Total and partial joint arthroplasty has been clinically proven to successfully relieve pain and improve function in patients with hip and knee degenerative arthrosis. It has been shown that early return to ambulation correlates well with functional scores. Moreover, the benefits of reduced narcotic use are multi-fold and range from reduced risk of addiction, gastrointenstinal and cardiopulmonary side effects. Establishing realistic pre-operative expectations regarding functional improvement and pain control will nevertheless impact patient satisfaction. Thus, the purpose of this study was to establish safe, achievable and data-driven benchmarks for post-operative ambulation and pain control in patients undergoing elective total joint arthroplasty. A retrospective chart review was performed for of all patients who underwent elective primary total or partial joint replacement by a single fellowship trained academic joint replacement surgeon from 2/1/2015 to 2/29/16. Patients under the age of 18 as well as those who underwent arthroplasty to treat a traumatic injury or to revise an arthroplasty were excluded. Charts were reviewed for the method of ambulation (no ambulation, wheelchair, assistive devices, no devices) and use of prescription pain medications by 6 weeks post-operatively.Purpose
Methods
Patellar mobilisation methods used during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have been debated in the literature, with some proponents of minimally invasive TKA suggesting that laterally retracting, rather than everting the patella may be beneficial. It was our hypothesis that by using randomised, prospective, blinded study methods, there would be no significant difference in clinical outcome measures based solely on eversion of the patella during total knee arthroplasty. After an Introduction
Methods
We examined the rates of infection and colonisation by methicillin-resistant In 2004, we screened 1795 of 1796 elective admissions and MRSA was found in 23 (1.3%). We also screened 1122 of 1447 trauma admissions and 43 (3.8%) were carrying MRSA. All ten ward transfers were screened and four (40%) were carriers (all p <
0.001). The incidence of MRSA in trauma patients increased by 2.6% per week of inpatient stay (r = 0.97, p <
0.001). MRSA developed in 2.9% of trauma and 0.2% of elective patients during that admission (p <
0.001). The implementation of the MRSA policy reduced the incidence of MRSA infection by 56% in trauma patients (1.57% in 2003 (17 of 1084) to 0.69% in 2004 (10 of 1447), p = 0.035). Infection with MRSA in elective patients was reduced by 70% (0.56% in 2003 (7 of 1257) to 0.17% in 2004 (3 of 1806), p = 0.06). The cost of preventing one MRSA infection was £3200. Although colonisation by MRSA did not affect the mortality rate, infection by MRSA more than doubled it. Patients with proximal fractures of the femur infected with MRSA remained in hospital for 50 extra days, had 19 more days of vancomycin treatment and 26 more days of vacuum-assisted closure therapy than the matched controls. These additional costs equated to £13 972 per patient. From this experience we have been able to describe the epidemiology of MRSA, assess the impact of infection-control measures on MRSA infection rates and determine the morbidity, mortality and economic cost of MRSA carriage on trauma and elective orthopaedic wards.