There is no consensus about the safety of outpatient total hip arthroplasty (THA). Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to quantitatively evaluate and compare outpatient and inpatient THA studies in terms of complication and readmission rates.
Methods:
A systematic search of the literature was performed on 26 July 2019 on PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and on the grey literature databases. The papers thus collected were used for a meta-analysis comparing outpatient and inpatient THA in terms of complication and readmission rates. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were defined according to Cochrane guidelines. The PRISMA guidelines were used to determine which papers to include in this study.
Results:
The literature search resulted in 2317 articles; of these, 8 articles were used for the meta-analysis. A total of 66,971 patients were included, of which 1428 were THA outpatients. The overall complication rate for outpatient THAs was 3.0%, while inpatient THAs had an overall complication rate of 4.7%. The readmission rate was 1.4% in outpatient THAs and 3.0% in inpatient THAs. Only 6 studies reported the number of deaths, which ranged from 0% to 0.01%. The included studies present a moderate risk of bias and, according to GRADE guidelines, the level of evidence for complications and readmissions is very low.
Conclusions:
This meta-analysis documented that outpatient THA is a feasible approach since it does not increase complications or readmissions with respect to inpatient THA, but the available studies present a moderate risk of bias and the quality of evidence of these findings is very low. Future high-level studies are needed to confirm results and indications for outpatient THA.
KurtzSOngKLauE, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am2007; 89: 780–785.
2.
HealyWLIorioRClairAJ, et al. Complications of total hip arthroplasty: standardized list, definitions, and stratification developed by the Hip society. Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 357–364.
3.
ZhuSQianWJiangC, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery for hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Postgrad Med J2017; 93: 736–742.
4.
Dawson-BowlingSJJhaSChettiarKK, et al. A multidisciplinary enhanced recovery programme allows discharge within two days of total hip replacement; three-to five-year results of 100 patients. Hip Int2014; 24: 167–174.
5.
MemtsoudisSGDella ValleAGBesculidesMC, et al. Trends in demographics, comorbidity profiles, in-hospital complications and mortality associated with primary knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2009; 24: 518–527.
6.
JainNBHigginsLDOzumbaD, et al. Trends in epidemiology of knee arthroplasty in the United States, 1990–2000. Arthritis Rheum2005; 52: 3928–3933.
7.
MeneghiniRMZiemba-DavisM.Patient perceptions regarding outpatient hip and knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 2701–2705.e1.
8.
WaldeTABlattgersteDSehmischS, et al. Early results and patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty using a minimally invasive anterolateral approach. Hip Int2009; 19: 367–371.
9.
LarsenJRSkovgaardBPrynøT, et al. Feasibility of day-case total hip arthroplasty: a single-centre observational study. Hip Int2017; 27: 60–65.
10.
KehletH.Fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty. Lancet2013; 381: 1600–1602.
11.
DorrLDThomasDJZhuJ, et al. Outpatient total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2010; 25: 501–506.
12.
BergerRACrossMBSandersS.Outpatient hip and knee replacement: the experience from the first 15 years. Instr Course Lect2016; 65: 547–551.
13.
BergerRA.Total hip arthroplasty using the minimally invasive two-incision approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res2003; 417: 232–241.
14.
BertinKC.Minimally invasive outpatient total hip arthroplasty: a financial analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res2005; 435: 154–163.
15.
TsaiS-WChenC-FWuP-K, et al. Modified anterolateral approach in minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int2015; 25: 245–250.
16.
RöttingerH.Minimally invasive anterolateral surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty: early clinical results. Hip Int2006; 16(Suppl. 4): 42–47.
17.
den HartogYMMathijssenNMCVehmeijerSBW.The less invasive anterior approach for total hip arthroplasty: a comparison to other approaches and an evaluation of the learning curve-a systematic review. Hip Int2016; 26: 105–120.
18.
LombardiJAJrBarringtonJWBerendKR, et al. Outpatient arthroplasty is here now. Instr Course Lect2016; 65: 531–546.
19.
HoffmannJDKusnezovNADunnJC, et al. The shift to same-day outpatient joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1265–1274.
20.
KortNPBemelmansYFLvan der KuyPHM, et al. Patient selection criteria for outpatient joint arthroplast. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2017; 25: 2668–2675.
21.
NelsonSJWebbMLLukasiewiczAM, et al. Is outpatient total hip arthroplasty safe?J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 1439–1442.
22.
den HartogYMMathijssenNMCVehmeijerSBW.Total hip arthroplasty in an outpatient setting in 27 selected patients. Acta Orthop2015; 86: 667–670.
23.
BozicKJRiesMD.The impact of infection after total hip arthroplasty on hospital and surgeon resource utilization. J Bone Joint Surg Am2005; 87: 1746–1751.
24.
CourtneyPMBonielloAJBergerRA. Complications following outpatient total joint arthroplasty: an analysis of a national database. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 1426–1430.
25.
LovecchioFAlviHSahotaS, et al. Is outpatient arthroplasty as safe as fast-track inpatient arthroplasty? A propensity score matched analysis. J Arthroplasty2016; 31(Suppl. 9): 197–201.
26.
ThomasGFaisalMYoungS, et al. Early discharge after hip arthroplasty with home support: experience at a UK District General Hospital. Hip Int2008; 18: 294–300.
27.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med2009; 151: 264–269.
28.
ArshiALeongNLWangC, et al. Outpatient total hip arthroplasty in the United States: a population-based comparative analysis of complication rates. J Am Acad Orthop Surg2019; 27: 61–67.
29.
BasquesBATetreaultMWDella ValleCJ.Same-day discharge compared with inpatient hospitalization following hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2017; 99: 1969–1977.
30.
DarrithBFrischNBTetreaultMW, et al. Inpatient versus outpatient arthroplasty: a single-surgeon, matched cohort analysis of 90-day complications. J Arthroplasty2019; 34: 221–227.
31.
GoyalNChenAFPadgettSE, et al. Otto Aufranc Award: a multicenter, randomized study of outpatient versus inpatient total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2017; 475: 364–372.
32.
RichardsMAlyousifHKimJ-K, et al. An evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty as an outpatient procedure: a matched-cohort analysis. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 3206–3210.
33.
SpringerBDOdumSMVegariDN, et al. Impact of inpatient versus outpatient total joint arthroplasty on 30-day hospital readmission rates and unplanned episodes of care. Orthop Clin North Am2017; 48: 15–23.
34.
AynardiMPostZOngA, et al. Outpatient surgery as a means of cost reduction in total hip arthroplasty: a case-control study. HSS J2014; 10: 252–255.
35.
WeiserMCKimKYAnoushiravaniAA, et al. Outpatient total hip arthroplasty has minimal short-term complications with the use of institutional protocols. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 3502–3507.
36.
KhanSKMalviyaAMullerSD, et al. Reduced short-term complications and mortality following enhanced recovery primary hip and knee arthroplasty: results from 6,000 consecutive procedures. Acta Orthop2014; 85: 26–31.
37.
HustedHLunnTHTroelsenA, et al. Why still in hospital after fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty?Acta Orthop2011; 82: 679–684.
38.
KellyMPCalkinsTECulvernC, et al. Inpatient versus outpatient hip and knee arthroplasty: which has higher patient satisfaction?J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 3402–3406.
39.
VehmeijerSBWHustedHKehletH.Outpatient total hip and knee arthroplasty: facts and challenges. Acta Orthop2018; 89: 141–144.
40.
MeneghiniRMZiemba-DavisMIshmaelMK, et al. Safe selection of outpatient joint arthroplasty patients with medical risk stratification: the “outpatient arthroplasty risk assessment score”. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 2325–2331.
41.
Ziemba-DavisMCaccavalloPMeneghiniRM.Outpatient joint arthroplasty-patient selection: update on the outpatient arthroplasty risk assessment score. J Arthroplasty2019; 34(Suppl. 7): S40–S43.
42.
SayeedZAbaabLEl-OthmaniM, et al. Total hip arthroplasty in the outpatient setting: what you need to know (part 1). Orthop Clin North Am2018; 49: 17–25.
43.
ZhaoH-YKangP-DXiaY-Y, et al. Comparison of early functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty using a direct anterior or posterolateral approach: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 3421–3428.
44.
FaldiniCPernaFMazzottiA, et al. Direct anterior approach versus posterolateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: effects on early post-operative rehabilitation period. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents2017; 31(Suppl. 1): 75–81.
45.
SeagraveKGTroelsenAMadsenBG, et al. Can surgeons reduce the risk for dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty performed using the posterolateral approach?J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 3141–3146.
46.
PutananonCTuchindaHArirachakaranA, et al. Comparison of direct anterior, lateral, posterior and posterior-2 approaches in total hip arthroplasty: network meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol2018; 28: 255–267.
47.
PetersRMvan BeersLWAHvan SteenbergenLN, et al. Similar superior patient-reported outcome measures for anterior and posterolateral approaches after total hip arthroplasty: postoperative patient-reported outcome measure improvement after 3 months in 12,774 primary total hip arthroplasties using the anterior, anterolateral, straight lateral, or posterolateral approach. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1786–1793.
