Search

INTRODUCTION: Although patient satisfaction with total joint arthroplasty has been a well-measured outcome, little is known about how preadmission and post-discharge care experiences affect patients’ rating of satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to identify actionable factors associated with better ratings of overall care and surgical results. METHODS: A 36-item survey assessing care in the preoperative, perioperative, and post-discharge phases of care and across all phases was mailed to 7,031 patients who underwent primary unilateral elective total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in 2018. Exploratory factor analysis identified 7 actionable domains. Stepwise logistic regression models identified domains associated with ratings of overall care and satisfaction with surgical outcome. RESULTS: Of the 3,026 (43%) patients who returned the survey; 2,814 (93%) rated their overall experience of care as very good or excellent and satisfaction with surgical results as ≥ 7 on a 10-point scale. In exploratory factor analysis, four factors predicted higher ratings of both overall care and surgical outcome: knowing what to do with symptoms and pain during recovery (factor 1), self-reported health (factor 3), knowing what to expect before surgery (factor 4), and shared decision making (factor 6). Coordinated information among providers (factor 2), home health experience (factor 5), and patient-provider relationships (factor 7) also predicted overall care ratings. CONCLUSION: Patient-centered quality improvement in total joint replacement care requires thinking of care across the entire episode, including before and after the hospital stay for surgery, in addition to perioperative care. The actionable factors identified from this study can be incorporated into total joint replacement care to improve patients’ satisfaction with overall care and surgical results.

Although noncemented hemiarthroplasty has been associated with a higher risk of revision surgery as compared with cemented fixation, it remains uncertain whether this increased risk applies to all noncemented stem design types or only a subset. The purpose of this study was to assess the risk of aseptic revision associated with three common types of noncemented stem designs as compared with cemented fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of femoral neck fractures in the elderly patients.This was a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 60 years and older who sustained a hip fracture and underwent hemiarthroplasty between 2009 and 2018 at one of 35 hospitals owned by a large US health maintenance organization. Hemiarthroplasty fixation was categorized as cemented or noncemented, with the noncemented stems further classified as single wedge without collar, fit and fill without collar, or fit and fill with collar. The primary outcome was aseptic revision, and the median follow-up time was 4.8 years.Of 12,071 patients who underwent hemiarthroplasty during the study period (average age 82.0 ± 8.4 years, 67.9% women), 807 (6.7%) received a single-wedge stem without collar, 2,124 (17.6%) received a fit-and-fill stem without collar, 2,453 (20.3%) received a fit-and-fill stem with collar, and 6,687 (55.4%) received a cemented stem. Compared with cemented fixation, all the noncemented stem design types were associated with a markedly higher risk of aseptic revision in the multivariable analysis, including single wedge without collar (hazard ratio [HR] 2.00, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38 to 2.89, P0.001), fit and fill without collar (HR 1.52, 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.04, P = 0.005), and fit and fill with collar (HR 2.11, 95% CI, 1.63 to 2.72, P0.001).In the hemiarthroplasty treatment of elderly patients with hip fracture, all routinely used noncemented stem design types were associated with a higher risk of aseptic revision as compared with cemented fixation.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become the dominant health-care issue of this generation and has reached every corner of the health-care delivery spectrum. Our 3 orthopaedic departments enacted a response to the COVID-19 pandemic within our organizations. We discuss our health-care systems’ response to the outbreak and offer discussion for the recovery of the orthopaedic service line within large health-care systems.

BACKGROUND: Urinary catheters (UC) are used by some surgeons during total joint arthroplasty (TJA). This study investigated the impact of intraoperative urinary catheters on postoperative urinary retention (POUR) following TJA cases. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective comparative study across 11 medical centers on 9,580 TJA patients. Visits to urgent care or the emergency department within 7 and 30 postoperative days were reviewed. Medical records over a 12-month period for all patients older than 18 years old were used to gather demographic and surgical data as well as the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI). Chi-squared tests (RStudio) were used to determine statistical significance against P-Values (P) < 0.05. RESULTS: 13 (0.14%) patients returned within 7 days for POUR. POUR was more common in males [10 (0.3%) vs. 3 (0.1%) females, (P = 0.01)]. There was no difference in POUR when comparing total hip and knee arthroplasty procedures [0.16% vs. 0.12%, (P = 0.60)]. Of all operations, 25% had intraoperative UC use. There was no difference in POUR between the UC and no UC groups [0.21 vs. 0.11%, (P = 0.26)]. However, there was an increase in UTI in UC vs. no UC use within 7 postoperative days [0.92 vs. 0.43%, (P = 0.005)] and 30 postoperative days [2.60 vs. 1.50 %, (P < 0.001)]. CONCLUSION: In our study, there was no difference in POUR rates between the intraoperative UC vs. no UC groups. Therefore, the use of intraoperative UC may not decrease the rate of POUR following TJA procedures. Additionally, UTI risk was higher in the UC group which may be attributable to other factors, especially when comparing female vs. male patients.