Nanne P Kort1, Yoeri F L Bemelmans2, Martijn G M Schotanus2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Atrium-Orbis Medical Centre, Location Orbis, Dr. H vd Hoffplein 1, 6162 BG, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands. n.kort@imuka.eu. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Atrium-Orbis Medical Centre, Location Orbis, Dr. H vd Hoffplein 1, 6162 BG, Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Richard A Berger; Sheila Sanders; Tad Gerlinger; Craig Della Valle; Joshua J Jacobs; Aaron G Rosenberg Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Geoffrey F Dervin; Susan M Madden; Barbara A Crawford-Newton; Alan T Lane; Holly C Evans Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Joseph S Gondusky; Leera Choi; Naila Khalaf; Jay Patel; Steven Barnett; Robert Gorab Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Patawut Bovonratwet; Matthew L Webb; Nathaniel T Ondeck; Adam M Lukasiewicz; Jonathan J Cui; Ryan P McLynn; Jonathan N Grauer Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Nanne P Kort; Yoeri F L Bemelmans; P Hugo M van der Kuy; Jacqueline Jansen; Martijn G M Schotanus Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Tarik Bayoumi; Jelle P van der List; Lindsey V Ruderman; Hendrik A Zuiderbaan; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs; Andrew D Pearle Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2022-08-11 Impact factor: 4.114
Authors: Mark H F Keulen; Jasper Most; Martijn G M Schotanus; Emil H van Haaren; Ide C Heyligers; Bert Boonen Journal: J Clin Orthop Trauma Date: 2022-04-22
Authors: A M Leenders; M G M Schotanus; R J P Wind; R A P Borghans; N P Kort Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-04-30 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Y F L Bemelmans; M H F Keulen; M Heymans; E H van Haaren; B Boonen; M G M Schotanus Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 2.928
Authors: M G M Schotanus; Y F L Bemelmans; B Grimm; I C Heyligers; N P Kort Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 4.342