| Literature DB >> 28861119 |
Dirk Zajonz1,2, Johannes K M Fakler1, Anna-Judith Dahse3, Fujiaoshou Junping Zhao4, Melanie Edel1,2, Christoph Josten1,2, Andreas Roth1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In spite of the improvement of many aspects around Total knee arthroplasty (TKA), there is still a group of 10% to 34% of patients who is not satisfied with the outcome. The therapy of chronic pain after TKA remains a medical challenge that requires an interdisciplinary therapy concept. The aim of this prospective pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy of a multimodal pain therapy in chronic complaints after TKA.Entities:
Keywords: Arthrofibrosis; Ketamine; Multimodal pain therapy; Total knee arthroplasty; Traditional Chinese medicine
Year: 2017 PMID: 28861119 PMCID: PMC5577740 DOI: 10.1186/s13037-017-0137-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Patient Saf Surg ISSN: 1754-9493
Fig. 1Scheme showing the treatment algorithm of the University Hospital Leipzig for persistent complaints after total knee arthroplasty
Presentation of the specifics of the patient collective with sex (0: male, 1: female), age, year of primary implantation, number of previous operations, number of TKA changes and time elapsed since last operation
| Patient number | Female | Age (years) | Year of primary implantation | Number of preoperations / revisions | Number of TKA changes | Time to last surgery (months) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 60 | 2004 | 5 | 2 | 23 |
| 2 | 0 | 79 | 2013 | 5 | 1 | 12 |
| 3 | 1 | 65 | 2008 | 5 | 2 | 30 |
| 4 | 0 | 59 | 2012 | 3 | 1 | 15 |
| 5 | 1 | 57 | 2008 | 2 | 1 | 84 |
| 6 | 1 | 60 | 2011 | 2 | 0 | 7 |
| 7 | 1 | 56 | 2014 | not specified | 2 | 5 |
| 8 | 0 | 45 | 2009 | 3 | 2 | 11 |
| 9 | 1 | 71 | 2007 | 1 | not specified | 24 |
| 10 | 0 | 68 | 2012 | 4 | 2 | 8 |
| 11 | 1 | 74 | 2011 | 3 | 2 | 24 |
| 12 | 0 | 78 | 2010 | 2 | 1 | 36 |
| 13 | 0 | 67 | 2014 | not specified | 2 | 4 |
| 14 | 1 | 68 | 2015 | 2 | 0 | 13 |
| 15 | 1 | 57 | 2009 | 1 | 0 | 24 |
| 16 | 1 | 47 | 2008 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| 17 | 1 | 62 | 2009 | 2 | 1 | 14 |
| 18 | 0 | 71 | 2012 | 2 | 1 | 11 |
| 19 | 0 | 77 | 2009 | 3 | 1 | 9 |
| 20 | 0 | 70 | 2015 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| 21 | 0 | 52 | 2011 | 6 | 3 | not specified |
Summary of score-specific median values including their ranges at the times of examination (hospitalization, hospital discharge, 1. follow-up, 2. follow-up). Numerical Analog Scale for pain (0–10); Knee Society Score of Insall et al. (0–200), which is subdivided into a clinical score (pain, ROM, stability) and a function score (walking, stairs); Knee Score of Ranawat and Shine (0–100), which is divided into <60: inadequate, 60–69: moderate, 70–84: good and 85–100: excellent; neutral zero method for ROM indicated in degrees
| NAS | Knee Society Score of Insall | Pain | Movment | Stability | Clinical Score | Walking | Stairs | Function score | Knee Score of Ranawat (HSS) | Excellent | Good | Moderate | Inadequate | Range of motion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hospitalisation | 7 (4–10) | 88 (14–145) | 25 (20–45) | 18 (8–25) | 25 (20–25) | 45 (13–85) | 20 (10–50) | 30 (0–30) | 50 (10–80) | 62 (36–95) | 5% | 33% | 19% | 43% | 92,5 (40–130) |
| Hos. discharge | 5 (0–10) | 118 (55–160) | 15 (0–40) | 20 (10–25) | 25 (10–25) | 59 (25–80) | 30 (10–50) | 30 (15–40) | 60 (15–80) | 74 (46–92) | 23.50% | 41.50% | 17.50% | 17.50% | 105 (55–130) |
| 1st follow-up | 5 (3–9) | 112 (55–168) | 20 (0–40) | 18 (10–25) | 25 (20–25) | 62 (25–88) | 25 (10–40) | 30 (0–40) | 52,5 (0–80) | 64 (36–77) | 0 | 20% | 40% | 40% | 110 (80–135) |
| 2nd follow-up | 6 (2–8) | 119 (43–168) | 20 (10–40) | 20 (18–24) | 25 (20–25) | 63 (43–88) | 30 (10–40) | 40 (0–40) | 60 (0–80) | 67 (49–70) | 0 | 30% | 40% | 30% | 100 (85–120) |
Fig. 2Pain development at the times of examination (hospitalization, hospital discharge, 1. follow-up, 2. follow-up). Green: Knee Society Score of Insall et al. for pain (0–50); Red: Numerical Analog Scale for pain (0–10)
Fig. 3Visualization of change in range of motion at the times of examination (hospitalization, hospital discharge, 1. follow-up, 2. follow-up). Red: neutral zero method in degree; Green: Knee Society Score of Insall et al. for range of motion (0–25)
Fig. 4Graphical description of functional changes at the times of examination (hospitalization, hospital discharge, 1. follow-up, 2. follow-up). Green: Function Score of the Knee Society Score of Insall et al. (0–100); Red: Knee Score of Ranawat and Shine for functionality (0–100)