Background: The demand for telesurgery is rapidly increasing. Augmented reality (AR) remote surgery is a promising alternative, fulfilling a worldwide need in fracture surgery. However, previous AR endoscopic and Google Glass remotes remain unsuitable for fracture surgery, and the application of remote fracture surgery has not been reported. The authors aimed to evaluate the safety and clinical effectiveness of a new AR remote in fracture surgery. Materials and methods: This retrospective non-inferiority cohort study was conducted at three centres. Between 1 January 2018 and 31 March 2022, 800 patients who underwent fracture surgery were eligible for participation. The study enroled 551 patients with fractures (132 patellae, 128 elbows, 126 tibial plateaus, and 165 ankles) divided into an AR group (specialists used AR to remotely guide junior doctors to perform surgeries) and a traditional non-remote group (specialists performed the surgery themselves). Results: Among 364 patients (182 per group) matched by propensity score, seven (3.8%) in the AR group and six (3%) in the non-remote group developed complications. The 0.005 risk difference (95% CI: −0.033 to 0.044) was below the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of a 10% absolute increase. A similar distribution in the individual components of all complications was found between the groups. Hierarchical analysis following propensity score matching revealed no statistical difference between the two groups regarding functional results at 1-year follow-up, operative time, amount of bleeding, number of fluoroscopies, and injury surgery interval. A Likert scale questionnaire showed positive results (median scores: 4–5) for safety, efficiency, and education. Conclusion: This study is the first to report that AR remote surgery can be as safe and effective as that performed by a specialist in person for fracture surgery, even without the physical presence of a specialist, and is associated with improving the skills and increasing the confidence of junior surgeons. This technique is promising for remote fracture surgery and other open surgeries, offering a new strategy to address inadequate medical care in remote areas.

Purpose: Concerning the ongoing debate on the effects of continuing aspirin therapy on blood loss in knee arthroplasty, we conducted a retrospective investigation to test the hypothesis that continuation of aspirin prior total knee arthroplasty (TKA) will not cause more blood loss. Methods: From a database of patients who underwent unilateral TKA between 2011 and 2016, we identified two groups: the aspirin group (patients continued aspirin during perioperative period) and the nonaspirin group (patients had no current or recent history of aspirin usage). We extracted and compared patient demographic information, comorbidity index, baseline serum hemoglobin (Hb), and creatinine level between the two groups. We also compared our primary outcomes, including the total blood loss, transfusion requirement, and length of hospitalization between the two groups. A multivariate logistic regression for analyzing the risk factors of requiring transfusion was performed. Results: We found that apart from preoperative serum creatinine level, there was no difference in the baseline Hb level, perioperative change in Hb, total blood loss, or length of hospitalization between the two groups. The percentage of transfusion utilization was also comparable between the two groups. Our regression analysis shows that the risk of requiring transfusion after TKA is not significantly associated with patients taking aspirin therapy before operation. Conclusion: Patients who underwent TKA with continuation of low-dose aspirin did not result in more blood loss. Current blood loss management has provided sufficient reduction of blood loss to accommodate aspirin therapy perioperatively. We suggest that it is safe to continue aspirin prior to TKA.

Hip fractures are a cause of significant morbidity. While rare, ipsilateral hip fractures within 12 months after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can negatively affect the functional outcome and the quality of life for patients who have had TKA. This aim of this study is to investigate (1) the incidence of hip fracture within 12 months after TKA and (2) the influence of hip fracture after TKA on functional outcome and quality of life in patients. Between March 1999 and February 2012, 25 patients who sustained an ipsilateral hip fracture within 12 months after TKA were included in this study. A propensity score matching algorithm was used to select a 1:3 control group without hip fracture. All patients were assessed using the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Knee Society Function Score (KSFS), Knee Society Knee Score (KSKS), Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score (MCS) of SF-36®. The incidence of hip fracture was 0.16% among male patients and 0.20% for female patients. At 24 months after TKA, the OKS was 36 ± 7 in the hip fracture group versus 41 ± 5 in the control group (p = 0.003). The KSFS was 50 ± 24 in the hip fracture group versus 68 ± 21 in the control group (p = 0.001), while the KSKS was 83 ± 12 and 87 ± 8, respectively (p = 0.166). The PCS was 37 ± 12 in the hip fracture group versus 47 ± 11 in the control group (p < 0.001), while the MCS was 55 ± 10 and 54 ± 11, respectively (p = 0.664). Although hip fracture during the rehabilitation period after TKA is uncommon, these patients have poorer functional outcome and quality of life. We recommend additional caution against hip fracture after TKA.