Minimizing Surgical Instrument Burden Increases Operating Room Efficiency and Reduces Perioperative Costs in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing surgical trays to improve operating room efficiency and reduce costs in instrument processing is an under-appreciated strategy for cost containment. This study aimed to assess the economic impact of instrument tray optimization in total joint arthroplasty. METHODS: Thirty-five randomly selected elective primary total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty performed by 4 fellowship-trained surgeons were analyzed. Type and number of instruments used as well as timing of different steps in the sterilization process were recorded by an independent observer. Using Lean methodology, surgeons identified redundant or underutilized instruments and agreed upon the fewest number needed for each tray. Instrument utilization rates and processing time were analyzed before and after tray modifications. Annual cost savings were calculated based on a processing factor of $0.59-$11.52 per instrument. RESULTS: Only 45.5% of instruments opened for total knee arthroplasty were utilized. After optimization, 28 of 87 (32.2%) instruments were removed and the remainder could be stored in one tray. Mean set-up time decreased from 20.7 to 14.2 minutes, while 40-75 minutes were saved during the sterilization process. For total hip arthroplasty, only 36.0% of instruments were utilized. Using Lean methods, 46 of 112 (41.1%) instruments were removed and tray count was reduced to 2 trays. Mean set-up time decreased from 27.9 to 18.6 minutes, while 45-150 minutes were saved during processing. Average annual savings amounted to $281,298.05. CONCLUSION: Lean methodology can be used to eliminate redundant or underutilized instruments in total joint arthroplasty, improving surgical efficiency and generating substantial cost savings.

Use of a Small-Bore Needle Arthroscope to Diagnose Intra-Articular Knee Pathology: Comparison With Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

The use of arthroscopy for purely diagnostic purposes has been largely supplanted by noninvasive technologies, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The mi-eye+TM (Trice Medical) technology is a small-bore needle unit for in-office arthroscopy. We conducted a pilot study comparing the mi-eye⁺™ unit with MRI, using surgical arthroscopy as a gold-standard reference. We hypothesized that the mi-eye⁺™ needle arthroscope, which can be used in an office setting, would be equivalent to MRI for the diagnosis of intra-articular pathology of the knee. This prospective, multicenter, observational study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. There were 106 patients (53 males, 53 females) in the study. MRIs were interpreted by musculoskeletally trained radiologists. The study was conducted in the operating room using the mi-eye⁺™ device. The mi-eye⁺™ device findings were compared with the MRI findings within individual pathologies, and a "per-patient" analysis was performed to compare the arthroscopic findings with those of the mi-eye⁺™ and the MRI. Additionally, we identified all mi-eye⁺™ findings and MRI findings that exactly matched the surgical arthroscopy findings. The mi-eye⁺™ demonstrated complete accuracy of all pathologies for 97 (91.5%) of the 106 patients included in the study, whereas MRI demonstrated complete accuracy for 65 patients (61.3%) (P < .0001). All discrepancies between mi-eye⁺TM and arthroscopy were false-negative mi-eye⁺™ results, as the mi-eye⁺TM did not reveal some aspect of the knee's pathology for 9 patients. The mi-eye⁺™ was more sensitive than MRI in identifying meniscal tears (92.6% vs 77.8%; P = .0035) and more specific in diagnosing these tears (100% vs 41.7%; P < .0001). The mi-eye⁺™ device proved to be more sensitive and specific than MRI for intra-articular findings at time of knee arthroscopy. Certainly there are contraindications to using the mi-eye⁺™, and our results do not obviate the need for MRI, but our study did demonstrate that the mi-eye⁺™ needle arthroscope can safely provide excellent visualization of intra-articular knee pathology.

Are undesirable contact kinematics minimized after kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty? An intersurgeon analysis of consecutive patients.

PURPOSE: Tibiofemoral contact kinematics or knee implant motions have a direct influence on patient function and implant longevity and should be evaluated for any new alignment technique such as kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Edge loading of the tibial liner and external rotation (reverse of normal) and adduction of the tibial component on the femoral component are undesirable contact kinematics that should be minimized. Accordingly, this study determined whether the overall prevalence of undesirable contact kinematics during standing, mid kneeling near 90 degrees and full kneeling with kinematically aligned TKA are minimal and not different between groups of consecutive patients treated by different surgeons. METHODS: Three surgeons were asked to perform cemented, kinematically aligned TKA with patient-specific guides in a consecutive series of patients with their preferred cruciate-retaining (CR) implant. In vivo tibiofemoral contact positions were obtained using a 3- to 2-dimensional image registration technique in 69 subjects (Vanguard CR-TKA N = 22, and Triathlon CR-TKA N = 47). RESULTS: Anterior or posterior edge loading of the tibial liner was not observed. The overall prevalence of external rotation of the tibial component on the femoral component of 6 % was low and not different between surgeons (n.s.). The overall prevalence of adduction of the tibial component on the femoral component of 4 % was low and not different between surgeons (n.s.). CONCLUSIONS: Kinematically aligned TKA minimized the undesirable contact kinematics of edge loading of the tibial liner, and external rotation and adduction of the tibial component on the femoral component during standing and kneeling, which suggests an optimistic prognosis for durable long-term function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.