You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Therapeutics
A preoperative smoking intervention decreased postoperative complications in elective knee or hip replacement
Free
  1. Elizabeth Kozak, MD
  1. Spectrum Health Primary Care Partners
 Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebm.7.4.112

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

      Request Permissions

      If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

      (2002) Lancet 359, 114; Møller AM, Villebro N, Pedersen T, et al.. Effect of preoperative smoking intervention on postoperative complications: a randomised clinical trial.. Jan 12;. :. –7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

      
 
 QUESTION: In patients having elective knee or hip replacement, is a preoperative smoking intervention more effective than usual care for reducing postoperative morbidity and mortality?

      Design

      Randomised {allocation concealed*}†, blinded (outcome assessor),* controlled trial with follow up time to discharge.

      Setting

      3 university affiliated hospitals in Copenhagen, Denmark.

      Patients

      120 patients who were scheduled for primary elective hip or knee alloplasty and were daily smokers. Patients with a weekly alcohol intake > 35 units were excluded. 108 patients (90%) were included in the analysis (median age 65 y, 57% women).

      Intervention

      At 6 to 8 weeks before surgery, 60 patients were allocated to the smoking intervention and were offered a weekly meeting with the project nurse. At the first meeting, a Fagerstöm test was done to estimate the patient’s nicotine dependence. Test results and patient preference were used to devise a personalised nicotine substitution schedule. Patients were strongly encouraged to stop smoking, but they also had the option to reduce tobacco consumption by ≥ 50%. Smoking status was monitored, and nicotine substitution products were provided free of charge. At subsequent meetings, tobacco use was recorded, and patients were given advice about smoking cessation or reduction, benefits and side effects, and management of withdrawal symptoms and weight gain. 60 patients were allocated to usual care (little or no information or counselling on smoking).

      Main outcome measures

      Postoperative complications (death or postoperative morbidity requiring treatment within 4 wks after surgery).

      Main results

      Analysis was by intention to treat. No patients died before discharge. Rates of any postoperative complication and wound related postoperative complications were lower in the smoking intervention group than in the usual-care group (table).

      View this table:

      Smoking intervention v usual care in elective knee or hip replacement‡

      Conclusion

      A preoperative smoking intervention was more effective than usual care for reducing any postoperative and wound related postoperative complications in patients having elective knee or hip replacement.

      Commentary

      Preoperative assessment seeks to reduce postoperative morbidity or mortality. These assessments are typically for patients with increased risk for cardiac and pulmonary complications. Smoking within 8 weeks of surgery increases postoperative pulmonary, cardiovascular, infectious, and wound complications.1 Although patients are encouraged to stop smoking before elective surgery, no prospective data exist to validate this advice. The study by Møller et al showed that a formal smoking cessation programme reduced postoperative complications and wound related complications in motivated patients having elective hip or knee replacements.

      In this small study population, no deaths occurred before discharge so that no conclusions for effects on mortality could be drawn. The 120 patients who entered the study were those who agreed to participate among the 166 who were eligible, and the study was done in Denmark, so generalisability of the results may be somewhat limited. For example, the median hospital stay in this study was 12 days compared with 5 days in the USA.2 The patients were given an American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Status Score classification, which is a subjective risk assessment; an objective cardiac or pulmonary risk assessment3,4 would have reassured me that the intervention and control groups were similar in overall medical health.

      Any intervention that reduces postoperative morbidity warrants attention. The study should be replicated in other settings, and a cost-benefit analysis should be done. Meanwhile, patients who are scheduled for elective surgery and who currently smoke should be encouraged to quit smoking by using whatever formal smoking cessation interventions are available locally.

      References

      1. ↵
        UpToDate. Wellesley, MA: UpToDate Inc, 2002 (www.uptodate.com/subscribers/index.asp).
      2. ↵
        HCUPnet, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, Rockville, MD, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (www.ahrq.gov/data/hcup/hcupnet.htm).
      3. ↵
        Goldman L, Caldera DL, Nussbaum SR, et al. Multifactorial index of cardiac risk in noncardiac surgical procedures. N Engl J Med 1977;297:845–50.
        OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
      4. ↵
        Arozullah AM, Daley J, Henderson WG, et al. Multifactorial risk index for predicting postoperative respiratory failure in men after major noncardiac surgery. The National Veterans Administration Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Ann Surg 2000;232:242–53.
        OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
      View Abstract

      Footnotes

      • Sources of funding: Danish Research Councils; Danish Ministry of Health; Director Danielsen’s Foundation. Pharmacia Upjohn sponsored the nicotine substitution products.

      • For correspondence: Dr A M Møller, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. docamm{at}yahoo.com.

      • A modified version of this abstract also appears in Evidence-Based Nursing.

      • ↵* See glossary.

      • ↵† Information provided by author.