Posts

What is Associated with the Greatest Effect on Lengths of Stay after Total Knee Arthroplasty: The Hospital, the Surgeon, or the Patient

/in /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 8 | Issue 2 |  Jul-Dec 2023 | page: 07-11 | Max Willinger, Peter Gold, Luke Garbarino, Hiba Anis, Nipun Sodhi, Jonathan R Danoff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13107/jcorth.2023.v08i02.580

Author: Max Willinger [1], Peter Gold [1], Luke Garbarino [1], Hiba Anis [2], Nipun Sodhi [1], Jonathan R Danoff [3]

[1] Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, USA,
[2] Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA,
[3] Department of Orthopedic Surgery, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, New York, USA.

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Max Willinger,
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York, USA.
E-mail: max.willinger1@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: Patient-, hospital-, and surgeon-related factors are each associated with the variable nature of length of stay (LOS) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there is a paucity of literature regarding these intertwined relationships. This study aimed to determine if the hospital, the surgeon, or the patient has the greatest association with LOS after TKA.
Materials and Methods: A total of 11,402 patients were identified from a multicenter prospectively collected institutional database between January 01, 2017, and April 01, 2019. Surgeons and hospitals were subdivided into three groups: (1) low volume (<10 and <100 cases, respectively), (2) intermediate volume (10–150 and 100–400 cases, respectively), and (3) high volume (>150 and >400 cases, respectively). Patient demographics, comorbidities, hospital academic status, and LOS were identified. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare hospital-, surgeon-, and patient-related factors.
Results: Neither hospital (P = 0.173) volume nor surgeon (P = 0.413) volume were significantly associated with LOS in multivariate analyses while controlling for patient-, surgeon-, and hospital-related factors. Patient medical factors including diabetes (P < 0.001), congestive heart failure (P < 0.001), peripheral vascular disease (P < 0.001), chronic kidney disease (P < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P < 0.001), and anemia (P < 0.033), as well as academic teaching hospitals (P < 0.001) were associated with a significant increase in hospital LOS.
Conclusion: Patient’s chronic medical conditions and hospital status as an academic teaching hospital were found to be the most important associated risk factors on post-operative hospital LOS after TKA. This study directs the focus onto pre-operative optimization and patient selection and helps demonstrate where to best allocate resources to successfully decrease LOS.
Keywords: Lengths of stay, Total knee arthroplasty, Pre-operative optimization, Complications, High volume surgeon.

References

1. Hoffmann JD, Kusnezov NA, Dunn JC, Zarkadis NJ, Goodman GP, Berger RA. The shift to same-day outpatient joint arthroplasty: A systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2018;33:1265-74.
2. Burn E, Edwards CJ, Murray DW, Silman A, Cooper C, Arden NK, et al. Trends and determinants of length of stay and hospital reimbursement following knee and hip replacement: Evidence from linked primary care and NHS hospital records from 1997 to 2014. BMJ Open 2018;8:e019146.
3. Kreder HJ, Grosso P, Williams JI, Jaglal S, Axcell T, Wal EK, et al. Provider volume and other predictors of outcome after total knee arthroplasty: A population study in Ontario. Can J Surg 2003;46:15-22.
4. Styron JF, Koroukian SM, Klika AK, Barsoum WK. Patient vs provider characteristics impacting hospital lengths of stay after total knee or hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011;26:1418- 26.e1.
5. Yasunaga H, Tsuchiya K, Matsuyama Y, Ohe K. Analysis of factors affecting operating time, postoperative complications, and length of stay for total knee arthroplasty: Nationwide web-based survey. J Orthop Sci 2009;14:10-6.
6. Piuzzi NS, Strnad GJ, Sakr Esa WA, Barsoum WK, Bloomfield MR, Brooks PJ, et al. The main predictors of length of stay after total knee arthroplasty: Patient-related or procedure-related risk factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2019;101:1093.
7. Bozic KJ, Maselli J, Pekow PS, Lindenauer PK, Vail TP, Auerbach AD. The influence of procedure volumes and standardization of care on quality and efficiency in total joint replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010;92:2643-52.
8. Prohaska MG, Keeney BJ, Beg HA, Swarup I, Moschetti WE, Kantor SR, et al. Preoperative body mass index and physical function are associated with length of stay and facility discharge after total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2017;24:634-40.
9. Winemaker M, Petruccelli D, Kabali C, de Beer J. Not all total joint replacement patients are created equal: Preoperative factors and length of stay in hospital. Can J Surg 2015;58:160-6.
10. Martino J, Peterson B, Thompson S, Cook JL, Aggarwal A. Day of week and surgery location effects on stay length and cost for total joint arthroplasty: Academic versus orthopaedic-specific hospital. J Knee Surg 2018;31:815-21.
11. Pamilo KJ, Peltola M, Paloneva J, Makela K, Hakkinen U, Remes V. Hospital volume affects outcome after total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2015;86:41-7.
12. Lavernia CJ, Guzman JF. Relationship of surgical volume to short-term mortality, morbidity, and hospital charges in arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1995;10:133-40.
13. Hervey SL, Purves HR, Guller U, Toth AP, Vail TP, Pietrobon R. Provider volume of total knee arthroplasties and patient outcomes in the HCUP-nationwide inpatient sample. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85:1775-83.

How to Cite this article: Willinger M, Gold P, Garbarino L, Anis H, Sodhi N, Danoff JR. What is associated with the Greatest Effect on Lengths of Stay after Total Knee Arthroplasty: The Hospital, the Surgeon, or the patient. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics 2023:8(2);07-11.

 (Abstract Text HTML)   (Download PDF)

Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel and Its Role In Spine Surgeries : An Article Review

/in /by

Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics | Vol 7 | Issue 1 |  Jan-Jun 2022 | page: 20-27| TausifAhmed Shikalgar, Priyank Patel, Abhay Nene, Shubhanshu Bhaladhare, Sanjay Puri, Manojkumar Gaddiker

DOI:10.13107/jcorth.2022.v07i01.461

Author: TausifAhmed Shikalgar [1], Priyank Patel [1], Abhay Nene [1], Shubhanshu Bhaladhare [1], Sanjay Puri [1], Manojkumar Gaddiker [1]

[1] Department of Orthopaedics, Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050, India

 

Address of Correspondence
Dr. Tausif Ahmed Shikalgar,
Fellow Spine Surgery, Under Dr. Abhay Nene, Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050, Maharashtra, India.
E-mail: Dr.tausifahmedshikalgar@gmail.com

Abstract

The past few decades have seen tremendous improvement in the field of spine surgery. Spine surgery involves a number of procedures from simple laminectomy to deformity correction. This requires high surgical skills and care, which is achieved by a number of instruments, which, in turn, protect surgeons from committing complications. Recent advancements in spine surgery include ultrasonic bone scalpel, which cut bone accurately and precisely. It is a unique surgical device which offers a controlled osteotomy which slices the hard bone while the soft tissues remain largely unaffected. The major benefits of using this modern instrument are the soft-tissue sparing, controlled cutting, reduced bleeding, and thereby increasing the effectiveness. The aim of this article is to summarize its uses in current practice of spine surgeons and to focus on its advantages and complications associated with uses of this device.

Keywords: Ultrasonic bone scalpel, spine surgery, complications, safety, osteotomy

References

  1. Walker CT, Kakarla UK, Chang SW, Sonntag VK. History and advances in spinal neurosurgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2019;31:775-85.
  2. Grochulla F, Vieweg U. Surgical motor systems in spinal surgery. In: Vieweg U, Grochulla F, editors. Manual of Spine Surgery. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2012. p. 69-74.
  3. Bydon M, Macki M, Xu R, Ain MC, Ahn ES, Jallo GI. Spinal decompression in achondroplastic patients using high-speed drill versus ultrasonic bone curette: Technical note and outcomes in 30 cases. J Pediatr Orthop 2014;34:780-6.
  4. Nasser R, Yadla S, Maltenfort MG, Harrop JS, Anderson DG, Vaccaro AR, et al. Complications in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2010;13:14457.
  5. Ratliff JK, Lebude B, Albert T, Anene-Maidoh T, Anderson G, Dagostino P, et al. Complications in spinal surgery: Comparative survey of spine surgeons and patients who underwent spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2009;10:578-84.
  6. Nakase H, Matsuda R, Shin Y, Park YS, Sakaki T. The use of ultrasonic bone curettes in spinal surgery. Acta Neurochir 2006;148:207-12; discussion 212-3.
  7. Nakagawa H, Kim SD, Mizuno J, Ohara Y, Ito K. Technical advantages of an ultrasonic bone curette in spinal surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2005;2:431-5.
  8. Pakzaban P. BoneScalpelTM Ultrasonic Bone Cutting System: Neurosurgical and Orthopaedic Applications, Aesculap Power Systems; 2012.
  9. BoneScalpel TM Ultrasonic Bone Dissector: Applications in Spine Surgery and Surgical Technique Guide.
  10. Moon RD, Srikandarajah N, Clark S, Wilby MJ, Pigott TD. Primary lumbar decompression using ultrasonic bone curette compared to conventional technique. Br J Neurosurg 2021;35:775-9.
  11. Hu X, Ohnmeiss DD, Lieberman IH. Use of an ultrasonic osteotome device in spine surgery: Experience from the first 128 patients. Eur Spine J 2013;22:2845-9.
  12. Hazer DB, Yaşar B, Rosberg HE, Akbaş A. Technical aspects on the use of ultrasonic bone shaver in spine surgery: Experience in 307 patients. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:8428530.
  13. Bydon M, Xu R, Papademetriou K, Sciubba DM, Wolinsky JP, Witham TF, et al. Safety of spinal decompression using an ultra-sonic bone curette compared with a high-speed drill: Outcomes in 337 patients. J Neurosurg Spine 2013;18:627-33.
  14. Al-Mahfoudh R, Mitchell PS, Wilby M, Crooks D, Barrett C, Pillay R, et al. Management of giant calcified thoracic disks and description of the trench vertebrectomy technique. Glob Spine J 2016;6:584-91.
  15. Dave BR, Krishnan A, Rai RR, Degulmadi D, Mayi S, Gudhe M. The effectiveness and safety of ultrasonic bone scalpel versus conventional method in cervical laminectomy: A retrospective study of 311 patients. Glob Spine J 2020;10:760-6.
  16. Li K, Zhang W, Li B, Xu H, Li Z, Luo D, et al. Safety and efficacy of cervical laminoplasty using a piezosurgery device compared with a high-speed drill. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e4913.
  17. Onen MR, Yuvruk E, Akay S, Naderi S, The reliability of the ultrasonic bone scalpel in cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A comparative study of 46 patients. World Neurosurg 2015;84:1962-7.
  18. Al-Mahfoudh R, Qattan E, Ellenbogen JR, Wilby M, Barrett C, Pigott T. Applications of the ultrasonic bone cutter in spinal surgery our preliminary experience. Br J Neurosurg 2014;28:56-60.
  19. Shousha M, El-Saghir H, Boehm H. Corpectomy of the fifth lumbar vertebra, a challenging procedure. J Spinal Disord Tech 2014;27:347-51.
  20. Hu SS. Blood loss in adult spinal surgery. Eur Spine J 2004;13Suppl 1:S3-5.
  21. Dave BR, Degulmadi D, Dahibhate S, Krishnan A, Patel D. Ultrasonic bone scalpel: Utility in cervical corpectomy. A technical note. Eur Spine J 2019;28:380-5.
  22. Jenis LG, An HS. Spine update. Lumbar foraminal stenosis. Spine 2000;25:389-94.
  23. Morimoto D, Isu T, Kim K, Sugawara A, Matsumoto R, Isobe M. Microsurgical medial fenestration with an ultrasonic bone curette for lumbar foraminal stenosis. J Nippon Med Sch 2012;79:327-34.
  24. Chen HT, Hsu CC, Lu ML, Chen SH, Chen JM, Wu RW. Effects of combined use of ultrasonic bone scalpel and hemostatic matrix on perioperative blood loss and surgical duration in degenerative thoracolumbar spine surgery. Biomed Res Int 2019;2019:6286528.
  25. Hamburger C. T-laminoplasty-a surgical approach for cervicalspondylotic myelopathy. Technical note. Acta Neurochir  1995;132:131-3.
  26. Herman JM, Sonntag VK. Cervical corpectomy and plate fixation for postlaminectomy kyphosis. J Neurosurg 1994;80:963-70.
  27. Hirabayashi K, Watanabe K, Wakano K, Suzuki N, Satomi K, Ishii Y. Expansive open-door laminoplasty for cervical spinal stenotic myelopathy. Spine 1983;8:693-9.
  28. Ito K, Ishizaka S, Sasaki T, Miyahara T, Horiuchi T, Sakai K, et al. Safe and minimally invasive laminoplastic laminotomy using an ultrasonic bone curette for spinal surgery: Technical note. Surg Neurol 2009;72:470-5 discussion 475.
  29.  Park AE, Heller JG. Cervical laminoplasty: Use of a novel titanium plate to maintain canal expansion-surgical technique. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004;17:265-71.
  30. Matsuoka H, Itoh Y, Numazawa S, Tomii M, Watanabe K, Hirano Y, et al. Recapping hemilaminoplasty for spinal surgical disorders using ultrasonic bone curette. Surg Neurol Int 2012;3:70.
  31. Parker SL, Kretzer RM, Recinos PF, Molina CA, Wolinsky JP, Jallo GI, et al. Ultrasonic BoneScalpel for osteoplastic laminoplasty in the resection of intradural spinal pathology: Case series and technical note. Neurosurgery 2013;73 Suppl Operative 1:ons61-6.
  32. Barbanera A, Serchi E, Fiorenza V, Nina P, Andreoli A. Giant calcified thoracic herniated disc: Considerations aiming a proper surgical strategy. J Neurosurg Sci 2009;53:19-25 discussion 25-6.
  33. Okada Y, Shimizu K, Ido K, Kotani S. Multiple thoracic disc herniations: Case report and review of the literature. Spinal Cord 1997;35:183-6.
  34. Cornips EM, Janssen ML, Beuls EA. Thoracic disc herniation and acute myelopathy: Clinical presentation, neuroimaging findings, surgical considerations, and outcome. J Neurosurg. Spine 2011;14:520-8.
  35. Hott JS, Feiz-Erfan I, Kenny K, Dickman CA. Surgical management of giant herniated thoracic discs: Analysis of 20 cases. J  eurosurg Spine 2005;3:191-7.
  36. Wahlquist S, Nelson S, Glivar P. Effect of the ultrasonic bone scalpel on blood loss during pediatric spinal deformity correction surgery. Spine Deform 2019;7:582-7.
  37. Garg S, Thomas J, Darland H, Kim E, Kittelson J, Erickson M, et al. Ultrasonic bone scalpel (USBS) does not reduce blood loss during posterior spinal fusion (PSF) in patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS): Randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2021;46:845-51.
  38. Kim K, Isu T, Matsumoto R, Isobe M, Kogure K. Surgical pitfalls of an ultrasonic bone curette (Sonopet) in spinal surgery. Oper Neurosurg 2006;59 Suppl 4:ONS-390; discussion ONS393.
  39. Brooks AT, Nelson CL, Stewart CL, Skinner RA, Siems ML. Effect of an ultrasonic device on temperatures generated in bone and on bone-cement structure. J Arthroplast 1993;8:413-8.
  40. Gleizal A, Bera JC, Lavandier B, Beziat JL. Piezoelectric osteotomy: A new technique for bone surgery advantages in craniofacial surgery. Childs Nerv Syst 2007;23:509-13.

 

How to Cite this article: Shikalgar TA, Patel P, Nene A, Bhaladhare S, Puri S, Gaddikeri M. Ultrasonic Bone Scalpel and its Role in Spine Surgeries: An Article Review. Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics Jan-Jun 2022;7(1):20-27.

 (Abstract    Full Text HTML)   (Download PDF)