Outpatient unicompartment knee arthroplasty with indwelling femoral nerve catheter

One-day surgery is safe and effective in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A prospective comparative study at 1 year of follow-up

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes and complications of two perioperative protocols for the management of patients who underwent medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA): 24 h (1-day surgery [OS]) versus 72 h (enhanced recovery after surgery [ERAS]) of the length of hospital stay (LOS). In our hypothesis, the reduction of the LOS from 3 to 1 day did not influence the outcomes and complications.

METHODS

A total of 42 patients (21 in each group) with isolated anteromedial knee osteoarthritis and meeting specific criteria were prospectively included in the study. Clinical outcomes included Knee Society Score (KSS) and Forgotten joint score while pain evaluation was performed using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Functional outcomes were assessed measuring the knee range of motion (ROM) while radiographic outcomes were evaluated measuring the amelioration of the varus deformity through the hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA).

RESULTS

Clinical and functional outcomes did not significantly differ between the two groups. Complications occurred in 9.5% of OS and 4.7% of ERAS group patients. Significant improvements in knee ROM, VAS pain, KSS and HKA angle were observed postsurgery, with no significant differences between groups except in KSS expectations and function trends.

CONCLUSION

The OS protocol is safe and effective and LOS, in a well-defined fast-track protocol, did not significantly impact clinical and functional outcomes. OS may lead to reduced hospitalisation costs and potential reductions in complications associated with prolonged stays, benefiting both patients and healthcare facilities. However, further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods is needed to confirm these findings. Early mobilisation and rehabilitation protocols are key components of successful patient recovery following UKA procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

The safety and efficacy of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in outpatient surgical centers: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an effective treatment method for knee osteoarthritis. With the development and implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery, UKA is now increasingly performed in outpatient surgical centers. However, there is ongoing debate regarding the safety and effectiveness of performing UKA in outpatient settings.

METHODS

The search was performed to retrieve randomized controlled trials and cohort studies on outpatient UKA from PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, and WanFangData databases. The search was conducted from the inception of the databases until August 31, 2023. After independent screening, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation by two researchers, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies involving 18,411 patients were included. The results showed that the postoperative transfusion rate in the outpatient group was lower than that in the inpatient group [OR = 0.36, 95%CI (0.24, 0.54), p < 0.00001], and the difference was statistically significant. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of readmission rate, reoperation rate, surgical site infection, and periprosthetic fracture. The differences were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Compared to the traditional inpatient route, the blood transfusion rate for single-condyle replacement in the outpatient operation center is lower, and there is no significant difference in readmission rate, reoperation rate, surgical site infection, and periprosthesis fracture. The outpatient approach to UKA is safe, feasible, and highly satisfactory for patients. However, the results have certain limitations, and a rigorous preoperative complication risk assessment can minimize the risk of UKA in outpatient surgery centers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO number CRD42023405373.

Successful same-day discharge in 88% of patients after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of day-case unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) by assessment of successful same-day discharge (SDD), readmission, complication and reoperation rates in the recent literature.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were comprehensively searched to identify all eligible studies reporting outcomes of day-case UKA. Studies with intended same-day home discharge after UKA were included. A meta-analysis of proportions, using a random-effects model, was performed to estimate overall rates of successful SDD and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies including selected patients (i.e., patients had to meet certain patient-specific criteria to be eligible for day-case UKA) and unselected patients (i.e., no additional criteria for day-case UKA), as well as for clinical and registry-based studies. Additional outcomes included reasons for the failure of SDD and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies and 9694 patients were included with a mean age of 66 ± 9 years and mean follow-up of 59 days (mean range 30-270 days). Based on 24 studies (2733 patients), the overall successful SDD rate was 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80-92). These rates were 91% (95% CI 84-95) across studies with selected patients and 76% (95% CI 55-89) across studies with unselected patients. Overall readmission, complication and reoperation rates were 3% (95% CI 1.9-4.4), 4% (95% CI 2.8-5.2) and 1% (95% CI 0.8-1.3), respectively. Inability to mobilize, nausea and uncontrolled pain were frequently reported reasons for failed SDD. The overall patient satisfaction rate was 94%.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review with meta-analysis found an overall successful SDD rate of 88% after UKA in a heterogeneous cohort of selected and unselected patients. Readmission, complication and reoperation rates suggest UKA can be performed safely and effectively as a same-day discharge procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of level III and IV studies.

Outpatient Shoulder Arthroplasty-A Systematic Review

Objective

Recent reports have shown that outpatient shoulder arthroplasty (SA) may be a safe alternative to inpatient management in appropriately selected patients. The purpose was to review the literature reporting on outpatient SA.

Methods

A systematic review of publications on outpatient SA was performed. Included publications discussed patients who were discharged on the same calendar day or within 23 hours from surgery. Articles were categorized by discussions on complications, readmissions, and safety, patient selection, pain management strategies, cost effectiveness, and patient and surgeon satisfaction.

Results

Twenty-six articles were included. Patients undergoing outpatient SA were younger and with a lower BMI than those undergoing inpatient SA. Larger database studies reported more medical complications for patients undergoing inpatient compared to outpatient SA. Articles on pain management strategies discussed both single shot and continuous interscalene blocks with similar outcomes. Both patients and surgeons reported high levels of satisfaction following outpatient SA, and cost analysis studies demonstrated significant cost savings for outpatient SA.

Conclusion

In appropriately selected patients, outpatient SA can be a safe, cost-saving alternative to inpatient care and may lead to high satisfaction of both patients and physicians, though further studies are needed to clarify appropriate utilization of outpatient SA.

Day-case unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a literature review and development of a novel hospital pathway

INTRODUCTION

We have seen unparalleled changes in our healthcare systems globally as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As we strive to regenerate our full capacity elective services in order to contest the increasing demand for lower limb arthroplasty, this pandemic has allowed us a rare opportunity to revise and develop novel elective arthroplasty pathways intended to improve patient care and advance healthcare efficiency. We present an extensive evidence-based review of the approaches used to achieve day-case unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA) as well as the development of a day-case UKA care pathway in a UK NHS institution based on the evidence provided in the literature.

METHODS

An extensive search of the literature was performed for articles that reported on readmission or complication rates ≥30 days postoperatively following day-case UKA.

FINDINGS

Fifteen manuscripts reporting the results of day-case UKA, defined as discharged on the same calendar day of surgery, were included in our review. Mean reported complication rates for day-case and inpatient UKA within the follow-up periods were 4.05% and 6.52%, respectively. Mean readmission rates were 2.71% and 4.36% for day-case and inpatient UKA, respectively. The mean rate of successful same-day discharge was 92.45%.

CONCLUSION

We introduce our institutional Elective Day Surgery Arthroplasty Pathway (EDSAP) founded upon the evidence presented in the literature. Stringent patient selection complimented by a well-defined day-case arthroplasty pathway is fundamental for successful commencement of day-case UKA in the NHS.

Achieving discharge within 24 h of robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty may be possible with appropriate patient selection and a multi-disciplinary team approach

Aims

There has been significant interest in day-case and rapid discharge pathways for unicompartmental knee replacements (UKR). Robotic-assisted surgery has the potential to improve surgical accuracy in UKR. However, to date there are no published studies reporting results of rapid-discharge pathways in patients receiving UKR using the NAVIO ^◊ robotic system.

Methods

A retrospective analysis identified 19 patients who were safely discharged within 24 h following UKR using the NAVIO ^◊ robotic system between June 2017 and October 2019. All patients went through a standardised UKR pathway protocol. Pre-operatively patients underwent education sessions and anaesthetic assessment, with selected patients undergoing occupational/physiotherapy assessment prior to surgery. All patients received a general anaesthetic with local anaesthetic infiltration prior to closure; nerve blocks were not used routinely. A multi-modal analgesic regime was utilised. Patients were discharged home once they were safe to mobilise on ward, had normal vital signs and pain was adequately controlled. Patients were discharged with outpatient physiotherapy referral and consultant follow up at 6 weeks.

Results

All patients were discharged within 24 h; there were no post-operative complications and no readmissions to hospital. The mean length of stay was 19.5 h (SD = 6.8), with patients seen twice on average by physiotherapy post-operatively. Active range of motion at 6 weeks was 105.8°, with all patients mobilising independently. The median 6-month post-operative Oxford Knee Score was 44 out of 48.

Conclusion

This initial feasibility study suggests that patients may be safely discharged within 24 h of UKR using the NAVIO robotic system. Appropriate patient selection will ensure successful discharge. Further prospective studies are needed.

Safety and Cost-Effectiveness of Outpatient Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty in the Ambulatory Surgery Center: A Matched Cohort Study

Using an age- and comorbidity-matched cohort, we compared patients who underwent unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in an ambulatory surgery center with those who underwent the procedure in a traditional hospital inpatient setting. Postoperatively, the ambulatory surgery center cohort had fewer major complications than the inpatient cohort. No ambulatory surgery center patients required acute hospital admission and none had major complications. Four major complications occurred in the inpatient cohort. There was no difference in complication rates. Our results suggest that outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a freestanding ambulatory surgery center is a safe and reasonable alternative to the traditional inpatient hospital setting.

WITHDRAWN: Peripheral nerve blocks for postoperative pain after major knee surgery

BACKGROUND

Major knee surgery is a common operative procedure to help people with end-stage knee disease or trauma to regain mobility and have improved quality of life. Poorly controlled pain immediately after surgery is still a key issue for this procedure. Peripheral nerve blocks are localized and site-specific analgesic options for major knee surgery. The increasing use of peripheral nerve blocks following major knee surgery requires the synthesis of evidence to evaluate its effectiveness and safety, when compared with systemic, local infiltration, epidural and spinal analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of peripheral nerve blocks for postoperative pain control following major knee surgery using methods that permit comparison with systemic, local infiltration, epidural and spinal analgesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE and EMBASE, from their inception to February 2014. We identified ongoing studies by searching trial registries, including the metaRegister of controlled trials (mRCT), clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included participant-blind, randomized controlled trials of adult participants (15 years or older) undergoing major knee surgery, in which peripheral nerve blocks were compared to systemic, local infiltration, epidural and spinal analgesia for postoperative pain relief.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. We recorded information on participants, methods, interventions, outcomes (pain intensity, additional analgesic consumption, adverse events, knee range of motion, length of hospital stay, hospital costs, and participant satisfaction). We used the 5-point Oxford quality and validity scale to assess methodological quality, as well as criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We conducted meta-analysis of two or more studies with sufficient data to investigate the same outcome. We used the I² statistic to explore the heterogeneity. If there was no significant heterogeneity (I² value 0% to 40%), we used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis, but otherwise we used a random-effects model. For dichotomous data, we present results as a summary risk ratio (RR) and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), together with 95% CIs. For continuous data, we used the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for similar outcome measures. We describe the findings of individual studies where pooling of data was not possible.

MAIN RESULTS

According to the eligibility criteria, we include 23 studies with 1571 participants, with high methodological quality overall. The studies compared peripheral nerve blocks adjunctive to systemic analgesia with systemic analgesia alone (19 studies), peripheral nerve blocks with local infiltration (three studies), and peripheral nerve blocks with epidural analgesia (one study). No study compared peripheral nerve blocks with spinal analgesia.Compared with systemic analgesia alone, peripheral nerve blocks adjunctive to systemic analgesia resulted in a significantly lower pain intensity score at rest, using a 100 mm visual analogue scale, at all time periods within 72 hours postoperatively, including the zero to 23 hours interval (MD -11.85, 95% CI -20.45 to -3.25, seven studies, 390 participants), the 24 to 47 hours interval (MD -12.92, 95% CI -19.82 to -6.02, six studies, 320 participants) and the 48 to 72 hours interval (MD -9.72, 95% CI -16.75 to -2.70, four studies, 210 participants). Subgroup analyses suggested that the high levels of statistical variation in our analyses could be explained by larger effects in people undergoing total knee arthroplasty compared with other types of surgery. Pain intensity was also significantly reduced on movement in the 48 to 72 hours interval postoperatively (MD -6.19, 95% CI -11.76 to -0.62, two studies, 112 participants). There was no significant difference on movement between these two groups in the time period of zero to 23 hours (MD -6.95, 95% CI -15.92 to 2.01, five studies, 304 participants) and 24 to 47 hours (MD -8.87, 95% CI -27.77 to 10.03, three studies, 182 participants). The included studies reported diverse types of adverse events, and we did not conduct a meta-analysis on specific types of adverse event. The numbers of studies and participants were also too few to draw conclusions on the other prespecified outcomes of: additional analgesic consumption; median time to remedication; knee range of motion; median time to ambulation; length of hospital stay; hospital costs; and participant satisfaction. There were insufficient data to compare peripheral nerve blocks and local infiltration or between peripheral nerve blocks and epidural analgesia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All of the included studies reported the main outcome of pain intensity but did not cover all the secondary outcomes of interest. The current review provides evidence that the use of peripheral nerve blocks as adjunctive techniques to systemic analgesia reduced pain intensity when compared with systemic analgesia alone after major knee surgery. There were too few data to draw conclusions on other outcomes of interest. More trials are needed to demonstrate a significant difference when compared with local infiltration, epidural analgesia and spinal analgesia.

Short-term outcomes of outpatient surgery for total knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

We developed an accelerated clinical pathway involving outpatient surgery for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) who are healthy enough for early discharge.

METHODS

Between March 2014 and April 2015, 89 TKAs were performed at a single institution by a single orthopaedic surgeon. 31 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. All patients received 2 g tranexamic acid and 750 mg cefuroxime sodium intravenously 30 minutes prior to surgery. A multimodal protocol for perioperative pain management was used for all patients.

RESULTS

31 patients (three male, 28 female), with a mean age of 67 (range 49-78) years, who underwent TKA were enrolled in this study. The mean length of hospital stay was 28.7 (range 16-49) hours and mean duration of surgery was 92 (range 75-128) minutes. Combined spinal epidural anaesthesia was performed for 23 (74.2%) patients and general anaesthesia was used in 8 (25.8%) patients. Among the 31 patients, 23 (74.2%) patients were discharged within 23 hours of surgery.

CONCLUSION

Early discharge of patients following outpatient surgery for TKA was not associated with any procedure-related complications among the selected patients up to three months postoperatively.

Complications After Multiple-Site Peripheral Nerve Blocks for Foot and Ankle Surgery Compared With Popliteal Sciatic Nerve Block Alone

BACKGROUND

Single or combined multiple-site peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) are becoming popular for patients undergoing surgery on their feet or ankles. These procedures are known to be generally safe in surgical settings compared with other forms of anesthesia, such as spinal block. The purposes of this study were to assess the incidence of complications after the administration of multiple PNBs for foot and ankle surgery and to compare the rates of complications between patients who received a single PNB and those who received multiple blocks.

METHODS

Charts were reviewed retrospectively to assess peri- and postoperative complications possibly related to the PNBs. The records of 827 patients who had received sciatic nerve blocks, femoral nerve blocks adductor canal blocks, or combinations of these for foot and/or ankle surgery were analyzed for complications. The collected data consisted of age, sex, body mass index, presence of diabetes mellitus, smoking history, tourniquet time, and complications both immediately postoperatively and 1 year later.

RESULTS

Of these 827 patients, 92 (11.1%) developed neurologic symptoms after surgery; 22 (2.7%) of these likely resulted from the nerve blocks, and 7 (0.8%) of these were unresolved after the patients' last follow-up visits. There were no differences in complication rates between combined blocks and single sciatic nerve blocks.

CONCLUSION

There were more complications, both transient and long term, after anesthetic PNBs than previous literature has reported. Combined multiple-site blocks did not increase the rate of neurologic complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Outpatient Total Hip Arthroplasty, Total Knee Arthroplasty, and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

The demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is growing rapidly because of the proven success of these procedures and an increase in the aging population. However, resources are limited and health-care budgets are finite. Recently, a number of care providers have started performing these procedures on an outpatient basis, with the patients being discharged from the hospital on the day of surgery. The primary objective of this systematic review was to examine the evidence regarding the safety and feasibility of performing THA, TKA, or UKA on an outpatient basis.

METHODS

An electronic search of 3 online databases (Embase, MEDLINE, and HealthSTAR) was conducted to identify eligible studies. The reference lists of identified articles were then screened. All studies evaluating outcomes following outpatient THA, TKA, or UKA were included. Eligible articles that included a comparative group were assessed for methodological quality with use of the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ACROBAT-NRSI). Non-comparative studies were assessed for quality with use of the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) Quality Assessment Instrument.

RESULTS

The electronic literature search yielded 805 articles. Following a review of the titles, abstracts and reference lists, 26 articles remained and were assessed for eligibility. Of those, 17 articles (≈79,500 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Although both quality-assessment tools showed that the majority of studies included in the review were of poor quality, there was no increase in readmission rates or perioperative complications among patients who underwent outpatient procedures. Studies assessing satisfaction illustrated a high level of satisfaction for the majority of patients. The average age of the patients in the THA studies ranged from 53.5 to 63 years. The TKA and UKA studies included an older population, with mean ages ranging from 55 to 68 years. The majority of the included studies included a larger percentage of males as compared with females. Of the 17 included studies, 4 were cohort studies with a control group and 13 were case series. All 4 cohort studies indicated that the complication rates and clinical outcomes were similar between the inpatient and outpatient groups. Furthermore, the 3 studies that involved an economic analysis indicated that outpatient arthroplasty is financially advantageous.

CONCLUSIONS

In selected patients, outpatient THA, TKA, and UKA can be performed safely and effectively. The included studies lacked sufficient internal validity, sample size, methodological consistency, and standardization of protocols and outcomes. There is a need for high-quality prospective cohort and randomized trials to definitively assess the safety and effectiveness of outpatient THA, TKA, and UKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Physical activity after outpatient surgery and enhanced recovery for total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to 'objectively' measure improvement of physical activity with the use of an activity monitor between patients who followed an enhanced recovery- or outpatient surgery pathway after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It was hypothesized that both pathways will have comparable physical activity after TKA at 6-week follow-up.

METHODS

This prospective observational comparative case study was designed to investigate activity parameters (e.g. physical activity, number of steps, sit-stand transfers) of two different pathways after 6 weeks with the use of a non-invasive triaxial accelerometer activity monitor. This study included 20 patients with a mean age of 65.5 years (SD 6.1) undergoing TKA who were allocated to follow one of the two pathways: enhanced recovery (n = 10) or outpatient surgery (n = 10). Patients were monitored for 4 days pre-, 4 days during and 4 days after 5 weeks postoperatively. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and range of knee motion were obtained pre- and 6 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS

The activity parameters recovered steeply during the first 4 postoperative days and continued to improve within both pathways (n.s.). Preoperative and during the first 4 days and 5 weeks postoperative, activity parameters were comparable (n.s.) between both pathways but did not reach preoperative levels of physical activity and range of motion (n.s.). PROMs improved within each pathway, and no difference between both pathways was observed (n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the early physical activity parameters of patients after TKA, following the outpatient surgery pathway, were similar to patients who followed the standard enhanced recovery pathway. The activity monitor is an added value for a more detailed and objective analysis of the physical performance in patients after TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Outpatient and Inpatient Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Procedures Have Similar Short-Term Complication Profiles

BACKGROUND

Advances in surgical techniques and anesthesia have made performing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in the outpatient setting a possibility. The touted benefits of outpatient surgery include higher patient satisfaction and reduced costs. However, detailed information on the perioperative outcomes of outpatient compared with inpatient UKA in a large, national patient population in the United States has never been reported. The present study compares perioperative complications between outpatient and inpatient UKAs in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database.

METHODS

Patients who underwent UKA were identified in the 2005-2015 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Outpatient procedures were defined as those with length of hospital stay = 0 days, whereas inpatient procedures were defined as those with length of hospital stay = 1-4 days. Patients' characteristics and comorbidities were compared between the two groups. Propensity score matched comparisons were performed for 30-day perioperative complications and readmissions between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

This study included 568 outpatient and 5312 inpatient UKA cases. After propensity matching to control potential confounding factors, statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in any perioperative complications or any postdischarge complications between the outpatient and inpatient cohorts. Notably, the rate of 30-day readmissions between the two cohorts was not statistically different.

CONCLUSION

Based on the perioperative outcome measures assessed in this study, outpatient UKA can be appropriately considered in carefully selected patients based on the lack of differences in rates of 30-day perioperative complications and readmissions between the outpatient and matched inpatient groups.

Outpatient surgery for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty is effective and safe

PURPOSE

There has been increasing interest in accelerated programs for knee arthroplasty. We examined the efficacy and safety of an outpatient surgery (OS) pathway in patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

METHODS

This case-controlled study evaluates patients operated for UKA in an OS pathway (n = 20) compared to rapid recovery (RR), the current standard (n = 20). We investigated whether patients could be discharged on the day of surgery, resulting in comparable or better outcome by means of adverse events (AEs) in terms of pain (numerical rating scale, NRS), incidences of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and opiate use (<48 h postoperatively), complication and readmission rates (<3 months postoperatively). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) were obtained preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Postoperative pain (NRS > 5) was the most common reason for prolonged hospital stay in the OS pathway. Eighty-five per cent of the patients were discharged on the day of surgery, whereas 95 % of the patients were discharged on postoperative day 3 in the RR pathway. Overall, median pain scores in both pathways did not exceed a NRS score of 5, without significant differences (RR vs. OS) in the number of patients with PONV (4 vs. 2) and opiate use (11 vs. 9) <48 h postoperatively. At 3 months postoperatively, no significant differences were found for AEs and PROMS between both pathways.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study illustrates that an OS pathway for UKA is effective and safe with acceptable clinical outcome. Well-established and adequate standardized protocols, inclusion and exclusion criteria and a change in mindset for both the patient and the multidisciplinary team are the key factors for the implementation of an OS pathway.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case-control study, Level III.

Patient selection criteria for outpatient joint arthroplasty

PURPOSE

General consensus of patient selection criteria for outpatient joint arthroplasty is lacking, which is paramount to prevent prolonged hospital stay, adverse events and/or readmissions. This review highlights patient selection criteria for OJA based on the current literature and expert opinion.

METHODS

A search of the English and International electronic healthcare databases including MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, AMED and the Cochrane library was performed in November 2015 to include studies published during the last 10 years. Furthermore, a survey of physicians from different specialties was performed.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies described results regarding outpatient joint arthroplasty. Studies on outpatient hip and/or knee arthroplasty resulted in similar outcome in preselected patients. Patients who are able and willing to participate, with a low ASA classification (<III), undergoing primary arthroplasty, age <75 and with support at home during the first postoperative days are eligible candidates for outpatient joint arthroplasty. Patients with a high ASA classification (>II), bleeding disorders, poorly controlled and/or severe cardiac (e.g. heart failure, arrhythmia) or pulmonary (e.g. embolism, respiratory failure) comorbidities, uncontrolled DM (type I or II), a high BMI (>30 m²/kg), chronic opioid consumption, functional neurological impairments, dependent functional status, chronic/end-stage renal disease and/or reduced preoperative cognitive capacity should be excluded from outpatient joint arthroplasty. The expert opinion-based selection criteria were comparable to literature with a further extension of exclusion for patients with practical issue's, urologic medical history and/or severe mobility disorders.

CONCLUSION

Based on the current literature, the presented patient selection criteria provide a basis for outpatient joint arthroplasty and can be useful when selecting patients. Together with a change in mindset, a multidisciplinary approach and literature-based protocols, outpatient joint arthroplasty can be applied in daily orthopaedic practice while ensuring patients' safety.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Clinical review, Level III.

Cost savings of outpatient versus standard inpatient total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

With diminishing reimbursement rates and strained public payer budgets, a high-volume inpatient procedure, such as total knee arthroplasty (TKA), is a common target for improving cost efficiencies.

METHODS

This prospective case-control study compared the cost-minimization of same day discharge (SDD) versus inpatient TKA. We examined if and where cost savings can be realized and the magnitude of savings that can be achieved without compromising quality of care. Outcome variables, including detailed case costs, return to hospital rates and complications, were documented and compared between the first 20 SDD cases and 20 matched inpatient controls.

RESULTS

In every case-control match, the SDD TKA was less costly than the inpatient procedure and yielded a median cost savings of approximately 30%. The savings came primarily from costs associated with the inpatient encounter, such as surgical ward, pharmacy and patient meal costs. At 1 year, there were no major complications and no return to hospital or readmission encounters for either group.

CONCLUSION

Our results are consistent with previously published data on the cost savings associated with short stay or outpatient TKA. We have gone further by documenting where those savings were in a matched cohort design. Furthermore, we determined where cost savings could be realized during the patient encounter and to what degree. In carefully selected patients, outpatient TKA is a feasible alternative to traditional inpatient TKA and is significantly less costly. Furthermore, it was deemed to be safe in the perioperative period.

Cost Comparison of Outpatient Versus Inpatient Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

Background:

Outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been shown to be safe and feasible when compared with inpatient surgery; however, no studies have evaluated the cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit of performing outpatient versus inpatient UKA.

Hypothesis:

Significant cost savings can be achieved by transitioning UKAs from an inpatient to an outpatient procedure in an outpatient surgical facility, with no appreciable difference in complication or readmission rates.

Study Design:

Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A retrospective chart review of 25 consecutive medial UKAs was performed. A total of 10 inpatient UKAs with a mean length of stay of 1.6 days (range, 1-4 days) and 12 outpatient UKAs were included in the final analysis. A simple difference in costs incurred, reimbursements, and percentage difference between inpatient and outpatient surgery in an outpatient surgical facility was calculated. Charges were subdivided into surgical facility fees, inpatient room charges, operating room supply fees, and other fees. Secondary outcome measures included reason for greater than 1 day stay for the inpatient UKAs, complications, readmissions, and the type of regional anesthesia utilized.

Results:

The outpatient UKA charges were a mean $20,500 less per patient than the inpatient average charge of $46,845. The primary cost savings were attributed to the outpatient surgical facility fee, which averaged $3800 per patient, while the inpatient facility charge was 350% more expensive at $13,200 per patient (approximately $9500 savings). On the inpatient side, the average reimbursement was 55% of charges, or $25,550. For outpatient procedures, the average reimbursement was 47%, or $12,370. There was no difference between the inpatient and outpatient groups in terms of complications or readmissions.

Conclusion:

This work demonstrated that significant cost savings of roughly 50% can be achieved with an outpatient UKA protocol done at an outpatient surgical facility. Not only is it feasible and economically attractive to perform outpatient UKA, but it can reduce inpatient bed occupancy and resource allocation for a busy hospital.

Rapid recovery programmes for hip and knee arthroplasty. An update

Fast-track surgery, or enhanced recovery, has appeared in the last 20 years or so as a combination of the optimisation of clinical protocols and organisational processes, pursuing the reduction in surgical stress with the aim of reducing peri-operative comorbidities, convalescence time, and functional recovery, resulting in a reduction in admission time. After a review of the European literature available on this subject, this article attempts to present an update. It highlights its interest and origins, basically being set out as a response to the question: 'Why is this patient in Hospital today?' It also attempts to summarise the essence of such programmes: the search for immediate post-surgical mobilisation, being supported in a multidisciplinary approach. This includes a multimodal intervention and analgesia, a limitation in the use of opiates, and the active participation by the patients in their own recovery. Furthermore, mention is made of the initiatives by European State organisation as a boost to enhanced recovery programmes in their respective countries, as is the case in Denmark, France, and the United Kingdom. The clinical outcomes published up to September 2015 have been reviewed. A subsequent decrease in mean hospital stay is observed in 11 studies, achieving patient satisfaction, low complication rates, a reduction in the transfusion rates, and with no apparent increase in re-admissions. Mention is also made of the financial consequences, and how to implement these protocols. As a conclusion, an analysis is made of the future challenges fast-track surgery, such as the possibility of moving towards outpatient surgery, or the obtaining of a surgery 'with no risk or pain' in general, for which there are other still open lines of work.

Outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: who is afraid of outpatient surgery?

PURPOSE

In recent years, duration of hospitalisation after knee arthroplasty has decreased and fast track and outpatient surgery protocols have been developed. Studies have shown that outpatient surgery is feasible, safe, and cost effective. However, the psychological well-being of patients undergoing outpatient surgery has never been described before. The purpose of this study was to investigate how patients experience outpatient surgery for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), examining levels of anxiety and depression, satisfaction, and pain. It was hypothesized that the same-day discharge following UKA would not result in higher levels of anxiety and depression, compared to the standard fast-track surgery.

METHODS

This case-controlled study included 20 patients undergoing UKA in an outpatient surgery setting and 20 patients undergoing the standard fast-track procedure. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS, 0-42, lower is better) and numeric rating scales (NRS, 0-10) for pain and satisfaction were collected preoperatively, on the day of surgery, on the first, second, and seventh postoperative days and after 6 and 12 weeks. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the KOOS, EuroQoL-5D, and Net Promoter Score (NPS) were collected preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

90% of patients in the outpatient surgery group were discharged on the day of surgery. At the first postoperative day, the median HADS score was significantly lower in the outpatient surgery group compared to the fast-track group (3 vs. 8, p = 0.02), the median NRS satisfaction score was significantly higher in the outpatient surgery group (8 vs. 5, p = 0.03), and no differences existed between both groups for the NRS pain scores. At 3 month follow-up, no significant differences in improvement scores existed between both groups for the HADS, the NRS scores, and for the OKS, KOOS, EuroQoL-5D, and NPS.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study emphasize the feasibility of an outpatient surgery pathway in carefully selected UKA patients. The outpatient surgery pathway is safe, and clinical outcome, including levels of anxiety and depression, satisfaction, and pain, was similar in outpatient surgery patients compared to the standard fast-track patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case-control study, Level III.

Day of surgery discharge after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: an effective perioperative pathway

Day of surgery (DOS) discharge after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) allows for safe, efficient care of the appropriately selected patient. Refinement of our perioperative pathway over the last decade has allowed for successful DOS discharge of 160 consecutive patients. The cohort averaged 65 years and American Society of Anesthesiology class was 1-3 (mean, 1.8). Perioperative pain control included a preoperative single shot femoral nerve block. Mean recovery room time was 121 (SD = 37) minutes. No patient required overnight admission for uncontrolled pain or nausea. Significant improvements in Knee Society Clinical Rating System (KSCRS) scores and high patient satisfaction were observed. This study details critical components of our simple perioperative pathway that can be utilized to safely perform UKA with discharge on the DOS.

Peripheral nerve blocks for postoperative pain after major knee surgery

BACKGROUND

Major knee surgery is a common operative procedure to help people with end-stage knee disease or trauma to regain mobility and have improved quality of life. Poorly controlled pain immediately after surgery is still a key issue for this procedure. Peripheral nerve blocks are localized and site-specific analgesic options for major knee surgery. The increasing use of peripheral nerve blocks following major knee surgery requires the synthesis of evidence to evaluate its effectiveness and safety, when compared with systemic, local infiltration, epidural and spinal analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the efficacy and safety of peripheral nerve blocks for postoperative pain control following major knee surgery using methods that permit comparison with systemic, local infiltration, epidural and spinal analgesia.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE and EMBASE, from their inception to February 2014. We identified ongoing studies by searching trial registries, including the metaRegister of controlled trials (mRCT), clinicaltrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included participant-blind, randomized controlled trials of adult participants (15 years or older) undergoing major knee surgery, in which peripheral nerve blocks were compared to systemic, local infiltration, epidural and spinal analgesia for postoperative pain relief.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. We recorded information on participants, methods, interventions, outcomes (pain intensity, additional analgesic consumption, adverse events, knee range of motion, length of hospital stay, hospital costs, and participant satisfaction). We used the 5-point Oxford quality and validity scale to assess methodological quality, as well as criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We conducted meta-analysis of two or more studies with sufficient data to investigate the same outcome. We used the I² statistic to explore the heterogeneity. If there was no significant heterogeneity (I² value 0% to 40%), we used a fixed-effect model for meta-analysis, but otherwise we used a random-effects model. For dichotomous data, we present results as a summary risk ratio (RR) and a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Where possible, we calculated the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) or for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH), together with 95% CIs. For continuous data, we used the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for similar outcome measures. We describe the findings of individual studies where pooling of data was not possible.

MAIN RESULTS

According to the eligibility criteria, we include 23 studies with 1571 participants, with high methodological quality overall. The studies compared peripheral nerve blocks adjunctive to systemic analgesia with systemic analgesia alone (19 studies), peripheral nerve blocks with local infiltration (three studies), and peripheral nerve blocks with epidural analgesia (one study). No study compared peripheral nerve blocks with spinal analgesia.Compared with systemic analgesia alone, peripheral nerve blocks adjunctive to systemic analgesia resulted in a significantly lower pain intensity score at rest, using a 100 mm visual analogue scale, at all time periods within 72 hours postoperatively, including the zero to 23 hours interval (MD -11.85, 95% CI -20.45 to -3.25, seven studies, 390 participants), the 24 to 47 hours interval (MD -12.92, 95% CI -19.82 to -6.02, six studies, 320 participants) and the 48 to 72 hours interval (MD -9.72, 95% CI -16.75 to -2.70, four studies, 210 participants). Subgroup analyses suggested that the high levels of statistical variation in our analyses could be explained by larger effects in people undergoing total knee arthroplasty compared with other types of surgery. Pain intensity was also significantly reduced on movement in the 48 to 72 hours interval postoperatively (MD -6.19, 95% CI -11.76 to -0.62, two studies, 112 participants). There was no significant difference on movement between these two groups in the time period of zero to 23 hours (MD -6.95, 95% CI -15.92 to 2.01, five studies, 304 participants) and 24 to 47 hours (MD -8.87, 95% CI -27.77 to 10.03, three studies, 182 participants). The included studies reported diverse types of adverse events, and we did not conduct a meta-analysis on specific types of adverse event. The numbers of studies and participants were also too few to draw conclusions on the other prespecified outcomes of: additional analgesic consumption; median time to remedication; knee range of motion; median time to ambulation; length of hospital stay; hospital costs; and participant satisfaction. There were insufficient data to compare peripheral nerve blocks and local infiltration or between peripheral nerve blocks and epidural analgesia.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All of the included studies reported the main outcome of pain intensity but did not cover all the secondary outcomes of interest. The current review provides evidence that the use of peripheral nerve blocks as adjunctive techniques to systemic analgesia reduced pain intensity when compared with systemic analgesia alone after major knee surgery. There were too few data to draw conclusions on other outcomes of interest. More trials are needed to demonstrate a significant difference when compared with local infiltration, epidural analgesia and spinal analgesia.