Aims

The incidence of limb fractures in patients living with HIV (PLWH) is increasing. However, due to their immunodeficiency status, the operation and rehabilitation of these patients present unique challenges. Currently, it is urgent to establish a standardized perioperative rehabilitation plan based on the concept of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). This study aimed to validate the effectiveness of ERAS in the perioperative period of PLWH with limb fractures.

Aims

Hip fractures are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and malnutrition is a crucial determinant of these outcomes. This meta-analysis aims to determine whether oral nutritional supplementation (ONS) improves postoperative outcomes in older patients with a hip fracture.

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

The June 2023 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Nail versus plate fixation for ankle fractures; Outcomes of first ray amputation in diabetic patients; Vascular calcification on plain radiographs of the ankle to diagnose diabetes mellitus; Elderly patients with ankle fracture: the case for early weight-bearing; Active treatment for Frieberg’s disease: does it work?; Survival of ankle arthroplasty; Complications following ankle arthroscopy.

Aims

Routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been useful to quantify and quality-assess provision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the UK for the past decade. This study aimed to explore whether the outcome following primary THA and TKA had improved over the past seven years.

Aims

Psychoeducative prehabilitation to optimize surgical outcomes is relatively novel in spinal fusion surgery and, like most rehabilitation treatments, they are rarely well specified. Spinal fusion patients experience anxieties perioperatively about pain and immobility, which might prolong hospital length of stay (LOS). The aim of this prospective cohort study was to determine if a Preoperative Spinal Education (POSE) programme, specified using the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS) and designed to normalize expectations and reduce anxieties, was safe and reduced LOS.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. Orthopaedic departments have adopted business continuity models and guidelines for essential and non-essential surgeries to preserve hospital resources as well as protect patients and staff. These guidelines broadly encompass reduction of ambulatory care with a move towards telemedicine, redeployment of orthopaedic surgeons/residents to the frontline battle against COVID-19, continuation of education and research through web-based means, and cancellation of non-essential elective procedures. However, if containment of COVID-19 community spread is achieved, resumption of elective orthopaedic procedures and transition plans to return to normalcy must be considered for orthopaedic departments. The COVID-19 pandemic also presents a moral dilemma to the orthopaedic surgeon considering elective procedures. What is the best treatment for our patients and how does the fear of COVID-19 influence the risk-benefit discussion during a pandemic? Surgeons must deliberate the fine balance between elective surgery for a patient’s wellbeing versus risks to the operating team and utilization of precious hospital resources. Attrition of healthcare workers or Orthopaedic surgeons from restarting elective procedures prematurely or in an unsafe manner may render us ill-equipped to handle the second wave of infections. This highlights the need to develop effective screening protocols or preoperative COVID-19 testing before elective procedures in high-risk, elderly individuals with comorbidities. Alternatively, high-risk individuals should be postponed until the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection is minimal. In addition, given the higher mortality and perioperative morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing surgery, the decision to operate must be carefully deliberated. As we ramp-up elective services and get “back to business” as orthopaedic surgeons, we have to be constantly mindful to proceed in a cautious and calibrated fashion, delivering the best care, while maintaining utmost vigilance to prevent the resurgence of COVID-19 during this critical transition period.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:222–228.

Introduction. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multi-disciplinary approach for establishing procedure–specific, evidence-based perioperative protocols to optimize patient outcomes. ERAS evidence is predominantly for non-orthopaedic procedures. We review the impact of ERAS protocol implementation on total joint arthroplasty (TJA) outcomes at our institution. Methods. All primary total hip and knee arthroplasties performed one year before and after ERAS implementation were identified by current procedural terminology code. Length of stay (LOS), disposition, readmission and opioid usage were analyzed before and after ERAS implementation and statistically analyzed with student t-test and chi-square test. Results. 2105 total patients were identified (967 THA, 494 pre-ERAS and 473 post-ERAS;1138 TKA, 575 pre-ERAS and 563 post-ERAS). TKA. After ERAS implementation, opioid consumption decreased for hospital day one (45.5MME to 36.2MME; p=0.000) and overall hospitalization (101.9MME to 83.9MME; p =0.000). Average LOS decreased (73.28hrs to 66.44hrs; p=0.000), blood transfusion rate trended down (3.3% to 1.95%; p=0.155), and disposition to home over skilled nursing facility increased (57.8% to 71.6%; p=0.000). Unplanned return-to-hospital encounters were unchanged (13.22% to 12.79%; p=0.8504). 30-day and 90-day readmission rates decreased (7.30% to 3.02%; p=0.0020 and 8.5% to 4.8%; p=0.0185, respectively). THA. After ERAS implementation, opioid consumption decreased for hospital day one (49.5MME to 35.4MME; p=0.000) and overall hospitalization (79.5MME to 59.5MME; p=0.000). Average LOS decreased (57.84hrs to 51.87hrs; p=0.011), blood transfusion rate was unchanged (4.25% to 3.81%; p=0.725), and disposition to home over skilled nursing facility increased (80.4% to 82.5%; p= 0.022). Unplanned return-to-hospital encounters were unchanged (8.51% to 8.88%; p=0.8486). Readmission trended up during postoperative days 0–30 and trended down during postoperative days 31–90. (1.42% to 2.96%; p=0.1074) and (1.21% to 0.85%; p=0.5748), respectively. Conclusion. ERAS protocols reduce postoperative opioid consumption, decrease hospital LOS, and increase patient disposition to home without adversely affecting short-term readmission rates

Introduction. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common occurrence following total joint arthroplasty, and can result in patient discomfort, delayed discharge, and decreased patient satisfaction. Carbohydrate loading as part of the Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocol has gained popularity, and has been shown to minimize postoperative nausea, vomiting, pain, and lead to accelerated recovery and better overall outcome following abdominal surgery. This study aims to investigate the effects of preoperative carbohydrate-rich drinks on PONV following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Patients undergoing primary TKA at one institution were enrolled randomly assigned to one of three groups: Group 1 received preoperative carbohydrate-rich drink, Group 2 received placebo water drink of similar appearance and taste, and Group 3 did not receive a drink (control). All healthcare personnel and patients (group 1 and 2) were blinded to group allocation. We compared rate of postoperative nausea, vomiting, length of stay (LOS), and opiate consumption (morphine equivalents, meq). We also reviewed visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores and serum glucose at 0–4 hours, 4–12 hours, and 12–24 hours postoperatively. Results. 229 eligible patients were enrolled and randomized. 79 patients were later excluded due to reasons precluding appropriate participation. 150 patients were included for final analysis, with 50 patients in Group 1, 48 patients in Group 2, and 52 patients in Group 3. The demographics and comorbid conditions known to increase risk of nausea and vomiting were similar between the groups. Rate of vomiting was not statistically significant across groups; group 1 (6%, 3/50), group 2 (13%, 6/48), group 3 (8%, 4/52), p=0.51. Rate of requiring antiemetic medication in group 1 (30%, 15/50) did not differ significantly from group 2 (27%, 13/48) and group 3 (40%, 21/52), p=0.32. Average LOS was not different in group 1 (32 hours) compared to group 2 (32.5 hours) and group 3 (32 hours), p=0.79. Average postoperative opiate consumption for group 1 (57.0 meq) was not statistically different from group 2 (61.3) or group 3 (61.0), p=0.91. Pain VAS scores and serum glucose measurements did not differ between groups for all three time periods (p>0.05). There was no difference in reported adverse events between groups. Conclusion. There appears to be no significant difference in PONV, antiemetic requirements, LOS, pain VAS scores, serum glucose measurements, and opiate consumption in patients receiving preoperative carbohydrate-rich drink prior to primary TKA. Preoperative carbohydrate-rich drinks are safe, however, their utility in the setting of arthroplasty does not yet demonstrate clinical benefit. Continued investigation is required. Summary. This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the effect of preoperative carbohydrate-rich drinks on postoperative nausea and vomiting following primary total knee arthroplasty. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

At our district general hospital in the southwest of England, around 694 total knee replacements (TKR) are performed annually. Since spring 2013 we have been using an enhanced recovery protocol for all TKR patients, yet we have neither assessed compliance with the protocol nor whether its implementation has made a discernible and measurable difference to the delivery of care in this patient population. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are multi-modal care pathways designed to aid recovery. They are based on best evidence and promote a multi-disciplinary approach which standardises care and encompasses nutrition, analgesia and early mobilisation throughout the pre, intra and postoperative phases of an inpatient stay. ERAS has been found to reduce length of stay (LOS), readmission rates and analgesic requirements following surgery. 1, 2, 3. Additionally, they have been shown to improve range of knee movement following TKR and improve mobility, patient satisfaction whilst reducing mortality and morbidity. 4, 5, 6. With these benefits in mind, we sought to investigate how well our trauma and orthopaedic department was complying with a local ERAS protocol and whether we could replicate the benefits seen within the literature. Following approval from our local audit office in September 2015 we generated a patient list of elective TKR patients under the same surgeon before and after the implementation of the ERAS protocol. Using discharge summaries and patient notes we extracted data for 39 patients operated on prior to the ERAS implementation between January 2011 and December 2012 and 27 patients following its introduction between January 2014 and September 2015. Data collected included length of stay, time to discharge from inpatient physiotherapy and use of analgesia and antiemetics. Alongside this we audited the compliance with all facets of the local ERAS protocol. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of demographics or pre-operative morbidity. Overall compliance with the ERAS protocol was good but there was some variability, especially with intraoperative medication and type of anaesthesia which was likely due to individual patient factors. Compliance with postoperative analgesia was especially good with 93% of patients receiving all 4 suggested analgesics within the ERAS group. Length of stay (LOS) was significantly reduced by 0.5 days per patient (p value < 0.4). Overall compliance with the ERAS protocol was good but there was some variability, especially with intraoperative medication and type of anaesthesia, which was likely due to individual patient factors. Compliance with postoperative analgesia was especially good with 93% of patients receiving all suggested analgesics within the ERAS group. In terms of LOS, we found a statistically significant difference between the pre-ERAS and ERAS group of 0.5 days per patient. Within the context of our DGH, a 0.5 day reduction in LOS translates to around 350 bed days per year and a potential saving of GBP 105,000 (EUR 132,000) making this a clinically significant finding

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal perioperative care pathway designed to achieve early recovery for patients undergoing major surgery. ERAS allows for the incorporation of evidence based practices and incorporated a comprehensive assessment of the patient's journey through the surgical process from pre-operative screening through to post-operative care. The purpose of this study was to determine if optimisation of ERAS protocol with pre-operative screening and incorporating patient-specific factors into their post operative care would improve length of stay (LOS) and readmission rates following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in a Canadian community hospital setting. The study collected clinical, demographic data and the physical status perioperative using the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification on 508 patients who underwent TJA between January and August 2015 and compared similar data from the same time frame in the previous calendar year prior to implementation of the pathway. Cohorts were analysed for length of stay (LOS), readmission rates, Pre-operative assessments (completed by anaesthesia, nursing and pharmacy), relevant labs, patient history (surgery, medical, social), and patient values were all considered when developing a specific patient plan for care post-operatively. A post-operative management tool was used to optimise pain control, post-operative nausea and vomiting, bowel management, diabetes blood glucose control, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, as well as monitoring parameters specific to patient medical history (e.g. respiratory, cardiac). While in hospital, physiotherapy and nursing were consulted by the pharmacist to assess whether patient's post op management needed to be altered to optimise mobilisation and recovery in hospital. The average patient's LOS and readmission rates in 30 days was analysed to assess the change after implementation of the post-operative management tool based on patient specific factors. A total of 508 patients (mean age: 66 years), ASA classification was 3 or greater for 430 patients. The patients were assessed for LOS, readmission rates in 30 days. The mean LOS decreased from 3.6 to 3.3 days after optimisation of the ERAS protocol (student t test p=0.021). The 30-day readmission rate decreased from 2.9% to 1.4% post intervention (z test p=0.087) when compared to the same time period in the previous calendar year prior to protocol implementation. Overall, the cost savings to optimising the ERAS protocol for the hospital is substantial; with approximately $238 saved per patient. Pre-operative screening and incorporating patient-specific factors into an individualised care plan to optimise the ERAS protocol for TJA reduced mean length of stay without a concomitant increase in readmission rates with significant cost saving

Introduction. The Direct Anterior Approach (DAA) offers potential advantages of quicker rehabilitation compared to posterior approach THR. The aim of this study was to compare hospital based and early clinical outcomes between these two groups with utilisation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol. Patients/Materials & Methods. Prospectively collected data for both cohorts were matched for age, gender, ASA grade, BMI, operation side, Pre-operative Oxford Hip score (OHS) and attendance at multi-disciplinary joint school. The pain scores at 0,1,2,3 post-op days, the day of mobilization, inpatient duration, complications, 28 days readmission rates and OHS at 6 and 24 months were compared. Results. Four hundred and fifty two THR (DAA: 219, Posterior: 233) were matched. There was no difference in OHS at 6 months (p=0.07). There was also no difference in pain scores at 0, 1, 2, and 3rd post op days, the day of first mobilization (p=0.32), length of stay (p= 0.3), 28 days readmission (p=0.11) or OHS at 24 months (p=0. 09). 68% of DAA vs 58 % of posterior approach patients achieved planned in-patient duration target of 3 days (p= 0.04). There were six peri-prosthetic femoral fractures in DAA group vs one in posterior approach group (p=0.097). No significant difference was identified for complications, re-operation or 28 days readmission rates between two groups. Discussion. The DAA procedures were performed by two surgeons with extensive prior experience in DAA approach. The potential advantages and complications especially during early learning curve have to be carefully considered by operating surgeon who wishes to start performing DAA approach. The ERAS protocol can potentially reduce the difference in early recovery between two groups. Conclusion. There is no significant difference in clinical outcomes between DAA and posterior approach THR with utilisation of ERAS protocol except potential of discharge from the hospital within three days following the DAA procedure