ABSTRACT
Background: In total joint replacement procedures, surgeons have increasingly adopted advanced multi-layer, watertight closure. The objective of the study was to compare the clinical and economic outcomes for advanced multi-layer, watertight closure patients to those with conventional closure with sutures and skin staples. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years were included in the study if they underwent total joint arthroplasty of the hip or knee as an elective, primary, inpatient procedure between January 2014 and March 2019. Cohorts having advanced multi-layer, watertight closure or conventional closure were compared using multivariable regression analysis of surgical site infections, length of stay, operating room time, procedure time, discharge status, readmissions, reoperations, and hospital emergency department visits. Results: A total of 1828 patients received at least one total hip or knee replacement, of which 434 (23.7%) had advanced multi-layer, watertight closure and 1394 (76.3%) had conventional closure. Unadjusted time to readmission, when occurring, was considerably longer following advanced multi-layer, watertight closure (89.9 vs 51.1 days, p < 0.0001), and a lower proportion of the advanced multi-layer, watertight closure cohort required reoperation within 90 days (0.0% vs 2.6%, p < 0.0001). Adjusted mean hospital length of stay was approximately half of a day shorter for advanced multi-layer, watertight closure patients (1.10 vs 1.65 days; p < 0.001), and they were also more likely to be discharged to home (Odds Ratio: 4.61; p = 0.002). Conclusion: Among patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty in a highly optimized real-world clinical practice, advanced multi-layer, watertight closure was associated with significantly shorter inpatient length of stay and increased likelihood of being discharged to home compared with conventional closure. These findings suggest that advanced multi-layer, watertight closure is a valuable component of an optimal workflow for total hip or knee replacement, and may be especially valuable for high-risk patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Interest in direct anterior approach (DAA) has increased over the last decade. In our previously published study comparing DAA to posterolateral approach (PA), early 3-month benefits were noted in terms of pain and function. There was no difference noted at 6 or 12 months. This study reports average 5-year follow-up of our original study. METHODS: Originally there were 43 DAA patients and 44 PA patients. At an average 5-year follow-up, patients were evaluated clinically with a University of California at Los Angeles activity score, Harris hip score, and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Jr Survivorship analysis was calculated. Radiographs were evaluated for loosening and evidence of radiolucent lines. RESULTS: There were 2 deaths 1 in each group, neither was related to the implant or procedure. Four patients were lost to follow-up: 2 in the DAA group and 2 in the PA group. There was no statistical difference between surgical approaches in terms of Harris hip score, University of California at Los Angeles activity score, and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Jr. The 7-year survivorship was not significantly different. There were no loose implants at average 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Both DAA and PA yield good results at an average 5-year follow-up in terms of survivorship, function, rate of complications, and radiographic analysis.