The brief answer is no….I do not believe that outpatient total joint arthroplasty is the emergent standard of care. However, for some patients and some surgeons I do believe that outpatient total joint arthroplasty can be performed safely and with greater comfort and convenience for the patient. Further, for the surgeon, it can provide greater control over the care environment if performed at an ambulatory surgery center. Patient selection is paramount in my opinion for safely performing outpatient total joint arthroplasty. While some have attempted to define specific criteria, our own criteria include patients with simple orthopaedic problems who are healthy, trustworthy and have a good support system of family or friends to assist them. As surgeons we must also be self-aware as the margin for error, particularly at a freestanding ambulatory surgery center, is narrow. Operative times should be reliably brief and blood loss should be minimal to allow for a safe discharge on the same day. Further the incidence of intraoperative complications such as fractures at the time of total hip arthroplasty or ligament injuries during total knee arthroplasty should be low. The surgeon should also be prepared with the equipment to address these common issues, if they do occur. In our review of the NSQIP data set we matched 1,236 outpatient TJA 1:1 with inpatients based on propensity scores. The risk of 30-day readmissions and complications was no different between groups, although inpatients had a higher rate of VTE and outpatients had a higher risk of re-operation. Risk factors for adverse events included patient age > 85 years old, diabetes and BMI > 35. Likewise in a review of results from my own practice, we have seen no difference in the risk of complications. As health care providers we must keep the safety of our patients paramount at all times. Further, we must be fiscally responsible to avoid costly complications, reoperations and readmissions. With conservative patient selection and careful surgical technique I believe that outpatient TJA offers an attractive alternative that is safe, cost effective and associated with high satisfaction for both patients and surgeons

Aims. COVID-19-related patient care delays have resulted in an unprecedented patient care backlog in the field of orthopaedics. The objective of this study is to examine orthopaedic provider preferences regarding the patient care backlog and financial recovery initiatives in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. An orthopaedic research consortium at a multi-hospital tertiary care academic medical system developed a three-part survey examining provider perspectives on strategies to expand orthopaedic patient care and financial recovery. Section 1 asked for preferences regarding extending clinic hours, section 2 assessed surgeon opinions on expanding surgical opportunities, and section 3 questioned preferred strategies for departmental financial recovery. The survey was sent to the institution’s surgical and nonoperative orthopaedic providers. Results. In all, 73 of 75 operative (n = 55) and nonoperative (n = 18) providers responded to the survey. A total of 92% of orthopaedic providers (n = 67) were willing to extend clinic hours. Most providers preferred extending clinic schedule until 6pm on weekdays. When asked about extending surgical block hours, 96% of the surgeons (n = 53) were willing to extend operating room (OR) block times. Most surgeons preferred block times to be extended until 7pm (63.6%, n = 35). A majority of surgeons (53%, n = 29) believe that over 50% of their surgical cases could be performed at an ambulatory surgery centre (ASC). Of the strategies to address departmental financial deficits, 85% of providers (n = 72) were willing to work extra hours without a pay cut. Conclusion. Most orthopaedic providers are willing to help with patient care backlogs and revenue recovery by working extended hours instead of having their pay reduced. These findings provide insights that can be incorporated into COVID-19 recovery strategies. Level of Evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):562–568

Problem. Total hip replacement (THA) is among the most common and highest total spend elective operations in the United States. However, up to 7% of patients have 90-day complications after surgery, most frequently joint dislocation that is related to poor acetabular component positioning. These complications lead to patient morbidity and mortality, as well as significant cost to the health system. As such, surgeons and hospitals value navigation technology, but existing solutions including robotics and optical navigation are costly, time-consuming, and complex to learn, resulting in limited uptake globally. Solution. Augmented reality represents a navigation solution that is rapid, accurate, intuitive, easy to learn, and does not require large and costly equipment in the operating room. In addition to providing cutting edge technology to specialty orthopedic centers, augmented reality is a very attractive solution for lower volume and smaller operative settings such as ambulatory surgery centers that cannot justify purchases of large capital equipment navigation systems. Product. HipInsight™ is an augmented reality solution for navigation of the acetabular component in THA. HipInsight is a navigation solution that includes preoperative, cloud based surgical planning based on patient imaging and surgeon preference of implants as well as intraoperative guidance for placement of the acetabular component. Once the patient specific surgical plan is generated on the cloud-based planning system, holograms showing the optimal planned position of the acetabular component are exported in holographic format to a Microsoft HoloLens 2™, which the surgeon wears during placement of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. The pelvis is registered using the HipXpert™ mechanical registration device, which takes 2–3 minutes to dock in the operating room. The surgeon then is able to view the patient's anatomy and optimal placement of the acetabular component under the skin in augmented reality. The surgeon then aligns the real cup impactor with the augmented reality projection of the cup impactor resulting in precise placement of the cup. Timescales. HipInsight was FDA cleared on January 28, 2021 for intraoperative use for placement of the acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. The first case was performed in February 2021, and the product was launched to a select group of orthopedic surgeons in March 2021. Funding. HipInsight has been self-funded to date, and is beginning to engage in discussions to raise capital for a rapidly scaling commercial launch

Acetabular cup positioning remains a real challenge and component malpositioning after total hip arthroplasty (THA) can lead to increased rates of dislocation and wear. It is a common cause for revision THA. A novel 3D imageless mini-optical navigation system was used during THA to provide accurate, intraoperative, real-time, and non-fluoroscopic data including component positioning to the surgeon. This retrospective comparative single surgeon and single approach study examined acetabular component positioning between traditional mini-posterolateral THA and mini-posterolateral THA using the 3D mini-optical navigation system. A retrospective chart review was conducted of 157 consecutive (78 3D mini-optical navigation and 79 traditional non-navigation methods) THAs performed by the senior author using a mini-posterolateral approach at an ambulatory surgery center and hospital setting. Two independent reviewers analyzed postoperative radiographs in a standardized fashion to measure acetabular component positioning. Demographic, clinical, surgical, and radiographic data were analyzed. These groups were found to have no statistical difference in age, gender, and BMI (Table I). There was no difference between groups in acetabular components in the Lewinnek safe zone, 31.2% vs 26.6% (p = 0.53). Cup anteversion within the safe zone did not differ, 35.1% vs 40.5% (p = 0.48); while cup inclination within the safe zone differed, with more in the navigation group, 77.9% vs 51.9% (p < 0.01). Change in leg length was significantly different with the navigation group's leg length at 1.9 ± 6.3, less than the traditional at 5.4 ± 7.0 (p < 0.01). There was no difference in mean change in offset between groups (4.5 ± 5.9 vs 6.2 ± 7.9, p = 0.12); navigation, traditional) (Table II). The 3D mini-optical navigation group did have significantly longer operative time (98.4 ± 17.5 vs 89.3 ± 15.5 p < 0.01). Use of the novel 3D Mini-optical Navigation System significantly improved cup inclination compared to traditional methods while increasing operative time. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is reliable, durable, and reproducible in relieving pain and improving function in patients with arthritis of the knee joint. Cemented fixation is the gold standard with low rates of loosening and excellent survivorship in several large clinical series and joint registries. While cementless knee designs have been available for the past 3 decades, changing patient demographics (i.e. younger patients), improved implant designs and materials, and a shift towards TKA procedures being performed in ambulatory surgery centers has rekindled the debate of the role of cementless knee implants in TKA. The drive towards achieving biologic implant fixation in TKA is also driven by the successful transition from cemented hip implants to uncemented THA. However, new technologies and new techniques must be adopted as a result of an unmet need, significant improvement, and/or clinical advantage. Thus, the questions remain: 1) Why switch; and 2) Is cementless TKA more reliable, durable, or reproducible compared to cemented TKA?. There are several advantages to using cement during TKA. First, the technique can be universally applied to all cases without exception and without concerns for bone health or structure. Second, cement can mask imprecisions in bone cuts and is a remarkably durable grout. Third, cement allows for antibiotic delivery at the time surrounding surgery which has been shown in some instances to reduce the risk of subsequent infection. Finally, cement fixation has provided successful and durable fixation across various types knee designs, surface finishes, and articulations. On the other hand, cementless knee implants have had an inconsistent track record throughout history. While some have fared very well, others have exhibited early failures and high revision rates. Behery et al. reported on a series of 70 consecutive cases of cementless TKA matched with 70 cemented TKA cases based on implant design and demographics and found that cementless TKA was associated with a greater risk of aseptic loosening and revision surgery at 5 years follow up. Finally, to date, there has not been a randomised controlled clinical trial demonstrating superiority of cementless fixation compared to cemented fixation in TKA. Improvements in materials and designs have definitely made cementless TKA designs viable. However, concerns with added cost, reproducibility, and durability remain. Cement fixation has withstood the test of time and is not the main cause of TKA failure. Therefore, until there is significant data showing that cementless TKA is more durable, reliable, and reproducible compared to cemented TKA, the widespread use of these implants cannot be recommended

Length of hospital stay has been decreased to the point where the next logical progression in arthroplasty surgery is outpatient arthroplasty procedures. This trend has already happened for procedures formerly regarded as “inpatient” procedures such as upper extremity surgery, arthroscopy, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, foot and ankle procedures, and rotator cuff repair. Refinement of surgical techniques, anesthesia protocols, and patient selection has facilitated this transformation. Today, hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty can be performed safely as outpatient procedures by implementing surgical and protocol refinements. Understanding and addressing, safely, the reasons that surgeons and patients believe they “need” a hospital admission is the cornerstone to outpatient arthroplasty. This program can be highly beneficial to patients, surgeons, anesthesia, ambulatory surgery centers, and payors as arthroplasty procedures shift to the outpatient space. It will always cost more to perform these procedures in hospitals therefore opening up significant opportunities. The less efficiently run hospital in-patient setting demands over-treatment of each patient to fit him or her into the mold of inpatient surgery. Patient satisfaction is very high in the outpatient setting. Patients can recover in their own home with reduced inpatient services and by utilizing outpatient physical therapy. The surgeon efficiently controls the local environment, and thus the overall patient experience and satisfaction are improved in the outpatient setting. The surgeon's role changes from commoditised technician in the hospital setting to coordinator of the entire care experience including pre-operative care, imaging, anesthesia, peri-operative care mapping, post-operative care, and enhanced coordination with therapy providers. An outpatient arthroplasty program involves multiple individuals and specialised protocols for pre-operative, peri-operative, and post-operative care. These include patient selection and education, anesthesia and analgesia, and minimally invasive surgical techniques. By implementing these protocols and a minimally invasive Watson-Jones approach, one study has reported 77% utilization of outpatient THA, 99% success with day of surgery discharge, and a 1% readmission or complication rate. Outpatient arthroplasty is safe, it's better for us and our patients, and it is here now. In an outpatient environment the surgeon actually spends more time with the patients and family in a friendly environment. Patients feel safe and well cared for, and are highly satisfied with their arthroplasty experience. In a typical day a surgeon can perform 6–8 outpatient arthroplasty procedures with multiple interactions with each patient and their family throughout the day. Avoidance of narcotics with peripheral and local blocks will increase the eligibility for outpatient surgery and decrease the need for overnight hospitalization. The singular focus on the patient and the avoidance of over-treatment will become the standard of care for total hip and total knee arthroplasty in much the same way as for other procedures once deemed “inpatient” surgeries

Introduction. Over the past several decades, numerous surgical procedures have been perfected in the inpatient hospital setting and then evolved into outpatient procedures. This has been shown to be a safe and economical transition for many orthopedic procedures. A prime example is ACL reconstruction. We report here our early experience with our initial consecutive series of outpatient UKA's done in a free standing ASC (ambulatory surgery center). Materials and Methods. From 8/26/2008 to 5/20/12 there were 60 UKA's performed as outpatient procedures at a free standing ASC. Average patient age was 57.7 years (range of 46–69). Medical comorbidities included 22 patients with HTN and 7 with diabetes. All patients had general anesthesia with periarticular injection of the involved knee (25 cc's of Marcaine with epinephrine 1:100,000) and an intraarticular injection after closure of the capsule with 25 cc of Marcaine with epinephrine mixed with 5 cc of morphine sulfate. Patients without allergy to sulfa were given 200mg of Celebrex bid for three days and hydrocodone/acetaminophin 10/325 1–2 tabs q4 hours prn pain. Patients were discharged home when stable, ambulating with aids as needed, with length of stay ranging from 60–180 minutes (average of 85 minutes). Results. No patients required admission to the hospital for any reason. There was one hemarthrosis in a medial UKA which developed on postoperative day 4. There was uneventful resolution of this event with conservative management and an excellent result was achieved. The vast majority of patients were ambulating well and without walking aids at the 2 week postoperative evaluation. The total number of UKAs performed by the author in the ASC since 8/26/2008 is now 282, still without any complications requiring admission to the hospital. Conclusion. Outpatient UKA performed in an ambulatory surgery center was found to be a safe, efficient, and effective method for the management of unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee in this relatively healthy cohort of patients. It is now our routine approach for patients undergoing UKA, with inpatient hospitalization being reserved for those patients who are at higher postoperative risk due to multiple medical comorbidities

Introduction. Outpatient total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is emerging as a viable alternative to the historically accepted hospital-based inpatient TJA in the United States. Several studies have focused on the financial advantages of outpatient TJA, however little research has discussed patient reported outcome measures (PROM) and the overall patient experience. The purpose of this study is to compare PROM data in patients undergoing outpatient vs. inpatient total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed in the first year of a newly opened outpatient facility. Methods. An internal quality metric database analysis was performed on patients undergoing TKA between 2/14/14 and 5/1/2015. Outpatient TKA was performed at an ambulatory surgery center. Three-hundred and forty-three TKA patients (both inpatient and outpatient) between the ages of 37–65 years old were included. The Oxford Hip, VAS Pain, and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaires were completed pre-operatively, and at 3- and 6-months post-op. The Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire asks 8 questions including “how well did the surgery on your joint increase your ability to perform regular activities?” Patients chose from poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent. Chi-squared analyses determined differences in percentages between outpatient and inpatient PROM. Independent samples t-tests determined significant improvements between pre-op and 6 month post-op PROM scores. Results. Outpatients showed a significantly higher improvement in VAS pain score at 6 months compared to inpatients (74.5% vs. 61.6%, p<0.01). Outpatients rated their pain relief as “very good-to-excellent” significantly higher than inpatients (90.0% vs. 74.0%, p=.020) at 6 months post-op. Outpatients rated their ability to perform regular activities as “very good-to-excellent” more frequently as inpatients (82.0% vs. 59.3%, p=.004) at 6 months post-op. This difference was significant. A significantly higher percentage of outpatients reported “very good-to-excellent” meeting of expectations compared to inpatients (82.0% vs. 63.4%, p=.017) at 6 months post-op. No statistical difference was found between outpatients and inpatients in terms of Oxford Knee (function) scores at 6 months post-op. No statistical differences between the inpatient and outpatient groups were noted at the 3 month post-op time point. Conclusion. Significantly greater improvement was reported by outpatient TKA patients vs. inpatient TKA patients at six months post-op. Outpatients report a greater improvement on the VAS Pain score, and report a higher frequency of top-box ratings on the TKA normal joint and TKA satisfaction questionnaires. The implementation of outpatient TKA procedures shows greater overall patient satisfaction and improvement 6 months post-operation. This study illustrates that a de novo outpatient TJA pathway and facility can be successfully implemented with very high levels of patient satisfaction and patient reported success

The discussion of outpatient unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) requires proof that it can be done safely and effectively, and also begs the question of whether it can be performed in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) rather than a general hospital (which raises costs and is typically less efficient). Successful outpatient UKA requires carefully crafted algorithms/protocols, home support, preoperative planning and preparation, expectation management, risk stratification (not everyone is a candidate), perioperative pain management and buy-in from patients, support networks and the health care team. Relatively little data is available on the feasibility, safety and potential cost savings associated with this shift in care. We evaluated the costs and short term outcomes and complications of 150 consecutive UKAs performed in an ASC compared to those done in a general hospital both on an inpatient and outpatient basis. Determination of the setting of the outpatient surgery was made based on geographic preference by the patients; otherwise choice of inpatient or outpatient surgery in the hospital was left to the discretion of the surgeon and was primarily based on the patients' comorbidity profile and circumstances of home help. Total direct facility costs were calculated, including institutional supplies and services, anesthesia services, implants, additional PACU medications and services required, and costs associated with operating room use. Only total cost was evaluated, as it is the most consistent cost variable amongst the two institutions evaluated. The mean total direct cost of UKA in a general community hospital with an overnight stay was 1.24 and 1.65 times greater than the cost of UKA performed at the same hospital or an ASC on an outpatient basis, respectively. The mean total direct cost of outpatient UKA in a general hospital was 1.33 times greater than the mean total cost of UKA performed in an ASC. Semi-autonomous robotic technology has been introduced to optimise accuracy of implant positioning and soft tissue balance in UKA, with the expectation of resultant improvement in durability and implant survivorship. Currently, nearly 20% of UKA's in the U.S. are being performed with robotic assistance. It is anticipated that there will be substantial growth in market penetration over the next decade, projecting that nearly 37% of UKA's and 23% of TKA's will be performed with robotics in 10 years (Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry, March 5, 2015). First generation robotic technology improved substantially implant position compared to conventional methods; however, high capital costs, uncertainty regarding the value of advanced technologies, and the need for preoperative CT scans were barriers to broader adoption. Newer image-free robotic technology offers an alternative method for further optimizing implant positioning and soft tissue balance without the need for preoperative CT scans and with price points that make it suitable for use in an ASC. Currently, as a result of cost and other practical issues, <1% of first generation robotic technologies are being used in ASC's. Alternatively, more than 35% of second generation robotic systems are in use in ASC's for UKA, due to favorable pricing. In conclusion, UKA can be safely performed in the outpatient setting in select patients. Additionally, we demonstrated a substantial cost savings when UKA is performed in an outpatient setting and care is shifted from a general community hospital to an ASC. Finally, robotics can be utilised to optimise accuracy of implant placement and soft tissue balance in UKA, and newer image-free robotic technology is cost effective for outpatient UKA

Introduction. Outpatient total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is emerging as a viable alternative to the historically accepted hospital based inpatient TJA in the United States. Several studies have focused on the financial advantages of outpatient TJA, however little research has discussed patient reported outcome measures (PROM) and the overall patient experience. This is a retrospective comparison of PROM data in patients undergoing outpatient vs. inpatient total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. An internal quality metric database analysis was performed on patients undergoing THA between 2/14/14 to 5/1/2015. Outpatients underwent THA at a newly opened ambulatory surgery center. Inpatients underwent THA in a hospital setting. Ninety-six outpatients and 152 inpatients between the ages of 29–65 years old were included. The Oxford Hip, VAS Pain, and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaires were completed pre-operatively, and at 3- and 6-months post-op. The Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire asked 8 questions including “how well did the surgery on your joint increase your ability to perform regular activities?” Patients chose from poor, fair, good, very good, and excellent. Chi-squared analyses determined differences in percentages between outpatient and inpatient PROM. Independent samples t-tests determined significant improvements between pre-op and 3 month post-op PROM scores. Results. Outpatients reported significantly greater improvements in functionality at 3 months post-operatively compared to inpatients (20.9 vs. 17.0 raw score improvement) as assessed using the Oxford Hip Score Questionnaire. Thus, outpatients showed a 23% greater improvement compared to inpatients. This was statistically significant (p<0.01). Outpatients showed a significantly higher improvement in VAS pain score compared to inpatients (84.5% vs. 66.2%, p<0.01) at 3 months post-op. Outpatients reported a significantly higher score (on a 100 point scale) when rating how normal their joint felt (85.0 vs. 76.8, p=.022) at 3 months post-op. A significantly higher percentage of outpatients reported their pain relief as “excellent” compared to inpatients (71.7% vs. 56.3%, p<0.01) at 3 months post-op. A significantly higher percentage of outpatients reported their ability to perform regular activities as “excellent” compared to inpatients (57.7% vs. 30.6%, p=.002) at 3 months post-op. A significantly higher percentage of outpatients reported their ability to perform regular activities as “very good-to-excellent” compared to inpatients (82.7% vs. 65.9%, p=.033) at 3 months post-op. A significantly higher percentage of outpatients reported that they “definitely would” have surgery again compared to inpatients (84.6% vs. 69.4%, p=.046) at 3 months post-op. Conclusion. Significantly greater PROM and VAS pain score improvements were reported by outpatient THA patients vs. inpatient THA patients of similar age between the pre-operative time point and 3-months post-op. Outpatient THA patients report a greater improvement on the Oxford Hip Score scale, VAS pain score, THA normal joint, and THA satisfaction questionnaire. The implementation of outpatient THA procedures shows greater overall patient satisfaction and improvement 3 months post-operation. This study demonstrates our initial experience with outpatient THA. The results have met and/or exceeded the inpatient experience with regards to patient reported outcomes measures