The Ability of Robot-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty in Matching the Efficiency of Its Conventional Counterpart at an Orthopaedic Specialty Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) has become a popular technology. Studies have investigated the learning curve for surgeons incorporating RA-TKA into practice, but less is known regarding the change in operative efficiency when introducing RA-TKA into a facility. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of RA-TKA on operative and turnover time at an orthopaedic specialty hospital. METHODS: A total of 148 cases (74 RA-TKA and 74 conventional TKA [C-TKA]) performed by 2 surgeons with previous robotic experience were identified following the introduction of RA-TKA at our facility. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and operative times (ie, wheels-in to incision, incision to closure, closure to wheels-out, and turnover time) were recorded. Cumulative summation analyses were used to investigate learning curves of factors extraneous to surgeon proficiency with RA-TKA. RESULTS: While RA-TKA had a slightly longer set up (3 minutes; range, 12-45), surgical (5 minutes; range, 33-118), and breakdown time (3 minutes; range, 2-7), there was no difference in turnover time between the groups. The learning curve for surgeon A was 6 robotic cases, whereas surgeon B demonstrated no learning curve. There was no identifiable learning curve for turnover time. CONCLUSION: There was a mean of 8 minutes of increased time required to perform a RA-TKA compared to C-TKA. However, these small increases for the RA-TKA group for set-up, surgical, and breakdown times are not likely to be clinically relevant compared to the C-TKA. It appears that the RA-TKA technology was able to be incorporated into this specialty hospital with minimal changes to surgical efficiency.

Routine Use of Closed Suction Drains Following Revision Arthroplasty May Not be Necessary.

BACKGROUND: There are numerous studies demonstrating that closed suction drainage (CSD) usage after primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has little to no benefit. There are little data on the role of CSDs after revision TJA. The purpose of our study was to evaluate whether there is any clinical advantage to CSD usage after revision TJA. METHODS: This retrospective study evaluated the clinical records of 2,030 patients undergoing revision TJA between 2007 and 2021. CSD was used in 472 patients and not used in 1,558 patients. Primary outcome was blood transfusion rate and secondary outcomes included total blood loss (TBL), as determined by Gross formula, wound complications (hematoma, infection, and dehiscence), and length of hospital stay. Patients undergoing revision TJA for oncologic reasons or those with incomplete datasets were excluded. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in rates of allogeneic blood transfusion, TBL, and wound complications (hematoma, infection, and dehiscence) between the two groups (P = .159, .983, .192, .334, and .548, respectively). When adjusted for demographic and surgical confounders, there was no difference in transfusion and TBL rates between groups (Odds Ratio 1.04, 95% Confidence Interval 0.78-1.38, P = .780 and estimate -105.71 mL, 95% confidence interval -333.96 to 122.55, P = .364, respectively). CSD cohort had a shorter length of stay (4.30 versus 5.82 days, P < .001). CONCLUSION: We acknowledge that there is a role for CSD usage in a selected group of patients. Nevertheless, our study revealed that routine use of CSD after revision TJA does not provide an additional clinical benefit.

Activity Measure for Post-acute Care Mobility Scoring System: Comparison of Nursing and Physical Therapy Evaluation for Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing resource utilization after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has become increasingly vital. The Activity Measure for Post-acute Care (AM-PAC) "6-clicks" scoring system is a validated, physical therapist (PT)-administered metric of patient basic mobility and predicts discharge disposition. This study aimed to determine whether the use of AM-PAC scoring by nurses in the postoperative period could (1) substitute for AM-PAC scoring by therapists and (2) predict 90-day outcomes in TJA patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all primary TJAs conducted by two surgeons at a single institution from 2019 to 2021. Patients underwent postoperative AM-PAC evaluation by nursing and physical therapy within 24 hours of surgery, and specific timing of nursing and PT scores was determined. Inter-rater reliability between therapy and nursing scores was analyzed. Multiple regression was used to determine the association between AM-PAC scores and readmissions, complications, length of stay, and nonhome discharge. RESULTS: In total, 1,119 patients were included. Agreement testing between therapy and nursing scores was weak for all six AM-PAC components, with a Spearman correlation of 0.437. Nursing scores were typically conducted earlier than therapist scores (204.0 ± 249.9 minutes versus 523.5 ± 449.4 minutes; P < 0.001). Therapy and nursing scores were not notable predictors for 90-day complications or readmissions. However, higher therapy and nursing scores were predictors of less than 2-day hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 0.63, P < 0.001; OR 0.88, P < 0.001) and fewer nonhome discharges (OR 0.62, P < 0.001; OR 0.84, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although nursing-driven mobility assessments could potentially improve efficiency of patient discharge and control costs, nursing AM-PAC scoring did not serve as an appropriate substitute for PT scoring in patients undergoing primary total hip and knee arthroplasty at our institution.

Intermediate-Term Survivorship of Metaphyseal Cones and Sleeves in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Both cones or sleeves have been developed to address metaphyseal bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but few studies have directly compared the outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare the survivorship and aseptic revision rates between metaphyseal cones and sleeves at intermediate follow-up. METHODS: We reviewed a consecutive series of 1,172 revision TKA patients between 2009 and 2018 with a minimum two-year follow-up on all patients. We compared demographics, surgical indication, stem fixation, constraint, rates of rerevision, and Short-Form-12 scores between patients with cones and sleeves. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify the effect of cones and sleeves on aseptic rerevision. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to compare aseptic survivorship of cones and sleeves. RESULTS: There were 194 tibial cones (17%), 107 tibial sleeves (9%), 31 femoral cones (3%), and 135 femoral sleeves (12%) with a mean follow-up of 6.5 years (range: 2-12 years). There was no difference in demographics, indication, stem fixation, or constraint (P > .05). Although overall aseptic failure rates may be lower for tibial sleeves, there were no significant differences in survivorship over a one-year, two-year, and five-year follow-up when both tibial and femoral sleeves were directly compared to cones. CONCLUSION: Both tibial and femoral sleeves and cones perform well at an intermediate-term follow-up. Further investigation of these two are required to better understand their survivorship relative to each other.