Lymphedema microsurgery reduces the rate of implant removal for patients who have pre-existing lymphedema and total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis.
- 作者列表："Voravitvet TY","Chen C","Lin CY","Cheng MH
INTRODUCTION:Patients with pre-existing lymphedema who undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for osteoarthritis (OA) are at high risk for periprosthetic joint infection. This complication usually requires removal of the implant. This study aimed to investigate whether surgical treatment of lymphedema reduces the rate of prosthesis removal in such patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed our prospective database of patient information collected between January 2009 and December 2018. A total of 348 cases of lower extremity lymphedema were reviewed, and those who underwent total knee TKA for OA of the knee were included. Patient demographics, clinical data, lymphedema surgical history, and TKA surgical history including any episodes of removal were collected and analyzed. RESULTS:There were nine of 15 lymphedema patients with knee OA who subsequently underwent TKA. The mean patient age was 70.4 ± 7.1 years. A total of 18 TKAs were performed in nine patients. The knee prosthesis removal rate was 66.7% (12/18). The prosthesis removal rate was 40% (2/5) in patients who underwent lymphedema microsurgery vs 76.9% (10/13) for those who did not (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS:Pre-existing lymphedema is associated with a high rate of knee prosthesis removal. Lymphedema microsurgery reduced the removal rate of knee prostheses. We recommend that lymphedema microsurgery be considered for patients who require TKA as a treatment for of the knee.
导读: 因骨关节炎 (OA) 而接受全膝关节置换术 (TKA) 的淋巴水肿患者存在假体周围感染的高风险。这种并发症通常需要移除植入物。本研究旨在探讨手术治疗淋巴水肿是否会降低此类患者假体取出率。 材料和方法: 我们回顾性回顾了我们在 2009 年 1 月至 2018 年 12 月期间收集的患者信息的前瞻性数据库。共回顾 348 例下肢淋巴水肿病例，纳入因膝关节OA行全膝关节TKA者。收集并分析患者人口统计学、临床数据、淋巴水肿手术史和TKA手术史 (包括任何切除发作)。 结果: 15 例膝关节OA淋巴水肿患者中有 9 例随后接受了TKA。患者平均年龄 70.4 ± 7.1 岁。9 例患者共进行了 18 例TKAs。膝关节假体清除率为 66.7% (12/18)。淋巴水肿显微手术患者的假体取出率为 40% (2/5)，而非淋巴水肿显微手术患者的假体取出率为 76.9% (10/13) (p =.03)。 结论: 预先存在的淋巴水肿与膝关节假体取出率高有关。淋巴水肿显微手术降低了膝关节假体的切除率。我们建议对需要TKA治疗膝关节的患者考虑行淋巴水肿显微手术。
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the cardiovascular risk of patients with primary Sjögren's syndrome (SS) remains poorly studied. We aimed to investigate the association between primary SS and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. METHODS:We performed a systematic review of articles in Medline and the Cochrane Library and recent abstracts from US and European meetings, searching for reports of randomized controlled studies of cardiovascular morbidity and cardiovascular mortality in primary SS. The relative risk (RR) values for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality associated with primary SS were collected and pooled in a meta-analysis with a random-effects model by using Review Manager (Cochrane collaboration). RESULTS:The literature search revealed 484 articles and abstracts of interest; 14 studies (67,124 patients with primary SS) were included in the meta-analysis. With primary SS versus control populations, the risk was significantly increased for coronary morbidity (RR 1.34 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.06-1.38]; P = 0.01), cerebrovascular morbidity (RR 1.46 [95% CI 1.43-1.49]; P < 0.00001), heart failure rate (odds ratio 2.54 [95% CI 1.30-4.97]; P < 0.007), and thromboembolic morbidity (RR 1.78 [95% CI 1.41-2.25]; P < 0.00001), with no statistically significant increased risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.48 [95% CI 0.77-2.85]; P = 0.24). CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis demonstrates that primary SS is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity, which suggests that these patients should be screened for cardiovascular comorbidities and considered for preventive interventions, in a multidisciplinary approach with cardiologists.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:We aimed to evaluate the comparative risk of hospitalized infection among patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who initiated abatacept versus a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi). METHODS:Using claims data from Truven MarketScan database (2006-2015), we identified patients with RA ages ≥18 years with ≥2 RA diagnoses who initiated treatment with abatacept or a TNFi. The primary outcome was a composite end point of any hospitalized infection. Secondary outcomes included bacterial infection, herpes zoster, and infections affecting different organ systems. We performed 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching between the groups in order to control for baseline confounders. We estimated incidence rates (IRs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for hospitalized infection. RESULTS:We identified 11,248 PS-matched pairs of patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and TNFi with a median age of 56 years (83% were women). The IR per 1,000 person-years for any hospitalized infection was 37 among patients who initiated treatment with abatacept and 47 in those who initiated treatment with TNFi. The HR for the risk of any hospitalized infection associated with abatacept versus TNFi was 0.78 (95% CI 0.64-0.95) and remained lower when compared to infliximab (HR 0.63 [95% CI 0.47-0.85]), while no significant difference was seen when compared to adalimumab and etanercept. The risk of secondary outcomes was lower for abatacept for pulmonary infections, and similar to TNFi for the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSION:In this large cohort of patients with RA who initiated treatment with abatacept or TNFi as a first- or second-line biologic agent, we found a lower risk of hospitalized infection after initiating abatacept versus TNFi, which was driven mostly by infliximab.
METHODS:OBJECTIVE:Reducing pain is one of the main health priorities for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA); however, some studies indicate that pain is not routinely assessed in this patient group. The aim of this study was to explore health care professionals' (HCPs) beliefs about the role of pain and the prioritization of its assessment in children and young people with JIA. METHODS:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs who manage children and young people with JIA in the UK (including consultant and trainee pediatric rheumatologists, nurses, physical therapists, and occupational therapists). Data were analyzed qualitatively following a framework analysis approach. RESULTS:Twenty-one HCPs participated. Analyses of the data identified 6 themes, including lack of training and low confidence in pain assessment, reluctance to engage in pain discussions, low prioritization of pain assessment, specific beliefs about the nature of pain in JIA, treatment of pain in JIA, and undervaluing pain reports. Assessment of pain symptoms was regarded as a low priority and some HCPs actively avoided conversations about pain. CONCLUSION:These findings indicate that the assessment of pain in children and young people with JIA may be limited by knowledge, skills, and attitudinal factors. HCPs' accounts of their beliefs about pain in JIA and their low prioritization of pain in clinical practice suggest that a shift in perceptions about pain management may be helpful for professionals managing children and young people with this condition.