Stepwise implementation of an enhanced recovery pathway for elective total hip arthroplasty in a Swiss hospital: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery programs after total hip arthroplasty have been shown to reduce hospital length of stay without compromising results, but yet there is a lack of data for the Swiss population. Therefore, this retrospective cohort study evaluated whether similar positive effects on clinical outcomes are present in the context of the Swiss healthcare system. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective primary total hip arthroplasty were analysed. The baseline group comprised 50 patients treated consecutively by one surgeon in 2013 according to the clinical practice guidelines. Another surgeon implemented a new standardised treatment protocol in April 2014. In January 2018, this protocol was followed by an enhanced recovery program that integrated all care providers at the hospital. The data of the baseline group (series 0) and four series of 50 patients each, two treated with the standardised treatment protocol (series 1-2) and two treated with the enhanced recovery program (series 3-4), were analysed. All patients had follow-ups at 6 weeks and 3 months after surgery. The primary outcomes were length of stay and discharge destination; the secondary outcomes were admission on the day of surgery (instead of one day prior), the use of urinary catheters, the administration of opioids, the difference between pre- and postoperative haemoglobin, blood transfusions, and adverse events within 3 months of surgery. RESULTS: The median length of stay was 10 days in the baseline group and only 5 days after the implementation of the standardised protocol and enhanced recovery program in series 4 (p <0.001). The percentage of patients discharged directly home was higher in series 4 than in the baseline group (84% vs. 66%, p = 0.085). Patients admitted to the hospital on the day of surgery increased from 2% in series 0 to 98% in series 4 (p <0.001). The use of urinary catheters was significantly higher in the baseline group (100% of patients) than in series 3 and 4 (0%) (p <0.001), and the number of patients who did not require opioids was significantly higher in series 4 than in series 0 (36% vs. 10%, p = 0.007). The median blood loss (500 ml vs. 300 ml, p <0.001), median difference in pre- and postoperative haemoglobin (29 g/dl vs. 25 g/dl, p = 0.145), and number of blood transfusions (5 vs. 2 p = 0.99) were higher in the baseline group than in series 4. The number of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.699). CONCLUSIONS: Almost all parameters examined in this study showed improvement, whereas the rate of adverse events was not affected and remained low. The presented data can be used as a benchmark, but details of these findings need to be confirmed in larger cohorts.

Low acceptance of osteoanabolic therapy with parathyroid hormone in patients with fragility fracture of the pelvis in routine clinical practice: a retrospective observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: A recent randomized controlled trial has reported full patient compliance and no adverse events from therapy with parathyroid hormone (PTH) for osteoporosis and accelerated healing of fragility fractures of the pelvis. The purpose of the presented study was to evaluate if similar results can be achieved with comprehensive PTH therapy in routine clinical practice. We hypothesised that patients' burden of PTH therapy is underestimated in the literature. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Osteoanabolic PTH therapy was recommended to 79 patients suffering from an acute fragility fracture of the pelvis (FFP). Case finding, initiation of therapy and follow-up were performed by a fracture liaison service team. Primary outcome was PTH initiation rate. Secondary outcomes were implementation rate of alternative antiresorptive pharmaceutical therapy for osteoporosis and participation rate in a bone metabolic workup. Adverse events and effects potentially related to the therapy with bone-active drugs were documented as exploratory outcomes. RESULTS: Osteoanabolic PTH therapy as suggested was accepted by 32%, whereas antiresorptive therapy was implemented in another 14% of the patients. DEXA scans were available in 38% of the patients (+ 27% when compared to baseline). A bone-specific laboratory analysis was done in 18 patients, uncovering 7 pathological findings. Two patients terminated PTH therapy early because of side effects. CONCLUSION: The experiences with PTH therapy in FFP patients with respect to, implementation rate, frequency of side effects and of pathological findings in laboratory controls as reported from a previous RCT could not be reproduced in routine clinical practice.