The aim of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) Meniscal Consensus Project was to develop an evidence-based treatment guideline for patients with meniscal lesions of the knee. A formal consensus process was undertaken applying nominal group, Delphi, and appropriateness methods. Consensus was first reached on the terminology relating to the definition, investigation, and classification of meniscal lesions. A series of simulated clinical scenarios was then created and the appropriateness of arthroscopic meniscal surgery or nonoperative treatment in each scenario was rated by the group. The process was informed throughout by the latest published, and previously unpublished, clinical and epidemiological evidence. Scenarios were then grouped together based upon the similarity of clinical features and ratings to form the guideline for treatment. Feedback on the draft guideline was sought from the entire membership of BASK before final revisions and approval by the consensus group.Aims
Materials and Methods
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a major orthopaedic
intervention. The length of a patient's stay has been progressively
reduced with the introduction of enhanced recovery protocols: day-case
surgery has become the ultimate challenge. This narrative review shows the potential limitations of day-case
TKA. These constraints may be social, linked to patient’s comorbidities,
or due to surgery-related adverse events (e.g. pain, post-operative
nausea and vomiting, etc.). Using patient stratification, tailored surgical techniques and
multimodal opioid-sparing analgesia, day-case TKA might be achievable
in a limited group of patients. The younger, male patient without
comorbidities and with an excellent social network around him might
be a candidate. Demographic changes, effective recovery programmes and less invasive
surgical techniques such as unicondylar knee arthroplasty, may increase
the size of the group of potential day-case patients. The cost reduction achieved by day-case TKA needs to be balanced
against any increase in morbidity and mortality and the cost of
advanced follow-up at a distance with new technology. These factors
need to be evaluated before adopting this ultimate ‘fast-track’
approach. Cite this article:
