Standardized total knee arthroplasty pathway improves outcomes in minority patients.

OBJECTIVES: Inferior total knee arthroplasty (TKA) outcomes are reported in minority populations. Standardized TKA pathways improve outcomes but have not been studied extensively in minority populations. This study evaluated the impact of TKA pathway standardization at an urban teaching hospital that predominantly treats minority patients. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: This study compared primary TKA outcomes before and after implementation of a standardized multidisciplinary pathway that emphasized preoperative education and discharge planning, preemptive multimodal pain control, and early rehabilitation. Patients were grouped as "nonpathway" (n = 144) or "pathway" (n = 182) based on whether they underwent TKA before or after pathway implementation. Outcomes included length of stay (LOS), patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) use, blood transfusion, postoperative hemoglobin, complications, and discharge disposition. Analysis involved negative binomial and multiple logistic regression models, t tests, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Mean (SD) age was 61.6 (8.7) years, and 36.5% were men. Ethnicity of the patients included Hispanic (44.5%), African American (27.9%), Asian (14.1%), and White (12.9%). Pathway and nonpathway patients were similar demographically and racially. Pathway patients had shorter LOS (P = .04), less PCA use (P < .001), more frequent discharge home (P = .03), fewer transfusions (P = .002), and higher postoperative hemoglobin (P < .001). Overall incidence of complications was similar (P = .61). Nonpathway patients developed more cardiopulmonary complications (P = .02), whereas pathway patients had more wound dehiscence (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with nonpathway patients, standardized TKA pathway patients had shorter LOS, decreased PCA use, increased discharge to home, fewer blood transfusions, and higher postoperative hemoglobin, with no difference in total incidence of complication.

Are patients being evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection prior to referral to a tertiary care center?

BACKGROUND: Patients with a painful or failed total joint arthroplasties should be evaluated for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study is to determine if patients referred to a tertiary care center had been evaluated for PJI according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: One hundred thirteen patients with painful hip (43) or knee (70) arthroplasties were referred to a single provider by orthopaedic surgeons outside our practice between 2012 and 2014. We retrospectively evaluated the workup by referring physicians, including measurement of serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein, performance of a joint aspiration if these values were abnormal, and obtainment of synovial fluid white blood cell count, differential, and cultures. RESULTS: Sixty-two of 113 patients (55%) did not have a workup that followed AAOS guidelines. Serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein were ordered for 64 of the 113 patients (57%). Of 25 patients with elevated inflammatory markers warranting aspiration, 15 (60%) had an aspiration attempted, with synovial fluid white blood cell, differential, and cultures obtained in 9 of 12 (75%) aspirations that yielded fluid. Of the 62 patients with an incomplete infection workup, 11 (18%) had a bone scan, 6 (10%) a computed tomography scan, and 3 (5%) a magnetic resonance imaging. Twelve of the 113 patients (11%) were ultimately diagnosed with PJI, with 5 undiagnosed prior to referral. CONCLUSIONS: The AAOS guidelines to evaluate for PJI are frequently not being followed. Improving awareness of these guidelines may avoid unnecessary and costly evaluations and delay in the diagnosis of PJI.