Sharp dissection versus monopolar electrocautery in primary TKR

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Sharp dissection versus monopolar electrocautery in primary total knee arthroplasty performed under tourniquet: a randomized double blind controlled trial

  • IRAS ID

    244896

  • Contact name

    Chloe Scott

  • Contact email

    chloeehscott@yahoo.co.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    NHS Lothian

  • Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier

    NCT03559478

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    2 years, 6 months, 1 days

  • Research summary

    The approach to the knee to carry out a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can either be carried out using a scalpel (sharp dissection), or using an electric current to divide tissue (monopolar electocautery, diathermy). Reducing blood loss is important. Bloods loss can result in anaemia, which has a number of effects including shortness of breath, chest pain and lethargy. Blood loss into a newly replaced knee can also result in pain and stiffness in the joint. Total knee replacements are routinely carried out with a tourniquet inflated, a cuff which reduces the blood flow into to leg during the operation. Diathermy is applied to areas of bleeding to stop them from doing so during operations. With the tourniquet inflated, some areas that would bleed when this was deflated may not be noticed and continue to bleed. Using diathermy for the approach would be expected to reduce this bleeding compared to using a scalpel.

    This study plans to compare the use of a scalpel and diathermy in the aforementioned ways. Patients will be recruited from pre-assesment clinics a few weeks prior to their surgery date and randomised to one of the two methods of approach. Patients will receive routine care post TKA in every way apart from additional formal range of motion and pain assessments as an inpatient and outpatient. They will not require additional outpatient review compared to the standard patient pathway.

  • REC name

    South East Scotland REC 01

  • REC reference

    19/SS/0007

  • Date of REC Opinion

    16 Jan 2019

  • REC opinion

    Favourable Opinion