| Literature DB >> 30157589 |
Vivek Tiwari1, Chang Kyu Park2, Seon Woo Lee2, Moon Ju Kim2, Jeong Seong Seong2, Tae Kyun Kim2,3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare extended care facility (ECF) and home as discharge destination after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at a single high-volume tertiary center in South Korea.Entities:
Keywords: Arthroplasty; Discharge; Extended care facility; Home; Knee
Year: 2018 PMID: 30157589 PMCID: PMC6122946 DOI: 10.5792/ksrr.17.060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Knee Surg Relat Res ISSN: 2234-0726
Fig. 1Flowchart showing patient enrolment and exclusion criteria.
Results of the Telephone Survey Regarding Discharge Destination
| Discharge destination | Survey question | Answer | No. of patients (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ECF | 316 | ||
| Admission route | 1. By the primary hospital | 181 (57.3) | |
| 2. By oneself (including recommendation by acquaintances) | 135 (42.7) | ||
| Reasons for selecting ECF | 1. For rehabilitation (therapeutic purpose) | 219 (69.3) | |
| 2. No help at home | 31 (9.8) | ||
| 3. Inconvenience at home (physical discomfort) | 53 (16.8) | ||
| 4. Anxious to go home (psychological discomfort) | 8 (2.5) | ||
| 5. Others | 5 (1.6) | ||
| Location of ECF | 1. Near the primary hospital | 121 (38.3) | |
| 2. Near home (including family’s address) | 195 (61.7) | ||
| Length of stay at ECF | 1. 1 week | 48 (15.2) | |
| 2. 2 weeks | 51 (16.1) | ||
| 3. 2 weeks to 1 month | 165 (52.2) | ||
| 4. More than 1 month | 52 (16.5) | ||
| Rehabilitation modality of ECF | 1. ROM exercise by oneself after education | 17 (5.4) | |
| 2. ROM exercise using CPM including #1 | 53 (16.8) | ||
| 3. Gradually increasing passive ROM exercise by physician or family including #2 | 246 (77.8) | ||
| Home | 298 | ||
| Postoperative care option at home | 1. Alone | 133 (44.6) | |
| 2. Family | 116 (38.9) | ||
| 3. Home-visiting nurse services | 7 (2.3) | ||
| 4. Outpatient care agency near home | 42 (14.1) |
ECF: extended care facility, ROM: range of motion, CPM: continuous passive motion.
Comparison of Demographic and Surgical Factors
| Variable | ECF group (n=316) | Home group (n=298) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic | |||
| Age (yr) | 73.1±6.1 | 73.2±6.1 | 0.804 |
| Gender (female) | 301 (95.3) | 276 (92.6) | 0.170 |
| Height (cm) | 154.8±7.2 | 153.2±6.6 | 0.164 |
| Weight (kg) | 62.4±9.2 | 62.9±9.5 | 0.338 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 27.3±3.6 | 26.7±3.1 | 0.051 |
| Surgical factor | |||
| Bilateral surgery | 272 (86.1) | 234 (78.5) | 0.014 |
| Additional hospital stay | 44 (13.9) | 22 (7.4) | 0.009 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).
ECF: extended care facility, BMI: body mass index.
Comparison of Complications
| Variable | ECF group (n=316) | Home group (n=298) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wound complication | 2 | 4 | - |
| Deep infection | 0 | 1 | - |
| Deep vein thrombosis | 0 | 1 | - |
| Urinary tract infection | 0 | 2 | - |
| Total (%) | 2 (0.6) | 8 (2.7) | 0.057 |
ECF: extended care facility.
Comparison of Functional Outcome
| Variable | ECF group (588 knees /316 patients) | Home group (532 knees /298 patients) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion arc | |||
| Flexion contracture | 0.5±1.8 | 0.6±1.8 | 0.068 |
| Maximum flexion | 131.9±11.8 | 133.2±12.1 | 0.693 |
| AKS score | |||
| Pain (50) | 47.9±4.1 | 48.1±4.2 | 0.531 |
| Knee (100) | 95.3±6.0 | 96.1±6.0 | 0.118 |
| Function (100) | 93.2±9.6 | 93.3±9.7 | 0.960 |
| WOMAC score | |||
| Pain (20) | 2.9±3.1 | 2.8±3.3 | 0.842 |
| Stiffness (8) | 2.0±1.8 | 1.9±1.7 | 0.385 |
| Function (68) | 16.4±1.2 | 16.0±12.0 | 0.341 |
| SF-36 score | |||
| Physical CS | 43.3±8.9 | 44.9±8.4 | 0.091 |
| Mental CS | 54.2±10.7 | 53.0±11.1 | 0.252 |
Values are presented as mean±standard deviation.
ECF: extended care facility, AKS: American Knee Society, WOMAC: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis index, SF-36: 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, CS: component summary.
Comparison of Satisfaction Level
| Variable | ECF group (n=316) | Home group (n=298) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unsatisfied | 50 (16.0) | 23 (7.7) | |
| Neutral | 93 (29.7) | 31 (10.4) | <0.001 |
| Satisfied | 173 (54.3) | 244 (81.9) |
Values are presented as number (%).
ECF: extended care facility.
Reasons for Dissatisfaction in the Two Groups
| Answer | No. of patients (%) |
|---|---|
| Extended care facility group | 50 |
| Worse than expected rehabilitation (expertise, number of rehabilitation sessions, etc.) | 11 (22.0) |
| Uncomfortable facilities (diet, bedding, etc.) | 9 (18.0) |
| Insufficient postoperative care except rehabilitation | 30 (60.0) |
| Home group | 23 |
| Unavailability of family | 5 (21.7) |
| Psychological anxiety (complication, rehabilitation, accident such as falling, etc.) | 11 (47.8) |
| Lack of rehabilitation instruments | 7 (30.4) |
Comparison of Our Study with Previous Studies on Discharge Destination after Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA)
| No. | Study | Year | Country | Total no.of arthroplasties | Type of study | Discharge destinations for TKA | Use of Questionnaire regarding discharge destination | Unilateral vs. Bilateral TKAs | Length of stay for TKA | Postoperative complication rate | Functional outcome (Home vs. ECF) | Satisfaction of patients |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ramos et al. | 2014 | USA | 3,533 (1,668 TKAs+1,865 THAs) | Retrospective | 65% home, 35% ECF | No | Not compared | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 2 | Schwarzkopf et al. | 2016 | USA | 28611 TKAs | Retrospective | 70% home, 30% ECF | No | Not compared | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 3 | Bini et al. | 2010 | USA | 9,150 (5,718 TKAs+3,432 THAs) | Retrospective | 85% home, 15% ECF | No | Not compared | ECF>home | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 4 | Mahomed et al. | 2008 | Canada | 234 | Prospective RCT | 59% home, 41% ECF | No | Not compared | Home>ECF | No difference | No difference at 3 months and 1 year | No difference |
| 5 | Courtney et al. | 2017 | USA | 4,168 (2870 TKAs+1,298 THAs) | Retrospective | 80% home, 20% ECF | No | Not compared | Not given | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 6 | Inneh et al. | 2016 | USA | 7,924 | Retrospective | 64% home, 36% ECF | No | Not compared | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 7 | Pitter et al. | 2016 | Denmark | 549 (232 TKAs+317 THAs) | Prospective | 93.1% home, 6.9% ECF | No | Not compared | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 8 | Nichols and Vose | 2016 | UK | 526,481 (349,157 TKAs+177,324 THAs) | Retrospective | 76.8% home, 23.2% ECF (primary TKAs) | No | Not compared | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 9 | Schairer et al. | 2014 | USA | 1,408 | Retrospective | 66% home, 34% ECF (primary TKAs) | No | Not compared | Not compared | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 10 | Gholson et al. | 2016 | USA | 107,300 | Retrospective | 69.2% home, 30.8% ECF | No | Not compared | Not evaluated | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 11 | Keswani et al. | 2016 | USA | 9,973 | Retrospective | 66% home, 34% ECF | No | Not compared | ECF>home | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 12 | Keswani et al. | 2016 | USA | 106,360 (64,763 TKAs+41,597 THAs) | Retrospective | 70% home, 30% ECF | No | Not compared | ECF>home | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 13 | Menendez et al. | 2016 | USA | 744 (446 TKAs+298 THAs) | Retrospective | 57% home, 43% ECF | No | Not compared | Not compared | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 14 | Rossman et al. | 2016 | USA | 995 | Retrospective | 52% home, 48% ECF | No | Not compared | Not compared | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 15 | London et al. | 2016 | USA | 14,315 (7,677 TKAs+6,638 THAs) | Retrospective | 52% home, 48% ECF | No | Not compared | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 16 | Rissman et al. | 2016 | UK | 738 | Retrospective | 74.4% home, 25.6% ECF | No | Not compared | Not evaluated | Not compared | No difference in 3 months ROM 3 months physical function: home>ECF | Not evaluated |
| 17 | Mesko et al. | 2014 | USA | 1,291 | Retrospective | 65% home, 35% ECF | No | Not compared | Not compared | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 18 | Sharareh et al. | 2014 | USA | First 100 patients (54 TKAs+46 THAs) | Retrospective | 50% home, 50% ECF (sample deliberately chosen) | No | Not compared | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 19 | Halawi et al. | 2015 | USA | 372 (260 TKAs+112 THAs) | Retrospective | 71% home, 29% ECF | No | Not compared | ECF>home | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 20 | Tan et al. | 2014 | Singapore | 569 | Prospective | 90% home, 10% ECF | Yes | Not compared | ECF>home | Not evaluated | Not evaluated | Not evaluated |
| 21 | Our study | South Korea | 1,120 | Retrospective | 49% home, 51% ECF | Yes | Bilateral TKAs: ECF>home | ECF>home | Home>ECF | No difference at 2 years | Home>ECF |
ECF: extended care facility, THA: total hip arthroplasty, RCT: randomized controlled trial, ROM: range of motion.