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.

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

Guidelines for the use of preoperative blood tests for elective surgery were established. However, there is less evidence and no guidelines regarding using these tests when a young, healthy patient undergoes minor orthopaedic trauma surgery. Bloodwork is often ordered routinely, regardless of medical history or the nature of the injury. We hypothesized that unnecessary blood work is requested for younger pre-operative patients, and their results will not change peri-operative management. This practice is not a judicious use of healthcare resources. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency, type, cost, and impact on clinical decisions if standard preoperative bloodwork was completed in healthy patients requiring surgical management of a minor fracture or dislocation. After the approval of our institutional ethics board, a retrospective chart review was conducted. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 18-60 years, who had an isolated minor orthopaedic trauma requiring outpatient surgery, who were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class 1. ASA class 1 is defined as “a normal healthy patient, without any clinically important comorbidity and without a clinically significant past/present medical history.” Data records from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, were extracted from a provincial database (the Analytics Data Integration, Measurement and Reporting) for five hospitals. Data including demographics, surgical treatment, type and number of blood tests ordered, and ordering physician were collected. Any abnormal test results were checked to see whether they led to a change in patient management or related to a postoperative adverse event. Independent samples t-tests and Chi-square tests were used to compare the characteristics of patients who had preoperative bloodwork versus those who did not. The cost of preoperative blood work was estimated. During these two years, 627 patients met inclusion criteria, and 27% (n=168) of these patients had bloodwork completed pre-operatively, while only 34% (n=57) of these had one or more abnormal laboratory parameters. These abnormalities were minor and did not alter clinical management or result in repeated bloodwork peri-operatively. Patients who had bloodwork were significantly older (40.2 years) compared with patients without preoperative blood work (37.8 years; p=0.03), but there was no difference in sex between those who had bloodwork (53.4% male) and those who did not (51.4% male; p=0.63). The most common blood test ordered was a complete blood count, and the most commonly abnormal result was a mildly elevated white blood cell count (19%; n= 29). The most common patients to receive bloodwork were those with ankle (34%) and distal radius (34%) fractures. The bloodwork was primarily ordered by clinical associates (26%; n=46) and emergency department physicians (22%; n=38). Without considering lab personnel, consumables, and analysis time, the cost of this bloodwork was approximately $7685, an average of $45 per patient. Pre-operative bloodwork in young, healthy, asymptomatic patients requiring outpatient surgery for minor orthopaedic trauma had no clinical significance and did not change patient management. Rigorous prospective research is warranted to establish national guidelines for appropriate pre-operative bloodwork ordering to minimize unnecessary and costly investigations

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

Distal radius fractures are the most common adult fractures, yet there remains some uncertainty surrounding optimal treatment modalities. Recently, the rate of operative treatment of these injuries has been increasing, however, predictors of outcomes in patients treated surgically remain poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate independent predictors of 30-day readmission and complications following internal fixation of distal radius fractures. Patients ≥18 years who underwent surgical intervention for distal radius fractures between 2005 and 2016 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) using procedural codes. Patient demographics, as well as 30-day readmission, complication, and mortality rates were ascertained. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine independent predictors of 30-day outcomes while adjusting for patient age, sex, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) class, functional status, smoking status, comorbidities, and Body Mass Index (BMI). A total of 10,051 patients were identified (average age 58 ±16). All patients received open reduction and internal fixation with no cases of external fixation identified in the data set. Included fractures were 37% extraarticular and 63% intraarticular. Within 30-days of initial fixation 143 (1.42%) patients were readmitted to the hospital, 71 patients experienced a complication, and 18 (0.18%) patients died. After adjusting for relevant covariables, current smoking increased the odds of readmission by 1.73 (95%Confidence interval [95%CI] 1.15 – 2.50), ASA class III/IV vs. I/II increased the odds of readmission by 2.74 (95%CI 1.85 – 4.06), and inpatient surgery vs. outpatient surgery increased the odds of readmission by 2.10 (95%CI 1.46 – 3.03). Current smoking also increased the odds of complications by 2.26 (95%CI 1.32 – 3.87), while ASA class III/IV increased it by 2.78 (95%CI 1.60 – 4.85), inpatient surgery increased it by 2.26 (95%CI 1.37 – 3.74), and dependent functional status increased it by 2.55 (1.16 – 5.64). In conclusion, patients with severe systemic disease, current smokers and patients undergoing inpatient surgery are at risk for 30-day readmissions and complications following operative treatment of distal radius fractures. In addition, patients with dependent functional statuses are more likely to experience a complication within 30-days

Resident involvement in the operating room is a vital component of their medical education. Conflicting and limited research exists regarding the effects of surgical resident participation on spine surgery patient outcomes. Our objective was to determine the effect of resident involvement on surgery duration, length of hospital stay and 30-day post-operative complication rates. This study was a multicenter retrospective analysis of the prospectively collected American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database. All anterior cervical or posterior lumbar fusion surgery patients were identified. Patients who had missing trainee involvement information, surgery for cancer, preoperative infection or dirty wound classification, spine fractures, traumatic spinal cord injury, intradural surgery, thoracic surgery and emergency surgery were excluded. Propensity score for risk of any complication was calculated to account for baseline characteristic differences between the attending alone and trainee present group. Multivariate logistic regression was used to investigate the impact of resident involvement on surgery duration, length of hospital stay and 30 day post-operative complication rates. 1441 patients met the inclusion criteria: 1142 patients had surgeries with an attending physician alone and 299 patients had surgeries with trainee involvement. After adjusting using the calculated propensity score, the multivariate analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference in any complication rates between surgeries involving trainees compared to surgeries with attending surgeons alone. Surgery times were found to be significantly longer for surgeries involving trainees. To further explore this relationship, separate analyses were performed for tertile of predicted surgery duration, cervical or lumbar surgery, instrumentation, inpatient or outpatient surgery. The effect of trainee involvement on increasing surgery time remained significant for medium predicted surgery duration, longer predicted surgery duration, cervical surgery, lumbar surgery, lumbar fusion surgery and inpatient surgery. There were no significant differences reported for any other factors. After adjusting for confounding, we demonstrated in a national database that resident involvement in surgeries did not increase complication rates, length of hospital stay or surgical duration of more routine surgical cases. We found that resident involvement in surgical cases that were generally more complexed resulted in increased surgery time. Further study is required to determine the relationship between surgery complexity and the effect of resident involvement on surgery duration

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

This session will be practically oriented, focusing on important surgical decisions and on technical tips to avoid complications. The panel will be polled concerning individual preferences as regards the following issues in primary total hip arthroplasty: 1. Perioperative antibiotics; 2. Blood management and tranexamic acid protocols; 3. Surgical indications: high BMI patients; 4. Surgical approach for primary total hip arthroplasty: indications or preferences for direct anterior, anterolateral, posterior; 5. Acetabular fixation; 6. Tips for optimizing acetabular component orientation; 7. Femoral fixation: (a) Indications for cemented and uncemented implants. Case examples will be used.; (b) Is there still a role for hip resurfacing?; 8. Femoral material and size: (a) Preferred head sizes and materials in different situations.; (b) Is there a role for dual mobility implants in primary THA?; 9. Bearing surface: present role of different bearings. Case examples will be used. 10. Tips for optimizing intraoperative hip stability; 11. Tips for optimizing leg length; 12. Postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; 13. Heterotopic bone prophylaxis; 14. Postoperative pain management; 15. Hospital discharge: is there a role for outpatient surgery?; 16. Postoperative rehabilitation protocol: weight bearing, role of physical therapy; 17. Postoperative activity restrictions; hip dislocation precautions; 18. Is there value to physical therapy as outpatient after THA?; 19. Long-term antibiotic prophylaxis for procedures

Introduction. Cardiac events have been found to occur with increased frequency in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients >65 y/o without known coronary artery disease (CAD). Avoidance of readmissions for cardiac events is paramount with bundled payment programs. It has been thought that many of these patients may have undiagnosed CAD because of sedentary life styles brought on by chronic osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study is to assess with Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography (CCTA) the prevalence and severity of CAD in patients >65 y/o for elective TJA. Methods. 126 elective patients that were part of a total hip and knee bundled payment program were referred for cardiac evaluation with CCTA if they were >65 but <70 y/o with a history of heart disease or 2 risk factors or were >70 y/o. CCTA was acquired on all patients unless they had a history of a severe allergic reaction to contrast, GFR <50 ml/min., the presence of atrial fibrillation, or declined the test. All images were evaluated by an experienced reader. Arterial narrowing of 70% diameter or greater was classified as significant CAD. Intermediate lesions <70% were reclassified as significant if CT-FFR (Functional flow reserve) was < or = 0.80. Results. Excluding the 12 patients with known CAD who had stents or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), the remaining 114 patients were classified into three groups. 34/114 (29.8%) had no CAD (Group A). 75/114 (65.8%) had (Group B). 5/114 (4.4%) had > or = 70% stenosis. Group C included one patient who had <70% stenosis but had CT-FFR <80%. Of 17 patients with known CAD with >70% or heart CT-FFR <80%, or prior stents/CABG, one patient was predicted to be high risk of a cardiac event because of a complex plaque with an ulcer, history of suppressed paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and withdrawal from apixaban. He was nurse navigated throughout his hospital course and post discharge only to be recalled to the hospital to be rescued with cardiac stenting. Conclusion. Patients >65 y/o having TJA without a cardiac history were found to have a 4.4% prevalence of significant CAD. When added to the patients with known CAD, the overall prevalence was 13.5%. One patient had complex plaque predictive of a cardiac event. As the US population ages and TJA becomes more prevalent with greater pressure to reduce costs by bundling and shifting to outpatient surgery, further data needs to be collected to better understand CAD in TJA patients >65 y/o

This session will be practically oriented, focusing on important surgical decisions and on technical tips to avoid complications. The panel will be polled concerning individual preferences as regards the following issues in primary total hip arthroplasty: 1.) Peri-operative antibiotics; 2.) Blood management and tranexamic acid protocols; 3.) Surgical indications: High BMI patients; 4.) Surgical approach for primary total hip arthroplasty: indications or preferences for direct anterior, anterolateral, posterior; 5.) Acetabular fixation; 6.) Tips for optimizing acetabular component orientation; 7.) Femoral fixation: Indications for cemented and uncemented implants. Is there still a role for hip resurfacing?; 8.) Femoral material and size: Preferred head sizes and materials in different situations. Is there a role for dual mobility implants in primary THA?; 9.) Bearing surface: Present role of different bearings; 10.) Tips for optimizing intra-operative hip stability; 11.) Tips for optimizing leg length; 12.) Post-operative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; 13.) Heterotopic bone prophylaxis; 14.) Post-operative pain management; 15.) Hospital discharge: Is there a role for outpatient surgery?; 16.) Post-operative rehabilitation protocol: weight bearing, role of physical therapy; 17.) Post-operative activity restrictions; hip dislocation precautions; 18.) Is there value to physical therapy as outpatient after THA?; 19.) Long-term antibiotic prophylaxis for procedures

According to Webster's Dictionary, efficiency is defined as the capacity to produce desired results with a minimal expenditure of energy, money, time, and materials. For a surgeon performing an operative procedure this would mean “skillfulness in avoiding wasted time and effort.” (. www.webster-dictionary.org. ) The essential ingredient to becoming efficient is to promote a culture of efficiency. There are 10 elements: 1) proactive surgeon perspective; 2) effective utilization of preoperative holding area; 3) preoperative planning / templating; 4) development of preference cards; 5) operating room set-up protocols; 6) operating room team concept; 7) streamlined instrument sets; 8) consistent operative workflow; 9) standardised closure / dressings; and 10) prompt and meticulous room turnover. Efficient performance of an operative procedure requires skillfulness in avoiding wasted time and effort. Perioperative efficiencies are optimised by development of “swing,” “flip,” or “double occupancy” criteria, understanding of timing of when to initiate the anesthetic block for the next case, skin closure routine by physician assistant/nurse practitioner/private scrub, and marking the operative site of your first two patients upon arrival to the hospital or surgery center. Utilise a pro-active approach to prepare case carts the day before surgery. The operating room team turns over their own rooms, with a “clean as you go” mentality. Develop a formalised communication process for patient flow issues, such as real-time push-to-talk group calling phones. Determine in advance the number of instrument sets required for the day's caseload to mitigate flash sterilization and decrease room turnover time. The goal of the surgeon is to be out of the operating room for 5 minutes in between cases before the next incision, utilizing that time to enter orders, communicate with the family, dictate, and mark the operative site of the patient who will follow the one in the case about to start. Implant selection can help if consistent. Everyone must know the instrument trays including surgeon, scrubs, and nurses. Minimise both the number of trays and the redundancy of instrumentation. Templating should be done in advance of the day of surgery. Keep your surgery consistent and always deliver your best product. The workflow for inpatient and outpatient surgeries should be the same: same implant, same approach, and same closure. The culture of efficiency requires buy-in by all involved in the operative procedure. Every one entering the operating theatre should have proper body coverage – no hair visible, no nose visible. There should be a strict limit to needless activity: minimum opening of doors, no changing of personnel during an operation, and use of intercom/telephone to request equipment. As the surgeon and the team begin to embrace efficiency, surgical times will decrease. Multiple studies have demonstrated that increased surgical time is associated with a higher incidence of infection. This is secondary to time-dependent contamination of the surgical wound and field. The take home message is to develop and embrace efficiency. Operating room efficiency is the product of multiple factors including preoperative preparation, skilled anesthesia team, motivated operating room staff, choreographed surgery, and well-designed instrumentation. The surgeon is the captain of the ship and the staff follows his or her lead. Your operating room days will flow smoothly. Your operations will proceed with minimal stress. You will spend less time drinking coffee between cases and have more free time at the end of the day. However, most importantly, you will deliver a quality product to your patient

This session will be practically oriented, focusing on important surgical decisions and on technical tips to avoid complications. The panel will be polled concerning individual preferences as regards the following issues in primary total hip arthroplasty: 1.) Peri-operative antibiotics; 2.) Blood management and tranexamic acid protocols; 3.) Surgical indications: High BMI patients; 4.) Surgical approach for primary total hip arthroplasty: indications or preferences for direct anterior, anterolateral, posterior; 5.) Acetabular fixation; 6.) Tips for optimizing acetabular component orientation; 7.) Femoral fixation: (a) Indications for cemented and uncemented implants. (b) Is there still a role for hip resurfacing?; 8.) Femoral material and size: (a) Preferred head sizes and materials in different situations. (b) Is there a role for dual mobility implants in primary THA?; 9.) Bearing surface: Present role of different bearings. 10.) Tips for optimizing intra-operative hip stability; 11.) Tips for optimizing leg length; 12.) Post-operative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; 13.) Heterotopic bone prophylaxis; 14.) Post-operative pain management; 15.) Hospital discharge: Is there a role for outpatient surgery?; 16.) Post-operative rehabilitation protocol: weight bearing, role of physical therapy; 17.) Post-operative activity restrictions; hip dislocation precautions; 18.) Is there value to physical therapy as outpatient after THA?; and 19.) Long-term antibiotic prophylaxis for procedures

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

Over the past fifteen years, the average length of stay for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has gradually decreased from several days to overnight. The most logical and safest next step is outpatient arthroplasty. Through the era of so-called minimally invasive surgery, perhaps the most intriguing advancements are not related to the surgery itself, but instead the areas of rapid recovery techniques and perioperative protocols. Rapid recovery techniques and perioperative protocols have been refined to allow for same-day discharge with improved outcomes. As mentioned, the single most important outcome from the minimally invasive movement has been the multi-modal approach to pain management of patients undergoing arthroplasty. Along with blood loss management, using tranexamic acid and hypotensive anesthetic techniques, this multi-modal program is the most important variable in reducing or avoiding side-effects. In any arthroplasty procedure, side-effects that need to be addressed include the negative effects of narcotics and blood loss. Anesthetic techniques, utilizing local nerve blocks, such as the adductor canal block and sciatic blocks for knee arthroplasty augment intraoperative anesthesia and provide postoperative pain relief and quicker mobilization. Additionally, pericapsular injection with a cocktail of local anesthetic helps significantly with pain relief and recovery reducing the amount of oral narcotic utilised in the early postoperative period. Many have utilised liposomal bupivacaine in these cocktails to successfully increase the period of pain relief. The use of multi-modal perioperative protocols can help avoid narcotics and helps avoid the side-effects of nausea. We also utilise an aggressive prophylactic antiemetic program with dexamethasone, ondansetron and a scopolamine patch. Patients without any significant cardiovascular history are given celecoxib preoperatively, which is continued for approximately two weeks postoperatively. Immediately postoperative, acetaminophen and additional dexamethasone are administered intravenously. The multi-modal protocols to address fear, risk, and side-effects will increase the eligibility for outpatient surgery and decrease the need for overnight hospitalization. By focusing on the patient and avoiding over-treatment, outpatient arthroplasty is quickly becoming the standard of care for total hip replacement in the same way other procedures transitioned from hospital in-patient surgeries to ambulatory procedures

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

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. 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

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

The excitement and enthusiasm that accompanies the introduction of many new technologies and techniques can be self-sustaining, meaning that the appeal of doing something new or different (not necessarily doing something better) becomes the prime driver. Such is likely the case today with the direct anterior approach to total hip arthroplasty. Can THA be done successfully through a direct anterior approach? Certainly the answer is yes; and with experience it can be done in relatively broad groups of patients with an acceptable risk of complications. Is it a better way to do THA than other approaches? Well probably not in 2012. Contemporary THA done with a variety of approaches and coupled with advanced anesthetic, pain management and rapid rehabilitation protocols has been shown to be safe and effective with both short hospital stays (48 hours) and even outpatient surgery in selected patients. No substantial clinical advantage has been shown to date with a direct anterior approach. The sometimes extraordinary claims associated with the direct anterior approach are accompanied by relatively ordinary data. The purported benefits of direct anterior related to more rapid recovery, better function, or a lower dislocation risk just have not proved to be demonstrable in broad groups of patients. In regard to recovery there are now several studies suggesting no difference at 2 hours; 2 days; 2 weeks or 2 years after surgery; and likely no difference at 2 months either. In regard to function there are now multiple gait analysis studies with no demonstrable benefit at 2 weeks or 6 weeks. In regard to lower risk of dislocation if we pool the data from big published studies Sariali (1.5%) Matta (0.6%) Jewett (1%) and Woolson (0%) the mean is 0.88%. Interestingly, contemporary posterior approach THA with formal capsular repair also has <1% dislocation rate when we look at published data from White (0.5%) Pagnano (0.3%) and Dorr (0%). The direct anterior does come at a cost including: longer operative times; additional equipment and/or personnel; unique complications; and in some techniques the need for intra-operative fluoroscopy with attendant exposure to radiation for the surgeon and staff. It is clear in 2012 that the direct anterior approach is just another technique for performing a very successful procedure, namely total hip arthroplasty. With advanced anesthetic, pain management, and rapid rehabilitation protocols it will be extremely difficult to prove any marginal benefit associated with THA surgical technique. To summarize the available data on direct anterior THA it is not unreasonable to conclude that “the extraordinary claims are accompanied by very ordinary data.”

Aims

The COVID-19 pandemic drastically affected elective orthopaedic services globally as routine orthopaedic activity was largely halted to combat this global threat. Our institution (University College London Hospital, UK) previously showed that during the first peak, a large proportion of patients were hesitant to be listed for their elective lower limb procedure. The aim of this study is to assess if there is a patient perception change towards having elective surgery now that we have passed the peak of the second wave of the pandemic.