The volume of ambulatory total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures is increasing due to the emphasis on value-based care. The purpose of the study is to identify the causes for failed same-day discharge (SDD) and perioperative factors leading to failed SDD. This retrospective cohort study followed pre-selected patients for SDD THA from 1 August 2018 to 31 December 2020. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing unilateral THA with appropriate social support, age 18 to 75 years, and BMI < 37 kg/m2. Patients with opioid dependence, coronary artery disease, and valvular heart disease were excluded. Demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative data were collected from the electronic medical records. Possible risk factors for failed SDD were identified using multivariate logistic regression.Aims
Methods
Due to the opioid epidemic, our service developed a cultural change highlighted by decreasing discharge opioids after lower extremity arthroplasty. However, concern of potentially increasing refill requests exists. As such, the goal of this study was to analyze whether decreased discharge opioids led to increased postoperative opioid refills. We retrospectively reviewed 19,428 patients undergoing a primary hip or knee arthroplasty at a single institution from 2016–2019. Patients that underwent secondary procedures within that timeframe were excluded. Two-thousand two-hundred and forty-one patients (12%) were on narcotics preoperatively or had chronic pain syndrome. Two reductions in routine discharge narcotics were performed over this timeframe. First, 8,898 patients routinely received 750 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). After the first reduction, 4,842 patients routinely received 520 MMEs. After a second reduction, 5,688 patients routinely received 320 MMEs. We analyzed refill rates, refill MMEs, and whether discharge MMEs were associated with refill MMEs in a multivariate model.Introduction
Methods
In the United States, cementless femoral fixation remains the dominant mode of fixation for femoral neck fractures, despite strong worldwide registry data that supports cemented fixation. The reason for this discrepancy remains unknown, controversial and often difficult to compare due to multiple variables. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a matched cohort of patients undergoing arthroplasty for femoral neck fractures and assess outcomes of revisions, periprosthetic fractures and mortality. This is an exact matched cohort study. Cemented fixation cases were exact matched to cementless fixation cases in a 1:1 fashion based on age, sex and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Outcome variables included: revision for periprosthetic fracture; all cause revision and mortality at any time point; all cause revision and mortality within 1-year and within 90-days. The primary independent variable was femoral fixation (cemented, cementless) and covariates included race (black, white, other), ethnicity (hispanic, non-hispanic), teaching status (minor, major, nonteaching) and bedsize (1–99, 100–399, >=400). Chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression models were used for statistical analysis.Introduction
Methods
This review summarises the technique of impaction
grafting with mesh augmentation for the treatment of uncontained
acetabular defects in revision hip arthroplasty. The ideal acetabular revision should restore bone stock, use
a small socket in the near-anatomic position, and provide durable
fixation. Impaction bone grafting, which has been in use for over
40 years, offers the ability to achieve these goals in uncontained
defects. The precepts of modern, revision impaction grafting are
that the segmental or cavitary defects must be supported with a
mesh; the contained cavity is filled with vigorously impacted morselised
fresh-frozen allograft; and finally, acrylic cement is used to stabilise
the graft and provide rigid, long-lasting fixation of the revised
acetabular component. Favourable results have been published with this technique. While
having its limitations, it is a viable option to address large acetabular
defects in revision arthroplasty. Cite this article:
