Simultaneous bilateral hip replacement reveals superior outcome and fewer complications than two-stage procedures: a prospective study including 1819 patients and 5801 follow-ups from a total joint replacement registry

Background Total joint replacements represent a considerable part of day-to-day orthopaedic routine and a substantial proportion of patients undergoing unilateral total hip arthroplasty require a contralateral treatment after the first operation. This report compares complications and functional outcome of simultaneous versus early and delayed two-stage bilateral THA over a five-year follow-up period. Methods The study is a post hoc analysis of prospectively collected data in the framework of the European IDES hip registry. The database query resulted in 1819 patients with 5801 follow-ups treated with bilateral THA between 1965 and 2002. According to the timing of the two operations the sample was divided into three groups: I) 247 patients with simultaneous bilateral THA, II) 737 patients with two-stage bilateral THA within six months, III) 835 patients with two-stage bilateral THA between six months and five years. Results Whereas postoperative hip pain and flexion did not differ between the groups, the best walking capacity was observed in group I and the worst in group III. The rate of intraoperative complications in the first group was comparable to that of the second. The frequency of postoperative local and systemic complication in group I was the lowest of the three groups. The highest rate of complications was observed in group III. Conclusions From the point of view of possible intra- and postoperative complications, one-stage bilateral THA is equally safe or safer than two-stage interventions. Additionally, from an outcome perspective the one-stage procedure can be considered to be advantageous.

Transesophageal echocardiography for verification of the position of the electrocardiographically-placed central venous catheter

OBJECTIVE: Compare changes in P-wave amplitude of the intra-atrial electrocardiogram (ECG) and its corresponding transesophageal echocardiography (TEE)-controlled position to verify the exact localization of a central venous catheter (CVC) tip. DESIGN: A prospective study. SETTING: University, single-institutional setting. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. INTERVENTIONS: CVC placement via the right internal jugular vein with ECG control using the guidewire technique and TEE control in 4 different phases: phase 1: CVC placement with normalized P wave and measurement of distance from the crista terminalis to the CVC tip; phase 2: TEE-controlled placement of the CVC tip; parallel to the superior vena cava (SVC) and measurements of P-wave amplitude; phase 3: influence of head positioning on CVC migration; and phase 4: evaluation of positioning of the CVC postoperatively using a chest x-ray. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The CVC tip could only be visualized in 67 patients on TEE with a normalized P wave. In 198 patients with the CVC parallel to the SVC wall controlled by TEE (phase 2), an elevated P wave was observed. Different head movements led to no significant migration of the CVC (phase 3). On a postoperative chest-x-ray, the CVC position was correct in 87.6% (phase 4). CONCLUSION: The study suggests that the position of the CVC tip is located parallel to the SVC and 1.5 cm above the crista terminalis if the P wave starts to decrease during withdrawal of the catheter. The authors recommend that ECG control as per their study should be routinely used for placement of central venous catheters via the right internal jugular vein.

Safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery: Roux-en-y gastric bypass is superior to gastric banding in the management of morbidly obese patients: a reply to the response by Bhoyrul et al

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: We have read the letter by Bhoyrul et al. in response to our recently published article "Safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is superior to gastric banding in the management of morbidly obese patients". We strongly disagree with the content of the letter. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Bhoyrul et al. base their letter mostly on low level evidence such as single-institutional case series (level IV evidence) and expert opinion (level V evidence). Surprisingly, they do not comment on the randomized controlled trial, which clearly favours gastric bypass over gastric banding. CONCLUSION: The letter by Bhoyrul et al. is based on low level evidence and is itself biased, unsubstantiated, and not supported by the current literature.