Search

Background: Peri-prosthetic bone loss can result from chemical, biological, and mechanical factors. Mechanical stimulation via fluid pressure and flow at the bone-implant interface may be a significant cause. Evidence supporting mechanically induced osteolysis continues to grow, but there is no synthesis of published clinical and basic science data., Questions/purposes: We sought to review the literature on two questions: (1) What published evidence supports the concept of mechanically induced osteolysis? (2) What is the proposed mechanism of mechanically induced osteolysis, and does it differ from that of particle-induced osteolysis?, Methods: A systematic review was performed of the PubMed and Web of Science databases. Additional relevant articles were recommended by the senior authors based on their expert opinion. Abstracts were reviewed and the manuscripts pertaining to the study questions were read in full. Studies showing support of mechanically induced osteolysis were quantified and findings summarized., Results: We identified 49 articles of experimental design supporting the hypothesis that mechanical stimulation of peri-prosthetic bone from fluid pressure and flow can induce osteolysis. While the molecular mechanisms may overlap with those implicated in particle-induced osteolysis, mechanically induced osteolysis appears to be mediated by distinct and parallel pathways., Conclusions: The role of mechanical stimuli is increasingly recognized in the pathogenesis of peri-prosthetic osteolysis. Current research aims to elucidate the molecular mechanisms to better target therapeutic interventions., Competing Interests: Conflict of InterestRyan Scully, MD, F. Patrick Ross, PhD, and Anna Falghren, PhD, declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Benjamin A McArthur, MD, reports grants from Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation, during the conduct of the study. Mathias P.G. Bostrom, MD, reports being a paid consultant for Smith & Nephew, outside the submitted work., (© Hospital for Special Surgery 2018.)

The application of tranexamic acid (TXA) in total joint arthroplasty has dramatically improved peri-operative blood management. In light of these benefits, a study by Huang et al., "Intravenous and Topical Tranexamic Acid Alone Are Superior to Tourniquet Use for Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty," evaluates the need for continued use of the intra-operative tourniquet, which remains a routine practice with documented benefits and adverse effects. This review evaluates the study's design and critically interprets its findings for clinical practice. Through a prospective, randomized trial, Huang et al. demonstrated that among selected patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty, the use of a tourniquet results in no reduction in blood loss beyond that provided by TXA alone. Moreover, the use of TXA without a tourniquet led to improved early clinical outcomes such as reduced post-operative swelling, improved knee range of motion at discharge, and enhanced patient satisfaction. As medicine is practiced in an increasingly value-driven environment, this study provides a useful method for evaluating the utility of commonly used interventions. Its findings highlight the need for future investigations into the optimal administration of TXA in total knee arthroplasty., Competing Interests: Christopher M. Brusalis, MD, and Shawn S. Richardson, MD, declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Mathias P.G. Bostrom, MD, reports being a paid consultant for Smith and Nephew, outside the submitted work.N/AN/ADisclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.The submitted manuscript is a review article that does not involve research participants, patient data, or any other information other than a review of published literature. Therefore, no IRB approval was obtained.