RESUMEN
Aims: The rate of day-case total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the UK is currently approximately 0.5%. Reducing length of stay allows orthopaedic providers to improve efficiency, increase operative throughput, and tackle the rising demand for joint arthroplasty surgery and the COVID-19-related backlog. Here, we report safe delivery of day-case TKA in an NHS trust via inpatient wards with no additional resources. Methods: Day-case TKAs, defined as patients discharged on the same calendar day as surgery, were retrospectively reviewed with a minimum follow-up of six months. Analysis of hospital and primary care records was performed to determine readmission and reattendance rates. Telephone interviews were conducted to determine patient satisfaction. Results: Since 2016, 301/7350 TKAs (4.1%) in 290 patients at our institution were discharged on the day of surgery. Mean follow-up was 31.4 months (6.2 to 70.0). In all, 28 patients (9.3%) attended the emergency department or other acute care settings within 90 days of surgery, most often with wound concerns or leg swelling; six patients (2.0%) were readmitted. No patients underwent a subsequent revision procedure, and there were no periprosthetic infections. Two patients (0.7%) underwent secondary patella resurfacing, and one patient underwent arthroscopic arthrolysis after previous manipulation under anaesthetic (MUA). Three patients (1.0%) underwent MUA alone. Primary care consultation records, available for 206 patients, showed 16 patients (7.8%) contacted their general practitioner within two weeks postoperatively; two (1.0%) were referred to secondary care. Overall, 115/121 patients (95%) telephoned stated they would have day-case TKA again. Conclusion: Day-case TKA can be safely delivered in the NHS with no additional resources. We found low incidence of contact with primary and secondary care in the postoperative period, and high patient satisfaction.
RESUMEN
AIMS: Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. METHODS: We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases. RESULTS: Seven patients (7.9%) required further revision for infection. Ten patients died of causes unrelated to their infection before their two-year review (mean 5.9 months; 0.9 to 18.6). One patient was lost to follow-up at five months after surgery, and two patients died of causes unrelated to their hip shortly after their two-year review was due without attending. Of the remaining patients, 69 remained infection-free at final review. Radiological review confirms the mechanical success of the procedure as previously described in aseptic revision, and postoperative Oxford Hip Scores suggest satisfactory functional outcomes. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we found that retaining a well-fixed femoral cement mantle in the presence of infection and undertaking a cement-in-cement revision was successful in 82 of the patients (92.1%) in our series of 89, both in terms of eradication of infection and component fixation. These results are comparable to other more invasive techniques and offer significant potential benefits to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(2):212-220.