Search

Introduction: A significant portion of knee osteoarthritis is diagnosed in patients under the age of 55, where greater activity demands make total knee arthroplasty less desirable. High tibial osteotomy (HTO) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are useful alternatives, but there is little understanding of which procedure is advantageous. Hence, this study examines the utilization, complication, and reoperation rates among the HTO vs. UKA in young patients with primary osteoarthritis. Methods: A retrospective review of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was performed to identify 2318 patients < 55 years of age who received either a HTO or UKA for primary osteoarthritis between 2011 and 2021. Bivariate analyses compared preoperative and intraoperative characteristics among each procedure. Then, multivariate analyses examined if either procedure was associated with worse 30-day postoperative complications or need for reoperation, independent of the statistically significant pre- and intraoperative disparities. Results: UKAs were performed 14.2 times more commonly than HTOs, and the patients selected for HTO were more likely to be younger, have a lower BMI, have the healthiest ASA Class score, and less likely to have hypertension requiring medication (p < 0.001). HTOs took 17.5% longer to perform and had a longer average length of stay (p < 0.001), while UKAs were more likely to be performed out-patient (p < 0.001). HTOs also had higher rates of serious complications (p = 0.02), overall complications (p = 0.004), and need for reoperation (p = 0.004). Multivariate modelling demonstrated that procedure type was not a predictor of serious complications, but the use of HTO was significantly associated with any complications (odds ratio = 3.63, p = 0.001) and need for reoperation (3.21, p = 0.029). Conclusion: Although healthier patients were selected for HTOs, UKAs were found to have a lower risk of complications and immediate reoperation. Additionally, UKAs had the advantage of lower operative burden, shorter length of stay, and a higher efficacy in outpatient settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cost excess in bundled payment models for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is driven by discharge to rehabilitation or a skilled nursing facility (SNF). A recently published preoperative risk prediction tool showed very good internal accuracy in stratifying patients on the basis of likelihood of discharge to an SNF or rehabilitation. The purpose of the present study was to test the accuracy of this predictive tool through external validation with use of a large cohort from an outside institution.Methods: A total of 20,294 primary unilateral total hip (48%) and knee (52%) arthroplasty cases at a tertiary health system were extracted from the institutional electronic medical record. Discharge location and the 9 preoperative variables required by the predictive model were collected. All cases were run through the model to generate risk scores for those patients, which were compared with the actual discharge locations to evaluate the cutoff originally proposed in the derivation paper. The proportion of correct classifications at this threshold was evaluated, as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, number needed to screen, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), in order to determine the predictive accuracy of the model.Results: A total of 3,147 (15.5%) of the patients who underwent primary, unilateral total hip or knee arthroplasty were discharged to rehabilitation or an SNF. Despite considerable differences between the present and original model derivation cohorts, predicted scores demonstrated very good accuracy (AUC, 0.734; 95% confidence interval, 0.725 to 0.744). The threshold simultaneously maximizing sensitivity and specificity was 0.1745 (sensitivity, 0.672; specificity, 0.679), essentially identical to the proposed cutoff of the original paper (0.178). The proportion of correct classifications was 0.679. Positive and negative predictive values (0.277 and 0.919, respectively) were substantially better than those of random selection based only on event prevalence (0.155 and 0.845), and the number needed to screen was 3.6 (random selection, 6.4).Conclusions: A previously published online predictive tool for discharge to rehabilitation or an SNF performed well under external validation, demonstrating a positive predictive value 79% higher and number needed to screen 56% lower than simple random selection. This tool consists of exclusively preoperative parameters that are easily collected. Based on a successful external validation, this tool merits consideration for clinical implementation because of its value for patient counseling, preoperative optimization, and discharge planning.Level Of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]