Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 6 | Pages 573 - 581
1 Jun 2024
van Houtert WFC Strijbos DO Bimmel R Krijnen WP Jager J van Meeteren NLU van der Sluis G

Aims

To investigate the impact of consecutive perioperative care transitions on in-hospital recovery of patients who had primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) over an 11-year period.

Methods

This observational cohort study used electronic health record data from all patients undergoing preoperative screening for primary TKA at a Northern Netherlands hospital between 2009 and 2020. In this timeframe, three perioperative care transitions were divided into four periods: Baseline care (Joint Care, n = 171; May 2009 to August 2010), Function-tailored (n = 404; September 2010 to October 2013), Fast-track (n = 721; November 2013 to May 2018), and Prehabilitation (n = 601; June 2018 to December 2020). In-hospital recovery was measured using inpatient recovery of activities (IROA), length of stay (LOS), and discharge to preoperative living situation (PLS). Multivariable regression models were used to analyze the impact of each perioperative care transition on in-hospital recovery.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 10_Supple_A | Pages 3 - 8
1 Oct 2015
Murray DW Liddle AD Dodd CAF Pandit H

There is a large amount of evidence available about the relative merits of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). Based on the same evidence, different people draw different conclusions and as a result, there is great variability in the usage of UKA.

The revision rate of UKA is much higher than TKA and so some surgeons conclude that UKA should not be performed. Other surgeons believe that the main reason for the high revision rate is that UKA is easy to revise and, therefore, the threshold for revision is low. They also believe that UKA has many advantages over TKA such as a faster recovery, lower morbidity and mortality and better function. They therefore conclude that UKA should be undertaken whenever appropriate.

The solution to this argument is to minimise the revision rate of UKA, thereby addressing the main disadvantage of UKA. The evidence suggests that this will be achieved if surgeons use UKA for at least 20% of their knee arthroplasties and use implants that are appropriate for these broad indications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B(10 Suppl A):3–8.