Perioperative systemic glucocorticoids in total hip and knee arthroplasty: A systematic review of outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Perioperative systemic glucocorticoids are frequently included in multimodal analgesia and antiemetic regimens administered to patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the effect of perioperative systemic glucocorticoids on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), pain, narcotic consumption, antiemetic consumption, length of stay in hospital, and major complications in patients undergoing elective THA or TKA. METHODS: A predefined protocol of eligibility and methodology was used for conduct of systematic reviews. Two reviewers screened citations for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and verified the extracted data. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included for analysis. Across all outcomes analyzed, patients who received glucocorticoids experienced either a benefit or no difference compared to those patients who did not receive glucocorticoids. There were no instances in which perioperative glucocorticoids had a negative impact on any of the outcomes that were analyzed. Furthermore, perioperative glucocorticoids had no effect on the rates of superficial infection, deep infection, wound complications or deep vein thrombosis (DVT). CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review support the use of perioperative systemic glucocorticoids in patients undergoing elective total hip and knee arthroplasty. Perioperative glucocorticoids have overall positive outcomes with the benefits being more robust in those patients undergoing TKA compared to THA. Glucocorticoids did not increase the occurrence of major complications. There is limited data to support the conclusion that they can reduce length of stay in hospital.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".