Indications for Conversion of Spinal into General Anesthesia During Total Joint Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Spinal anesthesia (SA) is the preferred method of anesthesia at many centers for total joint arthro- plasty (TJA). However, a small subset of patients fails SA, necessitating a conversion to general anesthesia (GA). This report assesses the patient characteristics associated with failed SA. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on patients who underwent SA during their primary TJA between Janu- ary 2015 and December 2016 at our institution. A subset of this group required a conversion from SA to GA. Anesthesia reports were reviewed for the number of attempts at SA and the documented reason for failure. The SA failure cohort was then subdivided into failure categories based on the reasons that had been provided. RESULTS: A total of 5,706 patients were included in this study, 78 of which experienced SA failure. The number of attempts was most strongly associated with SA failure, with three attempts resulting in a five times increased failure rate (OR = 4.73, p = 0.010) and four attempts resulting in 12 times increased failure rate compared to the no failure cohort (OR = 12.3, p < 0.001). Greater than two attempts occurred in 87.5% of the "technical failure" sub-group of the SA failure cohort (p < 0.001). No difference was demon- strated among the other patient characteristics, such as age, sex, body mass index, race, American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) score, and surgical time. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the major predic- tor influencing spinal to general anesthesia conversion was the number of attempts at SA, especially among technical failure cases. Based on the results, it may be appropriate for anesthesiologists to convert to GA after two failed spi- nal attempts. Further studies are warranted to assess this relationship for firm clinical recommendations.

A Single-Center Randomized Prospective Study Investigating the Efficacy of Various Wound Closure Devices in Reducing Postoperative Wound Complications.

BACKGROUND: Sutures and staples are the mainstay wound closure techniques in total joint arthroplasty. Newer techniques such as zipper devices and novel skin adhesives have emerged because of their potential to decrease operative time and possibly minimize complications. The aim of this study is to compare these newer techniques against conventional sutures with respect to wound complications, closure time, and costs. METHODS: A single-center randomized control trial was conducted on 160 patients (52 zipper, 55 suture, 53 mesh) who underwent primary total hip or knee arthroplasty between February 2017 and May 2018. Patients were divided into 3 closure groups: zipper device, monofilament suture plus adhesive, and monofilament plus polyester mesh with adhesive. The primary endpoint was closure time (superficial skin layer). Secondarily we collected perioperative complication rates, including infection, persistent (14-day) wound drainage, 90-day readmission, and emergency room visit rates as well as compared material costs. RESULTS: There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups for age, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. There was a trend toward decreased time to closure for the suture group. There were no significant differences between groups for our secondary endpoint, complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that the suture group trended toward shorter closure time but suggests that each of the closure methods after total joint arthroplasty has equivalent complication rates. With small differences in closure time and no significant differences in complications, the decision to use one wound closure device or technique over another should be driven by institutional costs and provider familiarity.

Transcription Error Rates in Retrospective Chart Reviews.

Electronic health record (EHR) technologies have improved the ease of access to structured clinical data. The standard means by which data are collected continues to be manual chart review. The authors compared the accuracy of manual chart review against modern electronic data warehouse queries. A manual chart review of the EHR was performed with medical record numbers and surgical admission dates for the 100 most recent inpatient venous thromboembolic events after total joint arthroplasty. A separate data query was performed with the authors' electronic data warehouse. Data sets were then algorithmically compared to check for matches. Discrepancies between data sets were evaluated to categorize errors as random vs systematic. From 100 unique patient encounters, 27 variables were retrieved. The average transcription error rate was 9.19% (SD, ±5.74%) per patient encounter and 11.04% (SD, ±21.40%) per data variable. The systematic error rate was 7.41% (2 of 27). When systematic errors were excluded, the random error rate was 5.79% (SD, ±7.04%) per patient encounter and 5.44% (SD, ±5.63%) per data variable. Total time and average time for manual data collection per patient were 915 minutes and 10.3±3.89 minutes, respectively. Data collection time for the entire electronic query was 58 seconds. With an error rate of 10%, manual chart review studies may be more prone to type I and II errors. Computer-based data queries can improve the speed, reliability, reproducibility, and scalability of data retrieval and allow hospitals to make more data-driven decisions. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(5):e404-e408.].