Social Risk Determinants for Successful Same Calendar Day Discharge in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

Background: While many studies have examined the impact of comorbidities on the success of same calendar day discharge (SCDD) in total joint arthroplasty (TJA), literature surrounding the impact of social determinants is lacking. Purpose: We sought to investigate the relationship between various social determinants and success of SCDD after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 1160 THA and 1813 TKA performed at a single academic institution between November 2020 and August 2022. Social factors including substance use, occupation, marital status, income, and participation in physical exercise were included. In addition, aspects of discharge planning were reviewed such as living situation and transportation details. Results: Overall, 952 (32%) patients had successful SCDD, whereas 2021 (68%) patients were discharged on postoperative day 1 (POD1) or greater. Successful SCDD patients were more likely to have health care (4.8% vs 2.5%) and active (5.4% vs 4.6%) rather than sedentary occupations, be married (79.6% vs 67.4%), have access to transportation (95.6% vs 92.9%), live in a higher median income area ($64,044 [16,183] vs $61,572 [14,594]), and exercise weekly (62.6% vs 23.9%). Interestingly, the successful patients had more stories in their homes (1.62 [0.56] vs 1.43 [0.53]), more stairs to enter their homes (5.19 [5.22] vs 4.60 [5.24]), lived farther from the hospital (43.3 [138.0] vs 32.0 [75.9] miles), and a higher prevalence of alcohol use (60.7% vs 44.7%) and tobacco use (19.3% vs 17.3%). Conclusion: These findings may help arthroplasty surgeons to better understand the social factors that contribute to successful SCDD in TJA patients, ultimately aiding in patient selection and preoperative counseling.

Success of Same-Day Discharge Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Does Location Matter?

BACKGROUND: Same calendar day discharge (SCDD) following total joint arthroplasty is desirable for patients and surgeons alike. The aim of this study was to compare the success rate of SCDD in an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) versus hospital setting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 510 patients who underwent primary hip and knee total joint arthroplasty over a 2-year period. The final cohort was divided into 2 groups based on location of surgery: ASC (N = 255) or hospital (N = 255). Groups were matched for age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and Charleston Comorbidity Index. Successes of SCDD, reasons for failure of SCDD, length of stay (LOS), and 90-day readmission and complication rates were recorded. RESULTS: All SCDD failures were from the hospital setting (36 [65.6%] total knee arthroplasty [TKA] and 19 [34.5%] total hip arthroplasty [THA]). There were no failures from the ASC. The main causes of failed SCDD in both THA and TKA included failed physical therapy and urinary retention. Regarding THA, the ASC group had a significantly shorter total LOS (6.8 [4.4 to 11.6] versus 12.8 [4.7 to 58.0] hours, P < .001). Similarly, TKA patients had a shorter LOS in the ASC (6.9 [4.6 to 12.9] versus 16.9 [6.1 to 57.0], P < .001). Total 90-day readmission rates were higher in the ASC group (2.75% versus 0%), where all but 1 patient underwent TKA. Similarly, complication rates were higher in the ASC group (8.2% versus 2.75%), where all but 1 patient underwent TKA. CONCLUSION: TJA performed in the ASC, compared to the hospital setting, allowed for reduced LOS and improved success of SCDD.

A Role for Outpatient Total Joint Arthroplasty During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Outpatient total joint arthroplasty (TJA) gained favor during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our objective was to critically evaluate the safety and short-term outcomes of outpatient total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) throughout the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic given their increased use. This was a retrospective review of 941 patients who underwent elective, outpatient TKA and THA at a single institution. Patients were divided into two cohorts: pre-pandemic (N=611) and pandemic (N=330). Data points included demographics, comorbidities, failure of same calendar day discharge (SCDD), and 90-day readmissions and re-operations. The pandemic cohort was older (61.0 vs 59.0 years; P=.001) and had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (2 vs 1; P=.004). There were no differences between the pandemic and pre-pandemic cohorts regarding SCDD failures (23.3% vs 21.9%; P=.623) and reoperations (4.2% vs 6.2%; P=.205). The pandemic cohort had a lower readmission rate (4.8% vs 8.2%; P=.056). Overall, patients who had failure of SCDD more commonly underwent TKA than THA (63.5% vs 36.5%; P<.001), were older (63.0 vs 58.5 years; P<.001), had a higher body mass index (30.8 vs 29.9 kg/m2; P=.006) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (2 vs 1; P<.001), had an American Society of Anesthesiologists class greater than 2 (51.2% vs 31.6%; P<.001), received physical therapy later postoperatively (4.15 vs 3.12 hours; P<.001), and had a history significant for myocardial infarction (P=.025), chronic kidney disease (P=.004), or diabetes (P=.003). This study supports broadening indications for outpatient TJA because we found a shift toward older patients with more comorbidities successfully undergoing the procedure. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(5):303-309.].

A Role for Modern Primary Cementless Femoral Stems in Revision Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: In revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) cases with preserved femoral metaphyseal bone, tapered proximally porous-coated "primary" femoral stems may be an option. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of patients with Paprosky I or II femoral bone loss undergoing revision THA with either a primary metaphyseal-engaging cementless stem or a revision diaphyseal-engaging stem. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of 70 patients with Paprosky I or II femoral bone loss who underwent femoral revision. 35 patients who were revised using a primary cementless femoral stem were compared with 35 patients who underwent femoral revision using a revision diaphyseal-engaging stem. The groups were similar regarding age, gender, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists. Clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications were compared over an average follow-up of 2.9 years (SD 1.4). RESULTS: Revision THA was most commonly performed for periprosthetic joint infection (N = 27, 38.6%). The groups were similar with regards to Paprosky femoral classification (P = .56), length of stay (P = .68), discharge disposition (P = .461), operative time (P = .20), and complications (P = .164). There were no significant differences between primary and revision femoral stem subsidence (0.12 vs. 0.75 mm, P = .18), leg length discrepancy (2.3 vs. 4.05 mm, P = .37), and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Jr (73.1 [SD 21.1] vs. 62.8 [SD 21.7], P = .088). No patient underwent additional revision surgery involving the femoral component. CONCLUSION: Use of modern primary cementless femoral stems is a viable option for revision hip arthroplasty in the setting of preserved proximal femoral metaphyseal bone. Outcomes are not inferior to those of revision stems and offer potential benefits.