| Literature DB >> 34977464 |
Vikram Indrajit Shah1, Sachin Upadhyay2,3, Kalpesh Shah1, Vipin Singh1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary purpose of the present study was to assess whether use of proposed containment sheet (so called "a frugal innovation") minimizes the aerosol and splatter dispersion during total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MATERIAL ANDEntities:
Keywords: Aerosols; COVID-19; Frugal innovation; TKA; VAS; WOMAC
Year: 2020 PMID: 34977464 PMCID: PMC7449786 DOI: 10.1186/s42836-020-00042-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arthroplasty ISSN: 2524-7948
Fig. 1Consort flow chart
Fig. 2Algorithm: Institutional Criteria and Protocols for deciding management during COVID-19 outbreaks
Fig. 3Patients wore a surgical mask and covered with plastic sheet during transfer to in OR and to the wards after the procedure
Fig. 4Use of containment sheet as a tent over the operative site
Fig. 5Phase two showing the routine tibial bony cuts under the containment sheet using power saw
Fig. 6Phase three involved the femoral preparation and routine bony cuts under the containment sheet using power saw
Patients' demographic variables and baseline parameters
| 1. | Age (Years) | 64.54 ± 5.22 | 66.19 ± 2.31 | |
| 2. | Gender | 10 female (62.5%) | 8 female (50%) | χ2 = 0.5079 |
| 6 male (37.5%) | 8 male (50%) | |||
| 3. | Severity of disease (Kellgren and Lawrence system) | 11 grade IV (68.75%) | 13 grade IV (81.25%) | χ2 = 0.6667 |
| 5 Grades III (31.25%) | 3 Grade III (18.75%) | |||
| 4. | Deformity (Femorotibial angle) (in degree) (Varus) | 15.9 ± 1.03 | 16.3 ± 1.40 | |
| 5. | Flexion angle (in degree) | 85.8 ± 1.21 | 86.2 ± 1.01 | |
| 6. | Co-morbidity (HTN, IHD, DM, ILI, COPD) | 87.5% ( | 93.75% ( | χ2 = 0.1829 |
| 7. | I | 2 (12.5%) | 1 (6.5%) | χ2 = 0.3678; |
| II | 3 (18.75%) | 2 (12.5%) | χ2 = 0.237; | |
| III | 3 (18.75%) | 2 (12.5%) | χ2 = 0.237; | |
| IV | 2 (12.5%) | 3 (18.75%) | χ2 = 0.237; | |
| V | 6 (37.5%) | 8 (50%) | χ2 = 0.5079; | |
| VI | – | – | ||
| VII | – | – | ||
| 8. | WOMAC | 52.70 ± 2.05 | 52.16 ± 1.88 | |
| 9. | VAS | 8.7 ± 1.02 | 8.5 ± 1.22 |
Total WOMAC and VAS
| Total WOMAC | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Pre-operative (baseline) | Latest Follow up | |
| 52.70 ± 2.05 | 24.3 ± 2.61 | ||
| 52.16 ± 1.88 | 23.7 ± 2.12 | ||
| 8.7 ± 1.02 | 2.98 ± 2.61 | ||
| 8.5 ± 1.22 | 3.25 ± 1.33 | ||
Average operative time and hospital stay
| Characteristics | Control ( | Study group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 37.63 ± 3.22 | 39.69 ± 5.32 | ||
| 2.81 ± 0.66 | 2.69 ± 0.48 |
Face shield/Gown: Numbers of macroscopic aerosols/splatters/splashes
| Characteristic | Control ( | Study group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 631.25 ± 153.70 | 1.25 ± 1.00 |
Fig. 7a Face shield showed significant number of aerosols/splatters in control group; b Study group had no aerosols
Fig. 8The inner aspect of containment sheet: concentration of aerosols/splatters was close to the surgical site and confined to the containment sheet
Fig. 9The protective gears: a Front; b Back; c Side