Outpatient Latarjet surgery for gleno-humeral instability: Prospective comparative assessment of feasibility and safety.

BACKGROUND: Some surgical procedures are rarely done on an outpatient basis. The primary objective of this study was to assess the safety of outpatient surgical shoulder stabilisation using the Latarjet procedure. HYPOTHESIS: The Latarjet procedure is safe when performed on an outpatient basis provided the patients are managed according to a specifically designed programme starting at the decision to undergo surgery and ending at the end of the early postoperative period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with unidirectional anterior shoulder instability managed in 2013-2014 by primary open, minimally invasive surgery involving coracoid process transfer as described by Latarjet was included prospectively. One of the surgeons routinely offered outpatient surgery to patients who met none of the usual exclusion criteria (age>60years, ASA 3-4, and long distance from home to hospital). Standardised protocols were applied for anaesthesia and analgesia. The primary evaluation criterion was failure of the admission modality, defined as inpatient admission of a patient after outpatient surgery either without prior discharge or within 1week after discharge. Secondary evaluation criteria were early postoperative symptoms and functional outcomes after at least 1year. All self-reported criteria were entered online by the patients. RESULTS: Of 46 included patients, 17 had outpatient surgery and 29 inpatient surgery. There were 41 males and 5 females, with a mean age of 25.3±6.4years. No significant baseline differences were found between the two groups. None of the outpatients required inpatient admission or readmission. No postoperative complications were recorded. After a mean follow-up of 18.5±5.2months, the two groups showed no significant differences for return to sports, apprehension, avoidance behaviours, or functional outcomes. Most patients were satisfied with their management and outcomes. CONCLUSION: No serious adverse events were recorded in this first French prospective evaluation of the safety of open, minimally invasive shoulder stabilisation by the Latarjet procedure performed on an outpatient basis. Thus, in selected patients, the risks of outpatient surgery are similar to those of inpatient surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, prospective, comparative, non-randomised study.

Outpatient surgery feasibility in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective comparative assessment.

INTRODUCTION: The main objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of outpatient surgery in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. We hypothesized that if the patient underwent the procedure within a dedicated organization, safety would be ensured. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A non-randomized, prospective, comparative, single-operator study conducted in 2012-2013 included all patients undergoing first-line surgery for ACL arthroscopic reconstruction using a short hamstring graft. The outpatient group (OP) included patients who were eligible for outpatient surgery and provided consent; the conventional hospitalization group (CH) comprised those patients not suitable for outpatient surgery and those who refused it. The main evaluation criterion was failure of the admission modality defined as hospitalization of a patient who had undergone outpatient surgery or rehospitalization in the first week after discharge. The secondary evaluation criteria were the rate of postoperative complications, postoperative pain, use of analgesics, and patient satisfaction. A total of 138 patients were included: 71 in the OP group and 67 in the CH group, with a mean age of 29.6±9 years. Twenty-nine percent of the patients refused outpatient surgery. In the CH group, the mean hospital stay lasted 2.7±0.8 days. RESULTS: One patient in the OP group was hospitalized with localized bleeding and there were no rehospitalizations. Six early postoperative complications were noted in each group. The mean postoperative pain on D0-D4 and patient satisfaction were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: This prospective study encountered no serious events after outpatient ACL reconstruction surgery. In a selected population, the risks are comparable to those in conventional hospitalization. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative study.

Validity of GNRB® arthrometer compared to Telos™ in the assessment of partial anterior cruciate ligament tears.

PURPOSE: The main goal of this study was to compare the results of the GNRB(®) arthrometer to those of Telos™ in the diagnosis of partial thickness tears of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). METHODS: A prospective study performed January-December 2011 included all patients presenting with a partial or full-thickness ACL tears without ACL reconstruction and with a healthy contralateral knee. Anterior laxity was measured in all patients by the Telos™ and GNRB(®) devices. This series included 139 patients, mean age 30.7 ± 9.3 years. Arthroscopic reconstruction was performed in 109 patients, 97 for complete tears and 12 single bundle reconstructions for partial thickness tears. Conservative treatment was proposed in 30 patients with a partial thickness tear. The correlation between the two devices was evaluated by the Spearman coefficient. The optimal laxity thresholds were determined with ROC curves, and the diagnostic value of the tests was assessed by the area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: The differential laxities of full and partial thickness tears were significantly different with the two tests. The correlation between the results of laxity measurement with the two devices was fair, with the strongest correlation between Telos™ 250 N and GNRB(®) 250 N (r = 0.46, p = 0.00001). Evaluation of the AUC showed that the informative value of all tests was fair with the best results with the GNRB(®) 250 N: AUC = 0.89 [95 % CI 0.83-0.94]. The optimal differential laxity threshold with the GNRB(®) 250 N was 2.5 mm (Se = 84 %, Sp = 81 %). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic value of GNRB(®) was better than Telos™ for ACL partial thickness tears.

Material costs of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendons by two different techniques.

INTRODUCTION: In France, approximately 36,000 anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgical procedures are performed every year. Technical progress, in particular arthroscopy, has made surgery more precise, but more expensive. In a context of healthcare cost containment, the increase in the cost of technology must be compared to the improved outcome for the patients. The main aim of this study was to determine all material costs related to ACL reconstruction using hamstring tendons. This study also compared the material costs between the two arthroscopic techniques: standard or "all-inside". MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of material costs was performed in 2011. With the standard technique, the tibial tunnel was drilled from outside to inside, while with the all-inside technique two tunnels were drilled from inside to outside. All of the material used from the first swab to the final bandage was reported. It was classified into three categories: reusable arthroscopy material, disposable arthroscopic material, and disposable surgical supplies. The costs were those of our supplier in 2011 (Arthrex™) and based on Public Hospitals of Paris (AP-HP) public contract tariffs. RESULTS: Standard ligament reconstruction was less expensive than the all-inside technique: 791.59€ versus 931.06€ excluding taxes (hors taxes [HT]), respectively. The largest percentage of expenses was allocated to disposable material use (81 and 84%). DISCUSSION: Possible avenues of savings are limited: all the material used was necessary. To control costs, correct use and good maintenance of instruments are the most important elements. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. Economic and decision analyses, retrospective study.

Total hip arthroplasty revision due to infection: a cost analysis approach.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of total hip arthroplasty (THA) infections is long and costly. However,the number of studies in the literature analysing the real cost of THA revision in relation to their etiology, including infection, is limited. The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the cost of revision of infected THA and to compare these costs to those of primary THA and revision of non-infected THA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cost analysis for the year 2006 using an identical analytic accounting system in each hospital department (according to internal criteria) based on allotment of direct costs and receipts for each department. From January to December 2006, 424 primary THA, 57 non-infected THA revisions and 40 THA revisions due to infection were performed. The different cost areas of the patient's treatment were identified.This included preoperative medical work-up, medicosurgical management during hospital stay,a second stay in an orthopedic rehabilitation hospital (ORH) and post-hospitalisation antibiotic therapy after revision due to infection, as well as home-based hospitalisation (HH) costs, if this was the selected alternative option. We used the national health insurance fee schedule found in the "Common classification of medical procedures" and the "General nomenclature of professional procedures" applicable in France since September 1, 2005. Hospital costs included direct costs (hospital overhead costs) and indirect costs, (medical, surgical, technical settings and net general service expenses). The calculation of HH costs and ORH costs were based on the average daily charge of these departments. The cost of primary THA was used as the reference.We then compared our surgical costs with those found for the corresponding comparable hospital stay groups (Groupes homogènes de séjour). RESULTS: The average hospital stay (AHS) was 7.5 +/- 1.8 days for primary THA, 8.9 +/- 2.2 days for non-infected revisions and 30.6 +/- 14.9 days for revisions due to infection. The rate of transfer to a rehabilitation hospital (ORH) was 55% for primary THA, 77% in non infected revision cases and 65% in revisions due to infection. Moreover, 30% of these infected THA were prescribed HH. Non-infected THA revisions cost 1.4 times more than primary THA. THA revisions due to infection cost 3.6 times more than primary THA. DISCUSSION: The economic impact of THA infections is considerable. The extra costs are mainly due to an extended hospital stay and to longer rehabilitation consuming significant substantial human and material resources. CONCLUSION: The cost of treating infected THA is high. Treatment strategies should therefore be optimised to increase the success rate and minimise total costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV. Economic and decision analyses, retrospective study