Mark H F Keulen1, Jasper Most1, Martijn G M Schotanus1,2, Emil H van Haaren1, Ide C Heyligers1,3, Bert Boonen1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Center Heerlen and Sittard-Geleen, Dr. H. van der Hoffplein 1, 6162, BG Geleen, the Netherlands. 2. School of Care and Public Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, Medicine & Life Sciences, Maastricht University Medical Centre, P. Debyelaan 25, 6202, AZ Maastricht, the Netherlands. 3. School of Health Professions Education (SHE), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 60, 6229, ER Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
Background: Outpatient joint arthroplasty (OJA) for the hip and knee is gaining popularity among orthopaedic surgeons worldwide. The purposes of this study were to (1) assess the proportion of Dutch orthopaedic surgeons who perform OJA; (2) identify surgeons' willingness to implement OJA in the future; (3) identify reasons and barriers to implement OJA; and (4) gather surgeon's perspective on the implementation of OJA. Methods: A 20-item survey was developed and administered by email to orthopaedic surgeons who are a member of the Dutch Hip Society and Dutch Knee Society. Survey response rate was 40% (N = 123). Results: Twenty-two respondents (18%) already implemented OJA, and 46% of respondents (who don't perform OJA) were interested to implement OJA in the future. Reasons to perform OJA included own positive experiences (82%), available evidence (77%) and patients' request (77%). Proponents' and opponents' view on safety and added value conflicted with each other. Other barriers included patient selection and organizational related (e.g., multidisciplinary support). Surgeons' view on evolution and relevance of OJA significantly differed by respondents who perform OJA versus respondents who don't perform OJA. Most respondents agreed with one another that the healthcare institution benefits most from OJA, and that optimization of the arthroplasty pathway could be reached through better patient education and -participation (e.g., eHealth, wearables). Conclusion: One in five respondents currently implement OJA pathways, and about half of the remaining respondents are interested to implement OJA in the future. OJA-opponents aren't convinced of the value and safety of OJA, despite accumulating evidence supporting OJA. Future research should inform patient-selection and -acceptance and organizational implementation.
Background: Outpatient joint arthroplasty (OJA) for the hip and knee is gaining popularity among orthopaedic surgeons worldwide. The purposes of this study were to (1) assess the proportion of Dutch orthopaedic surgeons who perform OJA; (2) identify surgeons' willingness to implement OJA in the future; (3) identify reasons and barriers to implement OJA; and (4) gather surgeon's perspective on the implementation of OJA. Methods: A 20-item survey was developed and administered by email to orthopaedic surgeons who are a member of the Dutch Hip Society and Dutch Knee Society. Survey response rate was 40% (N = 123). Results: Twenty-two respondents (18%) already implemented OJA, and 46% of respondents (who don't perform OJA) were interested to implement OJA in the future. Reasons to perform OJA included own positive experiences (82%), available evidence (77%) and patients' request (77%). Proponents' and opponents' view on safety and added value conflicted with each other. Other barriers included patient selection and organizational related (e.g., multidisciplinary support). Surgeons' view on evolution and relevance of OJA significantly differed by respondents who perform OJA versus respondents who don't perform OJA. Most respondents agreed with one another that the healthcare institution benefits most from OJA, and that optimization of the arthroplasty pathway could be reached through better patient education and -participation (e.g., eHealth, wearables). Conclusion: One in five respondents currently implement OJA pathways, and about half of the remaining respondents are interested to implement OJA in the future. OJA-opponents aren't convinced of the value and safety of OJA, despite accumulating evidence supporting OJA. Future research should inform patient-selection and -acceptance and organizational implementation.
Authors: R Meneghini; Wilford Gibson; David Halsey; Douglas Padgett; Keith Berend; Craig J Della Valle Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Mark H F Keulen; Sofie Asselberghs; Yoeri F L Bemelmans; Roel P M Hendrickx; Martijn G M Schotanus; Bert Boonen Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Mark H F Keulen; Martijn G M Schotanus; Emil H van Haaren; Wouter L W van Hemert; Ide C Heyligers; Bert Boonen Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2020-09-18 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Nitin Goyal; Antonia F Chen; Sarah E Padgett; Timothy L Tan; Michael M Kheir; Robert H Hopper; William G Hamilton; William J Hozack Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Scott T Lovald; Kevin L Ong; Arthur L Malkani; Edmund C Lau; Jordana K Schmier; Steven M Kurtz; Michael T Manley Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2013-08-21 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Bryn O Zomar; Shannon L Sibbald; Doug Bickford; James L Howard; Dianne M Bryant; Jacquelyn D Marsh; Brent A Lanting Journal: Orthop Res Rev Date: 2020-02-24