Although readmission has historically been of primary interest, emergency department (ED) visits are increasingly a point of focus and can serve as a potentially unnecessary gateway to readmission. This study aims to analyze the difference between primary and revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) cases in terms of the rate and reasons associated with 90-day ED visits. We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent TJA from 2011 to 2021 at a single, large, tertiary urban institution. Patients were separated into two cohorts based on whether they underwent primary or revision TJA (rTJA). Outcomes of interest included ED visit within 90-days of surgery, as well as reasons for ED visit and readmission rate. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to compare the two groups while accounting for all statistically significant demographic variables.Aims
Methods
Antibiotic prophylaxis involving timely administration of appropriately dosed antibiotic is considered effective to reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) after total hip and total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). Cephalosporins provide effective prophylaxis, although evidence regarding the optimal timing and dosage of prophylactic antibiotics is inconclusive. The aim of this study is to examine the association between cephalosporin prophylaxis dose, timing, and duration, and the risk of SSI after THA/TKA. A prospective multicentre cohort study was undertaken in consenting adults with osteoarthritis undergoing elective primary TKA/THA at one of 19 high-volume Australian public/private hospitals. Data were collected prior to and for one-year post surgery. Logistic regression was undertaken to explore associations between dose, timing, and duration of cephalosporin prophylaxis and SSI. Data were analyzed for 1,838 participants. There were 264 SSI comprising 63 deep SSI (defined as requiring intravenous antibiotics, readmission, or reoperation) and 161 superficial SSI (defined as requiring oral antibiotics) experienced by 249 (13.6%) participants within 365 days of surgery.Aims
Methods
The aims of this study were to report the efficacy of revision surgery for patients with co-infective bacterial and fungal prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) presenting to a single institution, and to identify prognostic factors that would guide management. A total of 1189 patients with a PJI were managed in our bone infection service between 2006 and 2015; 22 (1.85%) with co-infective bacterial and fungal PJI were included in the study. There were nine women and 13 men, with a mean age at the time of diagnosis of 64.5 years (47 to 83). Their mean BMI was 30.9 kg/m2 (24 to 42). We retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of these PJIs, after eight total hip arthroplasties and 14 total knee arthroplasties. The mean clinical follow-up was 4.1 years (1.4 to 8.8).Aims
Patients and Methods
The results of hip and knee replacement surgery
are generally regarded as positive for patients. Nonetheless, they are
both major operations and have recognised complications. We present
a review of relevant claims made to the National Health Service
Litigation Authority. Between 1995 and 2010 there were 1004 claims
to a value of £41.5 million following hip replacement surgery and
523 claims to a value of £21 million for knee replacement. The most common
complaint after hip surgery was related to residual neurological
deficit, whereas after knee replacement it was related to infection.
Vascular complications resulted in the highest costs per case in
each group. Although there has been a large increase in the number of operations
performed, there has not been a corresponding relative increase
in litigation. The reasons for litigation have remained largely
unchanged over time after hip replacement. In the case of knee replacement,
although there has been a reduction in claims for infection, there
has been an increase in claims for technical errors. There has also
been a rise in claims for non-specified dissatisfaction. This information
is of value to surgeons and can be used to minimise the potential
mismatch between patient expectation, informed consent and outcome. Cite this article:
