Scholarlink

Background <p>Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) was introduced in hip and knee arthroplasty to expedite recovery, shorten inpatient stay, and reduce costs. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of implementing a universal standardized non-selective ERAS service for all patients admitted for primary hip and knee arthroplasty in a single high-volume tertiary orthopaedic centre.</p> Methods <p>All patients who underwent primary hip or knee arthroplasty under ERAS from April 2023 to March 2024 were compared with a matched cohort between January 2018 and December 2019. Patients were matched at a 2:1 ratio based on procedure, age, sex, ASA grade, and BMI (ERAS = 1811, Standard Care = 3549 patients). Outcomes included Length of Stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, overall infection, superficial infection, deep infection, 30- and 90-day mortality rates.</p> Results <p>The median LOS was 1&#xa0;day (IQR 1–2) in the ERAS group versus 3&#xa0;days (IQR 2–4) in the Standard Care group (W = 5,415,769, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Rates of 30-day readmission (1.7% vs. 2.1%), overall infection (0.66% vs. 1.15%), deep infection (0.39% vs. 0.68%), superficial infection (0.28% vs. 0.48%), 30-day mortality (0.11% vs. 0.20%), and 90-day mortality (0.22% vs. 0.37%) were all higher in the Standard Care group. However, these differences were not statistically significant, with <i>P</i>-values of 0.41, 0.11, 0.26, 0.38, 0.70, and 0.52, respectively. The estimated cost reduction per patient with the ERAS pathway, considering only the difference in LOS, is £718.60(95%CI £602.56 to £832.64). The subgroup analysis for patients ≥ 80 revealed a statistically significant difference in LOS, which was more pronounced with a median difference of 3&#xa0;days (5&#xa0;days in standard care versus 2&#xa0;days in ERAS, <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001).</p> Conclusion <p>Non-selective ERAS was safe and effective in reducing LOS for patients undergoing primary THA and TKA across all age groups and varying comorbidity statuses. Although perioperative morbidity and mortality were less in ERAS, these changes did not reach statistical significance.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Non-selective enhanced recovery pathway in primary hip and knee arthroplasty: a propensity score matched analysis on safety and efficacy

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月9日

查看全文
  • Amr Selim,
  • Deepak Menon,
  • Eleanor Rouse,
  • Rebecca Warren,
  • Dan Redfern,
  • Samantha Davies,
  • Niall Graham,
  • Geraint Thomas

摘要

Background

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) was introduced in hip and knee arthroplasty to expedite recovery, shorten inpatient stay, and reduce costs. This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of implementing a universal standardized non-selective ERAS service for all patients admitted for primary hip and knee arthroplasty in a single high-volume tertiary orthopaedic centre.

Methods

All patients who underwent primary hip or knee arthroplasty under ERAS from April 2023 to March 2024 were compared with a matched cohort between January 2018 and December 2019. Patients were matched at a 2:1 ratio based on procedure, age, sex, ASA grade, and BMI (ERAS = 1811, Standard Care = 3549 patients). Outcomes included Length of Stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, overall infection, superficial infection, deep infection, 30- and 90-day mortality rates.

Results

The median LOS was 1 day (IQR 1–2) in the ERAS group versus 3 days (IQR 2–4) in the Standard Care group (W = 5,415,769, P < 0.001). Rates of 30-day readmission (1.7% vs. 2.1%), overall infection (0.66% vs. 1.15%), deep infection (0.39% vs. 0.68%), superficial infection (0.28% vs. 0.48%), 30-day mortality (0.11% vs. 0.20%), and 90-day mortality (0.22% vs. 0.37%) were all higher in the Standard Care group. However, these differences were not statistically significant, with P-values of 0.41, 0.11, 0.26, 0.38, 0.70, and 0.52, respectively. The estimated cost reduction per patient with the ERAS pathway, considering only the difference in LOS, is £718.60(95%CI £602.56 to £832.64). The subgroup analysis for patients ≥ 80 revealed a statistically significant difference in LOS, which was more pronounced with a median difference of 3 days (5 days in standard care versus 2 days in ERAS, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Non-selective ERAS was safe and effective in reducing LOS for patients undergoing primary THA and TKA across all age groups and varying comorbidity statuses. Although perioperative morbidity and mortality were less in ERAS, these changes did not reach statistical significance.