later off opioids and on doxycycline. On follow-up a few weeks later, his pain had markedly improved, and the effusion was significantly reduced in size. His mood and impulsivity had stabilized. He continues to follow-up in the infectious disease clinic.
1. Siva C, Velazquez C, Mody A, Brasington R. Diagnosing acute monoarthritis in adults: a practical approach for the family physician. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68(1):83-90.
2. Qaseem A, McLean RM, O’Gurek D, et al. Nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults: a clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(9):739-748. doi:10.7326/M19-3602
3. Silverman MM, Berman AL. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part I: a focus on suicide ideation in assessing suicide risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):420-431. doi:10.1111/sltb.12065
4. Berman AL, Silverman MM. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part II: Suicide risk formulation and the determination of levels of risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):432-443. doi:10.1111/sltb.12067
5. Quinlan J, Cox F. Acute pain management in patients with drug dependence syndrome. Pain Rep. 2017;2(4):e611. Published 2017 Jul 27. doi:10.1097/PR9.0000000000000611
6. Chou R, Wagner J, Ahmed AY, et al. Treatments for Acute Pain: A Systematic Review. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566506/
7. Seidman AJ, Limaiem F. Synovial fluid analysis. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Updated May 8, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537114
8. Arvikar SL, Steere AC. Diagnosis and treatment of Lyme arthritis. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2015;29(2):269-280. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2015.02.004
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease. JAMA. 1995;274(12):937.
10. Craft JE, Grodzicki RL, Steere AC. Antibody response in Lyme disease: evaluation of diagnostic tests. J Infect Dis. 1984;149(5):789-795. doi:10.1093/infdis/149.5.789
11. Nocton JJ, Dressler F, Rutledge BJ, Rys PN, Persing DH, Steere AC. Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi DNA by polymerase chain reaction in synovial fluid from patients with Lyme arthritis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(4):229-234. doi:10.1056/NEJM199401273300401
12. Steere AC. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndromes: distinct pathogenesis caused by maladaptive host responses. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(5):2148-2151. doi:10.1172/JCI138062
Case Presentation: A 39-year-old Air Force veteran was admitted to the US Department of Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) for evaluation of recurrent, painful right knee effusions. On presentation, his vital signs were stable, and the examination was significant for a right knee with a large effusion and tenderness to palpation without erythema or warmth. His white blood cell count was 12.0 cells/L with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 23 mm/h and C-reactive protein of 11.87 mg/L. He was in remission from alcohol use but had relapsed on alcohol in the past day to treat the pain. He had a history of IV drug use but was in remission. He was previously active and enjoyed long hikes. Nine months prior to presentation, he developed his first large right knee effusion associated with pain. He reported no antecedent trauma. At that time, he presented to another hospital and underwent arthrocentesis with orthopedic surgery, but this did not lead to a diagnosis, and the effusion reaccumulated within 24 hours. Four months later, he received a corticosteroid injection that provided only minor, temporary relief. He received 5 additional arthrocenteses over 9 months, all without definitive diagnosis and with rapid reaccumulation of the fluid. His most recent arthrocentesis was 3 weeks before admission.
►Lauren E. Merz, MD, MSc, Chief Medical Resident, VABHS: Dr. Jindal, what is your approach and differential diagnosis for joint effusions in hospitalized patients?
►Shivani Jindal, MD, MPH, Hospitalist, VABHS, Instructor in Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM): A thorough history and physical examination are important. I specifically ask about chronicity, pain, and trauma. A medical history of potential infectious exposures and the history of the present illness are also important, such as the risk of sexually transmitted infections, exposure to Lyme disease or other viral illnesses. Gonococcal arthritis is one of the most common causes of nontraumatic monoarthritis in young adults but can also present as a migratory polyarthritis.1
It sounds like he was quite active and liked to hike so a history of tick exposure is important to ascertain. I would also ask about eye inflammation and back pain to assess possible ankylosing spondyarthritis. Other inflammatory etiologies, such as gout are common, but it would be surprising to miss this diagnosis on repeated arthocenteses. A physical examination can confirm monoarthritis over polyarthritis and assess for signs of inflammatory arthritis (eg, warmth and erythema). The most important etiology to assess for and rule out in a person admitted to the hospital is septic arthritis. The severe pain, mild leukocytosis, and mildly elevated inflammatory markers could be consistent with this diagnosis but are nonspecific. However, the chronicity of this patient’s presentation and hemodynamic stability make septic arthritis less likely overall and a more indolent infection or other inflammatory process more likely.
►Dr. Merz: The patient’s medical history included posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and antisocial personality disorder with multiple prior suicide attempts. He also had a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) with prior overdose and alcohol use disorder (AUD). Given his stated preference to avoid opioids and normal liver function and liver chemistry testing, the initial treatment was with acetaminophen. After this failed to provide satisfactory pain control, IV hydromorphone was added.
Dr. Jindal, how do you approach pain control in the hospital for musculoskeletal issues like this?
►Dr. Jindal: Typically, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) are most effective for musculoskeletal pain, often in the form of ketorolac or ibuprofen. However, we are often limited in our NSAID use by kidney disease, gastritis, or cardiovascular disease.
►Dr. Merz: On hospital day 1, the patient asked to leave to consume alcohol to ease unremitting pain. He also expressed suicidal ideation and discharge was therefore felt to be unsafe. He was reluctant to engage with psychiatry and became physically combative while attempting to leave the hospital, necessitating the use of sedating medications and physical restraints.
Dr. Shahal, what factors led to the decision to place an involuntary hold, and how do you balance patient autonomy and patient safety?
►Dr. Talya Shahal, MD, Consult-Liaison Psychiatry Service, VABHS, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School: This is a delicate balance that requires constant reassessment. The patient initially presented to the emergency department with suicidal ideation, stating he was not able to tolerate the pain and thus resumed alcohol consumption after a period of nonuse. He had multiple risk factors for suicide, including 9 prior suicide attempts with the latest less than a year before presentation, active substance use with alcohol and other recreational drugs, PTSD, pain, veteran status, male sex, single status, and a history of trauma.3,4 He was also displaying impulsivity and limited insight, did not engage in his psychiatric assessment, and attempted to assault staff. As such, his suicide risk was assessed to be high at the time of the evaluation, which led to the decision to place an involuntary hold. However, we reevaluate this decision at least daily in order to reassess the risk and ensure that the balance between patient safety and autonomy are maintained.
►Dr. Merz: The involuntary hold was removed within 48 hours as the patient remained calm and engaged with the primary and consulting teams. He requested escalating doses of opioids as he felt the short-acting IV medications were not providing sustained relief. However, he was also noted to be walking outside of the hospital without assistance, and he repeatedly declined nonopioid pain modalities as well as buprenorphine/naloxone. The chronic pain service was consulted but was unable to see the patient as he was frequently outside of his room.
Dr. Shahal, how do you address OUD, pain, and stigma in the hospital?
►Dr. Shahal: It is important to remember that patients with substance use disorder (SUD) and mental illness frequently have physical causes for pain and are often undertreated.5 Patients with SUD may also have higher tolerance for opioids and may need higher doses to treat the pain.5 Modalities like buprenorphine/naloxone can be effective to treat OUD and pain, but these usually cannot be initiated while the patient is on short-acting opioids as this would precipitate withdrawal.6 However, withdrawal can be managed while inpatient, and this can be a good time to start these medications as practitioners can aggressively help with symptom control. Proactively addressing mental health concerns, particularly anxiety, AUD, insomnia, PTSD, and depression, can also have a direct impact on the perception of pain and assist with better control.2 In addition, nonpharmacologic options, such as meditation, deep breathing, and even acupuncture and Reiki can be helpful and of course less harmful to treat pain.2
► Dr. Merz: An X-ray of the knee showed no acute fracture or joint space narrowing. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed a large knee effusion with no evidence of ligament injury. Synovial fluid showed turbid, yellow fluid with 14,110 nucleated cells (84% segmented cells and 4000 RBCs). Gram stain was negative, culture had no growth, and there were no crystals. Anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), rheumatoid factor, HIV testing, and HLA-B27 were negative.
Dr. Serrao, what do these studies tell us about the joint effusion and the possible diagnoses?
► Dr. Richard Serrao, MD, Infectious Disease, VABHS, Clinical Associate Professor in Medicine, BUSM: I would expect the white blood cell (WBC) count to be > 50,000 cells with > 75% polymorphonuclear cells and a positive Gram stain if this was a bacterial infection resulting in septic arthritis.7 This patient’s studies are not consistent with this diagnosis nor is the chronicity of his presentation. There are 2 important bacteria that can present with inflammatory arthritis and less pronounced findings on arthrocentesis: Borrelia burgdorferi (the bacteria causing Lyme arthritis) and Neisseria gonorrhea. Lyme arthritis could be consistent with this relapsing remitting presentation as you expect a WBC count between 3000 and 100,000 cells with a mean value between 10,000 and 25,000 cells, > 50% polymorphonuclear leukocytes, and negative Gram stains.8 Gonococcal infections often do not have marked elevations in the WBC count and the Gram stain can be variable, but you still expect the WBC count to be > 30,000 cells.7 Inflammatory causes such as gout or autoimmune conditions such as lupus often have a WBC count between 2000 and 100,000 with a negative Gram stain, which could be consistent with this patient’s presentation.7 However, the lack of crystals rules out gout and the negative anti-CCP, rheumatoid factor, and HLA-B27 make rheumatologic diseases less likely.
►Dr. Merz: The patient received a phone call from another hospital where an arthrocentesis had been performed 3 weeks before. The results included a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Lyme disease in the synovial fluid. A subsequent serum Lyme screen was positive for 1 of 3 immunoglobulin (Ig) M bands and 10 of 10 IgG bands.
Dr. Serrao, how does Lyme arthritis typically present, and are there aspects of this case that make you suspect the diagnosis? Does the serum Lyme test give us any additional information?
►Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of Lyme disease. Patients typically have persistent or intermittent arthritis, and large joints are more commonly impacted than small joints. Monoarthritis of the knee is the most common, but oligoarthritis is possible as well. The swelling usually begins abruptly, lasts for weeks to months, and effusions typically recur quickly after aspiration. These findings are consistent with the patient’s clinical history.
For diagnostics, the IgG Western blot is positive if 5 of the 10 bands are positive.9 This patient far exceeds the IgG band number to diagnose Lyme disease. All patients with Lyme arthritis will have positive IgG serologies since Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of the infection. IgM reactivity may be present, but are not necessary to diagnose Lyme arthritis.10 Synovial fluid is often not analyzed for antibody responses as they are susceptible to false positive results, but synovial PCR testing like this patient had detects approximately 70% of patients with untreated Lyme arthritis.11 However, PCR positivity does not necessarily equate with active infection. Serologic testing for Lyme disease by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and Western blot as well as careful history and the exclusion of other diagnoses are usually sufficient to make the diagnosis.
► Dr. Merz: On further history the patient reported that 5 years prior he found a tick on his skin with a bull’s-eye rash. He was treated with 28 days of doxycycline at that time. He did not recall any tick bites or rashes in the years since.
Dr. Serrao, is it surprising that he developed Lyme arthritis 5 years after exposure and after being treated appropriately? What is the typical treatment approach for a patient like this?
►Dr. Serrao: It is atypical to develop Lyme arthritis 5 years after reported treatment of what appeared to be early localized disease, namely, erythema migrans. This stage is usually cured with 10 days of treatment alone (he received 28 days) and is generally abortive of subsequent stages, including Lyme arthritis. Furthermore, the patient reported no symptoms of arthritis until recently since that time. Therefore, one can argue that the excessively long span of time from treatment to these first episodes of arthritis suggests the patient could have been reinfected. When available, comparing the types and number of Western blot bands (eg, new and/or more bands on subsequent serologic testing) can support a reinfection diagnosis. A delayed postinfectious inflammatory process from excessive proinflammatory immune responses that block wound repair resulting in proliferative synovitis is also possible.12 This is defined as the postinfectious, postantibiotic, or antibiotic-refractory Lyme arthritis, a diagnosis of exclusion more apparent only after patients receive appropriate antibiotic courses for the possibility of untreated Lyme as an active infection.12
Given the inherent diagnostic uncertainty between an active infection and posttreatment Lyme arthritis syndromes, it is best to approach most cases of Lyme arthritis as an active infection first especially if not yet treated with antibiotics. Diagnosis of postinflammatory processes should be considered if symptoms persist after appropriate antibiotics, and then short-term use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, rather than further courses of antibiotics, is recommended.
► Dr. Merz: The patient was initiated on doxycycline with the plan to transition to ceftriaxone if there was no response. One day after diagnosis and treatment initiation and in the setting of continued pain, the patient again asked to leave the hospital to drink alcohol. After eloping and becoming intoxicated with alcohol, he returned to his room. He remained concerned about his continued pain and lack of adequate pain control. At the time, he was receiving hydromorphone, ketorolac, lorazepam, gabapentin, and quetiapine.
Dr. Serrao, do you expect this degree of pain from Lyme arthritis?
► Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is typically less painful than other forms of infectious or inflammatory arthritis. Pain is usually caused by the pressure from the acute accumulation and reaccumulation of fluid. In this case, the rapid accumulation of fluid that this patient experienced as well as relief with arthrocentesis suggests that the size and acuity of the effusion was causing great discomfort. Repeated arthrocentesis can prove to be a preventative strategy to minimize synovial herniation.
►Dr. Merz: Dr. Shahal, how do you balance the patient subjectively telling you that they are in pain with objective signs that they may be tolerating the pain like walking around unassisted? Is there anything else that could have been done to prevent this adverse outcome?
►Dr. Shahal: This is one of the hardest pieces of pain management. We want to practice beneficence by believing our patients and addressing their discomfort, but we also want to practice nonmaleficence by avoiding inappropriate long-term pain treatments like opioids that have significant harm as well as avoiding exacerbating this patient’s underlying SUD. An agent like buprenorphine/naloxone could have been an excellent fit to treat pain and SUD, but the patient’s lack of interest and the frequent use of short-acting opioids were major barriers. A chronic pain consult early on is helpful in cases like this as well, but they were unable to see him since he was often out of his room. Repeated arthrocentesis may also have helped the pain. Treatment of anxiety and insomnia with medications like hydroxyzine, trazodone, melatonin, gabapentin, or buspirone as well as interventions like sleep hygiene protocols or spiritual care may have helped somewhat as well.
We know that there is a vicious cycle between pain and poorly controlled mood symptoms. Many of our veterans have PTSD, anxiety, and SUD that are exacerbated by hospitalization and pain. Maintaining optimal communication between the patient and the practitioners, using trauma-informed care, understanding the patient’s goals of care, setting expectations and limits, and attempting to address the patient’s needs while attempting to minimize stigma might be helpful. However, despite optimal care, sometimes these events cannot be avoided.
►Dr. Merz: The patient was ultimately transferred to an inpatient psychiatric unit where a taper plan for the short-acting opioids was implemented. He was psychiatrically stabilized and discharged a few days later off opioids and on doxycycline. On follow-up a few weeks later, his pain had markedly improved, and the effusion was significantly reduced in size. His mood and impulsivity had stabilized. He continues to follow-up in the infectious disease clinic.
Case Presentation: A 39-year-old Air Force veteran was admitted to the US Department of Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System (VABHS) for evaluation of recurrent, painful right knee effusions. On presentation, his vital signs were stable, and the examination was significant for a right knee with a large effusion and tenderness to palpation without erythema or warmth. His white blood cell count was 12.0 cells/L with an erythrocyte sedimentation rate of 23 mm/h and C-reactive protein of 11.87 mg/L. He was in remission from alcohol use but had relapsed on alcohol in the past day to treat the pain. He had a history of IV drug use but was in remission. He was previously active and enjoyed long hikes. Nine months prior to presentation, he developed his first large right knee effusion associated with pain. He reported no antecedent trauma. At that time, he presented to another hospital and underwent arthrocentesis with orthopedic surgery, but this did not lead to a diagnosis, and the effusion reaccumulated within 24 hours. Four months later, he received a corticosteroid injection that provided only minor, temporary relief. He received 5 additional arthrocenteses over 9 months, all without definitive diagnosis and with rapid reaccumulation of the fluid. His most recent arthrocentesis was 3 weeks before admission.
►Lauren E. Merz, MD, MSc, Chief Medical Resident, VABHS: Dr. Jindal, what is your approach and differential diagnosis for joint effusions in hospitalized patients?
►Shivani Jindal, MD, MPH, Hospitalist, VABHS, Instructor in Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine (BUSM): A thorough history and physical examination are important. I specifically ask about chronicity, pain, and trauma. A medical history of potential infectious exposures and the history of the present illness are also important, such as the risk of sexually transmitted infections, exposure to Lyme disease or other viral illnesses. Gonococcal arthritis is one of the most common causes of nontraumatic monoarthritis in young adults but can also present as a migratory polyarthritis.1
It sounds like he was quite active and liked to hike so a history of tick exposure is important to ascertain. I would also ask about eye inflammation and back pain to assess possible ankylosing spondyarthritis. Other inflammatory etiologies, such as gout are common, but it would be surprising to miss this diagnosis on repeated arthocenteses. A physical examination can confirm monoarthritis over polyarthritis and assess for signs of inflammatory arthritis (eg, warmth and erythema). The most important etiology to assess for and rule out in a person admitted to the hospital is septic arthritis. The severe pain, mild leukocytosis, and mildly elevated inflammatory markers could be consistent with this diagnosis but are nonspecific. However, the chronicity of this patient’s presentation and hemodynamic stability make septic arthritis less likely overall and a more indolent infection or other inflammatory process more likely.
►Dr. Merz: The patient’s medical history included posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and antisocial personality disorder with multiple prior suicide attempts. He also had a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) with prior overdose and alcohol use disorder (AUD). Given his stated preference to avoid opioids and normal liver function and liver chemistry testing, the initial treatment was with acetaminophen. After this failed to provide satisfactory pain control, IV hydromorphone was added.
Dr. Jindal, how do you approach pain control in the hospital for musculoskeletal issues like this?
►Dr. Jindal: Typically, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications (NSAIDs) are most effective for musculoskeletal pain, often in the form of ketorolac or ibuprofen. However, we are often limited in our NSAID use by kidney disease, gastritis, or cardiovascular disease.
►Dr. Merz: On hospital day 1, the patient asked to leave to consume alcohol to ease unremitting pain. He also expressed suicidal ideation and discharge was therefore felt to be unsafe. He was reluctant to engage with psychiatry and became physically combative while attempting to leave the hospital, necessitating the use of sedating medications and physical restraints.
Dr. Shahal, what factors led to the decision to place an involuntary hold, and how do you balance patient autonomy and patient safety?
►Dr. Talya Shahal, MD, Consult-Liaison Psychiatry Service, VABHS, Instructor in Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School: This is a delicate balance that requires constant reassessment. The patient initially presented to the emergency department with suicidal ideation, stating he was not able to tolerate the pain and thus resumed alcohol consumption after a period of nonuse. He had multiple risk factors for suicide, including 9 prior suicide attempts with the latest less than a year before presentation, active substance use with alcohol and other recreational drugs, PTSD, pain, veteran status, male sex, single status, and a history of trauma.3,4 He was also displaying impulsivity and limited insight, did not engage in his psychiatric assessment, and attempted to assault staff. As such, his suicide risk was assessed to be high at the time of the evaluation, which led to the decision to place an involuntary hold. However, we reevaluate this decision at least daily in order to reassess the risk and ensure that the balance between patient safety and autonomy are maintained.
►Dr. Merz: The involuntary hold was removed within 48 hours as the patient remained calm and engaged with the primary and consulting teams. He requested escalating doses of opioids as he felt the short-acting IV medications were not providing sustained relief. However, he was also noted to be walking outside of the hospital without assistance, and he repeatedly declined nonopioid pain modalities as well as buprenorphine/naloxone. The chronic pain service was consulted but was unable to see the patient as he was frequently outside of his room.
Dr. Shahal, how do you address OUD, pain, and stigma in the hospital?
►Dr. Shahal: It is important to remember that patients with substance use disorder (SUD) and mental illness frequently have physical causes for pain and are often undertreated.5 Patients with SUD may also have higher tolerance for opioids and may need higher doses to treat the pain.5 Modalities like buprenorphine/naloxone can be effective to treat OUD and pain, but these usually cannot be initiated while the patient is on short-acting opioids as this would precipitate withdrawal.6 However, withdrawal can be managed while inpatient, and this can be a good time to start these medications as practitioners can aggressively help with symptom control. Proactively addressing mental health concerns, particularly anxiety, AUD, insomnia, PTSD, and depression, can also have a direct impact on the perception of pain and assist with better control.2 In addition, nonpharmacologic options, such as meditation, deep breathing, and even acupuncture and Reiki can be helpful and of course less harmful to treat pain.2
► Dr. Merz: An X-ray of the knee showed no acute fracture or joint space narrowing. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed a large knee effusion with no evidence of ligament injury. Synovial fluid showed turbid, yellow fluid with 14,110 nucleated cells (84% segmented cells and 4000 RBCs). Gram stain was negative, culture had no growth, and there were no crystals. Anticyclic citrullinated peptide (anti-CCP), rheumatoid factor, HIV testing, and HLA-B27 were negative.
Dr. Serrao, what do these studies tell us about the joint effusion and the possible diagnoses?
► Dr. Richard Serrao, MD, Infectious Disease, VABHS, Clinical Associate Professor in Medicine, BUSM: I would expect the white blood cell (WBC) count to be > 50,000 cells with > 75% polymorphonuclear cells and a positive Gram stain if this was a bacterial infection resulting in septic arthritis.7 This patient’s studies are not consistent with this diagnosis nor is the chronicity of his presentation. There are 2 important bacteria that can present with inflammatory arthritis and less pronounced findings on arthrocentesis: Borrelia burgdorferi (the bacteria causing Lyme arthritis) and Neisseria gonorrhea. Lyme arthritis could be consistent with this relapsing remitting presentation as you expect a WBC count between 3000 and 100,000 cells with a mean value between 10,000 and 25,000 cells, > 50% polymorphonuclear leukocytes, and negative Gram stains.8 Gonococcal infections often do not have marked elevations in the WBC count and the Gram stain can be variable, but you still expect the WBC count to be > 30,000 cells.7 Inflammatory causes such as gout or autoimmune conditions such as lupus often have a WBC count between 2000 and 100,000 with a negative Gram stain, which could be consistent with this patient’s presentation.7 However, the lack of crystals rules out gout and the negative anti-CCP, rheumatoid factor, and HLA-B27 make rheumatologic diseases less likely.
►Dr. Merz: The patient received a phone call from another hospital where an arthrocentesis had been performed 3 weeks before. The results included a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for Lyme disease in the synovial fluid. A subsequent serum Lyme screen was positive for 1 of 3 immunoglobulin (Ig) M bands and 10 of 10 IgG bands.
Dr. Serrao, how does Lyme arthritis typically present, and are there aspects of this case that make you suspect the diagnosis? Does the serum Lyme test give us any additional information?
►Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of Lyme disease. Patients typically have persistent or intermittent arthritis, and large joints are more commonly impacted than small joints. Monoarthritis of the knee is the most common, but oligoarthritis is possible as well. The swelling usually begins abruptly, lasts for weeks to months, and effusions typically recur quickly after aspiration. These findings are consistent with the patient’s clinical history.
For diagnostics, the IgG Western blot is positive if 5 of the 10 bands are positive.9 This patient far exceeds the IgG band number to diagnose Lyme disease. All patients with Lyme arthritis will have positive IgG serologies since Lyme arthritis is a late manifestation of the infection. IgM reactivity may be present, but are not necessary to diagnose Lyme arthritis.10 Synovial fluid is often not analyzed for antibody responses as they are susceptible to false positive results, but synovial PCR testing like this patient had detects approximately 70% of patients with untreated Lyme arthritis.11 However, PCR positivity does not necessarily equate with active infection. Serologic testing for Lyme disease by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and Western blot as well as careful history and the exclusion of other diagnoses are usually sufficient to make the diagnosis.
► Dr. Merz: On further history the patient reported that 5 years prior he found a tick on his skin with a bull’s-eye rash. He was treated with 28 days of doxycycline at that time. He did not recall any tick bites or rashes in the years since.
Dr. Serrao, is it surprising that he developed Lyme arthritis 5 years after exposure and after being treated appropriately? What is the typical treatment approach for a patient like this?
►Dr. Serrao: It is atypical to develop Lyme arthritis 5 years after reported treatment of what appeared to be early localized disease, namely, erythema migrans. This stage is usually cured with 10 days of treatment alone (he received 28 days) and is generally abortive of subsequent stages, including Lyme arthritis. Furthermore, the patient reported no symptoms of arthritis until recently since that time. Therefore, one can argue that the excessively long span of time from treatment to these first episodes of arthritis suggests the patient could have been reinfected. When available, comparing the types and number of Western blot bands (eg, new and/or more bands on subsequent serologic testing) can support a reinfection diagnosis. A delayed postinfectious inflammatory process from excessive proinflammatory immune responses that block wound repair resulting in proliferative synovitis is also possible.12 This is defined as the postinfectious, postantibiotic, or antibiotic-refractory Lyme arthritis, a diagnosis of exclusion more apparent only after patients receive appropriate antibiotic courses for the possibility of untreated Lyme as an active infection.12
Given the inherent diagnostic uncertainty between an active infection and posttreatment Lyme arthritis syndromes, it is best to approach most cases of Lyme arthritis as an active infection first especially if not yet treated with antibiotics. Diagnosis of postinflammatory processes should be considered if symptoms persist after appropriate antibiotics, and then short-term use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, rather than further courses of antibiotics, is recommended.
► Dr. Merz: The patient was initiated on doxycycline with the plan to transition to ceftriaxone if there was no response. One day after diagnosis and treatment initiation and in the setting of continued pain, the patient again asked to leave the hospital to drink alcohol. After eloping and becoming intoxicated with alcohol, he returned to his room. He remained concerned about his continued pain and lack of adequate pain control. At the time, he was receiving hydromorphone, ketorolac, lorazepam, gabapentin, and quetiapine.
Dr. Serrao, do you expect this degree of pain from Lyme arthritis?
► Dr. Serrao: Lyme arthritis is typically less painful than other forms of infectious or inflammatory arthritis. Pain is usually caused by the pressure from the acute accumulation and reaccumulation of fluid. In this case, the rapid accumulation of fluid that this patient experienced as well as relief with arthrocentesis suggests that the size and acuity of the effusion was causing great discomfort. Repeated arthrocentesis can prove to be a preventative strategy to minimize synovial herniation.
►Dr. Merz: Dr. Shahal, how do you balance the patient subjectively telling you that they are in pain with objective signs that they may be tolerating the pain like walking around unassisted? Is there anything else that could have been done to prevent this adverse outcome?
►Dr. Shahal: This is one of the hardest pieces of pain management. We want to practice beneficence by believing our patients and addressing their discomfort, but we also want to practice nonmaleficence by avoiding inappropriate long-term pain treatments like opioids that have significant harm as well as avoiding exacerbating this patient’s underlying SUD. An agent like buprenorphine/naloxone could have been an excellent fit to treat pain and SUD, but the patient’s lack of interest and the frequent use of short-acting opioids were major barriers. A chronic pain consult early on is helpful in cases like this as well, but they were unable to see him since he was often out of his room. Repeated arthrocentesis may also have helped the pain. Treatment of anxiety and insomnia with medications like hydroxyzine, trazodone, melatonin, gabapentin, or buspirone as well as interventions like sleep hygiene protocols or spiritual care may have helped somewhat as well.
We know that there is a vicious cycle between pain and poorly controlled mood symptoms. Many of our veterans have PTSD, anxiety, and SUD that are exacerbated by hospitalization and pain. Maintaining optimal communication between the patient and the practitioners, using trauma-informed care, understanding the patient’s goals of care, setting expectations and limits, and attempting to address the patient’s needs while attempting to minimize stigma might be helpful. However, despite optimal care, sometimes these events cannot be avoided.
►Dr. Merz: The patient was ultimately transferred to an inpatient psychiatric unit where a taper plan for the short-acting opioids was implemented. He was psychiatrically stabilized and discharged a few days later off opioids and on doxycycline. On follow-up a few weeks later, his pain had markedly improved, and the effusion was significantly reduced in size. His mood and impulsivity had stabilized. He continues to follow-up in the infectious disease clinic.
1. Siva C, Velazquez C, Mody A, Brasington R. Diagnosing acute monoarthritis in adults: a practical approach for the family physician. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68(1):83-90.
2. Qaseem A, McLean RM, O’Gurek D, et al. Nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults: a clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(9):739-748. doi:10.7326/M19-3602
3. Silverman MM, Berman AL. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part I: a focus on suicide ideation in assessing suicide risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):420-431. doi:10.1111/sltb.12065
4. Berman AL, Silverman MM. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part II: Suicide risk formulation and the determination of levels of risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):432-443. doi:10.1111/sltb.12067
5. Quinlan J, Cox F. Acute pain management in patients with drug dependence syndrome. Pain Rep. 2017;2(4):e611. Published 2017 Jul 27. doi:10.1097/PR9.0000000000000611
6. Chou R, Wagner J, Ahmed AY, et al. Treatments for Acute Pain: A Systematic Review. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566506/
7. Seidman AJ, Limaiem F. Synovial fluid analysis. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Updated May 8, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537114
8. Arvikar SL, Steere AC. Diagnosis and treatment of Lyme arthritis. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2015;29(2):269-280. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2015.02.004
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease. JAMA. 1995;274(12):937.
10. Craft JE, Grodzicki RL, Steere AC. Antibody response in Lyme disease: evaluation of diagnostic tests. J Infect Dis. 1984;149(5):789-795. doi:10.1093/infdis/149.5.789
11. Nocton JJ, Dressler F, Rutledge BJ, Rys PN, Persing DH, Steere AC. Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi DNA by polymerase chain reaction in synovial fluid from patients with Lyme arthritis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(4):229-234. doi:10.1056/NEJM199401273300401
12. Steere AC. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndromes: distinct pathogenesis caused by maladaptive host responses. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(5):2148-2151. doi:10.1172/JCI138062
1. Siva C, Velazquez C, Mody A, Brasington R. Diagnosing acute monoarthritis in adults: a practical approach for the family physician. Am Fam Physician. 2003;68(1):83-90.
2. Qaseem A, McLean RM, O’Gurek D, et al. Nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic management of acute pain from non-low back, musculoskeletal injuries in adults: a clinical guideline from the American College of Physicians and American Academy of Family Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(9):739-748. doi:10.7326/M19-3602
3. Silverman MM, Berman AL. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part I: a focus on suicide ideation in assessing suicide risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):420-431. doi:10.1111/sltb.12065
4. Berman AL, Silverman MM. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part II: Suicide risk formulation and the determination of levels of risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):432-443. doi:10.1111/sltb.12067
5. Quinlan J, Cox F. Acute pain management in patients with drug dependence syndrome. Pain Rep. 2017;2(4):e611. Published 2017 Jul 27. doi:10.1097/PR9.0000000000000611
6. Chou R, Wagner J, Ahmed AY, et al. Treatments for Acute Pain: A Systematic Review. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566506/
7. Seidman AJ, Limaiem F. Synovial fluid analysis. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Updated May 8, 2022. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK537114
8. Arvikar SL, Steere AC. Diagnosis and treatment of Lyme arthritis. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2015;29(2):269-280. doi:10.1016/j.idc.2015.02.004
9. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for test performance and interpretation from the Second National Conference on Serologic Diagnosis of Lyme Disease. JAMA. 1995;274(12):937.
10. Craft JE, Grodzicki RL, Steere AC. Antibody response in Lyme disease: evaluation of diagnostic tests. J Infect Dis. 1984;149(5):789-795. doi:10.1093/infdis/149.5.789
11. Nocton JJ, Dressler F, Rutledge BJ, Rys PN, Persing DH, Steere AC. Detection of Borrelia burgdorferi DNA by polymerase chain reaction in synovial fluid from patients with Lyme arthritis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(4):229-234. doi:10.1056/NEJM199401273300401
12. Steere AC. Posttreatment Lyme disease syndromes: distinct pathogenesis caused by maladaptive host responses. J Clin Invest. 2020;130(5):2148-2151. doi:10.1172/JCI138062
Add AFib to noncardiac surgery risk evaluation: New support
Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.
But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.
Indeed, AFib emerged as a significant, independent risk factor for a number of bad postoperative outcomes. Mortality within a month of the procedure climbed about 30% for patients with AFib before the noncardiac surgery. Their 30-day risks for stroke and for heart failure hospitalization went up similarly.
The addition of AFib to the RCRI significantly improved its ability to discriminate 30-day postoperative risk levels regardless of age, sex, and type of noncardiac surgery, Amgad Mentias, MD, Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. And “it was able to correctly up-classify patients to high risk, if AFib was there, and it was able to down-classify some patients to lower risk if it wasn’t there.”
“I think [the findings] are convincing evidence that atrial fib should at least be part of the thought process for the surgical team and the medical team taking care of the patient,” said Dr. Mentias, who is senior author on the study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, with lead author Sameer Prasada, MD, also of the Cleveland Clinic.
The results “call for incorporating AFib as a risk factor in perioperative risk scores for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” the published report states.
Supraventricular arrhythmias had been part of the Goldman Risk Index once widely used preoperatively to assess cardiac risk before practice adopted the RCRI in the past decade, observe Anne B. Curtis, MD, and Sai Krishna C. Korada, MD, University at Buffalo, New York, in an accompanying editorial.
The current findings “demonstrate improved prediction of adverse postsurgical outcomes” from supplementing the RCRI with AFib, they write. Given associations between preexisting AFib and serious cardiac events, “it is time to ‘re-revise’ the RCRI and acknowledge the importance of AFib in predicting adverse outcomes” after noncardiac surgery.
The new findings, however, aren’t all straightforward. In one result that remains a bit of a head-scratcher, postoperative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with preexisting AFib went in the opposite direction of risk for death and other CV outcomes, falling by almost 20%.
That is “hard to explain with the available data,” the report states, but “the use of anticoagulation, whether oral or parenteral (as a bridge therapy in the perioperative period), is a plausible explanation” given the frequent role of thrombosis in triggering MIs.
Consistent with such a mechanism, the group argues, the MI risk reduction was seen primarily among patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or higher – that is, those at highest risk for stroke and therefore most likely to be on oral anticoagulation. The MI risk reduction wasn’t seen in such patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1.
“I think that’s part of the explanation, that anticoagulation can reduce risk of MI. But it’s not the whole explanation,” Dr. Mentias said in an interview. If it were the sole mechanism, he said, then the same oral anticoagulation that protected against MI should have also cut the postoperative stroke risk. Yet that risk climbed 40% among patients with preexisting AFib.
The analysis started with 8.6 million Medicare patients with planned noncardiac surgery, seen from 2015 to 2019, of whom 16.4% had preexisting AFib. Propensity matching for demographics, urgency and type of surgery, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and RCRI index created two cohorts for comparison: 1.13 million patients with and 1.92 million without preexisting AFib.
Preexisting AFib was associated with a higher 30-day risk for death from any cause, the primary endpoint being 8.3% versus 5.8% for those without such AFib (P < .001), for an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.32).
Corresponding 30-day ORs for other events, all significant at P < .001, were:
- 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
- 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
- 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
- 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding
- 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI
Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).
The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.
For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.
“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”
Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.
But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.
Indeed, AFib emerged as a significant, independent risk factor for a number of bad postoperative outcomes. Mortality within a month of the procedure climbed about 30% for patients with AFib before the noncardiac surgery. Their 30-day risks for stroke and for heart failure hospitalization went up similarly.
The addition of AFib to the RCRI significantly improved its ability to discriminate 30-day postoperative risk levels regardless of age, sex, and type of noncardiac surgery, Amgad Mentias, MD, Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. And “it was able to correctly up-classify patients to high risk, if AFib was there, and it was able to down-classify some patients to lower risk if it wasn’t there.”
“I think [the findings] are convincing evidence that atrial fib should at least be part of the thought process for the surgical team and the medical team taking care of the patient,” said Dr. Mentias, who is senior author on the study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, with lead author Sameer Prasada, MD, also of the Cleveland Clinic.
The results “call for incorporating AFib as a risk factor in perioperative risk scores for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” the published report states.
Supraventricular arrhythmias had been part of the Goldman Risk Index once widely used preoperatively to assess cardiac risk before practice adopted the RCRI in the past decade, observe Anne B. Curtis, MD, and Sai Krishna C. Korada, MD, University at Buffalo, New York, in an accompanying editorial.
The current findings “demonstrate improved prediction of adverse postsurgical outcomes” from supplementing the RCRI with AFib, they write. Given associations between preexisting AFib and serious cardiac events, “it is time to ‘re-revise’ the RCRI and acknowledge the importance of AFib in predicting adverse outcomes” after noncardiac surgery.
The new findings, however, aren’t all straightforward. In one result that remains a bit of a head-scratcher, postoperative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with preexisting AFib went in the opposite direction of risk for death and other CV outcomes, falling by almost 20%.
That is “hard to explain with the available data,” the report states, but “the use of anticoagulation, whether oral or parenteral (as a bridge therapy in the perioperative period), is a plausible explanation” given the frequent role of thrombosis in triggering MIs.
Consistent with such a mechanism, the group argues, the MI risk reduction was seen primarily among patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or higher – that is, those at highest risk for stroke and therefore most likely to be on oral anticoagulation. The MI risk reduction wasn’t seen in such patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1.
“I think that’s part of the explanation, that anticoagulation can reduce risk of MI. But it’s not the whole explanation,” Dr. Mentias said in an interview. If it were the sole mechanism, he said, then the same oral anticoagulation that protected against MI should have also cut the postoperative stroke risk. Yet that risk climbed 40% among patients with preexisting AFib.
The analysis started with 8.6 million Medicare patients with planned noncardiac surgery, seen from 2015 to 2019, of whom 16.4% had preexisting AFib. Propensity matching for demographics, urgency and type of surgery, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and RCRI index created two cohorts for comparison: 1.13 million patients with and 1.92 million without preexisting AFib.
Preexisting AFib was associated with a higher 30-day risk for death from any cause, the primary endpoint being 8.3% versus 5.8% for those without such AFib (P < .001), for an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.32).
Corresponding 30-day ORs for other events, all significant at P < .001, were:
- 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
- 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
- 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
- 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding
- 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI
Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).
The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.
For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.
“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”
Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Practice has gone back and forth on whether atrial fibrillation (AFib) should be considered in the preoperative cardiovascular risk (CV) evaluation of patients slated for noncardiac surgery, and the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), currently widely used as an assessment tool, doesn’t include the arrhythmia.
But consideration of preexisting AFib along with the RCRI predicted 30-day mortality more sharply than the RCRI alone in an analysis of data covering several million patients slated for such procedures.
Indeed, AFib emerged as a significant, independent risk factor for a number of bad postoperative outcomes. Mortality within a month of the procedure climbed about 30% for patients with AFib before the noncardiac surgery. Their 30-day risks for stroke and for heart failure hospitalization went up similarly.
The addition of AFib to the RCRI significantly improved its ability to discriminate 30-day postoperative risk levels regardless of age, sex, and type of noncardiac surgery, Amgad Mentias, MD, Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. And “it was able to correctly up-classify patients to high risk, if AFib was there, and it was able to down-classify some patients to lower risk if it wasn’t there.”
“I think [the findings] are convincing evidence that atrial fib should at least be part of the thought process for the surgical team and the medical team taking care of the patient,” said Dr. Mentias, who is senior author on the study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, with lead author Sameer Prasada, MD, also of the Cleveland Clinic.
The results “call for incorporating AFib as a risk factor in perioperative risk scores for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” the published report states.
Supraventricular arrhythmias had been part of the Goldman Risk Index once widely used preoperatively to assess cardiac risk before practice adopted the RCRI in the past decade, observe Anne B. Curtis, MD, and Sai Krishna C. Korada, MD, University at Buffalo, New York, in an accompanying editorial.
The current findings “demonstrate improved prediction of adverse postsurgical outcomes” from supplementing the RCRI with AFib, they write. Given associations between preexisting AFib and serious cardiac events, “it is time to ‘re-revise’ the RCRI and acknowledge the importance of AFib in predicting adverse outcomes” after noncardiac surgery.
The new findings, however, aren’t all straightforward. In one result that remains a bit of a head-scratcher, postoperative risk of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with preexisting AFib went in the opposite direction of risk for death and other CV outcomes, falling by almost 20%.
That is “hard to explain with the available data,” the report states, but “the use of anticoagulation, whether oral or parenteral (as a bridge therapy in the perioperative period), is a plausible explanation” given the frequent role of thrombosis in triggering MIs.
Consistent with such a mechanism, the group argues, the MI risk reduction was seen primarily among patients with AFib and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2 or higher – that is, those at highest risk for stroke and therefore most likely to be on oral anticoagulation. The MI risk reduction wasn’t seen in such patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1.
“I think that’s part of the explanation, that anticoagulation can reduce risk of MI. But it’s not the whole explanation,” Dr. Mentias said in an interview. If it were the sole mechanism, he said, then the same oral anticoagulation that protected against MI should have also cut the postoperative stroke risk. Yet that risk climbed 40% among patients with preexisting AFib.
The analysis started with 8.6 million Medicare patients with planned noncardiac surgery, seen from 2015 to 2019, of whom 16.4% had preexisting AFib. Propensity matching for demographics, urgency and type of surgery, CHA2DS2-VASc score, and RCRI index created two cohorts for comparison: 1.13 million patients with and 1.92 million without preexisting AFib.
Preexisting AFib was associated with a higher 30-day risk for death from any cause, the primary endpoint being 8.3% versus 5.8% for those without such AFib (P < .001), for an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% confidence interval, 1.30-1.32).
Corresponding 30-day ORs for other events, all significant at P < .001, were:
- 1.31 (95% CI, 1.30-1.33) for heart failure
- 1.40 (95% CI, 1.37-1.43) for stroke
- 1.59 (95% CI, 1.43-1.75) for systemic embolism
- 1.14 (95% CI, 1.13-1.16) for major bleeding
- 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79-0.82) for MI
Those with preexisting AFib also had longer hospitalizations at a median 5 days, compared with 4 days for those without such AFib (P < .001).
The study has the limitations of most any retrospective cohort analysis. Other limitations, the report notes, include lack of information on any antiarrhythmic meds given during hospitalization or type of AFib.
For example, AFib that is permanent – compared with paroxysmal or persistent – may be associated with more atrial fibrosis, greater atrial dilatation, “and probably higher pressures inside the heart,” Dr. Mentias observed.
“That’s not always the case, but that’s the notion. So presumably people with persistent or permanent atrial fib would have more advanced heart disease, and that could imply more risk. But we did not have that kind of data.”
Dr. Mentias and Dr. Prasada report no relevant financial relationships; disclosures for the other authors are in the report. Dr. Curtis discloses serving on advisory boards for Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, and Milestone Pharmaceuticals; receiving honoraria for speaking from Medtronic and Zoll; and serving on a data-monitoring board for Medtronic. Dr. Korada reports he has no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A doctor’s missed diagnosis results in mega award
story from WCCO CBS Minnesota, among other news outlets. The award has been called the largest judgment of its kind in Minnesota history.
, according to aIn January 2017, Nepalese immigrant Anuj Thapa was playing in an indoor soccer game at St. Cloud State University when another player tackled him. His left leg badly injured, Mr. Thapa was taken by ambulance to CentraCare’s St. Cloud Hospital. The orthopedic surgeon on call that day was Chad Holien, MD, who is affiliated with St. Cloud Orthopedics, a private clinic in nearby Sartell, Minn. Following preparations, and with the help of a physician assistant, Dr. Holien operated on the patient’s broken leg.
But Mr. Thapa experienced post-surgical complications – severe pain, numbness, burning, and muscle issues. Despite the complications, he was discharged from the hospital that afternoon and sent home.
Six days later, Mr. Thapa returned to St. Cloud Hospital, still complaining of severe pain. A second orthopedic surgeon operated and found that Mr. Thapa had “acute compartment syndrome,” the result of internal pressure that had built up in his leg muscles.
Over time, Mr. Thapa underwent more than 20 surgeries on his leg to deal with the ongoing pain and other complications, according to WCCO.
In 2019, he filed a medical malpractice suit in U.S. district court against St. Cloud Orthopedics, the private practice that employed the surgeon and the PA. (Under Minnesota law, an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees.)
In his complaint, Mr. Thapa alleged that in treating him, “the defendants departed from accepted standards of medical practice.” Among other things, he claimed that Dr. Holien and the PA had not properly evaluated his postoperative symptoms, failed to diagnose and treat his compartment syndrome, and improperly discharged him from the hospital. These lapses, Mr. Thapa said, led to his “severe, permanent, and disabling injuries.”
The federal jury agreed. After a weeklong trial, it awarded the plaintiff $100 million for future “pain, disability, disfigurement, embarrassment, and emotional distress.” It also gave him $10 million for past suffering and a little more than $1 million for past and future medical bills.
In a postverdict statement, Mr. Thapa’s attorney said that, while the surgeon and PA are undoubtedly good providers, they made mistakes in this case.
A defense attorney for St. Cloud Orthopedics disputes this: “We maintain the care provided in this case was in accordance with accepted standards of care.”
At press time, the defense had not determined whether to appeal the jury’s $111 million verdict. “St. Cloud continues to support its providers,” said the clinic’s defense attorney. “We are evaluating our options regarding this verdict.”
The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
story from WCCO CBS Minnesota, among other news outlets. The award has been called the largest judgment of its kind in Minnesota history.
, according to aIn January 2017, Nepalese immigrant Anuj Thapa was playing in an indoor soccer game at St. Cloud State University when another player tackled him. His left leg badly injured, Mr. Thapa was taken by ambulance to CentraCare’s St. Cloud Hospital. The orthopedic surgeon on call that day was Chad Holien, MD, who is affiliated with St. Cloud Orthopedics, a private clinic in nearby Sartell, Minn. Following preparations, and with the help of a physician assistant, Dr. Holien operated on the patient’s broken leg.
But Mr. Thapa experienced post-surgical complications – severe pain, numbness, burning, and muscle issues. Despite the complications, he was discharged from the hospital that afternoon and sent home.
Six days later, Mr. Thapa returned to St. Cloud Hospital, still complaining of severe pain. A second orthopedic surgeon operated and found that Mr. Thapa had “acute compartment syndrome,” the result of internal pressure that had built up in his leg muscles.
Over time, Mr. Thapa underwent more than 20 surgeries on his leg to deal with the ongoing pain and other complications, according to WCCO.
In 2019, he filed a medical malpractice suit in U.S. district court against St. Cloud Orthopedics, the private practice that employed the surgeon and the PA. (Under Minnesota law, an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees.)
In his complaint, Mr. Thapa alleged that in treating him, “the defendants departed from accepted standards of medical practice.” Among other things, he claimed that Dr. Holien and the PA had not properly evaluated his postoperative symptoms, failed to diagnose and treat his compartment syndrome, and improperly discharged him from the hospital. These lapses, Mr. Thapa said, led to his “severe, permanent, and disabling injuries.”
The federal jury agreed. After a weeklong trial, it awarded the plaintiff $100 million for future “pain, disability, disfigurement, embarrassment, and emotional distress.” It also gave him $10 million for past suffering and a little more than $1 million for past and future medical bills.
In a postverdict statement, Mr. Thapa’s attorney said that, while the surgeon and PA are undoubtedly good providers, they made mistakes in this case.
A defense attorney for St. Cloud Orthopedics disputes this: “We maintain the care provided in this case was in accordance with accepted standards of care.”
At press time, the defense had not determined whether to appeal the jury’s $111 million verdict. “St. Cloud continues to support its providers,” said the clinic’s defense attorney. “We are evaluating our options regarding this verdict.”
The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
story from WCCO CBS Minnesota, among other news outlets. The award has been called the largest judgment of its kind in Minnesota history.
, according to aIn January 2017, Nepalese immigrant Anuj Thapa was playing in an indoor soccer game at St. Cloud State University when another player tackled him. His left leg badly injured, Mr. Thapa was taken by ambulance to CentraCare’s St. Cloud Hospital. The orthopedic surgeon on call that day was Chad Holien, MD, who is affiliated with St. Cloud Orthopedics, a private clinic in nearby Sartell, Minn. Following preparations, and with the help of a physician assistant, Dr. Holien operated on the patient’s broken leg.
But Mr. Thapa experienced post-surgical complications – severe pain, numbness, burning, and muscle issues. Despite the complications, he was discharged from the hospital that afternoon and sent home.
Six days later, Mr. Thapa returned to St. Cloud Hospital, still complaining of severe pain. A second orthopedic surgeon operated and found that Mr. Thapa had “acute compartment syndrome,” the result of internal pressure that had built up in his leg muscles.
Over time, Mr. Thapa underwent more than 20 surgeries on his leg to deal with the ongoing pain and other complications, according to WCCO.
In 2019, he filed a medical malpractice suit in U.S. district court against St. Cloud Orthopedics, the private practice that employed the surgeon and the PA. (Under Minnesota law, an employer is responsible for the actions of its employees.)
In his complaint, Mr. Thapa alleged that in treating him, “the defendants departed from accepted standards of medical practice.” Among other things, he claimed that Dr. Holien and the PA had not properly evaluated his postoperative symptoms, failed to diagnose and treat his compartment syndrome, and improperly discharged him from the hospital. These lapses, Mr. Thapa said, led to his “severe, permanent, and disabling injuries.”
The federal jury agreed. After a weeklong trial, it awarded the plaintiff $100 million for future “pain, disability, disfigurement, embarrassment, and emotional distress.” It also gave him $10 million for past suffering and a little more than $1 million for past and future medical bills.
In a postverdict statement, Mr. Thapa’s attorney said that, while the surgeon and PA are undoubtedly good providers, they made mistakes in this case.
A defense attorney for St. Cloud Orthopedics disputes this: “We maintain the care provided in this case was in accordance with accepted standards of care.”
At press time, the defense had not determined whether to appeal the jury’s $111 million verdict. “St. Cloud continues to support its providers,” said the clinic’s defense attorney. “We are evaluating our options regarding this verdict.”
The content contained in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reliance on any information provided in this article is solely at your own risk.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Lithium lowers osteoporosis risk in bipolar patients…and orthopedists take notice
NEW ORLEANS –
“Our findings emphasize that bone health should be a priority in the clinical management of bipolar disorder, and that the potential bone-protective effects of lithium should be subjected to further study – both in the context of osteoporosis and bipolar disorder,” said Soren D. Ostergaard, MD, PhD, the study’s first author and a professor in the psychosis research unit, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital – Psychiatry.
For the retrospective cohort study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, and also published recently in JAMA Psychiatry, the authors reviewed data on 22,912 patients treated for bipolar disorder in Denmark between 1996 and 2019, and compared each patient with 5 age- and sex-matched controls, amounting to 114,560 individuals in the general population.
Of the patients with bipolar disorder, 38.2% were treated with lithium, while 73.6% received an antipsychotic drug; 16.8% received valproate and 33.1% received lamotrigine.
With a median follow-up of 7.7 years, the incidence of osteoporosis per 1,000 person-years was 8.70 among patients with bipolar disorder, compared with an incidence of 7.84 among controls, (hazard rate ratio, 1.15).
The association of bipolar disorder with osteoporosis was notably more pronounced among males (HRR, 1.42) compared with females (HRR, 1.07).
Notably, those with bipolar disorder treated with lithium showed a significantly reduced risk of osteoporosis compared with patients not receiving lithium (HRR, 0.62), after adjustment for factors including age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, use of systemic corticosteroids, use of sedative medication, and eating disorder diagnosis. No similar reductions in osteoporosis risk were observed among those treated with antipsychotics, valproate or lamotrigine.
Of note, the reduced risk of osteoporosis with lithium appeared after about year 2 of treatment (HR, 0.77) and remained steady at more than 4 years (HR, 0.76). A higher cumulative lithium dose was meanwhile associated with a greater decrease in the risk of osteoporosis (P < .001).
Results confirm prior research
The results are consistent with previous smaller studies indicating that people with bipolar disorders shown an increased risk of low bone density, osteopenia, and even fracture.
The higher risk of osteoporosis in bipolar disorder may be explained by lifestyle factors, Dr. Ostergaard noted in an interview.
“It could be the depressive and manic phases in bipolar disorder, but generally speaking, both phases can lead to an unhealthy lifestyle and that’s likely what drives the association between bipolar disorder and osteoporosis,” he said. “Increases in behaviors such as smoking and alcohol consumption may be factors as well. Similar findings are seen with depression.”
While more needs to be understood, Dr. Ostergaard speculated that higher rates of such behaviors in men with bipolar disorder may explain the higher osteoporosis risk observed in men.
In general, however, the increased risk underscores the importance of raising awareness of bone health among patients with bipolar disorder, the authors concluded.
“Specifically, guiding patients toward a lifestyle supporting bone health (no smoking, reduced alcohol consumption, healthy diet, and exercising) and monitoring bone density via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans among those with additional risk factors seems warranted,” they wrote.
The implications of the lithium findings are trickier to determine, Dr. Ostergaard said.
“The evidence for lithium in bipolar disorder are well established, and our findings don’t really add to that,” he said. “The main thing is it suggests there might be some advantages of lithium that we’re not really aware of.”
Findings important for orthopedists
The unique properties observed with lithium have caught the attention of some in orthopedics, and researchers with the University of Toronto – having found intriguing bone healing with lithium in preclinical rodent studies – are currently conducting a first-of-its-kind multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the potential effects of lithium in the healing of bone fractures.
Diane Nam, MD, of the division of orthopedic surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, and lead investigator on the study, said in an interview that “I’m not surprised by [Dr. Ostergaard’s] paper because it’s consistent with what we have observed about the positive effects on bone healing.”
Dr. Nam and associates have already established administration parameters for their clinical study, determining that optimal effects in fracture healing appear to require that lithium treatment not begin at the time of fracture, but 2 weeks afterward, when new bone is ready to be laid down at the fracture site. In their trial, low daily doses of lithium (at 300 mg) are given only for a duration of 2 weeks.
“While our current trial is intended for a healthy, nonosteoporotic adult population, we have also demonstrated in our preclinical studies that lithium is just as effective in improving fracture healing in an osteoporotic model when the timing of administration is slightly delayed,” she said. “How this is relevant and translatable in patients with bipolar disorder requires further study.”
Dr. Nam said her research team thinks that “not only will the fracture heal faster, but it will heal reliably as delayed or impaired fracture healing remains a significant orthopedic problem.”
While details are not yet available, a preliminary analysis has shown results “going in a positive direction,” enough for the team to be granted funding for the multicenter trial.
Dr. Ostergaard and Dr. Nam reported no disclosures or conflicts.
NEW ORLEANS –
“Our findings emphasize that bone health should be a priority in the clinical management of bipolar disorder, and that the potential bone-protective effects of lithium should be subjected to further study – both in the context of osteoporosis and bipolar disorder,” said Soren D. Ostergaard, MD, PhD, the study’s first author and a professor in the psychosis research unit, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital – Psychiatry.
For the retrospective cohort study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, and also published recently in JAMA Psychiatry, the authors reviewed data on 22,912 patients treated for bipolar disorder in Denmark between 1996 and 2019, and compared each patient with 5 age- and sex-matched controls, amounting to 114,560 individuals in the general population.
Of the patients with bipolar disorder, 38.2% were treated with lithium, while 73.6% received an antipsychotic drug; 16.8% received valproate and 33.1% received lamotrigine.
With a median follow-up of 7.7 years, the incidence of osteoporosis per 1,000 person-years was 8.70 among patients with bipolar disorder, compared with an incidence of 7.84 among controls, (hazard rate ratio, 1.15).
The association of bipolar disorder with osteoporosis was notably more pronounced among males (HRR, 1.42) compared with females (HRR, 1.07).
Notably, those with bipolar disorder treated with lithium showed a significantly reduced risk of osteoporosis compared with patients not receiving lithium (HRR, 0.62), after adjustment for factors including age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, use of systemic corticosteroids, use of sedative medication, and eating disorder diagnosis. No similar reductions in osteoporosis risk were observed among those treated with antipsychotics, valproate or lamotrigine.
Of note, the reduced risk of osteoporosis with lithium appeared after about year 2 of treatment (HR, 0.77) and remained steady at more than 4 years (HR, 0.76). A higher cumulative lithium dose was meanwhile associated with a greater decrease in the risk of osteoporosis (P < .001).
Results confirm prior research
The results are consistent with previous smaller studies indicating that people with bipolar disorders shown an increased risk of low bone density, osteopenia, and even fracture.
The higher risk of osteoporosis in bipolar disorder may be explained by lifestyle factors, Dr. Ostergaard noted in an interview.
“It could be the depressive and manic phases in bipolar disorder, but generally speaking, both phases can lead to an unhealthy lifestyle and that’s likely what drives the association between bipolar disorder and osteoporosis,” he said. “Increases in behaviors such as smoking and alcohol consumption may be factors as well. Similar findings are seen with depression.”
While more needs to be understood, Dr. Ostergaard speculated that higher rates of such behaviors in men with bipolar disorder may explain the higher osteoporosis risk observed in men.
In general, however, the increased risk underscores the importance of raising awareness of bone health among patients with bipolar disorder, the authors concluded.
“Specifically, guiding patients toward a lifestyle supporting bone health (no smoking, reduced alcohol consumption, healthy diet, and exercising) and monitoring bone density via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans among those with additional risk factors seems warranted,” they wrote.
The implications of the lithium findings are trickier to determine, Dr. Ostergaard said.
“The evidence for lithium in bipolar disorder are well established, and our findings don’t really add to that,” he said. “The main thing is it suggests there might be some advantages of lithium that we’re not really aware of.”
Findings important for orthopedists
The unique properties observed with lithium have caught the attention of some in orthopedics, and researchers with the University of Toronto – having found intriguing bone healing with lithium in preclinical rodent studies – are currently conducting a first-of-its-kind multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the potential effects of lithium in the healing of bone fractures.
Diane Nam, MD, of the division of orthopedic surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, and lead investigator on the study, said in an interview that “I’m not surprised by [Dr. Ostergaard’s] paper because it’s consistent with what we have observed about the positive effects on bone healing.”
Dr. Nam and associates have already established administration parameters for their clinical study, determining that optimal effects in fracture healing appear to require that lithium treatment not begin at the time of fracture, but 2 weeks afterward, when new bone is ready to be laid down at the fracture site. In their trial, low daily doses of lithium (at 300 mg) are given only for a duration of 2 weeks.
“While our current trial is intended for a healthy, nonosteoporotic adult population, we have also demonstrated in our preclinical studies that lithium is just as effective in improving fracture healing in an osteoporotic model when the timing of administration is slightly delayed,” she said. “How this is relevant and translatable in patients with bipolar disorder requires further study.”
Dr. Nam said her research team thinks that “not only will the fracture heal faster, but it will heal reliably as delayed or impaired fracture healing remains a significant orthopedic problem.”
While details are not yet available, a preliminary analysis has shown results “going in a positive direction,” enough for the team to be granted funding for the multicenter trial.
Dr. Ostergaard and Dr. Nam reported no disclosures or conflicts.
NEW ORLEANS –
“Our findings emphasize that bone health should be a priority in the clinical management of bipolar disorder, and that the potential bone-protective effects of lithium should be subjected to further study – both in the context of osteoporosis and bipolar disorder,” said Soren D. Ostergaard, MD, PhD, the study’s first author and a professor in the psychosis research unit, Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital – Psychiatry.
For the retrospective cohort study, presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association, and also published recently in JAMA Psychiatry, the authors reviewed data on 22,912 patients treated for bipolar disorder in Denmark between 1996 and 2019, and compared each patient with 5 age- and sex-matched controls, amounting to 114,560 individuals in the general population.
Of the patients with bipolar disorder, 38.2% were treated with lithium, while 73.6% received an antipsychotic drug; 16.8% received valproate and 33.1% received lamotrigine.
With a median follow-up of 7.7 years, the incidence of osteoporosis per 1,000 person-years was 8.70 among patients with bipolar disorder, compared with an incidence of 7.84 among controls, (hazard rate ratio, 1.15).
The association of bipolar disorder with osteoporosis was notably more pronounced among males (HRR, 1.42) compared with females (HRR, 1.07).
Notably, those with bipolar disorder treated with lithium showed a significantly reduced risk of osteoporosis compared with patients not receiving lithium (HRR, 0.62), after adjustment for factors including age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, use of systemic corticosteroids, use of sedative medication, and eating disorder diagnosis. No similar reductions in osteoporosis risk were observed among those treated with antipsychotics, valproate or lamotrigine.
Of note, the reduced risk of osteoporosis with lithium appeared after about year 2 of treatment (HR, 0.77) and remained steady at more than 4 years (HR, 0.76). A higher cumulative lithium dose was meanwhile associated with a greater decrease in the risk of osteoporosis (P < .001).
Results confirm prior research
The results are consistent with previous smaller studies indicating that people with bipolar disorders shown an increased risk of low bone density, osteopenia, and even fracture.
The higher risk of osteoporosis in bipolar disorder may be explained by lifestyle factors, Dr. Ostergaard noted in an interview.
“It could be the depressive and manic phases in bipolar disorder, but generally speaking, both phases can lead to an unhealthy lifestyle and that’s likely what drives the association between bipolar disorder and osteoporosis,” he said. “Increases in behaviors such as smoking and alcohol consumption may be factors as well. Similar findings are seen with depression.”
While more needs to be understood, Dr. Ostergaard speculated that higher rates of such behaviors in men with bipolar disorder may explain the higher osteoporosis risk observed in men.
In general, however, the increased risk underscores the importance of raising awareness of bone health among patients with bipolar disorder, the authors concluded.
“Specifically, guiding patients toward a lifestyle supporting bone health (no smoking, reduced alcohol consumption, healthy diet, and exercising) and monitoring bone density via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans among those with additional risk factors seems warranted,” they wrote.
The implications of the lithium findings are trickier to determine, Dr. Ostergaard said.
“The evidence for lithium in bipolar disorder are well established, and our findings don’t really add to that,” he said. “The main thing is it suggests there might be some advantages of lithium that we’re not really aware of.”
Findings important for orthopedists
The unique properties observed with lithium have caught the attention of some in orthopedics, and researchers with the University of Toronto – having found intriguing bone healing with lithium in preclinical rodent studies – are currently conducting a first-of-its-kind multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial evaluating the potential effects of lithium in the healing of bone fractures.
Diane Nam, MD, of the division of orthopedic surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, and lead investigator on the study, said in an interview that “I’m not surprised by [Dr. Ostergaard’s] paper because it’s consistent with what we have observed about the positive effects on bone healing.”
Dr. Nam and associates have already established administration parameters for their clinical study, determining that optimal effects in fracture healing appear to require that lithium treatment not begin at the time of fracture, but 2 weeks afterward, when new bone is ready to be laid down at the fracture site. In their trial, low daily doses of lithium (at 300 mg) are given only for a duration of 2 weeks.
“While our current trial is intended for a healthy, nonosteoporotic adult population, we have also demonstrated in our preclinical studies that lithium is just as effective in improving fracture healing in an osteoporotic model when the timing of administration is slightly delayed,” she said. “How this is relevant and translatable in patients with bipolar disorder requires further study.”
Dr. Nam said her research team thinks that “not only will the fracture heal faster, but it will heal reliably as delayed or impaired fracture healing remains a significant orthopedic problem.”
While details are not yet available, a preliminary analysis has shown results “going in a positive direction,” enough for the team to be granted funding for the multicenter trial.
Dr. Ostergaard and Dr. Nam reported no disclosures or conflicts.
AT APA 2022
‘Where does it hurt?’: Primary care tips for common ortho problems
Knee and shoulder pain are common complaints for patients in the primary care office.
But identifying the source of the pain can be complicated,
and an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of discomfort is key to appropriate management – whether that involves simple home care options of ice and rest or a recommendation for a follow-up with a specialist.
Speaking at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Greg Nakamoto, MD, department of orthopedics, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, discussed common knee and shoulder problems that patients often present with in the primary care setting, and offered tips on diagnosis and appropriate management.
The most common conditions causing knee pain are osteoarthritis and meniscal tears. “The differential for knee pain is broad,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “You have to have a way to divide it down, such as if it’s acute or chronic.”
The initial workup has several key components. The first steps: Determine the location of the pain – anterior, medial, lateral, posterior – and then whether it stems from an injury or is atraumatic.
“If you have to ask one question – ask where it hurts,” he said. “And is it from an injury or just wear and tear? That helps me when deciding if surgery is needed.”
Pain in the knee generally localizes well to the site of pathology, and knee pain of acute traumatic onset requires more scrutiny for problems best treated with early surgery. “This also helps establish whether radiographic findings are due to injury or degeneration,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “The presence of swelling guides the need for anti-inflammatories or cortisone.”
Palpating for tenderness along the joint line is important, as is palpating above and below the joint line, Dr. Nakamoto said.
“Tenderness limited to the joint line, combined with a meniscal exam maneuver that reproduces joint-line pain, is suggestive of pain from meniscal pathology,” he said.
Imaging is an important component of evaluating knee symptoms, and the question often arises as to when to order an MRI.
Dr. Nakamoto offered the following scenario: If significant osteoarthritis is evident on weight-bearing x-ray, treat the patient for the condition. However, if little or no osteoarthritis appears on x-ray, and if the onset of symptoms was traumatic and both patient history and physical examination suggest a meniscal tear, order an MRI.
An early MRI also is needed if the patient has had either atraumatic or traumatic onset of symptoms and their history and physical exams are suspicious for a mechanically locked or locking meniscus. For suspicion of a ruptured quadriceps or patellar tendon or a stress fracture, an MRI is needed urgently.
An MRI would be ordered later if the patient’s symptoms have not improved significantly after 3 months of conservative management.
Dr. Nakamoto stressed how common undiagnosed meniscus tears are in the general population. A third of men aged 50-59 years and nearly 20% of women in that age group have a tear, he said. “That number goes up to 56% and 51% in men and women aged 70-90 years, and 61% of these tears were in patients who were asymptomatic in the last month.”
In the setting of osteoarthritis, 76% of asymptomatic patients had a meniscus tear, and 91% of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis had a meniscus tear, he added.
Treating knee pain
Treatment will vary depending on the underlying etiology of pain. For a possible meniscus tear, the recommendation is for a conservative intervention with ice, ibuprofen, knee immobilizer, and crutches, with a follow-up appointment in a week.
Three types of injections also can help:
- Cortisone for osteoarthritis or meniscus tears, swelling, and inflammation, and prophylaxis against inflammation.
- Viscosupplementation (intra‐articular hyaluronic acid) for chronic, baseline osteoarthritis symptoms.
- Regenerative therapies (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, etc.) are used primarily for osteoarthritis (these do not regrow cartilage, but some patients report decreased pain).
The data on injections are mixed, Dr. Nakamoto said. For example, the results of a 2015 Cochrane review on cortisone injections for osteoarthritis reported that the benefits were small to moderate at 4‐6 weeks, and small to none at 13 weeks.
“There is a lot of controversy for viscosupplementation despite all of the data on it,” he said. “But the recommendations from professional organizations are mixed.”
He noted that he has been using viscosupplementation since the 1990s, and some patients do benefit from it.
Shoulder pain
The most common causes of shoulder pain are adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tears and tendinopathy, and impingement.
As with knee pain, the same assessment routine largely applies.
First, pinpoint the location: Is the trouble spot the lateral shoulder and upper arm, the trapezial ridge, or the shoulder blade?
Next, assess pain on movement: Does the patient experience discomfort reaching overhead or behind the back, or moving at the glenohumeral joint/capsule and engaging the rotator cuff? Check for stiffness, weakness, and decreased range of motion in the rotator cuff.
Determine if the cause of the pain is traumatic or atraumatic and stems from an acute injury versus degeneration or overuse.
As with the knee, imaging is a major component of the assessment and typically involves the use of x-ray. An MRI may be required for evaluating full- and partial-thickness tears and when contemplating surgery.
MRI also is necessary for evaluating cases of acute, traumatic shoulder injury, and patients exhibiting disability suggestive of a rotator cuff tear in an otherwise healthy tendon.
Some pain can be treated with cortisone injections or regenerative therapies, which generally are given at the acromioclavicular or glenohumeral joints or in the subacromial space. A 2005 meta-analysis found that subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendinitis up to a 9‐month period.
Surgery may be warranted in some cases, Dr. Nakamoto said. These include adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tear, acute traumatic injury in an otherwise healthy tendon, and chronic (or acute-on-chronic) tears in a degenerative tendon following a trial of conservative therapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Knee and shoulder pain are common complaints for patients in the primary care office.
But identifying the source of the pain can be complicated,
and an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of discomfort is key to appropriate management – whether that involves simple home care options of ice and rest or a recommendation for a follow-up with a specialist.
Speaking at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Greg Nakamoto, MD, department of orthopedics, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, discussed common knee and shoulder problems that patients often present with in the primary care setting, and offered tips on diagnosis and appropriate management.
The most common conditions causing knee pain are osteoarthritis and meniscal tears. “The differential for knee pain is broad,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “You have to have a way to divide it down, such as if it’s acute or chronic.”
The initial workup has several key components. The first steps: Determine the location of the pain – anterior, medial, lateral, posterior – and then whether it stems from an injury or is atraumatic.
“If you have to ask one question – ask where it hurts,” he said. “And is it from an injury or just wear and tear? That helps me when deciding if surgery is needed.”
Pain in the knee generally localizes well to the site of pathology, and knee pain of acute traumatic onset requires more scrutiny for problems best treated with early surgery. “This also helps establish whether radiographic findings are due to injury or degeneration,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “The presence of swelling guides the need for anti-inflammatories or cortisone.”
Palpating for tenderness along the joint line is important, as is palpating above and below the joint line, Dr. Nakamoto said.
“Tenderness limited to the joint line, combined with a meniscal exam maneuver that reproduces joint-line pain, is suggestive of pain from meniscal pathology,” he said.
Imaging is an important component of evaluating knee symptoms, and the question often arises as to when to order an MRI.
Dr. Nakamoto offered the following scenario: If significant osteoarthritis is evident on weight-bearing x-ray, treat the patient for the condition. However, if little or no osteoarthritis appears on x-ray, and if the onset of symptoms was traumatic and both patient history and physical examination suggest a meniscal tear, order an MRI.
An early MRI also is needed if the patient has had either atraumatic or traumatic onset of symptoms and their history and physical exams are suspicious for a mechanically locked or locking meniscus. For suspicion of a ruptured quadriceps or patellar tendon or a stress fracture, an MRI is needed urgently.
An MRI would be ordered later if the patient’s symptoms have not improved significantly after 3 months of conservative management.
Dr. Nakamoto stressed how common undiagnosed meniscus tears are in the general population. A third of men aged 50-59 years and nearly 20% of women in that age group have a tear, he said. “That number goes up to 56% and 51% in men and women aged 70-90 years, and 61% of these tears were in patients who were asymptomatic in the last month.”
In the setting of osteoarthritis, 76% of asymptomatic patients had a meniscus tear, and 91% of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis had a meniscus tear, he added.
Treating knee pain
Treatment will vary depending on the underlying etiology of pain. For a possible meniscus tear, the recommendation is for a conservative intervention with ice, ibuprofen, knee immobilizer, and crutches, with a follow-up appointment in a week.
Three types of injections also can help:
- Cortisone for osteoarthritis or meniscus tears, swelling, and inflammation, and prophylaxis against inflammation.
- Viscosupplementation (intra‐articular hyaluronic acid) for chronic, baseline osteoarthritis symptoms.
- Regenerative therapies (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, etc.) are used primarily for osteoarthritis (these do not regrow cartilage, but some patients report decreased pain).
The data on injections are mixed, Dr. Nakamoto said. For example, the results of a 2015 Cochrane review on cortisone injections for osteoarthritis reported that the benefits were small to moderate at 4‐6 weeks, and small to none at 13 weeks.
“There is a lot of controversy for viscosupplementation despite all of the data on it,” he said. “But the recommendations from professional organizations are mixed.”
He noted that he has been using viscosupplementation since the 1990s, and some patients do benefit from it.
Shoulder pain
The most common causes of shoulder pain are adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tears and tendinopathy, and impingement.
As with knee pain, the same assessment routine largely applies.
First, pinpoint the location: Is the trouble spot the lateral shoulder and upper arm, the trapezial ridge, or the shoulder blade?
Next, assess pain on movement: Does the patient experience discomfort reaching overhead or behind the back, or moving at the glenohumeral joint/capsule and engaging the rotator cuff? Check for stiffness, weakness, and decreased range of motion in the rotator cuff.
Determine if the cause of the pain is traumatic or atraumatic and stems from an acute injury versus degeneration or overuse.
As with the knee, imaging is a major component of the assessment and typically involves the use of x-ray. An MRI may be required for evaluating full- and partial-thickness tears and when contemplating surgery.
MRI also is necessary for evaluating cases of acute, traumatic shoulder injury, and patients exhibiting disability suggestive of a rotator cuff tear in an otherwise healthy tendon.
Some pain can be treated with cortisone injections or regenerative therapies, which generally are given at the acromioclavicular or glenohumeral joints or in the subacromial space. A 2005 meta-analysis found that subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendinitis up to a 9‐month period.
Surgery may be warranted in some cases, Dr. Nakamoto said. These include adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tear, acute traumatic injury in an otherwise healthy tendon, and chronic (or acute-on-chronic) tears in a degenerative tendon following a trial of conservative therapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Knee and shoulder pain are common complaints for patients in the primary care office.
But identifying the source of the pain can be complicated,
and an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of discomfort is key to appropriate management – whether that involves simple home care options of ice and rest or a recommendation for a follow-up with a specialist.
Speaking at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Greg Nakamoto, MD, department of orthopedics, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, discussed common knee and shoulder problems that patients often present with in the primary care setting, and offered tips on diagnosis and appropriate management.
The most common conditions causing knee pain are osteoarthritis and meniscal tears. “The differential for knee pain is broad,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “You have to have a way to divide it down, such as if it’s acute or chronic.”
The initial workup has several key components. The first steps: Determine the location of the pain – anterior, medial, lateral, posterior – and then whether it stems from an injury or is atraumatic.
“If you have to ask one question – ask where it hurts,” he said. “And is it from an injury or just wear and tear? That helps me when deciding if surgery is needed.”
Pain in the knee generally localizes well to the site of pathology, and knee pain of acute traumatic onset requires more scrutiny for problems best treated with early surgery. “This also helps establish whether radiographic findings are due to injury or degeneration,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “The presence of swelling guides the need for anti-inflammatories or cortisone.”
Palpating for tenderness along the joint line is important, as is palpating above and below the joint line, Dr. Nakamoto said.
“Tenderness limited to the joint line, combined with a meniscal exam maneuver that reproduces joint-line pain, is suggestive of pain from meniscal pathology,” he said.
Imaging is an important component of evaluating knee symptoms, and the question often arises as to when to order an MRI.
Dr. Nakamoto offered the following scenario: If significant osteoarthritis is evident on weight-bearing x-ray, treat the patient for the condition. However, if little or no osteoarthritis appears on x-ray, and if the onset of symptoms was traumatic and both patient history and physical examination suggest a meniscal tear, order an MRI.
An early MRI also is needed if the patient has had either atraumatic or traumatic onset of symptoms and their history and physical exams are suspicious for a mechanically locked or locking meniscus. For suspicion of a ruptured quadriceps or patellar tendon or a stress fracture, an MRI is needed urgently.
An MRI would be ordered later if the patient’s symptoms have not improved significantly after 3 months of conservative management.
Dr. Nakamoto stressed how common undiagnosed meniscus tears are in the general population. A third of men aged 50-59 years and nearly 20% of women in that age group have a tear, he said. “That number goes up to 56% and 51% in men and women aged 70-90 years, and 61% of these tears were in patients who were asymptomatic in the last month.”
In the setting of osteoarthritis, 76% of asymptomatic patients had a meniscus tear, and 91% of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis had a meniscus tear, he added.
Treating knee pain
Treatment will vary depending on the underlying etiology of pain. For a possible meniscus tear, the recommendation is for a conservative intervention with ice, ibuprofen, knee immobilizer, and crutches, with a follow-up appointment in a week.
Three types of injections also can help:
- Cortisone for osteoarthritis or meniscus tears, swelling, and inflammation, and prophylaxis against inflammation.
- Viscosupplementation (intra‐articular hyaluronic acid) for chronic, baseline osteoarthritis symptoms.
- Regenerative therapies (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, etc.) are used primarily for osteoarthritis (these do not regrow cartilage, but some patients report decreased pain).
The data on injections are mixed, Dr. Nakamoto said. For example, the results of a 2015 Cochrane review on cortisone injections for osteoarthritis reported that the benefits were small to moderate at 4‐6 weeks, and small to none at 13 weeks.
“There is a lot of controversy for viscosupplementation despite all of the data on it,” he said. “But the recommendations from professional organizations are mixed.”
He noted that he has been using viscosupplementation since the 1990s, and some patients do benefit from it.
Shoulder pain
The most common causes of shoulder pain are adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tears and tendinopathy, and impingement.
As with knee pain, the same assessment routine largely applies.
First, pinpoint the location: Is the trouble spot the lateral shoulder and upper arm, the trapezial ridge, or the shoulder blade?
Next, assess pain on movement: Does the patient experience discomfort reaching overhead or behind the back, or moving at the glenohumeral joint/capsule and engaging the rotator cuff? Check for stiffness, weakness, and decreased range of motion in the rotator cuff.
Determine if the cause of the pain is traumatic or atraumatic and stems from an acute injury versus degeneration or overuse.
As with the knee, imaging is a major component of the assessment and typically involves the use of x-ray. An MRI may be required for evaluating full- and partial-thickness tears and when contemplating surgery.
MRI also is necessary for evaluating cases of acute, traumatic shoulder injury, and patients exhibiting disability suggestive of a rotator cuff tear in an otherwise healthy tendon.
Some pain can be treated with cortisone injections or regenerative therapies, which generally are given at the acromioclavicular or glenohumeral joints or in the subacromial space. A 2005 meta-analysis found that subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendinitis up to a 9‐month period.
Surgery may be warranted in some cases, Dr. Nakamoto said. These include adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tear, acute traumatic injury in an otherwise healthy tendon, and chronic (or acute-on-chronic) tears in a degenerative tendon following a trial of conservative therapy.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM INTERNAL MEDICINE 2022
Wearable sensors deemed reliable for home gait assessment in knee OA
Remote gait assessment in people with knee osteoarthritis using wearable sensors appears reliable but yields results slightly different from those achieved in the laboratory, researchers from Boston University have found.
As reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress, there was “good to excellent reliability” in repeated measures collected by patients at home while being instructed via video teleconferencing.
Agreement was “moderate to excellent” when the findings were compared with those recorded in the lab, Michael J. Rose of Boston University reported at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
“People walked faster and stood up faster in the lab,” Mr. Rose said. “Later we found that the difference in gait speed was statistically significant between the lab and home environment.”
This has been suggested previously and implies that data collected at home may have “greater ecological validity,” he observed.
Accelerated adoption of telehealth
Assessing how well someone walks or can stand from a seated position are well known and important assessments in knee OA, but these have but have traditionally only been done in large and expensive gait labs, Mr. Rose said.
Wearable technologies, such as the ones used in the study he presented, could help move these assessments out into the community. This is particularly timely considering the increased adoption of telehealth practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To look at the reliability measurements obtained via wearable sensors versus lab assessments, Mr. Rose and associates set up a substudy within a larger ongoing, single-arm trial looking at the use of digital assessments to measure the efficacy of an exercise intervention in reducing knee pain and improving knee function.
For inclusion in the main trial (n = 60), and hence the substudy (n = 20), participants had to have physician-diagnosed knee OA, be 50 years of age or older, have a body mass index of 40 kg/m2 or lower, be able to walk at for a least 20 minutes, and have a score of three or higher on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale for weight-bearing items.
Acceptance of in-lab versus home testing
The substudy participants (mean age, 70.5 years) all underwent in-person lab visits in which a wearable sensor was placed on each foot and one around the lower back and the participant asked to perform walking and chair stand tests. The latter involved standing from a seated position as quickly as possible without using the arms five times, while the former involved walking 28 meters in two laps of a 7-meter path defined by two cones. These tests were repeated twice.
Participants were then given the equipment to repeat these tests at home; this included the three sensors, a tablet computer, and chair and cones. The home assessments were conducted via video conferencing, with the researchers reminding how to place the sensors correctly. The walking and chair stand tests were then each performed four times: Twice in a row and then a 15-minute rest period before being performed twice in a row again.
The researchers collected participants’ feedback about the process on questionnaires and Likert scales that showed an overall positive experience for the remote home visit, with the median rating being “very likely” to participate in another home visit and that the time commitment required was “very manageable.”
Good correlation found
To determine the correlation and the test-retest reliability of the data obtained during the repeated home tasks, Mr. Rose and collaborators used Pearson’s correlation R2 and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).
ICCs for various gait and chair stand variables obtained with the sensors were between 0.85 and 0.96 for the test-retest reliability during the remote home visit, and R2 ranged between 0.81 and 0.95. Variables include stance, cadence (steps per minute), step duration and length, speed, and chair stand duration.
With regard to the agreement between the home versus lab results, ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.9.
“There were some logistical and technological challenges with the approach,” Mr. Rose conceded. “Despite written and verbal instructions, 2 of the 20 participants ended up having gait data that was unusable in the home visit.”
Another limitation is that the study population, while “representative,” contained a higher number of individuals than the general population who identified as being White (95%) and female (85%), and 90% had a college degree.
“Individuals typically representative of an OA population were generally accepting and willing to participate in remote visits showing the feasibility of our approach,” Mr. Rose said.
“We need to determine the responsiveness of gait and chair stand outcomes from wearable sensors at home to change over time.”
The study was sponsored by Boston University with funding from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The researchers used the OPAL inertial sensor (APDM Wearable Technologies) in the study. Mr. Rose made no personal disclosures. Four of his collaborators were employees of Pfizer and one is an employee of Eli Lilly & Company, all with stock or stock options.
Remote gait assessment in people with knee osteoarthritis using wearable sensors appears reliable but yields results slightly different from those achieved in the laboratory, researchers from Boston University have found.
As reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress, there was “good to excellent reliability” in repeated measures collected by patients at home while being instructed via video teleconferencing.
Agreement was “moderate to excellent” when the findings were compared with those recorded in the lab, Michael J. Rose of Boston University reported at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
“People walked faster and stood up faster in the lab,” Mr. Rose said. “Later we found that the difference in gait speed was statistically significant between the lab and home environment.”
This has been suggested previously and implies that data collected at home may have “greater ecological validity,” he observed.
Accelerated adoption of telehealth
Assessing how well someone walks or can stand from a seated position are well known and important assessments in knee OA, but these have but have traditionally only been done in large and expensive gait labs, Mr. Rose said.
Wearable technologies, such as the ones used in the study he presented, could help move these assessments out into the community. This is particularly timely considering the increased adoption of telehealth practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To look at the reliability measurements obtained via wearable sensors versus lab assessments, Mr. Rose and associates set up a substudy within a larger ongoing, single-arm trial looking at the use of digital assessments to measure the efficacy of an exercise intervention in reducing knee pain and improving knee function.
For inclusion in the main trial (n = 60), and hence the substudy (n = 20), participants had to have physician-diagnosed knee OA, be 50 years of age or older, have a body mass index of 40 kg/m2 or lower, be able to walk at for a least 20 minutes, and have a score of three or higher on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale for weight-bearing items.
Acceptance of in-lab versus home testing
The substudy participants (mean age, 70.5 years) all underwent in-person lab visits in which a wearable sensor was placed on each foot and one around the lower back and the participant asked to perform walking and chair stand tests. The latter involved standing from a seated position as quickly as possible without using the arms five times, while the former involved walking 28 meters in two laps of a 7-meter path defined by two cones. These tests were repeated twice.
Participants were then given the equipment to repeat these tests at home; this included the three sensors, a tablet computer, and chair and cones. The home assessments were conducted via video conferencing, with the researchers reminding how to place the sensors correctly. The walking and chair stand tests were then each performed four times: Twice in a row and then a 15-minute rest period before being performed twice in a row again.
The researchers collected participants’ feedback about the process on questionnaires and Likert scales that showed an overall positive experience for the remote home visit, with the median rating being “very likely” to participate in another home visit and that the time commitment required was “very manageable.”
Good correlation found
To determine the correlation and the test-retest reliability of the data obtained during the repeated home tasks, Mr. Rose and collaborators used Pearson’s correlation R2 and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).
ICCs for various gait and chair stand variables obtained with the sensors were between 0.85 and 0.96 for the test-retest reliability during the remote home visit, and R2 ranged between 0.81 and 0.95. Variables include stance, cadence (steps per minute), step duration and length, speed, and chair stand duration.
With regard to the agreement between the home versus lab results, ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.9.
“There were some logistical and technological challenges with the approach,” Mr. Rose conceded. “Despite written and verbal instructions, 2 of the 20 participants ended up having gait data that was unusable in the home visit.”
Another limitation is that the study population, while “representative,” contained a higher number of individuals than the general population who identified as being White (95%) and female (85%), and 90% had a college degree.
“Individuals typically representative of an OA population were generally accepting and willing to participate in remote visits showing the feasibility of our approach,” Mr. Rose said.
“We need to determine the responsiveness of gait and chair stand outcomes from wearable sensors at home to change over time.”
The study was sponsored by Boston University with funding from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The researchers used the OPAL inertial sensor (APDM Wearable Technologies) in the study. Mr. Rose made no personal disclosures. Four of his collaborators were employees of Pfizer and one is an employee of Eli Lilly & Company, all with stock or stock options.
Remote gait assessment in people with knee osteoarthritis using wearable sensors appears reliable but yields results slightly different from those achieved in the laboratory, researchers from Boston University have found.
As reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress, there was “good to excellent reliability” in repeated measures collected by patients at home while being instructed via video teleconferencing.
Agreement was “moderate to excellent” when the findings were compared with those recorded in the lab, Michael J. Rose of Boston University reported at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
“People walked faster and stood up faster in the lab,” Mr. Rose said. “Later we found that the difference in gait speed was statistically significant between the lab and home environment.”
This has been suggested previously and implies that data collected at home may have “greater ecological validity,” he observed.
Accelerated adoption of telehealth
Assessing how well someone walks or can stand from a seated position are well known and important assessments in knee OA, but these have but have traditionally only been done in large and expensive gait labs, Mr. Rose said.
Wearable technologies, such as the ones used in the study he presented, could help move these assessments out into the community. This is particularly timely considering the increased adoption of telehealth practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To look at the reliability measurements obtained via wearable sensors versus lab assessments, Mr. Rose and associates set up a substudy within a larger ongoing, single-arm trial looking at the use of digital assessments to measure the efficacy of an exercise intervention in reducing knee pain and improving knee function.
For inclusion in the main trial (n = 60), and hence the substudy (n = 20), participants had to have physician-diagnosed knee OA, be 50 years of age or older, have a body mass index of 40 kg/m2 or lower, be able to walk at for a least 20 minutes, and have a score of three or higher on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale for weight-bearing items.
Acceptance of in-lab versus home testing
The substudy participants (mean age, 70.5 years) all underwent in-person lab visits in which a wearable sensor was placed on each foot and one around the lower back and the participant asked to perform walking and chair stand tests. The latter involved standing from a seated position as quickly as possible without using the arms five times, while the former involved walking 28 meters in two laps of a 7-meter path defined by two cones. These tests were repeated twice.
Participants were then given the equipment to repeat these tests at home; this included the three sensors, a tablet computer, and chair and cones. The home assessments were conducted via video conferencing, with the researchers reminding how to place the sensors correctly. The walking and chair stand tests were then each performed four times: Twice in a row and then a 15-minute rest period before being performed twice in a row again.
The researchers collected participants’ feedback about the process on questionnaires and Likert scales that showed an overall positive experience for the remote home visit, with the median rating being “very likely” to participate in another home visit and that the time commitment required was “very manageable.”
Good correlation found
To determine the correlation and the test-retest reliability of the data obtained during the repeated home tasks, Mr. Rose and collaborators used Pearson’s correlation R2 and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).
ICCs for various gait and chair stand variables obtained with the sensors were between 0.85 and 0.96 for the test-retest reliability during the remote home visit, and R2 ranged between 0.81 and 0.95. Variables include stance, cadence (steps per minute), step duration and length, speed, and chair stand duration.
With regard to the agreement between the home versus lab results, ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.9.
“There were some logistical and technological challenges with the approach,” Mr. Rose conceded. “Despite written and verbal instructions, 2 of the 20 participants ended up having gait data that was unusable in the home visit.”
Another limitation is that the study population, while “representative,” contained a higher number of individuals than the general population who identified as being White (95%) and female (85%), and 90% had a college degree.
“Individuals typically representative of an OA population were generally accepting and willing to participate in remote visits showing the feasibility of our approach,” Mr. Rose said.
“We need to determine the responsiveness of gait and chair stand outcomes from wearable sensors at home to change over time.”
The study was sponsored by Boston University with funding from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The researchers used the OPAL inertial sensor (APDM Wearable Technologies) in the study. Mr. Rose made no personal disclosures. Four of his collaborators were employees of Pfizer and one is an employee of Eli Lilly & Company, all with stock or stock options.
FROM OARSI 2022
Inadequate pain relief in OA, high opioid use before TKA
Inadequate pain relief was recorded in 68.8% of a sample of people with hip or knee OA who participated in the population-based EpiReumaPt study, researchers reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
“This can be explained by a lack of effectiveness of current management strategies, low uptake of recommended interventions by health care professionals, and also by low adherence by patients to medication and lifestyle interventions,” said Daniela Sofia Albino Costa, MSc, a PhD student at NOVA University Lisbon.
In addition to looking at the prevalence of inadequate pain relief – defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) – the study she presented at the congress, which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International, looked at the predictors for inadequate pain control.
It was found that being female, obesity, and having multimorbidity doubled the risk of inadequate versus adequate pain control, with respective odds ratios of 2.32 (P < .001), 2.26 (P = .006), and 2.07 (P = .001). Overweight was also associated with an increased odds ratio for poor pain control (OR, 1.84; P = .0035).
“We found that patients with inadequate pain relief also have a low performance on activities of daily living and a low quality of life,” Ms. Costa said.
Nearly one-third (29%) of patients in the inadequate pain relief group (n = 765) took medication, versus 15% of patients in the adequate pain relief group (n = 270). This was mostly NSAIDs, but also included analgesics and antipyretics, and in a few cases (4.8% vs. 1.3%), simple opioids.
“We know that current care is not concordant with recommendations,” said Ms. Costa, noting that medication being used as first-line treatment and core nonpharmacologic interventions are being offered to less than half of patients who are eligible.
In addition, the rate for total joint replacement has increased globally, and pain is an important predictor for this.
“So, we need to evaluate pain control and current management offered to people with hip or knee arthritis to identify to identify areas for improvement,” Ms. Costa said.
High rates of prescription opioid use before TKA
In a separate study also presented at the congress, Daniel Rhon, DPT, DSc, director of musculoskeletal research in primary care at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, gave a worrying glimpse of high rates of opioid use in the 4 years before total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Using data from the U.S. Military Health System, the records of all individuals who had a knee replacement procedure between January 2017 and December 2018 were studied, to identify and characterize the use of prescription opioids.
Of the 46,362 individuals, 52.9% had prior opioid use, despite the fact that “opioids are not recommended for the management of knee OA,” said Dr. Rhon.
He also reported that as many as 40% of those who had at least one prescription for opioids had received a high-potency drug, such as fentanyl or oxycodone. The mean age of participants overall was 65 years, with a higher mean for those receiving opioids than those who did not (68 vs. 61.5 years). Data on sex and ethnicity were not available in time for presentation at the congress.
“Most of these individuals are getting these opioid prescriptions probably within 6 months, which maybe aligns with escalation of pain and maybe the decision to have that knee replacement,” Dr. Rhon said. Individuals that used opioids filled their most recent prescription a median of 146 days before TKA to surgery, with a mean of 317 days.
“You can’t always link the reason for the opioid prescription, that’s not really clear in the database,” he admitted; however, an analysis was performed to check if other surgeries had been performed that may have warranted the opioid treatment. The results revealed that very few of the opioid users (4%-7%) had undergone another type of surgical procedure.
“So, we feel a little bit better, that these findings weren’t for other surgical procedures,” said Dr. Rhon. He added that future qualitative research was needed to understand why health care professionals were prescribing opioids, and why patients felt like they needed them.
“That’s bad,” Haxby Abbott, PhD, DPT, a research professor at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, commented on Twitter.
Dr. Abbott, who was not involved in the study, added: “We’ve done a similar study of the whole NZ population [currently under review] – similar to Australia and not nearly as bad as you found. That needs urgent attention.”
Sharp rise in opioid use 2 years before TKA
Lower rates of opioid use before TKA were seen in two European cohorts, at 43% in England and 33% in Sweden, as reported by Clara Hellberg, PhD, MD, of Lund (Sweden) University. However, rates had increased over a 10-year study period from a respective 23% and 16%, with a sharp increase in use in the 2 years before knee replacement.
The analysis was based on 49,043 patients from the English national database Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and 5,955 patients from the Swedish Skåne Healthcare register who had undergone total knee replacement between 2015 and 2019 and were matched by age, sex and general practice to individuals not undergoing knee replacement.
The prevalence ratio for using opioids over a 10-year period increased from 1.6 to 2.7 in England, and from 1.6 to 2.6 in Sweden.
“While the overall prevalence of opioid use was higher in England, the majority of both cases and controls were using weak opioids,” Dr. Hellberg said.
“Codeine was classified as a weak opioid, whereas morphine was classified as a strong opioid,” she added.
In contrast, the proportion of people using strong opioids in Sweden was greater than in England, she said.
The high opioid use found in the study highlights “the need for better opioid stewardship, and the availability of acceptable, effective alternatives,” Dr. Hellberg and associates concluded in their abstract.
The study presented by Ms. Costa was funded by the Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology and by an independent research grant from Pfizer. Dr. Rhon acknowledged grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Hellberg had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Inadequate pain relief was recorded in 68.8% of a sample of people with hip or knee OA who participated in the population-based EpiReumaPt study, researchers reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
“This can be explained by a lack of effectiveness of current management strategies, low uptake of recommended interventions by health care professionals, and also by low adherence by patients to medication and lifestyle interventions,” said Daniela Sofia Albino Costa, MSc, a PhD student at NOVA University Lisbon.
In addition to looking at the prevalence of inadequate pain relief – defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) – the study she presented at the congress, which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International, looked at the predictors for inadequate pain control.
It was found that being female, obesity, and having multimorbidity doubled the risk of inadequate versus adequate pain control, with respective odds ratios of 2.32 (P < .001), 2.26 (P = .006), and 2.07 (P = .001). Overweight was also associated with an increased odds ratio for poor pain control (OR, 1.84; P = .0035).
“We found that patients with inadequate pain relief also have a low performance on activities of daily living and a low quality of life,” Ms. Costa said.
Nearly one-third (29%) of patients in the inadequate pain relief group (n = 765) took medication, versus 15% of patients in the adequate pain relief group (n = 270). This was mostly NSAIDs, but also included analgesics and antipyretics, and in a few cases (4.8% vs. 1.3%), simple opioids.
“We know that current care is not concordant with recommendations,” said Ms. Costa, noting that medication being used as first-line treatment and core nonpharmacologic interventions are being offered to less than half of patients who are eligible.
In addition, the rate for total joint replacement has increased globally, and pain is an important predictor for this.
“So, we need to evaluate pain control and current management offered to people with hip or knee arthritis to identify to identify areas for improvement,” Ms. Costa said.
High rates of prescription opioid use before TKA
In a separate study also presented at the congress, Daniel Rhon, DPT, DSc, director of musculoskeletal research in primary care at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, gave a worrying glimpse of high rates of opioid use in the 4 years before total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Using data from the U.S. Military Health System, the records of all individuals who had a knee replacement procedure between January 2017 and December 2018 were studied, to identify and characterize the use of prescription opioids.
Of the 46,362 individuals, 52.9% had prior opioid use, despite the fact that “opioids are not recommended for the management of knee OA,” said Dr. Rhon.
He also reported that as many as 40% of those who had at least one prescription for opioids had received a high-potency drug, such as fentanyl or oxycodone. The mean age of participants overall was 65 years, with a higher mean for those receiving opioids than those who did not (68 vs. 61.5 years). Data on sex and ethnicity were not available in time for presentation at the congress.
“Most of these individuals are getting these opioid prescriptions probably within 6 months, which maybe aligns with escalation of pain and maybe the decision to have that knee replacement,” Dr. Rhon said. Individuals that used opioids filled their most recent prescription a median of 146 days before TKA to surgery, with a mean of 317 days.
“You can’t always link the reason for the opioid prescription, that’s not really clear in the database,” he admitted; however, an analysis was performed to check if other surgeries had been performed that may have warranted the opioid treatment. The results revealed that very few of the opioid users (4%-7%) had undergone another type of surgical procedure.
“So, we feel a little bit better, that these findings weren’t for other surgical procedures,” said Dr. Rhon. He added that future qualitative research was needed to understand why health care professionals were prescribing opioids, and why patients felt like they needed them.
“That’s bad,” Haxby Abbott, PhD, DPT, a research professor at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, commented on Twitter.
Dr. Abbott, who was not involved in the study, added: “We’ve done a similar study of the whole NZ population [currently under review] – similar to Australia and not nearly as bad as you found. That needs urgent attention.”
Sharp rise in opioid use 2 years before TKA
Lower rates of opioid use before TKA were seen in two European cohorts, at 43% in England and 33% in Sweden, as reported by Clara Hellberg, PhD, MD, of Lund (Sweden) University. However, rates had increased over a 10-year study period from a respective 23% and 16%, with a sharp increase in use in the 2 years before knee replacement.
The analysis was based on 49,043 patients from the English national database Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and 5,955 patients from the Swedish Skåne Healthcare register who had undergone total knee replacement between 2015 and 2019 and were matched by age, sex and general practice to individuals not undergoing knee replacement.
The prevalence ratio for using opioids over a 10-year period increased from 1.6 to 2.7 in England, and from 1.6 to 2.6 in Sweden.
“While the overall prevalence of opioid use was higher in England, the majority of both cases and controls were using weak opioids,” Dr. Hellberg said.
“Codeine was classified as a weak opioid, whereas morphine was classified as a strong opioid,” she added.
In contrast, the proportion of people using strong opioids in Sweden was greater than in England, she said.
The high opioid use found in the study highlights “the need for better opioid stewardship, and the availability of acceptable, effective alternatives,” Dr. Hellberg and associates concluded in their abstract.
The study presented by Ms. Costa was funded by the Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology and by an independent research grant from Pfizer. Dr. Rhon acknowledged grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Hellberg had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Inadequate pain relief was recorded in 68.8% of a sample of people with hip or knee OA who participated in the population-based EpiReumaPt study, researchers reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
“This can be explained by a lack of effectiveness of current management strategies, low uptake of recommended interventions by health care professionals, and also by low adherence by patients to medication and lifestyle interventions,” said Daniela Sofia Albino Costa, MSc, a PhD student at NOVA University Lisbon.
In addition to looking at the prevalence of inadequate pain relief – defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) – the study she presented at the congress, which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International, looked at the predictors for inadequate pain control.
It was found that being female, obesity, and having multimorbidity doubled the risk of inadequate versus adequate pain control, with respective odds ratios of 2.32 (P < .001), 2.26 (P = .006), and 2.07 (P = .001). Overweight was also associated with an increased odds ratio for poor pain control (OR, 1.84; P = .0035).
“We found that patients with inadequate pain relief also have a low performance on activities of daily living and a low quality of life,” Ms. Costa said.
Nearly one-third (29%) of patients in the inadequate pain relief group (n = 765) took medication, versus 15% of patients in the adequate pain relief group (n = 270). This was mostly NSAIDs, but also included analgesics and antipyretics, and in a few cases (4.8% vs. 1.3%), simple opioids.
“We know that current care is not concordant with recommendations,” said Ms. Costa, noting that medication being used as first-line treatment and core nonpharmacologic interventions are being offered to less than half of patients who are eligible.
In addition, the rate for total joint replacement has increased globally, and pain is an important predictor for this.
“So, we need to evaluate pain control and current management offered to people with hip or knee arthritis to identify to identify areas for improvement,” Ms. Costa said.
High rates of prescription opioid use before TKA
In a separate study also presented at the congress, Daniel Rhon, DPT, DSc, director of musculoskeletal research in primary care at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, gave a worrying glimpse of high rates of opioid use in the 4 years before total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Using data from the U.S. Military Health System, the records of all individuals who had a knee replacement procedure between January 2017 and December 2018 were studied, to identify and characterize the use of prescription opioids.
Of the 46,362 individuals, 52.9% had prior opioid use, despite the fact that “opioids are not recommended for the management of knee OA,” said Dr. Rhon.
He also reported that as many as 40% of those who had at least one prescription for opioids had received a high-potency drug, such as fentanyl or oxycodone. The mean age of participants overall was 65 years, with a higher mean for those receiving opioids than those who did not (68 vs. 61.5 years). Data on sex and ethnicity were not available in time for presentation at the congress.
“Most of these individuals are getting these opioid prescriptions probably within 6 months, which maybe aligns with escalation of pain and maybe the decision to have that knee replacement,” Dr. Rhon said. Individuals that used opioids filled their most recent prescription a median of 146 days before TKA to surgery, with a mean of 317 days.
“You can’t always link the reason for the opioid prescription, that’s not really clear in the database,” he admitted; however, an analysis was performed to check if other surgeries had been performed that may have warranted the opioid treatment. The results revealed that very few of the opioid users (4%-7%) had undergone another type of surgical procedure.
“So, we feel a little bit better, that these findings weren’t for other surgical procedures,” said Dr. Rhon. He added that future qualitative research was needed to understand why health care professionals were prescribing opioids, and why patients felt like they needed them.
“That’s bad,” Haxby Abbott, PhD, DPT, a research professor at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, commented on Twitter.
Dr. Abbott, who was not involved in the study, added: “We’ve done a similar study of the whole NZ population [currently under review] – similar to Australia and not nearly as bad as you found. That needs urgent attention.”
Sharp rise in opioid use 2 years before TKA
Lower rates of opioid use before TKA were seen in two European cohorts, at 43% in England and 33% in Sweden, as reported by Clara Hellberg, PhD, MD, of Lund (Sweden) University. However, rates had increased over a 10-year study period from a respective 23% and 16%, with a sharp increase in use in the 2 years before knee replacement.
The analysis was based on 49,043 patients from the English national database Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and 5,955 patients from the Swedish Skåne Healthcare register who had undergone total knee replacement between 2015 and 2019 and were matched by age, sex and general practice to individuals not undergoing knee replacement.
The prevalence ratio for using opioids over a 10-year period increased from 1.6 to 2.7 in England, and from 1.6 to 2.6 in Sweden.
“While the overall prevalence of opioid use was higher in England, the majority of both cases and controls were using weak opioids,” Dr. Hellberg said.
“Codeine was classified as a weak opioid, whereas morphine was classified as a strong opioid,” she added.
In contrast, the proportion of people using strong opioids in Sweden was greater than in England, she said.
The high opioid use found in the study highlights “the need for better opioid stewardship, and the availability of acceptable, effective alternatives,” Dr. Hellberg and associates concluded in their abstract.
The study presented by Ms. Costa was funded by the Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology and by an independent research grant from Pfizer. Dr. Rhon acknowledged grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Hellberg had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM OARSI 2022
Early meniscal surgery on par with active rehab in under 40s
according to the results of the randomized controlled DREAM trial presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
Indeed, similar clinically relevant improvements in knee pain, function, and quality of life at 12 months were seen among participants in both study arms.
“Our results highlight that decisions on surgery or nonsurgical treatment must depend on preferences and values and needs of the individuals consulting their surgeon,” Søren T. Skou, PT, MSc, PhD, reported during one of the opening sessions at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The lack of superiority was contrary to the expectations of the researchers who hypothesized that early surgical intervention in adults aged between 18 and 40 years would be more beneficial than an active rehabilitation program with later surgery if needed.
Although the results do tie in with the results of other trials and systematic reviews in older adults the reason for looking at young adults specifically, aside from the obvious differences and the origin of meniscal tears, was that no study had previously looked at this population, Dr. Skou explained.
Assembling the DREAM team
The DREAM (Danish RCT on Exercise versus Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery for Young Adults) trial “was a collaborative effort among many clinicians in Denmark – physical therapists, exercise physiologists, and surgeons,” Dr. Skou observed.
In total, 121 adults with MRI-verified meniscal tears who were eligible for surgery were recruited and randomized to either the early meniscal surgery group (n = 60) or to the exercise and education group (n = 61). The mean age was just below 30 years and 28% were female
Meniscal surgery, which was either an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair, was performed at seven specialist centers. The exercise and education program was delivered by trained physical therapists working at 19 participating centers. The latter consisted of 24 sessions of group-based exercise therapy and education held over a period of 12 weeks.
Participants randomized to the exercise and education arm had the option of later meniscal surgery, with one in four eventually undergoing this procedure.
No gain in pain
The primary outcome measure was the difference in the mean of four of the subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) from baseline to 12-month assessment. The KOOS4 looks at knee pain, symptoms, function in sport and recreation, and quality of life.
“We considered a 10-point difference between groups as clinically relevant,” said Dr. Skou, but “adjusting for the baseline differences, we found no [statistical] differences or clinically relevant differences between groups.”
Improvement was seen in both groups. In an intention-to-treat analysis the KOOS4 scores improved by 19.2 points and 16.4 points respectively in the surgery and exercise and education groups, with a mean adjusted difference of 5.4 (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to 11.4). There was also no difference in a per protocol analysis, which considered only those participants who received the treatment strategy they were allocated (mean adjusted difference, 5.7; 95% CI, –0.9 to 12.4).
Secondary outcomes were also similarly improved in both groups with clinically relevant increases in all four KOOS subscale scores and in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET).
While there were some statistical differences between the groups, such as better KOOS pain, symptoms, and WOMET scores in the surgery group, these were felt unlikely to be clinically relevant. Likewise, there was a statistically greater improvement in muscle strength in the exercise and education group than surgery group.
There was no statistical difference in the number of serious adverse events, including worsening of symptoms with or without acute onset during activity and lateral meniscal cysts, with four reported in the surgical group and seven in the exercise and education group.
Views on results
The results of the trial, published in NEJM Evidence, garnered attention on Twitter with several physiotherapists noting the data were positive for the nonsurgical management of meniscal tears in younger adults.
During discussion at the meeting, Nadine Foster, PhD, NIHR Professor of Musculoskeletal Health in Primary Care at Keele (England) University, asked if a larger cohort might not swing the results in favor of surgery.
She said: “Congratulations on this trial. The challenge: Your 95% CIs suggest a larger trial would have concluded superiority of surgery?”
Dr. Skou responded: “Most likely the true difference is outside the clinically relevant difference, but obviously, we cannot exclude that there is actually a clinically relevant difference between groups.”
Martin Englund, MD, Phd, of Lund (Sweden) University Hospital in Sweden, pointed out that 16 patients in the exercise and education group had “crossed over” and undergone surgery. “Were there any differences for those patients?” he asked.
“We looked at whether there was a difference between those – obviously only having 16 participants, we’re not able to do any statistical comparisons – but looking just visually at the data, they seem to improve to the same extent as those undergoing nonsurgical only,” Dr. Skou said.
The 2-year MRI data are currently being examined and will “obviously also be very interesting,” he added.
The DREAM trial was funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research, IMK Almene Fond, Lundbeck Foundation, Spar Nord Foundation, Danish Rheumatism Association, Association of Danish Physiotherapists Research Fund, Research Council at Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, and Region Zealand. Dr. Skou had no financial or other conflicts of interest to disclose.
according to the results of the randomized controlled DREAM trial presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
Indeed, similar clinically relevant improvements in knee pain, function, and quality of life at 12 months were seen among participants in both study arms.
“Our results highlight that decisions on surgery or nonsurgical treatment must depend on preferences and values and needs of the individuals consulting their surgeon,” Søren T. Skou, PT, MSc, PhD, reported during one of the opening sessions at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The lack of superiority was contrary to the expectations of the researchers who hypothesized that early surgical intervention in adults aged between 18 and 40 years would be more beneficial than an active rehabilitation program with later surgery if needed.
Although the results do tie in with the results of other trials and systematic reviews in older adults the reason for looking at young adults specifically, aside from the obvious differences and the origin of meniscal tears, was that no study had previously looked at this population, Dr. Skou explained.
Assembling the DREAM team
The DREAM (Danish RCT on Exercise versus Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery for Young Adults) trial “was a collaborative effort among many clinicians in Denmark – physical therapists, exercise physiologists, and surgeons,” Dr. Skou observed.
In total, 121 adults with MRI-verified meniscal tears who were eligible for surgery were recruited and randomized to either the early meniscal surgery group (n = 60) or to the exercise and education group (n = 61). The mean age was just below 30 years and 28% were female
Meniscal surgery, which was either an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair, was performed at seven specialist centers. The exercise and education program was delivered by trained physical therapists working at 19 participating centers. The latter consisted of 24 sessions of group-based exercise therapy and education held over a period of 12 weeks.
Participants randomized to the exercise and education arm had the option of later meniscal surgery, with one in four eventually undergoing this procedure.
No gain in pain
The primary outcome measure was the difference in the mean of four of the subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) from baseline to 12-month assessment. The KOOS4 looks at knee pain, symptoms, function in sport and recreation, and quality of life.
“We considered a 10-point difference between groups as clinically relevant,” said Dr. Skou, but “adjusting for the baseline differences, we found no [statistical] differences or clinically relevant differences between groups.”
Improvement was seen in both groups. In an intention-to-treat analysis the KOOS4 scores improved by 19.2 points and 16.4 points respectively in the surgery and exercise and education groups, with a mean adjusted difference of 5.4 (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to 11.4). There was also no difference in a per protocol analysis, which considered only those participants who received the treatment strategy they were allocated (mean adjusted difference, 5.7; 95% CI, –0.9 to 12.4).
Secondary outcomes were also similarly improved in both groups with clinically relevant increases in all four KOOS subscale scores and in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET).
While there were some statistical differences between the groups, such as better KOOS pain, symptoms, and WOMET scores in the surgery group, these were felt unlikely to be clinically relevant. Likewise, there was a statistically greater improvement in muscle strength in the exercise and education group than surgery group.
There was no statistical difference in the number of serious adverse events, including worsening of symptoms with or without acute onset during activity and lateral meniscal cysts, with four reported in the surgical group and seven in the exercise and education group.
Views on results
The results of the trial, published in NEJM Evidence, garnered attention on Twitter with several physiotherapists noting the data were positive for the nonsurgical management of meniscal tears in younger adults.
During discussion at the meeting, Nadine Foster, PhD, NIHR Professor of Musculoskeletal Health in Primary Care at Keele (England) University, asked if a larger cohort might not swing the results in favor of surgery.
She said: “Congratulations on this trial. The challenge: Your 95% CIs suggest a larger trial would have concluded superiority of surgery?”
Dr. Skou responded: “Most likely the true difference is outside the clinically relevant difference, but obviously, we cannot exclude that there is actually a clinically relevant difference between groups.”
Martin Englund, MD, Phd, of Lund (Sweden) University Hospital in Sweden, pointed out that 16 patients in the exercise and education group had “crossed over” and undergone surgery. “Were there any differences for those patients?” he asked.
“We looked at whether there was a difference between those – obviously only having 16 participants, we’re not able to do any statistical comparisons – but looking just visually at the data, they seem to improve to the same extent as those undergoing nonsurgical only,” Dr. Skou said.
The 2-year MRI data are currently being examined and will “obviously also be very interesting,” he added.
The DREAM trial was funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research, IMK Almene Fond, Lundbeck Foundation, Spar Nord Foundation, Danish Rheumatism Association, Association of Danish Physiotherapists Research Fund, Research Council at Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, and Region Zealand. Dr. Skou had no financial or other conflicts of interest to disclose.
according to the results of the randomized controlled DREAM trial presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
Indeed, similar clinically relevant improvements in knee pain, function, and quality of life at 12 months were seen among participants in both study arms.
“Our results highlight that decisions on surgery or nonsurgical treatment must depend on preferences and values and needs of the individuals consulting their surgeon,” Søren T. Skou, PT, MSc, PhD, reported during one of the opening sessions at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The lack of superiority was contrary to the expectations of the researchers who hypothesized that early surgical intervention in adults aged between 18 and 40 years would be more beneficial than an active rehabilitation program with later surgery if needed.
Although the results do tie in with the results of other trials and systematic reviews in older adults the reason for looking at young adults specifically, aside from the obvious differences and the origin of meniscal tears, was that no study had previously looked at this population, Dr. Skou explained.
Assembling the DREAM team
The DREAM (Danish RCT on Exercise versus Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery for Young Adults) trial “was a collaborative effort among many clinicians in Denmark – physical therapists, exercise physiologists, and surgeons,” Dr. Skou observed.
In total, 121 adults with MRI-verified meniscal tears who were eligible for surgery were recruited and randomized to either the early meniscal surgery group (n = 60) or to the exercise and education group (n = 61). The mean age was just below 30 years and 28% were female
Meniscal surgery, which was either an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair, was performed at seven specialist centers. The exercise and education program was delivered by trained physical therapists working at 19 participating centers. The latter consisted of 24 sessions of group-based exercise therapy and education held over a period of 12 weeks.
Participants randomized to the exercise and education arm had the option of later meniscal surgery, with one in four eventually undergoing this procedure.
No gain in pain
The primary outcome measure was the difference in the mean of four of the subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) from baseline to 12-month assessment. The KOOS4 looks at knee pain, symptoms, function in sport and recreation, and quality of life.
“We considered a 10-point difference between groups as clinically relevant,” said Dr. Skou, but “adjusting for the baseline differences, we found no [statistical] differences or clinically relevant differences between groups.”
Improvement was seen in both groups. In an intention-to-treat analysis the KOOS4 scores improved by 19.2 points and 16.4 points respectively in the surgery and exercise and education groups, with a mean adjusted difference of 5.4 (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to 11.4). There was also no difference in a per protocol analysis, which considered only those participants who received the treatment strategy they were allocated (mean adjusted difference, 5.7; 95% CI, –0.9 to 12.4).
Secondary outcomes were also similarly improved in both groups with clinically relevant increases in all four KOOS subscale scores and in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET).
While there were some statistical differences between the groups, such as better KOOS pain, symptoms, and WOMET scores in the surgery group, these were felt unlikely to be clinically relevant. Likewise, there was a statistically greater improvement in muscle strength in the exercise and education group than surgery group.
There was no statistical difference in the number of serious adverse events, including worsening of symptoms with or without acute onset during activity and lateral meniscal cysts, with four reported in the surgical group and seven in the exercise and education group.
Views on results
The results of the trial, published in NEJM Evidence, garnered attention on Twitter with several physiotherapists noting the data were positive for the nonsurgical management of meniscal tears in younger adults.
During discussion at the meeting, Nadine Foster, PhD, NIHR Professor of Musculoskeletal Health in Primary Care at Keele (England) University, asked if a larger cohort might not swing the results in favor of surgery.
She said: “Congratulations on this trial. The challenge: Your 95% CIs suggest a larger trial would have concluded superiority of surgery?”
Dr. Skou responded: “Most likely the true difference is outside the clinically relevant difference, but obviously, we cannot exclude that there is actually a clinically relevant difference between groups.”
Martin Englund, MD, Phd, of Lund (Sweden) University Hospital in Sweden, pointed out that 16 patients in the exercise and education group had “crossed over” and undergone surgery. “Were there any differences for those patients?” he asked.
“We looked at whether there was a difference between those – obviously only having 16 participants, we’re not able to do any statistical comparisons – but looking just visually at the data, they seem to improve to the same extent as those undergoing nonsurgical only,” Dr. Skou said.
The 2-year MRI data are currently being examined and will “obviously also be very interesting,” he added.
The DREAM trial was funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research, IMK Almene Fond, Lundbeck Foundation, Spar Nord Foundation, Danish Rheumatism Association, Association of Danish Physiotherapists Research Fund, Research Council at Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, and Region Zealand. Dr. Skou had no financial or other conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM OARSI 2022
Elective Total Hip Arthroplasty: Which Surgical Approach Is Optimal?
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful orthopedic interventions performed today in terms of pain relief, cost effectiveness, and clinical outcomes.1 As a definitive treatment for end-stage arthritis of the hip, more than 330,000 procedures are performed in the Unites States each year. The number performed is growing by > 5% per year and is predicted to double by 2030, partly due to patients living longer, older individuals seeking a higher level of functionality than did previous generations, and better access to health care.2,3
The THA procedure also has become increasingly common in a younger population for posttraumatic fractures and conditions that lead to early-onset secondary arthritis, such as avascular necrosis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, hip dysplasia, Perthes disease, and femoroacetabular impingement.4 Younger patients are more likely to need a revision. According to a study by Evans and colleagues using available arthroplasty registry data, about three-quarters of hip replacements last 15 to 20 years, and 58% of hip replacements last 25 years in patients with osteoarthritis.5
For decades, the THA procedure of choice has been a standard posterior approach (PA). The PA was used because it allowed excellent intraoperative exposure and was applicable to a wide range of hip problems.6 In the past several years, modified muscle-sparing surgical approaches have been introduced. Two performed frequently are the mini PA (MPA) and the direct anterior approach (DAA).
The MPA is a modification of the PA. Surgeons perform the THA through a small incision without cutting the abductor muscles that are critical to hip stability and gait. A study published in 2010 concluded that the MPA was associated with less pain, shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (therefore, an economic saving), and an earlier return to walking postoperatively.7
The DAA has been around since the early days of THA. Carl Hueter first described the anterior approach to the hip in 1881 (referred to as the Hueter approach). Smith-Peterson is frequently credited with popularizing the DAA technique during his career after publishing his first description of the approach in 1917.8 About 10 years ago, the DAA showed a resurgence as another muscle-sparing alternative for THAs. The DAA is considered to be a true intermuscular approach that preserves the soft tissues around the hip joint, thereby preserving the stability of the joint.9-11 The optimal surgical approach is still the subject of debate.
We present a male with right hip end-stage degenerative joint disease (DJD) and review some medical literature. Although other approaches to THA can be used (lateral, anterolateral), the discussion focuses on 2 muscle-sparing approaches performed frequently, the MPA and the DAA, and can be of value to primary care practitioners in their discussion with patients.
Case Presentation
A 61-year-old male patient presented with progressive right hip pain. At age 37, he had a left THA via a PA due to hip dysplasia and a revision on the same hip at age 55 (the polyethylene liner was replaced and the cobalt chromium head was changed to ceramic), again through a PA. An orthopedic clinical evaluation and X-rays confirmed end-stage DJD of the right hip (Figure). He was informed to return to plan an elective THA when the “bad days were significantly greater than the good days” and/or when his functionality or quality of life was unacceptable. The orthopedic surgeon favored an MPA but offered a hand-off to colleagues who preferred the DAA. The patient was given information to review.
Discussion
No matter which approach is used, one study concluded that surgeons who perform > 50 hip replacements each year have better overall outcomes.12
The MPA emerged in the past decade as a muscle-sparing modification of the PA. The incision length (< 10 cm) is the simplest way of categorizing the surgery as an MPA. However, the amount of deep surgical dissection is a more important consideration for sparing muscle (for improved postoperative functionality, recovery, and joint stability) due to the gluteus maximus insertion, the quadratus femoris, and the piriformis tendons being left intact.13-16
Multiple studies have directly compared the MPA and PA, with variable results. One study concluded that the MPA was associated with lower surgical blood loss, lower pain at rest, and a faster recovery compared with that of the PA. Still, the study found no significant difference in postoperative laboratory values of possible markers of increased tissue damage and surgical invasiveness, such as creatinine phosphokinase (CPK) levels.15 Another randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 100 patients concluded that there was a trend for improved walking times and patient satisfaction at 6 weeks post-MPA vs PA.16 Other studies have found that the MPA and PA were essentially equivalent to each other regarding operative time, early postoperative outcomes, transfusion rate, hospital LOS, and postoperative complications.14 However, a recent meta-analysis found positive trends in favor of the MPA. The MPA was associated with a slight decrease in operating time, blood loss, hospital LOS, and earlier improvement in Harris hip scores. The meta-analysis found no significant decrease in the rate of dislocation or femoral fracture.13 Studies are still needed to evaluate long-term implant survival and outcomes for MPA and PA.
The DAA has received renewed attention as surgeons seek minimally invasive techniques and more rapid recoveries.6 The DAA involves a 3- to 4-inch incision on the front of the hip and enters the hip joint through the intermuscular interval between the tensor fasciae latae and gluteus medius muscles laterally and the sartorius muscle and rectus fascia medially.9 The DAA is considered a true intermuscular approach that preserves the soft tissues around the hip joint (including the posterior capsule), thereby presumably preserving the stability of the joint.9 The popularity for this approach has been attributed primarily to claims of improved recovery times, lower pain levels, improved patient satisfaction, as well as improved accuracy on both implant placement/alignment and leg length restoration.17 Orthopedic surgeons are increasingly being trained in the DAA during their residency and fellowship training.
There are many potential disadvantages to DAA. For example, DAA may present intraoperative radiation exposure for patients and surgeons during a fluoroscopy-assisted procedure. In addition, neuropraxia, particularly to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, can cause transient or permanent meralgia paresthetica. Wound healing may also present problems for female and obese patients, particularly those with a body mass index > 39 who are at increased risk of wound complications. DAA also increases time under anesthesia. Patients may experience proximal femoral fractures and dislocations and complex/challenging femoral exposure and bone preparation. Finally, sagittal malalignment of the stem could lead to loosening and an increased need for revision surgery.18
Another disadvantage of the DAA compared with the PA and MPA is the steep learning curve. Most studies find that the complication rate decreases only when the surgeon performs a significant number of DAA procedures. DeSteiger and colleagues noted a learning curve of 50 to 100 cases needed, and Masonis and colleagues concluded that at least 100 cases needed to be done to decrease operating and fluoroscopy times.19,20 Many orthopedic surgeons perform < 25 THA procedures a year.21
With the recent surge in popularity of the DAA, several studies have evaluated the DAA vs the MPA. A prospective RCT of 54 patients comparing the 2 approaches found that DAA patients walked without assistive devices sooner than did MPA patients: 22 days for DAA and 28 days for MPA.22 Improved cup position and a faster return of functionality were found in another study. DAA patients transitioned to a cane at 12 days vs 15.5 days for MPA patients and had a negative Trendelenburg sign at 16.7 days vs 24.8 days for MPA patients.23
Comparing DAA and MPA for inflammatory markers (serum CPK, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, interleukin-1 β and tumor necrosis factor-α), the level of CPK postoperatively was 5.5 times higher in MPA patients, consistent with significantly more muscle damage. However, the overall physiologic burden as demonstrated by the measurement of all inflammatory markers was similar between the MPA and the DAA. This suggests that the inflammatory cascade associated with THA may be influenced more by the osteotomy and prosthesis implantation than by the surgical approach.24
Of note, some surgeons who perform the DAA recommend fewer postoperative precautions and suggest that physical therapy may not be necessary after discharge.25,26 Nevertheless, physiotherapeutic rehabilitation after all THA surgery is recommended as the standard treatment to minimize postoperative complications, such as hip dislocation, wound infection, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism, and to maximize the patient’s functionality.27-29 RCTs are needed to look at long-term data on clinical outcomes between the MPA and DAA. Dislocation is a risk regardless of the approach used. Nevertheless, rates of dislocation, in general, are now very low, given the use of larger femoral head implants for all approaches.
Conclusions
THA is one of the most successful surgical procedures performed today. Patients desire hip pain relief and a return to function with as little interruption in their life as possible. Additionally, health care systems and insurers require THA procedures to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible. The debate regarding the most effective or preferable approach for THA continues. Although some prospective RCTs found that patients who underwent the DAA had objectively faster recovery than patients who had the MPA, it is also acknowledged that the results were dependent on surgeons who are very skilled in performing DAAs. The hope of both approaches is to get the individual moving as quickly and safely as possible to avoid a cascade of deterioration in the postoperative period. Factors other than the surgical approach, including patient selection, surgical volume and experience, careful preoperative assessments, attentive pain management, and rapid rehabilitation protocols, may be just as important as to which procedure is performed.30 The final decision should still be dependent on the patient-surgeon relationship and informed decision making.
In this case, the patient reviewed all the information he was given and independently researched the 2 procedures over many months. Ultimately, he decided to undergo a right THA via the DAA.
1. Elmallah RK, Chughtai M, Khlopas A. et al. Determining cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee arthroplasty using the Short Form-6D utility measure. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(2):351-354. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.006
2. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ. Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: updated projections to 2021. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(8):624-630. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00285
3. Kurtz, S, Ong KL, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00222
4. Sheahan WT, Parvataneni HK. Asymptomatic but time for a hip revision. Fed Pract. 2016;33(2):39-43.
5. Evans, JT, Evans JP, Walker RW, et al. How long does a hip replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2019;393(10172):647-654. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31665-9
6. Yang X, Huang H-F, Sun L , Yang Z, Deng C-Y, Tian XB. Direct anterior approach versus posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Orthop Surg. 2020;12:1065-1073. doi:10.1111/os.12669
7. Varela Egocheaga JR, Suárez-Suárez MA, Fernández-Villán M, González-Sastre V, Varela-Gómez JR, Murcia-Mazón A. Minimally invasive posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Prospective randomized trial. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2010:33(2):133-143. doi:10.4321/s1137-66272010000300002
8. Raxhbauer F, Kain MS, Leunig M. The history of the anterior approach to the hip. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009;40(3):311-320. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2009.02.007
9. Jia F, Guo B, Xu F, Hou Y, Tang X, Huang L. A comparison of clinical, radiographic and surgical outcomes of total hip arthroplasty between direct anterior and posterior approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hip Int. 2019;29(6):584-596. doi:10.1177/1120700018820652
10. Kennon RE Keggi JM, Wetmore RS, Zatorski LE, Huo MH, Keggi KJ. Total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive anterior surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(suppl 4):39-48. doi:10.2106/00004623-200300004-00005
11. Bal BS, Vallurupalli S. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty with the anterior approach. Indian J Orthop. 2008;42(3):301-308. doi:10.4103/0019-5413.41853
12. Katz JN, Losina E, Barrett E. Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(11):1622-1629. doi:10.2106/00004623-200111000-00002
13. Berstock JR, Blom AW, Beswick AD. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the standard versus mini-incision approach to a total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(10):1970-1982. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.05.021
14. Chimento GF, Pavone V, Sharrock S, Kahn K, Cahill J, Sculco TP. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(2):139-144. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.09.061
15. Fink B, Mittelstaedt A, Schulz MS, Sebena P, Sing J. Comparison of a minimally invasive posterior approach and the standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. A prospective and comparative study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:46. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-5-46
16. Khan RJ, Maor D, Hofmann M, Haebich S. A comparison of a less invasive piriformis-sparing approach versus the standard approach to the hip: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:43-50. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B1.27001
17. Galakatos GR. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. Missouri Med. 2018;115(6):537-541.
18. Flevas, DA, Tsantes AG, Mavrogenis, AE. Direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty revisited. JBJS Rev. 2020;8(4):e0144. doi:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.19.00144
19. DeSteiger RN, Lorimer M, Solomon M. What is the learning curve for the anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(12):3860-3866. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4565-6
20. Masonis J, Thompson C, Odum S. Safe and accurate: learning the direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2008;31(12)(suppl 2).
21. Bal BS. Clinical faceoff: anterior total hip versus mini-posterior: Which one is better? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(4):1192-1196. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3684-9
22. Taunton MJ, Mason JB, Odum SM, Bryan D, Springer BD. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty yields more rapid voluntary cessation of all walking aids: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29;(suppl 9):169-172. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.05
23. Nakata K, Nishikawa M, Yamamoto K, Hirota S, Yoshikawa H. A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(5):698-704. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.04.012
24. Bergin PF, Doppelt JD, Kephart CJ. Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(15):1392-1398. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00557
25. Carli AV, Poitras S, Clohisy JC, Beaule PE. Variation in use of postoperative precautions and equipment following total hip arthroplasty: a survey of the AAHKS and CAS membership. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(10):3201-3205. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2018.05.043
26. Kavcˇicˇ G, Mirt PK, Tumpej J, Bedenčič. The direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty without specific table: surgical approach and our seven years of experience. Published June 14, 2019. Accessed March 4, 2022. https://crimsonăpublishers.com/rabs/fulltext/RABS.000520.php27. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Total hip replacement exercise guide. Published 2017. Updated February 2022. Accessed March 4, 2022. https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/recovery/total-hip-replacement-exercise-guide
28. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Physiotherapy rehabilitation after total knee or hip replacement: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2005;5(8):1-91.
29. Pa˘unescu F, Didilescu A, Antonescu DM. Factors that may influence the functional outcome after primary total hip arthroplasty. Clujul Med. 2013;86(2):121-127.
30. Poehling-Monaghan KL, Kamath AF, Taunton MJ, Pagnano MW. Direct anterior versus miniposterior THA with the same advanced perioperative protocols: surprising early clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(2):623-631. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3827-z
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful orthopedic interventions performed today in terms of pain relief, cost effectiveness, and clinical outcomes.1 As a definitive treatment for end-stage arthritis of the hip, more than 330,000 procedures are performed in the Unites States each year. The number performed is growing by > 5% per year and is predicted to double by 2030, partly due to patients living longer, older individuals seeking a higher level of functionality than did previous generations, and better access to health care.2,3
The THA procedure also has become increasingly common in a younger population for posttraumatic fractures and conditions that lead to early-onset secondary arthritis, such as avascular necrosis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, hip dysplasia, Perthes disease, and femoroacetabular impingement.4 Younger patients are more likely to need a revision. According to a study by Evans and colleagues using available arthroplasty registry data, about three-quarters of hip replacements last 15 to 20 years, and 58% of hip replacements last 25 years in patients with osteoarthritis.5
For decades, the THA procedure of choice has been a standard posterior approach (PA). The PA was used because it allowed excellent intraoperative exposure and was applicable to a wide range of hip problems.6 In the past several years, modified muscle-sparing surgical approaches have been introduced. Two performed frequently are the mini PA (MPA) and the direct anterior approach (DAA).
The MPA is a modification of the PA. Surgeons perform the THA through a small incision without cutting the abductor muscles that are critical to hip stability and gait. A study published in 2010 concluded that the MPA was associated with less pain, shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (therefore, an economic saving), and an earlier return to walking postoperatively.7
The DAA has been around since the early days of THA. Carl Hueter first described the anterior approach to the hip in 1881 (referred to as the Hueter approach). Smith-Peterson is frequently credited with popularizing the DAA technique during his career after publishing his first description of the approach in 1917.8 About 10 years ago, the DAA showed a resurgence as another muscle-sparing alternative for THAs. The DAA is considered to be a true intermuscular approach that preserves the soft tissues around the hip joint, thereby preserving the stability of the joint.9-11 The optimal surgical approach is still the subject of debate.
We present a male with right hip end-stage degenerative joint disease (DJD) and review some medical literature. Although other approaches to THA can be used (lateral, anterolateral), the discussion focuses on 2 muscle-sparing approaches performed frequently, the MPA and the DAA, and can be of value to primary care practitioners in their discussion with patients.
Case Presentation
A 61-year-old male patient presented with progressive right hip pain. At age 37, he had a left THA via a PA due to hip dysplasia and a revision on the same hip at age 55 (the polyethylene liner was replaced and the cobalt chromium head was changed to ceramic), again through a PA. An orthopedic clinical evaluation and X-rays confirmed end-stage DJD of the right hip (Figure). He was informed to return to plan an elective THA when the “bad days were significantly greater than the good days” and/or when his functionality or quality of life was unacceptable. The orthopedic surgeon favored an MPA but offered a hand-off to colleagues who preferred the DAA. The patient was given information to review.
Discussion
No matter which approach is used, one study concluded that surgeons who perform > 50 hip replacements each year have better overall outcomes.12
The MPA emerged in the past decade as a muscle-sparing modification of the PA. The incision length (< 10 cm) is the simplest way of categorizing the surgery as an MPA. However, the amount of deep surgical dissection is a more important consideration for sparing muscle (for improved postoperative functionality, recovery, and joint stability) due to the gluteus maximus insertion, the quadratus femoris, and the piriformis tendons being left intact.13-16
Multiple studies have directly compared the MPA and PA, with variable results. One study concluded that the MPA was associated with lower surgical blood loss, lower pain at rest, and a faster recovery compared with that of the PA. Still, the study found no significant difference in postoperative laboratory values of possible markers of increased tissue damage and surgical invasiveness, such as creatinine phosphokinase (CPK) levels.15 Another randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 100 patients concluded that there was a trend for improved walking times and patient satisfaction at 6 weeks post-MPA vs PA.16 Other studies have found that the MPA and PA were essentially equivalent to each other regarding operative time, early postoperative outcomes, transfusion rate, hospital LOS, and postoperative complications.14 However, a recent meta-analysis found positive trends in favor of the MPA. The MPA was associated with a slight decrease in operating time, blood loss, hospital LOS, and earlier improvement in Harris hip scores. The meta-analysis found no significant decrease in the rate of dislocation or femoral fracture.13 Studies are still needed to evaluate long-term implant survival and outcomes for MPA and PA.
The DAA has received renewed attention as surgeons seek minimally invasive techniques and more rapid recoveries.6 The DAA involves a 3- to 4-inch incision on the front of the hip and enters the hip joint through the intermuscular interval between the tensor fasciae latae and gluteus medius muscles laterally and the sartorius muscle and rectus fascia medially.9 The DAA is considered a true intermuscular approach that preserves the soft tissues around the hip joint (including the posterior capsule), thereby presumably preserving the stability of the joint.9 The popularity for this approach has been attributed primarily to claims of improved recovery times, lower pain levels, improved patient satisfaction, as well as improved accuracy on both implant placement/alignment and leg length restoration.17 Orthopedic surgeons are increasingly being trained in the DAA during their residency and fellowship training.
There are many potential disadvantages to DAA. For example, DAA may present intraoperative radiation exposure for patients and surgeons during a fluoroscopy-assisted procedure. In addition, neuropraxia, particularly to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, can cause transient or permanent meralgia paresthetica. Wound healing may also present problems for female and obese patients, particularly those with a body mass index > 39 who are at increased risk of wound complications. DAA also increases time under anesthesia. Patients may experience proximal femoral fractures and dislocations and complex/challenging femoral exposure and bone preparation. Finally, sagittal malalignment of the stem could lead to loosening and an increased need for revision surgery.18
Another disadvantage of the DAA compared with the PA and MPA is the steep learning curve. Most studies find that the complication rate decreases only when the surgeon performs a significant number of DAA procedures. DeSteiger and colleagues noted a learning curve of 50 to 100 cases needed, and Masonis and colleagues concluded that at least 100 cases needed to be done to decrease operating and fluoroscopy times.19,20 Many orthopedic surgeons perform < 25 THA procedures a year.21
With the recent surge in popularity of the DAA, several studies have evaluated the DAA vs the MPA. A prospective RCT of 54 patients comparing the 2 approaches found that DAA patients walked without assistive devices sooner than did MPA patients: 22 days for DAA and 28 days for MPA.22 Improved cup position and a faster return of functionality were found in another study. DAA patients transitioned to a cane at 12 days vs 15.5 days for MPA patients and had a negative Trendelenburg sign at 16.7 days vs 24.8 days for MPA patients.23
Comparing DAA and MPA for inflammatory markers (serum CPK, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, interleukin-1 β and tumor necrosis factor-α), the level of CPK postoperatively was 5.5 times higher in MPA patients, consistent with significantly more muscle damage. However, the overall physiologic burden as demonstrated by the measurement of all inflammatory markers was similar between the MPA and the DAA. This suggests that the inflammatory cascade associated with THA may be influenced more by the osteotomy and prosthesis implantation than by the surgical approach.24
Of note, some surgeons who perform the DAA recommend fewer postoperative precautions and suggest that physical therapy may not be necessary after discharge.25,26 Nevertheless, physiotherapeutic rehabilitation after all THA surgery is recommended as the standard treatment to minimize postoperative complications, such as hip dislocation, wound infection, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism, and to maximize the patient’s functionality.27-29 RCTs are needed to look at long-term data on clinical outcomes between the MPA and DAA. Dislocation is a risk regardless of the approach used. Nevertheless, rates of dislocation, in general, are now very low, given the use of larger femoral head implants for all approaches.
Conclusions
THA is one of the most successful surgical procedures performed today. Patients desire hip pain relief and a return to function with as little interruption in their life as possible. Additionally, health care systems and insurers require THA procedures to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible. The debate regarding the most effective or preferable approach for THA continues. Although some prospective RCTs found that patients who underwent the DAA had objectively faster recovery than patients who had the MPA, it is also acknowledged that the results were dependent on surgeons who are very skilled in performing DAAs. The hope of both approaches is to get the individual moving as quickly and safely as possible to avoid a cascade of deterioration in the postoperative period. Factors other than the surgical approach, including patient selection, surgical volume and experience, careful preoperative assessments, attentive pain management, and rapid rehabilitation protocols, may be just as important as to which procedure is performed.30 The final decision should still be dependent on the patient-surgeon relationship and informed decision making.
In this case, the patient reviewed all the information he was given and independently researched the 2 procedures over many months. Ultimately, he decided to undergo a right THA via the DAA.
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful orthopedic interventions performed today in terms of pain relief, cost effectiveness, and clinical outcomes.1 As a definitive treatment for end-stage arthritis of the hip, more than 330,000 procedures are performed in the Unites States each year. The number performed is growing by > 5% per year and is predicted to double by 2030, partly due to patients living longer, older individuals seeking a higher level of functionality than did previous generations, and better access to health care.2,3
The THA procedure also has become increasingly common in a younger population for posttraumatic fractures and conditions that lead to early-onset secondary arthritis, such as avascular necrosis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, hip dysplasia, Perthes disease, and femoroacetabular impingement.4 Younger patients are more likely to need a revision. According to a study by Evans and colleagues using available arthroplasty registry data, about three-quarters of hip replacements last 15 to 20 years, and 58% of hip replacements last 25 years in patients with osteoarthritis.5
For decades, the THA procedure of choice has been a standard posterior approach (PA). The PA was used because it allowed excellent intraoperative exposure and was applicable to a wide range of hip problems.6 In the past several years, modified muscle-sparing surgical approaches have been introduced. Two performed frequently are the mini PA (MPA) and the direct anterior approach (DAA).
The MPA is a modification of the PA. Surgeons perform the THA through a small incision without cutting the abductor muscles that are critical to hip stability and gait. A study published in 2010 concluded that the MPA was associated with less pain, shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) (therefore, an economic saving), and an earlier return to walking postoperatively.7
The DAA has been around since the early days of THA. Carl Hueter first described the anterior approach to the hip in 1881 (referred to as the Hueter approach). Smith-Peterson is frequently credited with popularizing the DAA technique during his career after publishing his first description of the approach in 1917.8 About 10 years ago, the DAA showed a resurgence as another muscle-sparing alternative for THAs. The DAA is considered to be a true intermuscular approach that preserves the soft tissues around the hip joint, thereby preserving the stability of the joint.9-11 The optimal surgical approach is still the subject of debate.
We present a male with right hip end-stage degenerative joint disease (DJD) and review some medical literature. Although other approaches to THA can be used (lateral, anterolateral), the discussion focuses on 2 muscle-sparing approaches performed frequently, the MPA and the DAA, and can be of value to primary care practitioners in their discussion with patients.
Case Presentation
A 61-year-old male patient presented with progressive right hip pain. At age 37, he had a left THA via a PA due to hip dysplasia and a revision on the same hip at age 55 (the polyethylene liner was replaced and the cobalt chromium head was changed to ceramic), again through a PA. An orthopedic clinical evaluation and X-rays confirmed end-stage DJD of the right hip (Figure). He was informed to return to plan an elective THA when the “bad days were significantly greater than the good days” and/or when his functionality or quality of life was unacceptable. The orthopedic surgeon favored an MPA but offered a hand-off to colleagues who preferred the DAA. The patient was given information to review.
Discussion
No matter which approach is used, one study concluded that surgeons who perform > 50 hip replacements each year have better overall outcomes.12
The MPA emerged in the past decade as a muscle-sparing modification of the PA. The incision length (< 10 cm) is the simplest way of categorizing the surgery as an MPA. However, the amount of deep surgical dissection is a more important consideration for sparing muscle (for improved postoperative functionality, recovery, and joint stability) due to the gluteus maximus insertion, the quadratus femoris, and the piriformis tendons being left intact.13-16
Multiple studies have directly compared the MPA and PA, with variable results. One study concluded that the MPA was associated with lower surgical blood loss, lower pain at rest, and a faster recovery compared with that of the PA. Still, the study found no significant difference in postoperative laboratory values of possible markers of increased tissue damage and surgical invasiveness, such as creatinine phosphokinase (CPK) levels.15 Another randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 100 patients concluded that there was a trend for improved walking times and patient satisfaction at 6 weeks post-MPA vs PA.16 Other studies have found that the MPA and PA were essentially equivalent to each other regarding operative time, early postoperative outcomes, transfusion rate, hospital LOS, and postoperative complications.14 However, a recent meta-analysis found positive trends in favor of the MPA. The MPA was associated with a slight decrease in operating time, blood loss, hospital LOS, and earlier improvement in Harris hip scores. The meta-analysis found no significant decrease in the rate of dislocation or femoral fracture.13 Studies are still needed to evaluate long-term implant survival and outcomes for MPA and PA.
The DAA has received renewed attention as surgeons seek minimally invasive techniques and more rapid recoveries.6 The DAA involves a 3- to 4-inch incision on the front of the hip and enters the hip joint through the intermuscular interval between the tensor fasciae latae and gluteus medius muscles laterally and the sartorius muscle and rectus fascia medially.9 The DAA is considered a true intermuscular approach that preserves the soft tissues around the hip joint (including the posterior capsule), thereby presumably preserving the stability of the joint.9 The popularity for this approach has been attributed primarily to claims of improved recovery times, lower pain levels, improved patient satisfaction, as well as improved accuracy on both implant placement/alignment and leg length restoration.17 Orthopedic surgeons are increasingly being trained in the DAA during their residency and fellowship training.
There are many potential disadvantages to DAA. For example, DAA may present intraoperative radiation exposure for patients and surgeons during a fluoroscopy-assisted procedure. In addition, neuropraxia, particularly to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, can cause transient or permanent meralgia paresthetica. Wound healing may also present problems for female and obese patients, particularly those with a body mass index > 39 who are at increased risk of wound complications. DAA also increases time under anesthesia. Patients may experience proximal femoral fractures and dislocations and complex/challenging femoral exposure and bone preparation. Finally, sagittal malalignment of the stem could lead to loosening and an increased need for revision surgery.18
Another disadvantage of the DAA compared with the PA and MPA is the steep learning curve. Most studies find that the complication rate decreases only when the surgeon performs a significant number of DAA procedures. DeSteiger and colleagues noted a learning curve of 50 to 100 cases needed, and Masonis and colleagues concluded that at least 100 cases needed to be done to decrease operating and fluoroscopy times.19,20 Many orthopedic surgeons perform < 25 THA procedures a year.21
With the recent surge in popularity of the DAA, several studies have evaluated the DAA vs the MPA. A prospective RCT of 54 patients comparing the 2 approaches found that DAA patients walked without assistive devices sooner than did MPA patients: 22 days for DAA and 28 days for MPA.22 Improved cup position and a faster return of functionality were found in another study. DAA patients transitioned to a cane at 12 days vs 15.5 days for MPA patients and had a negative Trendelenburg sign at 16.7 days vs 24.8 days for MPA patients.23
Comparing DAA and MPA for inflammatory markers (serum CPK, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, interleukin-1 β and tumor necrosis factor-α), the level of CPK postoperatively was 5.5 times higher in MPA patients, consistent with significantly more muscle damage. However, the overall physiologic burden as demonstrated by the measurement of all inflammatory markers was similar between the MPA and the DAA. This suggests that the inflammatory cascade associated with THA may be influenced more by the osteotomy and prosthesis implantation than by the surgical approach.24
Of note, some surgeons who perform the DAA recommend fewer postoperative precautions and suggest that physical therapy may not be necessary after discharge.25,26 Nevertheless, physiotherapeutic rehabilitation after all THA surgery is recommended as the standard treatment to minimize postoperative complications, such as hip dislocation, wound infection, deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism, and to maximize the patient’s functionality.27-29 RCTs are needed to look at long-term data on clinical outcomes between the MPA and DAA. Dislocation is a risk regardless of the approach used. Nevertheless, rates of dislocation, in general, are now very low, given the use of larger femoral head implants for all approaches.
Conclusions
THA is one of the most successful surgical procedures performed today. Patients desire hip pain relief and a return to function with as little interruption in their life as possible. Additionally, health care systems and insurers require THA procedures to be as efficient and cost-effective as possible. The debate regarding the most effective or preferable approach for THA continues. Although some prospective RCTs found that patients who underwent the DAA had objectively faster recovery than patients who had the MPA, it is also acknowledged that the results were dependent on surgeons who are very skilled in performing DAAs. The hope of both approaches is to get the individual moving as quickly and safely as possible to avoid a cascade of deterioration in the postoperative period. Factors other than the surgical approach, including patient selection, surgical volume and experience, careful preoperative assessments, attentive pain management, and rapid rehabilitation protocols, may be just as important as to which procedure is performed.30 The final decision should still be dependent on the patient-surgeon relationship and informed decision making.
In this case, the patient reviewed all the information he was given and independently researched the 2 procedures over many months. Ultimately, he decided to undergo a right THA via the DAA.
1. Elmallah RK, Chughtai M, Khlopas A. et al. Determining cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee arthroplasty using the Short Form-6D utility measure. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(2):351-354. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.006
2. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ. Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: updated projections to 2021. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(8):624-630. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00285
3. Kurtz, S, Ong KL, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00222
4. Sheahan WT, Parvataneni HK. Asymptomatic but time for a hip revision. Fed Pract. 2016;33(2):39-43.
5. Evans, JT, Evans JP, Walker RW, et al. How long does a hip replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2019;393(10172):647-654. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31665-9
6. Yang X, Huang H-F, Sun L , Yang Z, Deng C-Y, Tian XB. Direct anterior approach versus posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Orthop Surg. 2020;12:1065-1073. doi:10.1111/os.12669
7. Varela Egocheaga JR, Suárez-Suárez MA, Fernández-Villán M, González-Sastre V, Varela-Gómez JR, Murcia-Mazón A. Minimally invasive posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Prospective randomized trial. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2010:33(2):133-143. doi:10.4321/s1137-66272010000300002
8. Raxhbauer F, Kain MS, Leunig M. The history of the anterior approach to the hip. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009;40(3):311-320. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2009.02.007
9. Jia F, Guo B, Xu F, Hou Y, Tang X, Huang L. A comparison of clinical, radiographic and surgical outcomes of total hip arthroplasty between direct anterior and posterior approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hip Int. 2019;29(6):584-596. doi:10.1177/1120700018820652
10. Kennon RE Keggi JM, Wetmore RS, Zatorski LE, Huo MH, Keggi KJ. Total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive anterior surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(suppl 4):39-48. doi:10.2106/00004623-200300004-00005
11. Bal BS, Vallurupalli S. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty with the anterior approach. Indian J Orthop. 2008;42(3):301-308. doi:10.4103/0019-5413.41853
12. Katz JN, Losina E, Barrett E. Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(11):1622-1629. doi:10.2106/00004623-200111000-00002
13. Berstock JR, Blom AW, Beswick AD. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the standard versus mini-incision approach to a total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(10):1970-1982. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.05.021
14. Chimento GF, Pavone V, Sharrock S, Kahn K, Cahill J, Sculco TP. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(2):139-144. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.09.061
15. Fink B, Mittelstaedt A, Schulz MS, Sebena P, Sing J. Comparison of a minimally invasive posterior approach and the standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. A prospective and comparative study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:46. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-5-46
16. Khan RJ, Maor D, Hofmann M, Haebich S. A comparison of a less invasive piriformis-sparing approach versus the standard approach to the hip: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:43-50. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B1.27001
17. Galakatos GR. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. Missouri Med. 2018;115(6):537-541.
18. Flevas, DA, Tsantes AG, Mavrogenis, AE. Direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty revisited. JBJS Rev. 2020;8(4):e0144. doi:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.19.00144
19. DeSteiger RN, Lorimer M, Solomon M. What is the learning curve for the anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(12):3860-3866. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4565-6
20. Masonis J, Thompson C, Odum S. Safe and accurate: learning the direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2008;31(12)(suppl 2).
21. Bal BS. Clinical faceoff: anterior total hip versus mini-posterior: Which one is better? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(4):1192-1196. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3684-9
22. Taunton MJ, Mason JB, Odum SM, Bryan D, Springer BD. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty yields more rapid voluntary cessation of all walking aids: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29;(suppl 9):169-172. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.05
23. Nakata K, Nishikawa M, Yamamoto K, Hirota S, Yoshikawa H. A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(5):698-704. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.04.012
24. Bergin PF, Doppelt JD, Kephart CJ. Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(15):1392-1398. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00557
25. Carli AV, Poitras S, Clohisy JC, Beaule PE. Variation in use of postoperative precautions and equipment following total hip arthroplasty: a survey of the AAHKS and CAS membership. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(10):3201-3205. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2018.05.043
26. Kavcˇicˇ G, Mirt PK, Tumpej J, Bedenčič. The direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty without specific table: surgical approach and our seven years of experience. Published June 14, 2019. Accessed March 4, 2022. https://crimsonăpublishers.com/rabs/fulltext/RABS.000520.php27. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Total hip replacement exercise guide. Published 2017. Updated February 2022. Accessed March 4, 2022. https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/recovery/total-hip-replacement-exercise-guide
28. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Physiotherapy rehabilitation after total knee or hip replacement: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2005;5(8):1-91.
29. Pa˘unescu F, Didilescu A, Antonescu DM. Factors that may influence the functional outcome after primary total hip arthroplasty. Clujul Med. 2013;86(2):121-127.
30. Poehling-Monaghan KL, Kamath AF, Taunton MJ, Pagnano MW. Direct anterior versus miniposterior THA with the same advanced perioperative protocols: surprising early clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(2):623-631. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3827-z
1. Elmallah RK, Chughtai M, Khlopas A. et al. Determining cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee arthroplasty using the Short Form-6D utility measure. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(2):351-354. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.08.006
2. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Bozic KJ. Impact of the economic downturn on total joint replacement demand in the United States: updated projections to 2021. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(8):624-630. doi:10.2106/JBJS.M.00285
3. Kurtz, S, Ong KL, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780-785. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00222
4. Sheahan WT, Parvataneni HK. Asymptomatic but time for a hip revision. Fed Pract. 2016;33(2):39-43.
5. Evans, JT, Evans JP, Walker RW, et al. How long does a hip replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2019;393(10172):647-654. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31665-9
6. Yang X, Huang H-F, Sun L , Yang Z, Deng C-Y, Tian XB. Direct anterior approach versus posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Orthop Surg. 2020;12:1065-1073. doi:10.1111/os.12669
7. Varela Egocheaga JR, Suárez-Suárez MA, Fernández-Villán M, González-Sastre V, Varela-Gómez JR, Murcia-Mazón A. Minimally invasive posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty. Prospective randomized trial. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2010:33(2):133-143. doi:10.4321/s1137-66272010000300002
8. Raxhbauer F, Kain MS, Leunig M. The history of the anterior approach to the hip. Orthop Clin North Am. 2009;40(3):311-320. doi:10.1016/j.ocl.2009.02.007
9. Jia F, Guo B, Xu F, Hou Y, Tang X, Huang L. A comparison of clinical, radiographic and surgical outcomes of total hip arthroplasty between direct anterior and posterior approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hip Int. 2019;29(6):584-596. doi:10.1177/1120700018820652
10. Kennon RE Keggi JM, Wetmore RS, Zatorski LE, Huo MH, Keggi KJ. Total hip arthroplasty through a minimally invasive anterior surgical approach. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(suppl 4):39-48. doi:10.2106/00004623-200300004-00005
11. Bal BS, Vallurupalli S. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty with the anterior approach. Indian J Orthop. 2008;42(3):301-308. doi:10.4103/0019-5413.41853
12. Katz JN, Losina E, Barrett E. Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of total hip replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(11):1622-1629. doi:10.2106/00004623-200111000-00002
13. Berstock JR, Blom AW, Beswick AD. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the standard versus mini-incision approach to a total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(10):1970-1982. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.05.021
14. Chimento GF, Pavone V, Sharrock S, Kahn K, Cahill J, Sculco TP. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(2):139-144. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2004.09.061
15. Fink B, Mittelstaedt A, Schulz MS, Sebena P, Sing J. Comparison of a minimally invasive posterior approach and the standard posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. A prospective and comparative study. J Orthop Surg Res. 2010;5:46. doi:10.1186/1749-799X-5-46
16. Khan RJ, Maor D, Hofmann M, Haebich S. A comparison of a less invasive piriformis-sparing approach versus the standard approach to the hip: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:43-50. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.94B1.27001
17. Galakatos GR. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. Missouri Med. 2018;115(6):537-541.
18. Flevas, DA, Tsantes AG, Mavrogenis, AE. Direct anterior approach total hip arthroplasty revisited. JBJS Rev. 2020;8(4):e0144. doi:10.2106/JBJS.RVW.19.00144
19. DeSteiger RN, Lorimer M, Solomon M. What is the learning curve for the anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(12):3860-3866. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4565-6
20. Masonis J, Thompson C, Odum S. Safe and accurate: learning the direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics. 2008;31(12)(suppl 2).
21. Bal BS. Clinical faceoff: anterior total hip versus mini-posterior: Which one is better? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(4):1192-1196. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3684-9
22. Taunton MJ, Mason JB, Odum SM, Bryan D, Springer BD. Direct anterior total hip arthroplasty yields more rapid voluntary cessation of all walking aids: a prospective, randomized clinical trial. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29;(suppl 9):169-172. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.03.05
23. Nakata K, Nishikawa M, Yamamoto K, Hirota S, Yoshikawa H. A clinical comparative study of the direct anterior with mini-posterior approach: two consecutive series. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(5):698-704. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.04.012
24. Bergin PF, Doppelt JD, Kephart CJ. Comparison of minimally invasive direct anterior versus posterior total hip arthroplasty based on inflammation and muscle damage markers. Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011; 93(15):1392-1398. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.00557
25. Carli AV, Poitras S, Clohisy JC, Beaule PE. Variation in use of postoperative precautions and equipment following total hip arthroplasty: a survey of the AAHKS and CAS membership. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(10):3201-3205. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2018.05.043
26. Kavcˇicˇ G, Mirt PK, Tumpej J, Bedenčič. The direct anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty without specific table: surgical approach and our seven years of experience. Published June 14, 2019. Accessed March 4, 2022. https://crimsonăpublishers.com/rabs/fulltext/RABS.000520.php27. American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Total hip replacement exercise guide. Published 2017. Updated February 2022. Accessed March 4, 2022. https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/recovery/total-hip-replacement-exercise-guide
28. Medical Advisory Secretariat. Physiotherapy rehabilitation after total knee or hip replacement: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2005;5(8):1-91.
29. Pa˘unescu F, Didilescu A, Antonescu DM. Factors that may influence the functional outcome after primary total hip arthroplasty. Clujul Med. 2013;86(2):121-127.
30. Poehling-Monaghan KL, Kamath AF, Taunton MJ, Pagnano MW. Direct anterior versus miniposterior THA with the same advanced perioperative protocols: surprising early clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(2):623-631. doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3827-z