The coronavirus pandemic has reduced the capability of Canadian hospitals to offer elective orthopaedic surgery requiring admission, despite ongoing and increasing demands for elective total hip and total knee arthroplasty surgery (THA and TKA). We sought to determine if the coronavirus pandemic resulted in more outpatient THA and TKA in Nova Scotia, and if so, what effect increased outpatient surgery had on 90 day post-operative readmission or Emergency Department/Family Doctor (FD) visits. The study cohort was constructed from hospital Discharge Abstract Data (DAD), inpatient admissions, and National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) data, day surgery observations, using Canadian Classification of Health Intervention codes to select all primary hip and knee procedures from 2005-2020 in Nova Scotia. Emergency Department and General Practitioner visits were identified from the Physician Billings data and re-admissions from the DAD and NACRS. Rates were calculated by dividing the number of cases with any visit within 90 days after discharge. Chi-squared statistics at 95% confidence level used to test for statistical significance. Knee and hip procedures were modelled separately. There was a reduction in THA and TKA surgery in Nova Scotia during the coronavirus pandemic in 2020. Outpatient arthroplasty surgery in Nova Scotia in the years prior to 2020 were relatively stable. However, in 2020 there was a significant increase in the proportion and absolute number of outpatient THA and TKA. The proportion of THA increased from 1% in 2019 to 14% in 2020, while the proportion of TKA increased from 1% in 2019 to 11% in 2020. The absolute number of outpatient THA increased from 16 cases in 2019, to 163 cases in 2020. Outpatient TKA cases increased from 21 in 2019, to 173 in 2020. The increase in outpatient surgery resulted in an increase in 90 day presentations to ED following TKA but not THA which was not statistically significant. For outpatient THA and TKA, there was a decrease in 90 day readmissions, and a statistically significant decrease in FD presentations. Outpatient THA and TKA increased significantly in 2020, likely due to the restrictions imposed during the coronavirus pandemic on elective Orthopaedic surgery requiring admission to hospital. The increase in outpatient surgery resulted in an increase in 90 day presentations to ED for TKA, and a decrease in 90 day readmissions and FD presentations for THA and TKA. Reducing the inpatient surgical burden may result in a post-operative burden on ED, but does not appear to have caused an increase in hospital readmission rates

Percutaneous flexor tenotomy involves cutting the flexor digitorum tendons to correct claw toe deformity to treat apical pressure areas and prevent subsequent infection in patients with peripheral neuropathy. Performing this under ultrasound guidance provides reassurance of complete release of the tendon and increases procedural safety. This study is a retrospective case series evaluating the effectiveness, safety, and patient satisfaction of performing percutaneous ultrasound-guided flexor tenotomy in an outpatient setting. People with loss of protective sensation, a digital flexion deformity, and an apical toe ulcer or pre-ulcerative lesion who presented to our institution between December 2019 and June 2022 were included in this study. Participants were followed-up at a minimum of 3 months. Time to ulcer healing, re-ulceration rate, patient satisfaction, and complications were recorded. An Australian cost analysis was performed comparing this procedure performed in rooms versus theatres. There were 28 ulcers and 41 pre-ulcerative lesions. A total of 69 tenotomy procedures were performed on 38 patients across 52 episodes of care. The mean time to ulcer healing was 22.5 +/- 6.4 days. There were 2 cases of re-ulceration. 1 patient sustained a transfer lesion. There were four toes that went onto require amputation, all in the setting of pre-existing osteomyelitis. 94% of patients strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the outcome of the procedure. Costs saved were estimated to be $1426. Flexor tenotomy is a minimally invasive procedure that can be performed in the outpatient setting, and therefore without delay to treatment, reducing risk of ulcer progression and need for subsequent amputation. This is the first study to report on flexor tenotomy under ultrasound-guidance. Ultrasound-guided percutaneous flexor tenotomy is safe and effective, with high patient satisfaction and low recurrence rates. This performance in the outpatient setting ensures significant time and cost savings for both the practitioner and patient

The response to the COVID-19 pandemic has raised the profile and level of interest in the use, acceptability, safety, and effectiveness of virtual outpatient consultations and telemedicine. These models of care are not new but a number of challenges have so far hindered widespread take-up and endorsement of these ways of working. With the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, remote and virtual working and consultation have become the default. This paper explores our experience of and learning from virtual and remote consultation and questions how this experience can be retained and developed for the future. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):301–304

Introduction. External fixation (EF) devices are commonly used in the management of complex skeletal trauma, as well as in elective limb reconstruction surgery for the management of congenital and acquired pathology. The subsequent removal of an EF is commonly performed under a general anaesthetic in an operating theatre. This practice is resource intensive and limits the amount of operating theatre time available for other surgical cases. We aimed to assess the use of regional anaesthesia as an alternative method of analgesia to facilitate EF removal in an outpatient setting. Materials & Methods. This prospective case series evaluated the first 20 consecutive cases of EF removal in the outpatient clinic between 10/06/22 to 16/09/22. Regional anaesthesia using ultrasound-guided blockade of peripheral nerves was administered using 1% lidocaine due to its rapid onset and short half-life. Patients were assessed for additional analgesia requirement, asked to evaluate their experience and perceived pain using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Results. Twenty patients were included in the study. The mean age was 46.6 years (range 21–85 years). Two thirds were male patients (N=13). Post procedure all patients indicated positive satisfaction ratings, each participant responding as either ‘satisfied’ (N=4), ‘very satisfied’ (N=15) or ‘highly satisfied’ (N=1). In addition, 85% of participants reported they would opt for this method of EF removal in future should it be necessary. VAS for pain immediately following completion of the procedure was low, with an average score of 0.45 (range 0–4), where a score of 0= ‘No pain’, and 10 = ‘worst pain possible’. Conclusions. We present the first description of outpatient EF removal using sole regional anaesthesia, with a prospective case series of 20 EF removed in fully awake patients. This novel technique is cost-effective, reproducible, and safe. This not only reduces the burden of these surgical cases on an operating list but also improves patient experience when compared to other forms of conscious sedation. By eliminating the use of Entonox and methoxyflurane for sedation and analgesia, this project demonstrates a method of improving environmental sustainability of surgery, anaesthesia and operating theatres

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. Currently, there is no single, comprehensive national guideline for analgesic strategies for total joint replacement. We compared inpatient and outpatient opioid requirements following total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to determine risk factors for increased inpatient and outpatient opioid requirements following total hip or knee arthroplasty. Methods. Outcomes after 92 primary total knee (n = 49) and hip (n = 43) arthroplasties were analyzed. Patients with repeat surgery within 90 days were excluded. Opioid use was recorded while inpatient and 90 days postoperatively. Outcomes included total opioid use, refills, use beyond 90 days, and unplanned clinical encounters for uncontrolled pain. Multivariate modelling determined the effect of surgery, regional nerve block (RNB) or neuraxial anesthesia (NA), and non-opioid medications after adjusting for demographics, ength of stay, and baseline opioid use. Results. TKAs had higher daily inpatient opioid use than THAs (in 5 mg oxycodone pill equivalents: median 12.0 vs 7.0; p < 0.001), and greater 90 day use (median 224.0 vs 100.5; p < 0.001). Opioid refills were more likely in TKA (84% vs 33%; p < 0.001). Patient who underwent TKA had higher independent risk of opioid use beyond 90 days than THA (adjusted OR 7.64; 95% SE 1.23 to 47.5; p = 0.01). Inpatient opioid use 24 hours before discharge was the strongest independent predictor of 90-day opioid use (p < 0.001). Surgical procedure, demographics, and baseline opioid use have greater influence on in/outpatient opioid demand than RNB, NA, or non-opioid analgesics. Conclusion. Opioid use following TKA and THA is most strongly predicted by surgical and patient factors. TKA was associated with higher postoperative opioid requirements than THA. RNB and NA did not diminish total inpatient or 90-day postoperative opioid consumption. The use of acetaminophen, gabapentin, or NSAIDs did not significantly alter inpatient opioid requirements. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:398–404

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

Closed ankle fractures have been reported to account for 10% off all fractures presenting to the Emergency Department. Many of these injuries require acute surgical management either via direct admission or through defined outpatient surgical pathways. While both methods have been shown to be safe, few studies have examined the cost effectiveness of each clinical scenario. The purpose of this study is to compare cost and resource utilization associated with inpatient and outpatient ankle fracture surgery at a Canadian academic institution. This is a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent acute ankle fracture surgery at London Health Sciences Centre between 2016 and 2018. Thirty patients who underwent inpatient ankle surgery for closed, isolated ankle fractures at University Hospital were compared to 30 consecutive patients who underwent outpatient ankle surgery for similar fractures at Victoria hospital. Data pertaining to age at time of surgery, sex, BMI, fracture type, operating/recovery room time, and length of hospital stay were collected. All emergency room visits, readmissions and complications within 30 days of surgery were also recorded. Inpatient and outpatient cohorts were similar with respect to average age (48 vs. 44, P=0.326) and body mass index (29.8 vs. 29.1, P=0.741). There was a greater proportion of patients with an American Society of Anesthesia (ASA) Classification of 3 or greater in the inpatient surgery group (48% vs. 23%). The inpatient group spent an average of 1.2 days in hospital while waiting for surgery and a average of 72 hours in hospital for their entire surgical encounter. The outpatient group spent an average of eight days (at home) waiting for surgery while spending an average of 7.4 hours in hospital during their entire surgical encounter. Outpatient ankle fracture surgery was associated with a cost savings of 35.9% in comparison to inpatient ankle fracture surgery (P < 0 .001). There were no significant differences in the rates of emergency room visits, readmissions, or complications between cohorts. Preliminary findings suggest that outpatient ankle fracture surgery is appropriate for most patients, requires less hospital resources and is associated with similar rates of readmission and complications as inpatient surgery. An established outpatient surgical pathway may offer significant cost savings in the treatment of the common closed ankle fracture that requires surgical intervention

Outpatient total hip arthroplasty (THA) has remained controversial and challenging. Traditional hospital stays following total joint arthroplasty were substantial and resulted in increased rates of morbidity, significant pain, and severe restriction in mobility. Advancements in the surgical approach, anesthetic regimens, and the initiation of rapid rehabilitation protocols have had an impact on the length of recovery following elective THA. Still, very few studies have specifically outlined outpatient hip arthroplasty and, thus far, none have addressed the use of robotic-arm navigation in outpatient THA. This article describes in detail the technique used to perform outpatient THA with the use of robotic-arm assistance. We believe that outpatient THA using robotic-arm assistance in combination with tissue-preserving surgery, multi-modal pain and nausea management, early rehabilitation, and stringent patient selection yields a suitable alternative to inpatient joint replacement

An outpatient TKA program was developed by integrating advances in analgesia, rehabilitation, and minimally invasive surgical techniques with the objective of improving value in elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA) while maintaining quality standards. Previous studies have established the safety of outpatient TKA in selected populations, but the literature is devoid of outcome measures in these patients. Our goal was to investigate the quality of recovery, patient satisfaction, and safety profile in the first 90 days undergoing outpatient TKA. One hundred TKAs in 93 consecutive patients with end-stage arthritis of the knee candidate for primary TKA were enrolled in this prospective matched cohort study. Patients that underwent inpatient TKA (47 TKAs) were compared with patients that underwent planned outpatient TKA (53 TKAs). The following 28 day post-operative scores were recorded: quality of recovery (QoR-18) and pain scores by Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11). Satisfaction with pain control (0 to 10) and quantity of opioid use was collected. Secondary outcome measures of 90-day complications, readmissions, and emergency department (ED) visits were recorded. Ninety-six percent of patients planned for outpatient TKA met our defined multidisciplinary criteria for same-day discharge. QoR-18 at post-operative day one was statistically higher in the outpatient TKA group. Otherwise, outcome measures were not statistically different between the 2 groups. Two patients required overnight admission: 1 for extended motor-block and 1 for vasovagal syncope. There were 7 ED visits in the in the outpatient group and 4 in the inpatient group. One outpatient was admitted for irrigation and debridement with liner exchange for an acute infection 2 weeks post-operatively. One inpatient required manipulation under anesthesia at six weeks post-operatively. Outpatient TKA in selected patients produced a post-operative quality of recovery and patient satisfaction similar to that of inpatient TKA. Our results support that outpatient TKA is a safe alternative that should be considered due to its potential cost-savings and comparable recovery

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. 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

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

Significant advances in perioperative pain management, such as multimodal periarticular injection, and subtler advances in surgical technique have resulted in improved postoperative experiences for patients with less pain, earlier rehabilitation, and shorter stays in hospital. Concurrently, and by applying the learnings from above, significant advances have been made in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty care pathways leading to safe programs for outpatient surgery. A natural extension of this process has been the exploration of outpatient total joint arthroplasty (TJA). There are some papers written on the topic, but not many. The papers are generally report that outpatient TJA can be a safe and effective procedure, but the devil is in the detail. Firstly, most authors in this field carry a bias towards positive outcomes given they fact they are expert, academic, and innovative surgeons, often having controlling interest in the management of the complete perioperative pathway. Secondly, and largely as a result of the above, there is a major selection bias as to who receives outpatient TJA. In all cases, the patients are younger, fitter, and with less comorbidities. Patients reported in the published literature on outpatient TJA therefore do not represent the average patient that the average surgeon would operate on. Recall, TJA patients are becoming heavier and older patients (85+) are also receiving TJA at increasing rates. It is useful to remember that TJA is a stressful event from a physiological perspective for the patient. Serious complications, including death, can and do occur. Further, some significant events, like cardiac ischemia occur around the second to third day postoperatively. These patients often require medical intervention for stabilization and need readmission when sent home before these events occur. This obviously is not a trivial issue given the penalties applied to hospitals in the US for early readmissions after TJA. The fundamental questions at this early stage of outpatient TJA are 1) whether it is scalable to a larger audience, and 2) whether or not processes can be developed to make it a routine, standard of care. Given that the current literature is limited and written by expert surgeons on a highly select group of patients, and given that patients in general are getting older and less healthy, it is difficult to imagine a future of TJA as drive through surgery

To progress to a same day surgery program for arthroplasty, it is important that we examine and resolve the issues of why patients stay in the hospital. The number one reason is fear and anxiety of the unknown and of surgical pain. The need for hospital stay is also related to risk arising from comorbidities and medical complications. Patients also need an extended stay to manage the side effects of our treatment, including after effects of narcotics and anaesthesia, blood loss, and surgical trauma. The process begins pre-operatively with an appropriate orthopaedic assessment of the patient and determination of the need for surgery. The orthopaedic team must motivate the patient, and ensure that the expectations of the patient, family and surgeon are aligned. In conjunction with our affiliated hospitalist group that performs almost all pre-admission testing, we have established guidelines for patient selection for outpatient arthroplasty. The outpatient surgical candidate must have failed conservative measures, must have appropriate insurance coverage, and must be functionally independent. Previous or ongoing comorbidities that cannot be optimised for safe outpatient care may include: congestive heart failure, or valve disease; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or home use of supplemental oxygen; untreated obstructive sleep apnea with a BMI >40 kg/m2; hemodialysis or severely elevated serum creatinine; anemia with hemoglobin <13.0 g/dl; cerebrovascular accident or history of delirium or dementia; and solid organ transplant. Pre-arthroplasty rehabilitation prepares the patient for peri-operative protocols. Patients meet with a physical therapist and are provided with extensive educational materials before surgery to learn the exercises they will need for functional recovery. Enhancement of our peri-operative pain management protocols has resulted in accelerated rehabilitation. The operative intervention must be smooth and efficient, but not hurried. Less invasive approaches and techniques have been shown to decrease pain, reduce length of stay, and improve outcomes, especially in the short term. Between June 2013 and December 2015, 1957 primary knee arthroplasty procedures (1010 total, 947 partial) were performed by the author and his 3 associates at an outpatient surgery center. Seven percent of patients required an overnight stay, with a majority for reasons of convenience related to travel distance or later operative time. Importantly, no one has required overnight stay for pain management. 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

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. Traditionally an inpatient hospital stay has been required for all joint replacement surgery. The three primary drivers of cost for joint replacement have been implant cost, other hospital charges and postoperative rehabilitation costs. The three primary reasons that have made hospitalization necessary are pain control, therapy and possible transfusion. Advances in surgical technique, implants, comprehensive blood management, and multimodal pain management have allowed a marked reduction in the hospital stay required, eliminated the need for extensive formal rehabilitation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if hip resurfacing can be performed safely and cost-effectively as an outpatient procedure. Methods. We present the short-term outcome of our first 77 hip resurfacings done as an outpatient procedure performed by two experienced surgeons. Young patients without major medical co-morbidities were selected. The average age was 53±6 years old (range: 38 to 66), there were 57 men and 20 women. The mean ASA score was 1.6±0.5 (range 1 to 2). The diagnosis was OA in 56, dysplasia in 17, avascular necrosis in 2, and others in 2. Results. All patients were successfully discharged on the day of surgery from our physician-owned outpatient surgery center. There were no major complications noted in the first 6 weeks postoperative. There was one ER visit, and there were no hospitalizations required. The average and highest pain score for each day was shown in Figure 1 for the first 5 days postoperative. Three patients required a morphine injection after discharge from the surgery center. No patients required a transfusion. The cost comparison is obtained from the Blue Cross website which indicates that the “120 day episode of care” cost for hip replacement was $35,000 at Providence, $ 45,000 at Palmetto, $65,000 at Lexington hospital, while cost at our surgery center was $26,000. This represents a cost savings for the insurance company of nearly $9,000 (26%) compared to the lowest cost and $39,000 (60%) compared to the highest cost hospital in our region. Conclusion. We conclude that in properly selected patients, outpatient hip resurfacing can be accomplished safely, with a high degree of patient satisfaction and a tremendous cost savings to the insurer. We suspect that indications can be gradually expanded to allow more patients to take advantage of this option. If insurers could find creative ways to incentivize patients to take advantage of the highest quality, lowest cost options, tremendous health care savings are possible in a free-market health care model free of excessive government regulations and price controls

INTRODUCTION. The benefits of combining enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) interventions with an outpatient THA/TKA program are uncertain. The primary objective was to compare adverse event rate and secondly to compare pain management, functional recovery, PROMs and patients' satisfaction. METHODS. We conducted an ambidirectional single subject cohort study on 48 consecutive patients who experienced both a standard-inpatient and an ERAS-outpatient THA/TKA (contralaterally). We compared complications according to Clavien-Dindo scale and Comprehensive Complications Index (CCI), and unplanned episodes of care. Postoperative pain assessed with a numeric rating scale, opioid consumption in morphine milligram equivalents, functional recovery, patient-reported outcome measures (WOMAC, KOOS, HOOS, Forgotten Joint Score and Patient Joint Perception) and patients' satisfaction were also evaluated. RESULTS. Following the ERAS-outpatient surgery, complication rates were reduced by more than 50% (2.1 vs 4.4, p<0.001), CCI was significantly lower (12.3 vs 19.1, p<0.001), and similar unplanned episodes of care were observed (p>0.999). In the first 8 postoperative hours, perceived pain was similar (p>0.805) while opioid consumption was significantly reduced with ERAS-outpatient care (9.3 vs 26.5 MME, p<0.001). Patients walked, climbed stairs, showered, performed activities of daily living, practised sports, went back to work sooner after ERAS-outpatient surgery (p<0.001), but PROMs were similar between groups at the last follow-up (p> 0.188). Patients were more satisfied with hospital stay, pain management, functional recovery, wound management, and overall experience of the ERAS-outpatient pathway and recommended it significantly more (p <0.002). DISCUSSION. Most studies comparing outpatient to inpatient programs conclude that outpatient surgeries did not increase complication or readmission rates, and, overall, were not inferior. We found that compared to std-inpatient practice, ERAS-outpatient program reduced complications by half while not resulting in more unplanned episodes of care. Moreover, it resulted in similar pain relief with fewer opioids, faster early functional recovery and higher satisfaction. Patients were significantly more inclined to recommend the ERAS-outpatient pathway after having personally experienced both outpatient and inpatient protocols. These finding are likely multifactorial and linked to the specific ERAS interventions. CONCLUSION. Results of this study highlight the importance of following ERAS principles when implementing an outpatient THA/TKA program

To progress to a same day surgery program for arthroplasty, it is important that we examine and resolve the issues of why patients stay in the hospital. The number one reason is fear and anxiety for the unknown and for surgical pain. The need for hospital stay is also related to risk arising from comorbidities and medical complications. Patients also need an extended stay to manage the side effects of our treatment, including after-effects of narcotics and anesthesia, blood loss, and surgical trauma. The process begins pre-operatively with an appropriate orthopaedic assessment of the patient and determination of the need for surgery. The orthopaedic team must motivate the patient, and ensure that the expectations of the patient, family and surgeon are aligned. In conjunction with our affiliated hospitalist group that performs almost all pre-admission testing, we have established guidelines for patient selection for outpatient arthroplasty. The outpatient surgical candidate must have failed conservative measures, must have appropriate insurance coverage, and must be functionally independent. Previous or ongoing comorbidities that contraindicate the outpatient setting include: cardiac – prior revascularization, congestive heart failure, or valve disease; pulmonary – chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or home use of supplemental oxygen; untreated obstructive sleep apnea – BMI >40 kg/m2; renal disease – hemodialysis or severely elevated serum creatinine; gastrointestinal – history or post-operative ileus or chronic hepatic disease; genitourinary – history of urinary retention or severe benign prostatic hyperplasia; hematologic – chronic Coumadin use, coagulopathy, anemia with hemoglobin <13.0 g/dl, or thrombophilia; neurological – history of cerebrovascular accident or history of delirium or dementia; solid organ transplant. Pre-arthroplasty rehabilitation prepares the patient for peri-operative protocols. Patients meet with a physical therapist and are provided with extensive educational materials before surgery to learn the exercises they will need for functional recovery. Enhancement of our peri-operative pain management protocols has resulted in accelerated rehabilitation. The operative intervention must be smooth and efficient, but not hurried. Less invasive approaches and techniques have been shown to decrease pain, reduce length of stay, and improve outcomes, especially in the short term. In 2014, 385 primary partial knee arthroplasty procedures (7 patellofemoral replacement, 13 lateral, and 365 medial) were performed by the author and his 3 associates at an outpatient surgery center. Of those, 348 (95%) went home the same day while 17 (5%) required an overnight stay, with 11 for convenience related to travel distance or later operative time and 6 for medical issues. 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

Purpose. Traditionally, an inpatient hospital stay has been required for joint replacement surgery. The three primary drivers of cost for joint replacement have been implant cost, other hospital charges and postoperative rehabilitation costs. The three primary reasons that have made hospitalization necessary are pain control, blood loss / transfusion, and monitoring patients with comorbidities. Advances in surgical technique, implants, comprehensive blood management, and multimodal pain management have allowed a marked reduction in the hospital stay required and have eliminated the need for extensive formal rehabilitation. The purpose of this study is to evaluate if hip resurfacing can be performed safely and cost-effectively as an outpatient procedure. Methods. We present the short-term outcome of our first 125 hip resurfacings done as an outpatient procedure performed by two experienced surgeons. Young patients without major medical co-morbidities were selected. The average age was 53±7 years old (range: 38 to 66), there were 98 men and 27 women. The mean ASA score was 1.7±0.5 (range 1 to 3). The diagnosis was OA in 92, dysplasia in 22, and osteonecrosis in 9, and trauma in 2. There were no major complications noted in the first 6 weeks postoperative. There was one ER visit, and there were no hospitalizations required. Results. The average and highest pain score for each day was shown in Figure 1 for the first 5 days postoperative. Three patients required a morphine injection after discharge from the surgery center. No patients required a transfusion. The satisfaction survey showed: The cost comparison is obtained from the Blue Cross website which indicates that the “120 day episode of care” for total hip arthroplasty is $35,000, $ 45,000, and $65,000 at the three local hospitals, while cost at our surgery center was $26,000. This represents a cost savings for the insurance company of nearly $9,000 (26%) compared to the lowest cost and $39,000 (60%) compared to the highest cost hospital in our region. Conclusion. We conclude that in properly selected patients, outpatient hip resurfacing can be accomplished safely, with a high degree of patient satisfaction and a tremendous cost savings to the insurer. We suspect that indications can be gradually expanded to allow more patients to take advantage of this option. If insurers could find creative ways to incentivize patients to take advantage of the highest quality lowest cost options, tremendous health care savings are possible in a free-market health care model free of excessive government regulations and price controls