Fast-track revision knee arthroplasty

Are patients ready for discharge from the hospital after fast-track total knee arthroplasty?-A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The fast-track based on evidence-based medicine, has dramatically reduced the length of stay for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Therefore, patients must assume the responsibility for self-functional exercise and care as early as possible. Also, higher standards and expectations of care delivery have been set. Studies into patients' experiences when faced with a discharge decision under a fast-track program are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

(1) Increase the knowledge about patients' experiences of discharged from hospital via a fast-track process after TKA. (2) Explore what gaps exist in the current discharge preparation care service for TKA under fast-track and what can be improved.

METHODS

A qualitative research design was chosen to conduct semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 21 patients from one Chinese hospital who successfully underwent TKA and received discharge orders. Interview data were meticulously analyzed, summarized and thematically distilled using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA).

RESULTS

Three themes emerged from the structural analyses: a) Preparing for discharge despite concerns about symptoms-a sense of joy at discharge despite feelings of helplessness, stigmatisation, anxiety about prosthetic function. b) Managing the rehabilitation difficulties-vigilance is needed for medication management, environmental changes, and intimate relationships. c) Creating conditions for safe transition-compassionate bedside manner, listening to patients, and providing a humanized continuing care and referral services are important for safe transitions.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that patients undergoing fast-track TKA report good discharge preparation experiences. However, closer analysis reveals difficulties with this process and important directions in which discharge readiness care services can strive.

A mapping review on preoperative prognostic factors and outcome measures of revision total knee arthroplasty

To map literature on prognostic factors related to outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to identify extensively studied factors and to guide future research into what domains need further exploration. We performed a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. The search string included multiple synonyms of the following keywords: "revision TKA", "outcome" and "prognostic factor". We searched for studies assessing the association between at least one prognostic factor and at least one outcome measure after rTKA surgery. Data on sample size, study design, prognostic factors, outcomes, and the direction of the association was extracted and included in an evidence map. After screening of 5,660 articles, we included 166 studies reporting prognostic factors for outcomes after rTKA, with a median sample size of 319 patients (30 to 303,867). Overall, 50% of the studies reported prospectively collected data, and 61% of the studies were performed in a single centre. In some studies, multiple associations were reported; 180 different prognostic factors were reported in these studies. The three most frequently studied prognostic factors were reason for revision (213 times), sex (125 times), and BMI (117 times). Studies focusing on functional scores and patient-reported outcome measures as prognostic factor for the outcome after surgery were limited (n = 42). The studies reported 154 different outcomes. The most commonly reported outcomes after rTKA were: re-revision (155 times), readmission (88 times), and reinfection (85 times). Only five studies included costs as outcome. Outcomes and prognostic factors that are routinely registered as part of clinical practice (e.g. BMI, sex, complications) or in (inter)national registries are studied frequently. Studies on prognostic factors, such as functional and sociodemographic status, and outcomes as healthcare costs, cognitive and mental function, and psychosocial impact are scarce, while they have been shown to be important for patients with osteoarthritis.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Satisfaction 1 to 3 Years After Revisions of Total Knee Arthroplasties for Unexplained Pain Versus Aseptic Loosening

BACKGROUND

It is unknown if patients are relieved of pain after knee arthroplasty revision for unexplained pain. The aim of this cross-sectional case-control study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and satisfaction 1 to 3 years after revision of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) for the indications of unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening.

METHODS

We included 384 patients undergoing TKA revision for the indications of unexplained pain and aseptic loosening from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020 from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register. A total of 81 patients were revised for unexplained pain and 303 for aseptic loosening. Questionnaires including PROMs (Oxford Knee Score, EQ-5D-5L, and Forgotten Joint Score) and satisfaction with the surgery on a 0-100 scale (100 = not satisfied; 0 = very satisfied) were sent to digitally secured mailboxes. Time from revision to data collection was a median 3.1 years (range, 1.4-4.4 years).

RESULTS

Median Oxford Knee Score was 25 (interquartile range [IQR] 15) versus 31 (IQR 18) 1-3 years after revisions for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .009. Median EQ-5D-5L was 0.6 (IQR 0.4) versus 0.8 (IQR 0.3) for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .009. Median Forgotten Joint Score was 50 (IQR 7) versus 50 (IQR 16) for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening, P = .905. Satisfaction was 75 (IQR 38) for unexplained pain and 50 (IQR 73) for aseptic loosening, P < .001.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing TKA revision for the indication of unexplained pain had worse results on PROMs than those revised for aseptic loosening. Likewise, patients revised for unexplained pain were less satisfied compared to patients revised for aseptic loosening. This information is valuable to both surgeons and patients when candidates for revision surgery are selected, to obtain the best possible outcomes.