Aims. This study aimed to investigate patients’ attitudes towards day-case hip and knee arthroplasty and to describe patient characteristics associated with different attitudes, with the purpose of providing an insight into the information requirements for patients that surgeons should address when informing patients about day-case surgery. Methods. A total of 5,322 patients scheduled for hip or knee arthroplasty between 2016 and 2022 were included in the study. Preoperatively, patients were asked if they were interested in day-case surgery (‘Yes’, ‘Do not know’, ‘No’). Patient demographics including age, BMI, sex, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) were examined within each attitude group. Additionally, changes in attitude were assessed among patients who had completed the questionnaire in association with prior hip or knee arthroplasty. Results. Of the surveyed patients, 41.8% were interested in day-case surgery (n = 2,222), 20.8% responded ‘Do not know’ (n = 1,105), and 37.5% were not interested (n = 1,995). Patients who were not interested had a higher mean age (‘No’, 70.2 years (SD 10.0) vs ‘Yes’, 65.2 years (SD 10.7)), with a majority being female (‘No’, 71.9% female (n = 1,434) vs ‘Yes’, 48.6% female (n = 1,081)). Approximately 20% of patients responded ‘Do not know’ regardless of age, sex, and PROMs. Patients reporting anxiety/depression based on EQ-5D-3L more frequently answered ‘No’ (56.9%; 66/116) compared to those not experiencing anxiety/depression (34.9%; 1,356/3,890). Among patients who responded ‘Do not know’ before their first surgery, over 70% changed their attitude to either ‘Yes’ (29.9%; 38/127) or ‘No’ (40.9%; 52/127) at their subsequent surgery. Conclusion. From 2016 to 2022, 58.3% of hip and knee arthroplasty patients expressed uncertainty or no interest in day-case surgery. In connection with current initiatives to increase the number of day-case arthroplasty procedures, there should be a focus on informing patients to address the prevalent negative or uncertain attitude. Further research is needed to investigate what preoperative information patients consider crucial in their decision-making process regarding day-case surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3 Supple A):3–9

Aims

The aim of this study was to report our experience at 3.5 years with outpatient total hip arthroplasty (THA).

While many forefoot procedures may be performed as a day case, there are no specific guidelines as to which procedures are suitable. This study assessed the early post-operative pain after forefoot surgery performed a day case, compared with conventional inpatient management.

A total of 317 consecutive operations performed by a single surgeon were included in the study. Those eligible according to the criteria of the French Society of Anaesthesia (SFAR) were managed as day cases (127; 40%), while the remainder were managed as inpatients.

The groups were comparable in terms of gender, body mass index and smoking status, although the mean age of the inpatients was higher (p < 0.001) and they had higher mean American Society of Anaesthesiologists scores (p = 0.002). The most severe daily pain was on the first post-operative day, but the levels of pain were similar in the two groups; (4.2/10, sd 2.5 for day cases, 4.4/10, sd 2.4 for inpatients; p = 0.53). Overall, 28 (9%) of patients who had their surgery as a day case and 34 (11%) of inpatients reported extreme pain (≥ 8/10). There were more day case patients rather than inpatients that declared their pain disappeared seven days after the surgery (p = 0.02). One day-case patient with excessive bleeding was admitted post-operatively.

Apart from the most complicated cases, forefoot surgery can safely be performed as a day case without an increased risk of pain, or complications compared with management as an inpatient.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1645–50.

Following arthroplasty of the knee, the patient’s perception of improvement in symptoms is fundamental to the assessment of outcome. Better clinical outcome may offset the inferior survival observed for some types of implant. By examining linked National Joint Registry (NJR) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data, we aimed to compare PROMs collected at a minimum of six months post-operatively for total (TKR: n = 23 393) and unicondylar knee replacements (UKR: n = 505). Improvements in knee-specific (Oxford knee score, OKS) and generic (EuroQol, EQ-5D) scores were compared and adjusted for case-mix differences using multiple regression. Whereas the improvements in the OKS and EQ-5D were significantly greater for TKR than for UKR, once adjustments were made for case-mix differences and pre-operative score, the improvements in the two scores were not significantly different. The adjusted mean differences in the improvement of OKS and EQ-5D were 0.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.9 to 0.9; p = 0.96) and 0.009 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.015; p = 0.37), respectively.

We found no difference in the improvement of either knee-specific or general health outcomes between TKR and UKR in a large cohort of registry patients. With concerns about significantly higher revision rates for UKR observed in worldwide registries, we question the widespread use of an arthroplasty that does not confer a significant benefit in clinical outcome.

This population-based study investigated the incidence and trends in venous thromboembolic disease after total hip and knee arthroplasty over a ten-year period. Death or readmission for venous thromboembolic disease up to two years after surgery for all patients in Scotland was the primary outcome. The incidence of venous thromboembolic disease, including fatal pulmonary embolism, three months after surgery was 2.27% for primary hip arthroplasty and 1.79% for total knee arthroplasty. The incidence of fatal pulmonary embolism within three months was 0.22% for total hip arthroplasty and 0.15% for total knee arthroplasty. The majority of events occurred after hospital discharge, with no apparent trend over the period. The data support current advice that prophylaxis should be continued for at least six weeks following surgery. Despite the increased use of policies for prophylaxis and earlier mobilisation, there has been no change in the incidence of venous thromboembolic disease.