Objectives: National and international evidence-based guidelines for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) recommend to start with non-surgical treatments, followed by surgical intervention if a patient does not respond sufficiently to non-surgical treatments, but there are indications that these are not optimally used. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which all recommended non-surgical treatments were used by patients with hip or knee OA who receive(d) a total hip or knee replacement, as reported by patients and orthopaedic surgeons. Setting: We performed two cross-sectional internetbased surveys among patients and orthopaedic surgeons throughout the Netherlands. Participants: 195 OA patients either have undergone total knee arthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty no longer than 12 months ago or being on the waiting list for surgery with a confirmed date within 3 months and 482 orthopaedic surgeons were invited to participate. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The use of recommended non-surgical treatments including education about OA/treatment options, lifestyle advice, dietary therapy, physical therapy, acetaminophen, NSAIDs and glucocorticoid injections. Results: 174 OA patients (93%) and 172 orthopaedic surgeons (36%) completed the surveys. Most recommended non-surgical treatments were given to the majority of patients (eg, 80% education about OA, 73% physical therapy, 72% acetaminophen, 80% NSAIDs). However, only 6% of patients and 10% of orthopaedic surgeons reported using a combination of all recommended treatments. Dietary therapy was used least frequently. Only 11% of overweight and 30% of obese participants reported having received dietary therapy and 28% of orthopaedic surgeons reported to prescribe dietary therapy to overweight patients. Conclusions: While most recommended non-surgical treatments were used frequently as single therapy, the combination is used in only a small percentage of OA patients. Especially, use of dietary therapy may be improved to help patients manage their symptoms, and potentially delay the need for joint arthroplasty.@en

Background: Cell salvage is used to reduce allogeneic red blood-cell (RBC) transfusions in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We performed a meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of cell salvage to reduce transfusions in THA and TKA separately, and to examine whether recent trials change the conclusions frompreviousmeta-analyses. Methods: We searched MEDLINE through January 2013 for randomized clinical trials evaluating the effects of cell salvage in THA and TKA. Trial results were extracted using standardized forms and pooled using a random-effects model. Methodological quality of the trials was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for risk-of-bias assessment. Results: Forty-three trials (5631 patients) were included. Overall, cell salvage reduced the exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion in THA (risk ratio [RR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.85) and TKA (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.68). However, trials published in 2010 to 2012, with a lower risk of bias, showed no significant effect of cell salvage in THA (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.02) and TKA (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.31), suggesting that the treatment policy regarding transfusion may have changed over time. Conclusions: Looking at all trials, cell salvage still significantly reduced the RBC exposure rate and the volume of RBCs transfused in both THA and TKA. However, in trials published more recently (2010 to 2012), cell salvage reduced neither the exposure rate nor the volume of RBCs transfused in THA and TKA, most likely explained by changes in blood transfusion management. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.@en

Background: Total hip and knee arthroplasties are two of the most commonly performed procedures in orthopedic surgery. Different blood-saving measures (BSMs) are used to reduce the often-needed allogenic blood transfusions in these procedures. A recent large randomized controlled trial showed it is not cost effective to use the BSMs of erythropoietin and perioperative autologous blood salvage in elective primary hip and knee arthroplasties. Despite dissemination of these study results, medical professionals keep using these BSMs. To actually change practice, an implementation strategy is needed that is based on a good understanding of target groups and settings and the psychological constructs that predict behavior of medical professionals. However, detailed insight into these issuses is lacking. Therefore, this study aims to explore which groups of professionals should be targeted at which settings, as well as relevant barriers and facilitators that should be taken into acount in the strategy to implement evidence-based, cost-effective blood transfusion management and to de-implement BSMs.Methods: The study consists of three phases. First, a questionnaire survey among all Dutch orthopedic hospital departments and independent treatment centers (n = 99) will be conducted to analyze current blood management practice. Second, semistructured interviews will be held among 10 orthopedic surgeons and 10 anesthesiologists to identify barriers and facilitators that are relevant for the uptake of cost-effective blood transfusion management. Interview questions will be based on the Theoretical Domains Interview framework. The interviews will be followed by a questionnaire survey among 800 medical professionals in orthopedics and anesthesiology (400 professionals per discipline) in which the identified barriers and facilitators will be ranked by frequency and importance. Finally, an implementation strategy will be developed based on the results from the previous phases, using principles of intervention mapping and an expert panel.Discussion: The developed strategy for cost-effective blood transfusion management by de-implementing BSMs is likely to reduce costs for elective hip and knee arthroplasties. In addition, this study will lead to generalized knowledge regarding relevant factors for the de-implementation of non-cost-effective interventions and insight in the differences between implementation and de-implementation strategies.

@en