header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

SHORT TERM CLINICAL AND RADIOGRAPHIC OUTCOME COMPARISON OF JOINT REPLACEMENTS UNDERTAKEN IN A TREATMENT CENTRE COMPARED TO A TEACHING HOSPITAL



Abstract

Treatment Centres (TCs) specialise in common elective operations with long waiting lists. One of the concerns that has arisen with this enforced new healthcare model is the potential for suboptimal outcomes after joint arthroplasty. In order to decrease this risk we set in place a number of measures and have evaluated the outcome of the fist 100 total hip and total knee replacements undertaken at our TC and compared these to 100 consecutive controls undertaken concurrently by out hip and knee service. •Cases were only to be performed by consultant orthopaedic surgeons appointed to our trust – to the exclusion of visiting / sessional arrangements. •Same implants and care pathways as used within the rest of our department. •Weekly team arthroplasty rounds and planning sessions.

There was no significant difference in baseline demographics with both groups showing a slight female preponderance, and similar age ranges (35–88 av. 62; 42–86 av. 64). The treatment centres patients were heavier (78Kg range 48–111Kg; 72Kg range 43–101Kg). The TC group averaged 2.9 comorbidities per patient compared to 2.2. The average time to discharge was similar at 7.6 days . There was no significant difference in the improvement in Harris Hip or Knee Society Scores at a minimum 6 months follow-up. There were 2 infections in the TC group and one in the control group. There were 3 thromboembolic complications in each group and there was one unrelated death in each group. There was one dislocation and one fracture in the TC group and two fractures in the control group. Radiographic criteria including implant size, position, slope, offset, cementing and alignment were comparable in the two groups.

TC patients are not “fitter more predictable” patients and may have greater comorbidity. Our insistence on a local consultant led service and on identical standards to those of our non TC department have generated similar short term outcomes to those of non TC patients.

Editoral Secretary Mr Peter Howard. Correspondence should be addressed to BHS at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35 - 43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PN.