This study aimed to evaluate whether an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for arthroplasty established during the COVID-19 pandemic at a safety net hospital can be associated with a decrease in hospital length of stay (LOS) and an increase in same-day discharges (SDDs) without increasing acute adverse events. A retrospective review of 124 consecutive primary arthroplasty procedures performed after resuming elective procedures on 11 May 2020 were compared to the previous 124 consecutive patients treated prior to 17 March 2020, at a single urban safety net hospital. Revision arthroplasty and patients with < 90-day follow-up were excluded. The primary outcome measures were hospital LOS and the number of SDDs. Secondary outcome measures included 90-day complications, 90-day readmissions, and 30day emergency department (ED) visits.Aims
Methods
Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI. A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI were retrospectively evaluated. One-stage revision arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, while 75 patients underwent two-stage exchange, with a minimum of one year's follow-up. Reinfection, re-revision for septic and aseptic reasons, amputation, readmission, mortality, and length of stay were compared between the two treatment strategies.Aims
Methods
The lateral subvastus approach combined with an osteotomy of the tibial tubercle is a recognised, but rarely used approach for total knee replacement (TKR). A total of 32 patients undergoing primary TKR was randomised into two groups, in one of which the lateral subvastus approach combined with a tibial tubercle osteotomy and in the other the medial parapatellar approach were used. The patients were assessed radiologically and clinically using measurement of the range of movement, a visual analogue patient satisfaction score, the Western Ontario McMasters University Osteoarthritis Index and the American Knee Society score. Four patients were lost to the complete follow-up at two years. At two years there were no significant differences between the groups in any of the parameters for clinical outcome. In the lateral approach group there was one complication due to displacement of the tibial tubercle osteotomy and two osteotomies took more than six months to unite. In the medial approach group, one patient had a partial tear of the quadriceps. There was a significantly greater incidence of lateral patellar subluxation in the medial approach group (3 of 12) compared with the lateral approach group (0 of 16) (p = 0.034), but without any apparent clinical detriment. We conclude that the lateral approach with tibial tubercle osteotomy is a safe technique with an outcome comparable with that of the medial parapatellar approach for TKR, but the increased surgical time and its specific complications do not support its routine use. It would seem to be more appropriate to reserve this technique for patients in whom problems with patellar tracking are anticipated.
