header advert
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_11 | Pages 11 - 11
7 Jun 2023
McNamara J Eastman J Perring A Vallance N Frigyik A Pollalis A
Full Access

The development and implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are of particular interest in elective orthopaedics due to clinical benefits and cost effectiveness. The Wycombe Arthroplasty Rapid-Recovery Pathway (WARP) was designed to streamline hip and knee joint arthroplasty to reduce time spent in hospital whilst optimising outcomes in an NHS District General Hospital.

966 patients were admitted to Wycombe General Hospital for primary elective joint replacement (60 UKR, 446 THR, 460 TKR) during the period 1st September 2020 to 31st September 2022. The WARP pathway was used for 357 (37%) patients (32 UKR, 155 THR, 170 TKR) and the standard “non-WARP” pathway was used for 609 (63%) patients (28 UKR 291 THR, 290 TKR). Data was collected on length of stay, time of mobilisation, number of physiotherapy sessions, and inpatient morbidity.

Average length of stay following UKR was 0.75 days for WARP vs 2.96 for non-WARP patients, following THR was 2.17 days for WARP vs 4.17 for non-WARP patients, following TKR was 3.4 days for WARP vs 3.92 for non-WARP patients. Day-0 mobilisation after UKR was achieved in 97% of WARP vs 12% of non-WARP patients, after THR in 43% of WARP vs 14% of non-WARP patients, after TKR in 33% of WARP vs 11% of non-WARP patients. Same-day discharge was achieved in the WARP cohort in 63% of UKR, 10% of THR, 2% of TKR patients. There were no same-day discharges in the non-WARP cohort. Complications delaying mobilisation (pain, nausea/vomiting, dizziness/low BP) were identified in 8.4% of WARP vs 25% of non-WARP patients.

Our cohort study shows that the initiation of WARP Rapid Recovery pathway for joint arthroplasty decreased the average length of stay after UKR by 2.21 days, after THR by 2 days, after TKR by 0.52 days. Time to first mobilisation was decreased significantly by increased rates of same-day mobilisation and reduced rates of postoperative anaesthetic-related complications.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 38 - 38
17 Apr 2023
Saiz A Hideshima K Haffner M Rice M Goupil J VanderVoort W Delman C Hallare J Choi J Shieh A Eastman J Wise B Lee M
Full Access

Determine the prevalence, etiologies, and risk factors of unplanned return to the OR (UROR) in adult orthopaedic trauma patients.

Retrospective review of a trauma prospective registry from 2014 – 2019 at a Level 1 academic hospital. An UROR was defined as a patient returning to OR unexpectedly following a planned definitive surgery to either readdress the presenting diagnosis or address a complication arising from the index procedure. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was performed comparing those patients with an UROR versus those without.

A total of 1568 patients were reviewed. The rate of UROR was 9.8% (153 patients). Symptomatic implant was the leading cause of UROR (60%). Other significant UROR causes were infection (15%) and implant failure (9%). The median time between index procedure and UROR was 301 days.

For the univariate and multivariate analysis, open fracture (p< 0.05), fracture complexity (p<0.01), and weekend procedure (p< 0.01) were all associated with increased risk of UROR. All other variables were not statistically significant for any associations.

Those patients with an UROR for reasons other than symptomatic implants were more likely to have polyorthopaedic injuries (p < 0.05), ISS > 15 (p < 0.05), osteoporosis (p < 0.01), ICU status (p < 0.05), psychiatric history (p < 0.05), compartment syndrome (p < 0.05), neurovascular injury (p < 0.01), open fracture (p < 0.05), and fracture complexity (p < 0.05).

The rate of UROR in the orthopaedic trauma patient population is 10%. Most of these cases are due to implant-related issues. UROR for reasons other than symptomatic implants tend to be polytraumatized patients with higher-energy injuries, multiple complex fractures, and associated soft tissue injuries. Future focus on improved implant development and treatments for polytraumatized patients with complex fractures is warranted to decrease a relatively high UROR rate in orthopaedic trauma.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 39 - 39
17 Apr 2023
Saiz A O'Donnell E Kellam P Cleary C Moore X Schultz B Mayer R Amin A Gary J Eastman J Routt M
Full Access

Determine the infection risk of nonoperative versus operative repair of extraperitoneal bladder ruptures in patients with pelvic ring injuries. Pelvic ring injuries with extraperitoneal bladder ruptures were identified from a prospective trauma registry at two level 1 trauma centers from 2014 to 2020. Patients, injuries, treatments, and complications were reviewed. Using Fisher's exact test with significance at P value < 0.05, associations between injury treatment and outcomes were determined.

Of the 1127 patients with pelvic ring injuries, 68 (6%) had a concomitant extraperitoneal bladder rupture.

All patients received IV antibiotics for an average of 2.5 days. A suprapubic catheter was placed in 4 patients. Bladder repairs were performed in 55 (81%) patients, 28 of those simultaneous with ORIF anterior pelvic ring. The other 27 bladder repair patients underwent initial ex-lap with bladder repair and on average had pelvic fixation 2.2 days later. Nonoperative management of bladder rupture with prolonged Foley catheterization was used in 13 patients. Improved fracture reduction was noted in the ORIF cohort compared to the closed reduction external fixation cohort (P = 0.04).

There were 5 (7%) deep infections. Deep infection was associated with nonoperative management of bladder rupture (P = 0.003) and use of a suprapubic catheter (P = 0.02). Not repairing the bladder increased odds of infection 17-fold compared to repair (OR 16.9, 95% CI 1.75 – 164, P = 0.01).

Operative repair of extraperitoneal bladder ruptures substantially decreases risk of infection in patients with pelvic ring injuries. ORIF of anterior pelvic ring does not increase risk of infection and results in better reductions compared to closed reduction. Suprapubic catheters should be avoided if possible due to increased infection risk later. Treatment algorithms for pelvic ring injuries with extraperitoneal bladder ruptures should recommend early bladder repair and emphasize anterior pelvic ORIF.