No abstract

No abstract

Background: Peri-operative dexamethasone has been shown to effectively reduce post-operative nausea and vomiting and aide in analgesia after total joint arthroplasty (TJA); however, systemic glucocorticoid therapy has many adverse effects. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of dexamethasone on prosthetic joint infection (PJI) and blood glucose levels in patients undergoing TJA. Methods: A retrospective chart review of all patients receiving primary TJA from 2011 to 2015 (n ¼ 2317) was conducted. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: dexamethasone (n ¼ 1426) and no dexamethasone (n ¼ 891); these groups were subdivided into diabetic and non-diabetic patients. The primary outcome was PJI; secondary measures included glucose levels and pre-operative hemoglobin A1c (A1c) values. Statistics were carried out using logistic and regression models. Results: Of the 2317 joints, 1.12% developed PJI; this was not affected by dexamethasone (P ¼ .166). Diabetics were found to have higher rate of infection (P < .001); however, diabetics who received dexamethasone were not found to have a significantly higher infection rate that non-diabetics (P ¼ .646). Blood glucose levels were found to increase post-operatively, and dexamethasone did not increase this change (P ¼ .537). Diabetes (P < .001) and increasing hemoglobin A1c (P < .001) were also associated with increased serum glucose levels; however, this was not influenced by dexamethasone (P ¼ .595). Conclusion: Although diabetic patients were found to have a higher infection rate overall, this was not affected by administration of intravenous dexamethasone, nor was the post-operative elevation in serum glucose levels. In this study population, peri-operative intravenous dexamethasone did not increase the rate of PJI and was safe to administer in patients undergoing TJA.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

BackgroundSuccessfully completing a surgical informed consent process is an important element of the preoperative consult. A previous study of Dutch general surgeons demonstrated that the implementation of SIC did not meet acceptable standards. However, the quality of the SIC process in the orthopedic surgical or plastic surgical arena is unknown.MethodsFollowing ethical approval, an online survey investigating specifics of surgical informed consent was performed among members of the Dutch Scientific Association of Orthopedic Surgeons and the Dutch Society for Plastic Surgery.ResultsA total of 335 responses from a majority of departments of orthopedic (86 %) and plastic surgery (78 %) were eligible for analysis. Scores on knowledge were poor as only 50 % recognized the three basic elements of surgical informed consent (competence, exchange of information and consent). The orthopedic group used more tools in the surgical informed consent process, such as instruction movies and websites or specialized nursing staff, compared to plastic surgery (orthopedic: 31-50 % vs. plastic: 6-30 %, p = 0.05- < 0.001). In contrast, surgical informed consent forms were used more frequently by the plastic surgical group (orthopedic 21 % vs. plastic:42 % p < 0.001). Control of the efficacy of the surgical informed consent process was low, 36 % in both groups. One in every seven orthopedic or plastic surgeons was faced with an official surgical informed consent-related complaint in the previous five years.ConclusionsSimilar to general surgeons, Dutch orthopedic and plastic surgeons demonstrate poor knowledge and skills regarding surgical informed consent. Increased awareness, better training and use of modern tools including standard forms and online software programs will improve the SIC process and will optimize patient care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13037-016-0110-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.