Halawi MJ

Developing a high-efficiency operating room (OR) is both a challenging and rewarding goal for any healthcare system. The OR is traditionally a high-cost/high-revenue environment¹ and operative efficacy has been correlated with low complication rates and surgical success.² An efficient OR is one that maximizes utilization while providing safe, reproducible, cost-effective, high-quality care. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has occupied the center stage for OR efficiency research, in part due to increasing demands from our aging population³ and economic pressures related to high implant costs, decreased reimbursement, and competition for market shares when OR time and space are limited.

A PubMed search on OR efficiency in TJA shows a disproportionately high focus on surgical technique, such as use of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted surgery (CAS), minimally invasive surgery, and closure with barbed suture. In a retrospective review of 352 TKA patients who had PSI vs conventional instrumentation, DeHaan and colleagues⁴ found that PSI was associated with significantly decreased operative and room turnover times (20.4 minutes and 6.4 minutes, respectively). In another prospective multicenter study, Mont and colleagues⁵ showed a reduction in surgical time by 8.90 min for navigated total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed with single-use instruments, cutting blocks, and trials. Other investigators compared PSI to CAS in TKA and found PSI to be 1.45 times more profitable than CAS, with 3 PSI cases performed in an 8-hour OR day compared to 2 CAS cases.⁶

There is no question that improved surgical technique can enhance OR efficiency. However, this model, while promising, is difficult to implement on a wide scale due to surgeon preferences, vendor limitations, and added costs related to the advanced preoperative imaging studies, manufacturing of the custom guides, and maintenance of navigation equipment. In addition, while interventions such as the use of barbed suture have the potential for speeding closure time, the time saved (4.7 minutes in one randomized trial)⁷ may not be enough to affect major utilization differences per OR per day. These technologies are also frequently employed by high-volume surgeons with high-volume teams and institutions.

Ideally, we need investment in the human capital and a collective change in work cultures to produce high-quality, well-choreographed, easily reproducible routines. An efficient OR requires the synchronous involvement of a large team of individuals, including hospital administrators, surgery schedulers, surgeons, anesthesiologists, preoperative holding area staff, OR nurses, surgical attendants, sterile processing personnel, and recovery room nurses. Case schedulers should match allocated block time with time required for surgery based on the historical performance of the individual surgeon, preferably scheduling similar cases on the same day. Preoperative work-up and medical clearance should be completed prior to scheduling to avoid last-minute cancellations. Patient reminders and accommodations for those traveling from long distances can further minimize late arrivals. Prompt initiation of the perioperative clinical pathway upon a patient’s check-in is important. The surgical site should be marked and the anesthesia plan confirmed upon arrival in the preoperative holding area. Necessary products need to be ready and/or administrated in time for transfer to the OR. These include prophylactic antibiotics, coagulation factors (eg, tranexamic acid), and blood products as indicated. Spinal anesthesia, regional nerve blocks, and intravenous (IV) lines should be completed before transfer to the OR. A “block room” close to the OR can allow concurrent induction of anesthesia and has been shown to increase the number of surgical cases performed during a regular workday.⁸ Hair clipping within the surgical site and pre-scrubbing of the operative extremity should also be performed prior to transfer to the OR in order to minimize micro-organisms and dispersal of loose hair onto the sterile field.

Upon arrival of the patient to the OR, instrument tables based on the surgeon preference cards should be opened, instrument count and implant templating completed, necessary imaging displayed, and OR staff ready with specific responsibilities assigned to each member. Small and colleagues⁹ showed that using dedicated orthopedic staff familiar with the surgical routine decreased operative time by 19 minutes per procedure, or 1.25 hours for a surgeon performing 4 primary TJAs per day. Practices such as routine placement of a urinary catheter should be seriously scrutinized. In a randomized prospective study of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia, Miller and colleagues¹⁰ found no benefit for indwelling catheters in preventing urinary retention. In another randomized prospective study, Huang and colleagues¹¹ found the prevalence of urinary tract infections was significantly higher in TJA patients who received indwelling urinary catheters.

A scrub nurse familiar with the instruments, their assembly, and the sequence of events can ensure efficient surgical flow. The scrub nurse needs to anticipate missing or defective tools and call for them, ideally before the incision is made. Direct comparison studies are needed to assess the efficacy of routine intraoperative imaging vs commercially available universal cup alignment guides or clinical examinations in determining acceptable component positioning and limb length. Following component implantation and before wound closure, the circulating nurse should initiate the process of acquisition of a recovery room bed, make sure dressing supplies and necessary equipment are available, and call for surgical attendants. Lack of surgical attendants, delayed transfer from the OR table to hospital bed, and prolonged acquisition of a recovery room bed have been identified as major OR inefficiencies in a retrospective study by Attarian and colleagues.¹²

In summary, time is the OR’s most valuable resource.¹³ We believe that a consistent, almost automated attitude to the above procedures decreases variability and improves efficiency. By providing clear communication of the surgical needs with the team, having consistent anesthesia and nursing staff, implementing consistent perioperative protocols, and insuring that all necessary instruments and modalities are available prior to starting the procedure, we were able to sustainably increase OR throughput in a large teaching hospital.^9,14 This process, however, requires constant review to identify and eliminate new gaps, with each member of the team sharing a frank desire to improve. In this regard, hospital administrators share the duty to facilitate the implementation of any necessary changes, allocation of needed resources, and rewarding good effort, which could ultimately increase staff satisfaction and retention. Because efficiency is the ratio of benefits (eg, revenue, safety, etc.) to investment (eg, implant costs, wages, etc.), raises the question: what would be the effect of transitioning from hourly-wage to a salary-based system for key support staff? Unlike hourly-wage personnel, who have no incentive for productivity, a salaried employee assigned to a high-efficiency OR will inherently strive for improvement, employing higher organizational skills to accomplish a common goal. To our knowledge, there is no published data on this topic.

Developing a high-efficiency operating room (OR) is both a challenging and rewarding goal for any healthcare system. The OR is traditionally a high-cost/high-revenue environment¹ and operative efficacy has been correlated with low complication rates and surgical success.² An efficient OR is one that maximizes utilization while providing safe, reproducible, cost-effective, high-quality care. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has occupied the center stage for OR efficiency research, in part due to increasing demands from our aging population³ and economic pressures related to high implant costs, decreased reimbursement, and competition for market shares when OR time and space are limited.

A PubMed search on OR efficiency in TJA shows a disproportionately high focus on surgical technique, such as use of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted surgery (CAS), minimally invasive surgery, and closure with barbed suture. In a retrospective review of 352 TKA patients who had PSI vs conventional instrumentation, DeHaan and colleagues⁴ found that PSI was associated with significantly decreased operative and room turnover times (20.4 minutes and 6.4 minutes, respectively). In another prospective multicenter study, Mont and colleagues⁵ showed a reduction in surgical time by 8.90 min for navigated total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed with single-use instruments, cutting blocks, and trials. Other investigators compared PSI to CAS in TKA and found PSI to be 1.45 times more profitable than CAS, with 3 PSI cases performed in an 8-hour OR day compared to 2 CAS cases.⁶

There is no question that improved surgical technique can enhance OR efficiency. However, this model, while promising, is difficult to implement on a wide scale due to surgeon preferences, vendor limitations, and added costs related to the advanced preoperative imaging studies, manufacturing of the custom guides, and maintenance of navigation equipment. In addition, while interventions such as the use of barbed suture have the potential for speeding closure time, the time saved (4.7 minutes in one randomized trial)⁷ may not be enough to affect major utilization differences per OR per day. These technologies are also frequently employed by high-volume surgeons with high-volume teams and institutions.

Ideally, we need investment in the human capital and a collective change in work cultures to produce high-quality, well-choreographed, easily reproducible routines. An efficient OR requires the synchronous involvement of a large team of individuals, including hospital administrators, surgery schedulers, surgeons, anesthesiologists, preoperative holding area staff, OR nurses, surgical attendants, sterile processing personnel, and recovery room nurses. Case schedulers should match allocated block time with time required for surgery based on the historical performance of the individual surgeon, preferably scheduling similar cases on the same day. Preoperative work-up and medical clearance should be completed prior to scheduling to avoid last-minute cancellations. Patient reminders and accommodations for those traveling from long distances can further minimize late arrivals. Prompt initiation of the perioperative clinical pathway upon a patient’s check-in is important. The surgical site should be marked and the anesthesia plan confirmed upon arrival in the preoperative holding area. Necessary products need to be ready and/or administrated in time for transfer to the OR. These include prophylactic antibiotics, coagulation factors (eg, tranexamic acid), and blood products as indicated. Spinal anesthesia, regional nerve blocks, and intravenous (IV) lines should be completed before transfer to the OR. A “block room” close to the OR can allow concurrent induction of anesthesia and has been shown to increase the number of surgical cases performed during a regular workday.⁸ Hair clipping within the surgical site and pre-scrubbing of the operative extremity should also be performed prior to transfer to the OR in order to minimize micro-organisms and dispersal of loose hair onto the sterile field.

Upon arrival of the patient to the OR, instrument tables based on the surgeon preference cards should be opened, instrument count and implant templating completed, necessary imaging displayed, and OR staff ready with specific responsibilities assigned to each member. Small and colleagues⁹ showed that using dedicated orthopedic staff familiar with the surgical routine decreased operative time by 19 minutes per procedure, or 1.25 hours for a surgeon performing 4 primary TJAs per day. Practices such as routine placement of a urinary catheter should be seriously scrutinized. In a randomized prospective study of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia, Miller and colleagues¹⁰ found no benefit for indwelling catheters in preventing urinary retention. In another randomized prospective study, Huang and colleagues¹¹ found the prevalence of urinary tract infections was significantly higher in TJA patients who received indwelling urinary catheters.

A scrub nurse familiar with the instruments, their assembly, and the sequence of events can ensure efficient surgical flow. The scrub nurse needs to anticipate missing or defective tools and call for them, ideally before the incision is made. Direct comparison studies are needed to assess the efficacy of routine intraoperative imaging vs commercially available universal cup alignment guides or clinical examinations in determining acceptable component positioning and limb length. Following component implantation and before wound closure, the circulating nurse should initiate the process of acquisition of a recovery room bed, make sure dressing supplies and necessary equipment are available, and call for surgical attendants. Lack of surgical attendants, delayed transfer from the OR table to hospital bed, and prolonged acquisition of a recovery room bed have been identified as major OR inefficiencies in a retrospective study by Attarian and colleagues.¹²

In summary, time is the OR’s most valuable resource.¹³ We believe that a consistent, almost automated attitude to the above procedures decreases variability and improves efficiency. By providing clear communication of the surgical needs with the team, having consistent anesthesia and nursing staff, implementing consistent perioperative protocols, and insuring that all necessary instruments and modalities are available prior to starting the procedure, we were able to sustainably increase OR throughput in a large teaching hospital.^9,14 This process, however, requires constant review to identify and eliminate new gaps, with each member of the team sharing a frank desire to improve. In this regard, hospital administrators share the duty to facilitate the implementation of any necessary changes, allocation of needed resources, and rewarding good effort, which could ultimately increase staff satisfaction and retention. Because efficiency is the ratio of benefits (eg, revenue, safety, etc.) to investment (eg, implant costs, wages, etc.), raises the question: what would be the effect of transitioning from hourly-wage to a salary-based system for key support staff? Unlike hourly-wage personnel, who have no incentive for productivity, a salaried employee assigned to a high-efficiency OR will inherently strive for improvement, employing higher organizational skills to accomplish a common goal. To our knowledge, there is no published data on this topic.

Developing a high-efficiency operating room (OR) is both a challenging and rewarding goal for any healthcare system. The OR is traditionally a high-cost/high-revenue environment¹ and operative efficacy has been correlated with low complication rates and surgical success.² An efficient OR is one that maximizes utilization while providing safe, reproducible, cost-effective, high-quality care. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has occupied the center stage for OR efficiency research, in part due to increasing demands from our aging population³ and economic pressures related to high implant costs, decreased reimbursement, and competition for market shares when OR time and space are limited.

A PubMed search on OR efficiency in TJA shows a disproportionately high focus on surgical technique, such as use of patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted surgery (CAS), minimally invasive surgery, and closure with barbed suture. In a retrospective review of 352 TKA patients who had PSI vs conventional instrumentation, DeHaan and colleagues⁴ found that PSI was associated with significantly decreased operative and room turnover times (20.4 minutes and 6.4 minutes, respectively). In another prospective multicenter study, Mont and colleagues⁵ showed a reduction in surgical time by 8.90 min for navigated total knee arthroplasty (TKA) performed with single-use instruments, cutting blocks, and trials. Other investigators compared PSI to CAS in TKA and found PSI to be 1.45 times more profitable than CAS, with 3 PSI cases performed in an 8-hour OR day compared to 2 CAS cases.⁶

There is no question that improved surgical technique can enhance OR efficiency. However, this model, while promising, is difficult to implement on a wide scale due to surgeon preferences, vendor limitations, and added costs related to the advanced preoperative imaging studies, manufacturing of the custom guides, and maintenance of navigation equipment. In addition, while interventions such as the use of barbed suture have the potential for speeding closure time, the time saved (4.7 minutes in one randomized trial)⁷ may not be enough to affect major utilization differences per OR per day. These technologies are also frequently employed by high-volume surgeons with high-volume teams and institutions.

Ideally, we need investment in the human capital and a collective change in work cultures to produce high-quality, well-choreographed, easily reproducible routines. An efficient OR requires the synchronous involvement of a large team of individuals, including hospital administrators, surgery schedulers, surgeons, anesthesiologists, preoperative holding area staff, OR nurses, surgical attendants, sterile processing personnel, and recovery room nurses. Case schedulers should match allocated block time with time required for surgery based on the historical performance of the individual surgeon, preferably scheduling similar cases on the same day. Preoperative work-up and medical clearance should be completed prior to scheduling to avoid last-minute cancellations. Patient reminders and accommodations for those traveling from long distances can further minimize late arrivals. Prompt initiation of the perioperative clinical pathway upon a patient’s check-in is important. The surgical site should be marked and the anesthesia plan confirmed upon arrival in the preoperative holding area. Necessary products need to be ready and/or administrated in time for transfer to the OR. These include prophylactic antibiotics, coagulation factors (eg, tranexamic acid), and blood products as indicated. Spinal anesthesia, regional nerve blocks, and intravenous (IV) lines should be completed before transfer to the OR. A “block room” close to the OR can allow concurrent induction of anesthesia and has been shown to increase the number of surgical cases performed during a regular workday.⁸ Hair clipping within the surgical site and pre-scrubbing of the operative extremity should also be performed prior to transfer to the OR in order to minimize micro-organisms and dispersal of loose hair onto the sterile field.

Upon arrival of the patient to the OR, instrument tables based on the surgeon preference cards should be opened, instrument count and implant templating completed, necessary imaging displayed, and OR staff ready with specific responsibilities assigned to each member. Small and colleagues⁹ showed that using dedicated orthopedic staff familiar with the surgical routine decreased operative time by 19 minutes per procedure, or 1.25 hours for a surgeon performing 4 primary TJAs per day. Practices such as routine placement of a urinary catheter should be seriously scrutinized. In a randomized prospective study of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty under spinal anesthesia, Miller and colleagues¹⁰ found no benefit for indwelling catheters in preventing urinary retention. In another randomized prospective study, Huang and colleagues¹¹ found the prevalence of urinary tract infections was significantly higher in TJA patients who received indwelling urinary catheters.

A scrub nurse familiar with the instruments, their assembly, and the sequence of events can ensure efficient surgical flow. The scrub nurse needs to anticipate missing or defective tools and call for them, ideally before the incision is made. Direct comparison studies are needed to assess the efficacy of routine intraoperative imaging vs commercially available universal cup alignment guides or clinical examinations in determining acceptable component positioning and limb length. Following component implantation and before wound closure, the circulating nurse should initiate the process of acquisition of a recovery room bed, make sure dressing supplies and necessary equipment are available, and call for surgical attendants. Lack of surgical attendants, delayed transfer from the OR table to hospital bed, and prolonged acquisition of a recovery room bed have been identified as major OR inefficiencies in a retrospective study by Attarian and colleagues.¹²

In summary, time is the OR’s most valuable resource.¹³ We believe that a consistent, almost automated attitude to the above procedures decreases variability and improves efficiency. By providing clear communication of the surgical needs with the team, having consistent anesthesia and nursing staff, implementing consistent perioperative protocols, and insuring that all necessary instruments and modalities are available prior to starting the procedure, we were able to sustainably increase OR throughput in a large teaching hospital.^9,14 This process, however, requires constant review to identify and eliminate new gaps, with each member of the team sharing a frank desire to improve. In this regard, hospital administrators share the duty to facilitate the implementation of any necessary changes, allocation of needed resources, and rewarding good effort, which could ultimately increase staff satisfaction and retention. Because efficiency is the ratio of benefits (eg, revenue, safety, etc.) to investment (eg, implant costs, wages, etc.), raises the question: what would be the effect of transitioning from hourly-wage to a salary-based system for key support staff? Unlike hourly-wage personnel, who have no incentive for productivity, a salaried employee assigned to a high-efficiency OR will inherently strive for improvement, employing higher organizational skills to accomplish a common goal. To our knowledge, there is no published data on this topic.

On July 9, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model, which aims to improve coordination of the whole episode of care for total hip and knee replacement.¹ At stake is the fact that hip and knee replacements are the most common inpatient procedures among Medicare beneficiaries, costing over $7 billion in 2014¹ and projected to grow to $50 billion by 2030.² Under Medicare’s new initiative, hospitals and physicians are held accountable for the quality and cost of care delivered from the time of surgery through 90 days after discharge. For the first time in the history of our profession, large-scale reimbursement is based on outcomes and value rather than fee-for-service. As a result, a hospital can either earn a reward or be held liable for added expenses related to events such as prolonged hospitalization, readmissions, and complications.

How can we optimize outcomes for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients in this era of Medicare (r)evolution? A good outcome starts with good patient selection. Numerous studies have been published on patient-related risk factors for postoperative TJA complications including obesity, congestive heart failure, lung disease, and depression.^3,4 The risks and benefits of TJA should be carefully weighed in high-risk patients and surgery delayed until appropriate medical optimization has been achieved. Following the famous saying, “Good surgeons know how to operate, better surgeons know when to operate, and the best surgeons know when not to operate,” one cannot overemphasize the need for an objective assessment of the likelihood of patient outcome weighed against patient risk factors.

Moderating patient expectation is another crucial component given the changing demographics of our country. Patients seeking TJA today are younger, more obese, and better educated; live longer; and have higher expectations.⁵ Unrealistic expectations can have a profound impact on surgical outcomes, leading to frustration, dissatisfaction, and unnecessary resource utilization. For example, despite alleviating pain and restoring function in a severely degenerative joint, TJA does not necessarily translate to weight loss. There is currently conflicting evidence on this topic,^6-8 and the expectation of weight loss after TJA cannot be supported. There is also a paucity of data regarding return to athletic activity after TJA and the effect of athletic activity on TJA survivorship.⁹ Communication and transparency are needed to moderate unrealistic expectations before surgery, outlining clear and achievable goals.

Clinical pathways for TJA have seen tremendous improvements in the past decade with the advent of multimodal analgesia, rapid recovery programs, use of spinal and regional anesthesia, and evidence-based guidelines for prevention of venous thromboembolic disease. Adequate pain control is critical to recovery. In a prospective, randomized controlled trial, Lamplot and colleagues¹⁰ showed that the use of multimodal analgesia correlated with improved pain scores, decreased narcotic usage, faster functional recovery, and higher patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In another study, Quack and colleagues¹¹ performed a systematic review of the literature on fast-track rehabilitation and found that it reduced both inpatient length of stay and costs after TKA. With respect to anesthetic choice, Pugely and colleagues¹² reviewed a national database of 14,052 cases of primary TKA and found that patients with multiple comorbidities were at higher risk of complications after general anesthesia when compared with spinal anesthesia. We should continue to invest in safer and more effective modalities for pain control and functional recovery.

Last but not least, in today’s era of Medicare’s Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement, the role of low-volume orthopedic surgeons performing TJA deserves special mention. Over the next few years, we could likely see a decline in the role of low-volume surgeons in favor of high-volume surgeons. While most orthopedic surgeons are comfortable doing primary TJA, failed cases and complications are frequently referred to larger centers, which may create frustration among patients owing to fragmentation of care. The economic pressures related to bundled payments could further influence this transition. Given the lack of a widespread, long-standing national joint registry, the incidence of failed TJA performed by low-volume orthopedic surgeons compared with high-volume orthopedic surgeons is unknown. However, multiple studies have shown surgeon volume to be associated with lower rates of complication, mortality, readmission, reoperation, and discharge to postacute facilities.^13-16 As hospitals assume further financial risk, considerable data on physician performance will undoubtedly be gathered and leveraged. Time and data will determine the value of this transition of care.

Today, more than ever, we are challenged to provide efficient, high-quality, patient-centered care. As our nation grapples with reforming a broken health care system, initiatives like the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement will continue to emerge in the future. Orthopedic surgeons are the gatekeepers of the system and therefore hold significant responsibility to patients and society. Ensuring good outcomes should be a top priority not just from a financial standpoint, but as a moral obligation. We shall continue to be leaders in the face of challenges, using innovation and integrity to produce the best results and advance our profession.

On July 9, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model, which aims to improve coordination of the whole episode of care for total hip and knee replacement.¹ At stake is the fact that hip and knee replacements are the most common inpatient procedures among Medicare beneficiaries, costing over $7 billion in 2014¹ and projected to grow to $50 billion by 2030.² Under Medicare’s new initiative, hospitals and physicians are held accountable for the quality and cost of care delivered from the time of surgery through 90 days after discharge. For the first time in the history of our profession, large-scale reimbursement is based on outcomes and value rather than fee-for-service. As a result, a hospital can either earn a reward or be held liable for added expenses related to events such as prolonged hospitalization, readmissions, and complications.

How can we optimize outcomes for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients in this era of Medicare (r)evolution? A good outcome starts with good patient selection. Numerous studies have been published on patient-related risk factors for postoperative TJA complications including obesity, congestive heart failure, lung disease, and depression.^3,4 The risks and benefits of TJA should be carefully weighed in high-risk patients and surgery delayed until appropriate medical optimization has been achieved. Following the famous saying, “Good surgeons know how to operate, better surgeons know when to operate, and the best surgeons know when not to operate,” one cannot overemphasize the need for an objective assessment of the likelihood of patient outcome weighed against patient risk factors.

Moderating patient expectation is another crucial component given the changing demographics of our country. Patients seeking TJA today are younger, more obese, and better educated; live longer; and have higher expectations.⁵ Unrealistic expectations can have a profound impact on surgical outcomes, leading to frustration, dissatisfaction, and unnecessary resource utilization. For example, despite alleviating pain and restoring function in a severely degenerative joint, TJA does not necessarily translate to weight loss. There is currently conflicting evidence on this topic,^6-8 and the expectation of weight loss after TJA cannot be supported. There is also a paucity of data regarding return to athletic activity after TJA and the effect of athletic activity on TJA survivorship.⁹ Communication and transparency are needed to moderate unrealistic expectations before surgery, outlining clear and achievable goals.

Clinical pathways for TJA have seen tremendous improvements in the past decade with the advent of multimodal analgesia, rapid recovery programs, use of spinal and regional anesthesia, and evidence-based guidelines for prevention of venous thromboembolic disease. Adequate pain control is critical to recovery. In a prospective, randomized controlled trial, Lamplot and colleagues¹⁰ showed that the use of multimodal analgesia correlated with improved pain scores, decreased narcotic usage, faster functional recovery, and higher patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In another study, Quack and colleagues¹¹ performed a systematic review of the literature on fast-track rehabilitation and found that it reduced both inpatient length of stay and costs after TKA. With respect to anesthetic choice, Pugely and colleagues¹² reviewed a national database of 14,052 cases of primary TKA and found that patients with multiple comorbidities were at higher risk of complications after general anesthesia when compared with spinal anesthesia. We should continue to invest in safer and more effective modalities for pain control and functional recovery.

Last but not least, in today’s era of Medicare’s Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement, the role of low-volume orthopedic surgeons performing TJA deserves special mention. Over the next few years, we could likely see a decline in the role of low-volume surgeons in favor of high-volume surgeons. While most orthopedic surgeons are comfortable doing primary TJA, failed cases and complications are frequently referred to larger centers, which may create frustration among patients owing to fragmentation of care. The economic pressures related to bundled payments could further influence this transition. Given the lack of a widespread, long-standing national joint registry, the incidence of failed TJA performed by low-volume orthopedic surgeons compared with high-volume orthopedic surgeons is unknown. However, multiple studies have shown surgeon volume to be associated with lower rates of complication, mortality, readmission, reoperation, and discharge to postacute facilities.^13-16 As hospitals assume further financial risk, considerable data on physician performance will undoubtedly be gathered and leveraged. Time and data will determine the value of this transition of care.

Today, more than ever, we are challenged to provide efficient, high-quality, patient-centered care. As our nation grapples with reforming a broken health care system, initiatives like the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement will continue to emerge in the future. Orthopedic surgeons are the gatekeepers of the system and therefore hold significant responsibility to patients and society. Ensuring good outcomes should be a top priority not just from a financial standpoint, but as a moral obligation. We shall continue to be leaders in the face of challenges, using innovation and integrity to produce the best results and advance our profession.

On July 9, 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model, which aims to improve coordination of the whole episode of care for total hip and knee replacement.¹ At stake is the fact that hip and knee replacements are the most common inpatient procedures among Medicare beneficiaries, costing over $7 billion in 2014¹ and projected to grow to $50 billion by 2030.² Under Medicare’s new initiative, hospitals and physicians are held accountable for the quality and cost of care delivered from the time of surgery through 90 days after discharge. For the first time in the history of our profession, large-scale reimbursement is based on outcomes and value rather than fee-for-service. As a result, a hospital can either earn a reward or be held liable for added expenses related to events such as prolonged hospitalization, readmissions, and complications.

How can we optimize outcomes for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients in this era of Medicare (r)evolution? A good outcome starts with good patient selection. Numerous studies have been published on patient-related risk factors for postoperative TJA complications including obesity, congestive heart failure, lung disease, and depression.^3,4 The risks and benefits of TJA should be carefully weighed in high-risk patients and surgery delayed until appropriate medical optimization has been achieved. Following the famous saying, “Good surgeons know how to operate, better surgeons know when to operate, and the best surgeons know when not to operate,” one cannot overemphasize the need for an objective assessment of the likelihood of patient outcome weighed against patient risk factors.

Moderating patient expectation is another crucial component given the changing demographics of our country. Patients seeking TJA today are younger, more obese, and better educated; live longer; and have higher expectations.⁵ Unrealistic expectations can have a profound impact on surgical outcomes, leading to frustration, dissatisfaction, and unnecessary resource utilization. For example, despite alleviating pain and restoring function in a severely degenerative joint, TJA does not necessarily translate to weight loss. There is currently conflicting evidence on this topic,^6-8 and the expectation of weight loss after TJA cannot be supported. There is also a paucity of data regarding return to athletic activity after TJA and the effect of athletic activity on TJA survivorship.⁹ Communication and transparency are needed to moderate unrealistic expectations before surgery, outlining clear and achievable goals.

Clinical pathways for TJA have seen tremendous improvements in the past decade with the advent of multimodal analgesia, rapid recovery programs, use of spinal and regional anesthesia, and evidence-based guidelines for prevention of venous thromboembolic disease. Adequate pain control is critical to recovery. In a prospective, randomized controlled trial, Lamplot and colleagues¹⁰ showed that the use of multimodal analgesia correlated with improved pain scores, decreased narcotic usage, faster functional recovery, and higher patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). In another study, Quack and colleagues¹¹ performed a systematic review of the literature on fast-track rehabilitation and found that it reduced both inpatient length of stay and costs after TKA. With respect to anesthetic choice, Pugely and colleagues¹² reviewed a national database of 14,052 cases of primary TKA and found that patients with multiple comorbidities were at higher risk of complications after general anesthesia when compared with spinal anesthesia. We should continue to invest in safer and more effective modalities for pain control and functional recovery.

Last but not least, in today’s era of Medicare’s Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement, the role of low-volume orthopedic surgeons performing TJA deserves special mention. Over the next few years, we could likely see a decline in the role of low-volume surgeons in favor of high-volume surgeons. While most orthopedic surgeons are comfortable doing primary TJA, failed cases and complications are frequently referred to larger centers, which may create frustration among patients owing to fragmentation of care. The economic pressures related to bundled payments could further influence this transition. Given the lack of a widespread, long-standing national joint registry, the incidence of failed TJA performed by low-volume orthopedic surgeons compared with high-volume orthopedic surgeons is unknown. However, multiple studies have shown surgeon volume to be associated with lower rates of complication, mortality, readmission, reoperation, and discharge to postacute facilities.^13-16 As hospitals assume further financial risk, considerable data on physician performance will undoubtedly be gathered and leveraged. Time and data will determine the value of this transition of care.

Today, more than ever, we are challenged to provide efficient, high-quality, patient-centered care. As our nation grapples with reforming a broken health care system, initiatives like the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement will continue to emerge in the future. Orthopedic surgeons are the gatekeepers of the system and therefore hold significant responsibility to patients and society. Ensuring good outcomes should be a top priority not just from a financial standpoint, but as a moral obligation. We shall continue to be leaders in the face of challenges, using innovation and integrity to produce the best results and advance our profession.

Orthopedic surgery is going through a time of remarkable change. Health care reform, heightened public scrutiny, shifting population demographics, increased reliance on the Internet for information, ongoing metamorphosis of our profession into a business, and lack of consistent high-quality clinical evidence have created a new frontier of challenges and opportunities. At heart are the needs to deliver high-quality education that is in line with new technological media, to reclaim our ability to guide musculoskeletal care at the policymaking level, to fortify our long-held tradition of ethical responsibility, to invest in research and the training of physician-scientists, to maintain unity among the different subspecialties, and to increase female and minority representation. Never before has understanding and applying the key tenets of our philosophy as orthopedic surgeons been more crucial.

The changing landscape of orthopedic practice has been an unsettling topic in many of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) presidential addresses in recent years.^1-11 What are the challenges and what can we learn moving forward? In this article, we seek to answer these questions by drawing insights from the combined experience and wisdom of past AAOS presidents since the turn of the 21st century.

Education

Education is the cornerstone of providing quality musculoskeletal care¹² and staying up to date with technological advances.¹³ The modes of education delivery, however, have changed. No longer is orthopedic education confined to tangible textbooks and journal articles, nor is it limited to those of us in the profession. Instead, orthopedic education has shifted toward online learning¹⁴ and is available to patients and nonorthopedic providers.¹² With more patients gaining access to rapidly growing online resources, a unique challenge has arisen: an abundance of data with variable quality of evidence influencing the decision-making process. This has created what Richard Kyle¹⁵ described as the “trap of the new technology war,” where patient misinformation and direct-to-consumer marketing can lead to dangerous musculoskeletal care delivery, including unrealistic patient expectations.³ To compound the problem, our ability to provide orthopedic education in formats compatible with the new learning mediums has not been up to the demand, with issues of cost, accessibility, and efficacy plaguing the current process.^3,5 Also, we have yet to unlock the benefits of surgical simulation, which has the potential to provide more effective training at no risk to the patient.^4,13 By adapting to the new learning formats, we can provide numerous new opportunities for keeping up to date on evolving practice management principles, which, with added accessibility, will be used more often by orthopedic surgeons and the public.¹³ 

Research

Research is vital for quality improvement and the continuation of excellence.⁵ It is only with research that we can provide groundbreaking advances and measure the outcomes of our interventions.² Unfortunately, orthopedic research funding continues to be disproportionately low, especially given that musculoskeletal ailments are the leading cause of both physician visits and chronic impairment in the United States.² For example, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases receives only 10% of what our country spends on cancer research and 15% of what is spent on heart- and lung-disease research.² To compound the problem of limited funding, the number of physician-scientists has been dropping at an alarming rate.² As a result, we must not only refocus our research efforts so that they are efficient and effective, but we must also invest in the training of orthopedic physician-scientists to ensure a continuous stream of groundbreaking discoveries. We owe it to our patients to provide them with proven, effective, and high-quality care.

Industry Relationships

Local and national attention will continue to focus on our relationships with industry. The challenge is twofold: mitigating the negative portrayal of industry relationships and navigating the changes applied to industry funding for research and education.⁹ Our collaboration with industry is important for the development and advancement of orthopedics,¹⁵ but it must be guided by the professional and ethical guidelines established by the AAOS, ensuring that the best interest of patients remains a top priority.^8,15 We must maintain the public’s trust by using every opportunity to convey our lone goal in collaborating with industry, ie, improving patient care.⁹ According to James Beaty,⁷ any relationship with industry should be “so ethical that it could be printed on the front page of the newspaper and we could face our neighbors with our heads held high.”

Gender and Minority Representation

The racial and ethnic makeup of the United States is undergoing a rapid change. Over the next 4 decades, the white population is projected to become the minority, while women will continue to outnumber men.¹⁶ Despite the rapidly changing demographics of the United States, health care disparities persist. As of 2011, minorities and women made up only 22.55% and 14.52%, respectively, of all orthopedic surgery residents.¹⁷ This limited diversity in orthopedic training programs is alarming and may lead to suboptimal physician–patient relationships, because patients tend to be more comfortable with and respond better to the care provided by physicians of similar background.³ In addition, if we do not integrate women into orthopedics, the number of female medical students applying to orthopedic residency programs might decline.³

Equating excellent medical care with diversity and cultural competence requires that we bridge the gap that has prevented patients from obtaining high-quality care.⁸ To achieve this goal, we need to continue recruiting orthopedic surgeons from all segments of our population. Ultimately, health care disparities can be effectively reduced through the delivery of culturally competent care.⁸

Physician–Patient Relationship

Medical liability has resulted in the development of damaging attitudes among physicians, with many viewing patients as potential adversaries and even avoiding high-risk procedures altogether.⁶ This deterioration of the physician–patient relationship has been another troubling consequence of managed care that emphasizes quantity and speed.¹ As a result, we are perceived by the public as impersonal, poor listeners, and difficult to see on short notice.¹

The poor perception of orthopedic surgeons by the general public is not acceptable for a field that places such a high value on excellence. Patient-centered care is at the core of quality improvement, and improving patient relationships starts and ends with us and with each patient we treat.⁶ In a health care environment in which the average orthopedic surgeon cares for thousands of patients each year, we must make certain to use each opportunity to engage our patients and enhance our relationships with them.⁶ The basic necessities of patient-centered care include empowerment of the patient through education, better communication, and transparency; providing accurate and evidence-based information; and cooperation among physicians.^3,6 The benefits of improving personal relationships with patients are multifold and could have lasting positive effects: increased physician and patient satisfaction, better patient compliance, greater practice efficiency, and fewer malpractice lawsuits.¹ We can also benefit from mobilizing a greater constituency to advocate alongside us.⁶

Unity

Despite accounting for less than 3% of all physicians, orthopedic surgeons have assumed an influential voice in the field of medicine.¹³ This is attributed not only to the success of our interventions but, more importantly, to the fact that we have “stuck together.”¹³ The concept of “sticking together” may seem a cliché and facile but will certainly be a pressing need as we move ahead. We draw strength from the breadth and diversity of our subspecialties, but this strength may become a weakness if we do not join in promoting the betterment of our profession as a whole.¹⁴ To avoid duplications and bring synergy to all our efforts, we should continue to develop new partnerships in our specialty societies⁶ and speak with one voice to our patients and to the public.¹⁵ Joshua Jacobs¹¹ reminds us of the warning Benjamin Franklin imparted to the signers of the Declaration of Independence, “We must hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately.” To ensure the continued strength of the house of orthopedics, we must live by this tenet.

Advocacy

The federal government has become increasingly involved in regulating the practice of medicine.⁹ Orthopedic surgery has been hit especially hard, because the cost of implants and continued innovation has fueled the belief that our profession is a major contributor to unsustainable health care costs.¹¹ We now face multiple legislative regulations related to physician reimbursement, ownership, self-referral, medical liability, and mandates of the Affordable Care Act.⁹ As a result, there has been a decreasing role for orthopedic surgeons as independent practitioners, with more orthopedists forgoing physician-owned practices for large hospital corporations. We are also in increasing competition for limited resources.¹⁰ This is compounded by the fact that those regulating health care, paying for health care, and allocating research funding fail to comprehend the high societal needs for treatment of musculoskeletal diseases and injuries,⁶ which will only increase in the coming decades.¹⁴

The aforementioned challenges make our involvement at all levels of the political process more necessary than ever before.^5,9 E. Anthony Rankin⁸ reminds us, “As physicians, we cannot in good conscience allow our patients’ access to quality orthopedic care to be determined solely by the government, the insurance companies, the trial lawyers, or others…. Either we will have a voice in defining the future of health care, or it will be defined by others for us.” Our advocacy approach, however, should be very careful. Joshua Jacobs¹¹ cautions that “we will be most effective if our advocacy message is presented as a potential solution to the current health care crisis, not just as a demand for fair reimbursement.” Instead, we can achieve this goal with what Richard Gelberman² summarized as “doing what we do best: accumulating knowledge, positioning ourselves as the authorities that we are, and using what we learn to advocate for better patient care and research.”

Value Medicine

Orthopedic surgeons are now expected to provide not just high-quality care but low-cost care. In line with the emerging emphasis on value, sharp focus has been placed on the assessment of physician performance and treatment outcomes as quality-of-care measures.⁶ But how have we measured the quality of the care we provide? We have not, or, at least, we have not had valid or reliable means of doing so.⁶ Gone are the days of telling the world of the excellence of our profession in the treatment of musculoskeletal disease. We now must prove to our patients, the government, and payers that what we do works.^12,13 If we fail to communicate the cost effectiveness of our interventions, our new knowledge and technologies will not be accepted or funded.¹⁰ We should, however, not be discouraged by the new “value equation,” but use it as an incentive to provide evidence-based care and to improve the efficiency of resource utilization.¹⁴ Today, we are urged to be leaders in quality improvement, both in our individual orthopedic practices and as a profession.^10,12,13

Conclusion

Meeting increasingly higher demands for musculoskeletal care in an evolving medical landscape will bring a new set of challenges that will be more frequent and more intense than those in the past.¹⁴ Today, we are tasked with providing fiscally efficient, culturally competent, high-quality, evidence-based, and compassionate care. We are also tasked with reclaiming our ability to shape the future of our profession at the policymaking level. In doing so, the need for unity, advocacy, commitment to education and research, women and minority representation, and open communication with the public has never been more relevant. As we continue to advance as a profession, we must resist the temptation to look back in defiance of change but move forward, confident in our ability to evolve. ◾

Orthopedic surgery is going through a time of remarkable change. Health care reform, heightened public scrutiny, shifting population demographics, increased reliance on the Internet for information, ongoing metamorphosis of our profession into a business, and lack of consistent high-quality clinical evidence have created a new frontier of challenges and opportunities. At heart are the needs to deliver high-quality education that is in line with new technological media, to reclaim our ability to guide musculoskeletal care at the policymaking level, to fortify our long-held tradition of ethical responsibility, to invest in research and the training of physician-scientists, to maintain unity among the different subspecialties, and to increase female and minority representation. Never before has understanding and applying the key tenets of our philosophy as orthopedic surgeons been more crucial.

The changing landscape of orthopedic practice has been an unsettling topic in many of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) presidential addresses in recent years.^1-11 What are the challenges and what can we learn moving forward? In this article, we seek to answer these questions by drawing insights from the combined experience and wisdom of past AAOS presidents since the turn of the 21st century.

Education

Education is the cornerstone of providing quality musculoskeletal care¹² and staying up to date with technological advances.¹³ The modes of education delivery, however, have changed. No longer is orthopedic education confined to tangible textbooks and journal articles, nor is it limited to those of us in the profession. Instead, orthopedic education has shifted toward online learning¹⁴ and is available to patients and nonorthopedic providers.¹² With more patients gaining access to rapidly growing online resources, a unique challenge has arisen: an abundance of data with variable quality of evidence influencing the decision-making process. This has created what Richard Kyle¹⁵ described as the “trap of the new technology war,” where patient misinformation and direct-to-consumer marketing can lead to dangerous musculoskeletal care delivery, including unrealistic patient expectations.³ To compound the problem, our ability to provide orthopedic education in formats compatible with the new learning mediums has not been up to the demand, with issues of cost, accessibility, and efficacy plaguing the current process.^3,5 Also, we have yet to unlock the benefits of surgical simulation, which has the potential to provide more effective training at no risk to the patient.^4,13 By adapting to the new learning formats, we can provide numerous new opportunities for keeping up to date on evolving practice management principles, which, with added accessibility, will be used more often by orthopedic surgeons and the public.¹³ 

Research

Research is vital for quality improvement and the continuation of excellence.⁵ It is only with research that we can provide groundbreaking advances and measure the outcomes of our interventions.² Unfortunately, orthopedic research funding continues to be disproportionately low, especially given that musculoskeletal ailments are the leading cause of both physician visits and chronic impairment in the United States.² For example, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases receives only 10% of what our country spends on cancer research and 15% of what is spent on heart- and lung-disease research.² To compound the problem of limited funding, the number of physician-scientists has been dropping at an alarming rate.² As a result, we must not only refocus our research efforts so that they are efficient and effective, but we must also invest in the training of orthopedic physician-scientists to ensure a continuous stream of groundbreaking discoveries. We owe it to our patients to provide them with proven, effective, and high-quality care.

Industry Relationships

Local and national attention will continue to focus on our relationships with industry. The challenge is twofold: mitigating the negative portrayal of industry relationships and navigating the changes applied to industry funding for research and education.⁹ Our collaboration with industry is important for the development and advancement of orthopedics,¹⁵ but it must be guided by the professional and ethical guidelines established by the AAOS, ensuring that the best interest of patients remains a top priority.^8,15 We must maintain the public’s trust by using every opportunity to convey our lone goal in collaborating with industry, ie, improving patient care.⁹ According to James Beaty,⁷ any relationship with industry should be “so ethical that it could be printed on the front page of the newspaper and we could face our neighbors with our heads held high.”

Gender and Minority Representation

The racial and ethnic makeup of the United States is undergoing a rapid change. Over the next 4 decades, the white population is projected to become the minority, while women will continue to outnumber men.¹⁶ Despite the rapidly changing demographics of the United States, health care disparities persist. As of 2011, minorities and women made up only 22.55% and 14.52%, respectively, of all orthopedic surgery residents.¹⁷ This limited diversity in orthopedic training programs is alarming and may lead to suboptimal physician–patient relationships, because patients tend to be more comfortable with and respond better to the care provided by physicians of similar background.³ In addition, if we do not integrate women into orthopedics, the number of female medical students applying to orthopedic residency programs might decline.³

Equating excellent medical care with diversity and cultural competence requires that we bridge the gap that has prevented patients from obtaining high-quality care.⁸ To achieve this goal, we need to continue recruiting orthopedic surgeons from all segments of our population. Ultimately, health care disparities can be effectively reduced through the delivery of culturally competent care.⁸

Physician–Patient Relationship

Medical liability has resulted in the development of damaging attitudes among physicians, with many viewing patients as potential adversaries and even avoiding high-risk procedures altogether.⁶ This deterioration of the physician–patient relationship has been another troubling consequence of managed care that emphasizes quantity and speed.¹ As a result, we are perceived by the public as impersonal, poor listeners, and difficult to see on short notice.¹

The poor perception of orthopedic surgeons by the general public is not acceptable for a field that places such a high value on excellence. Patient-centered care is at the core of quality improvement, and improving patient relationships starts and ends with us and with each patient we treat.⁶ In a health care environment in which the average orthopedic surgeon cares for thousands of patients each year, we must make certain to use each opportunity to engage our patients and enhance our relationships with them.⁶ The basic necessities of patient-centered care include empowerment of the patient through education, better communication, and transparency; providing accurate and evidence-based information; and cooperation among physicians.^3,6 The benefits of improving personal relationships with patients are multifold and could have lasting positive effects: increased physician and patient satisfaction, better patient compliance, greater practice efficiency, and fewer malpractice lawsuits.¹ We can also benefit from mobilizing a greater constituency to advocate alongside us.⁶

Unity

Despite accounting for less than 3% of all physicians, orthopedic surgeons have assumed an influential voice in the field of medicine.¹³ This is attributed not only to the success of our interventions but, more importantly, to the fact that we have “stuck together.”¹³ The concept of “sticking together” may seem a cliché and facile but will certainly be a pressing need as we move ahead. We draw strength from the breadth and diversity of our subspecialties, but this strength may become a weakness if we do not join in promoting the betterment of our profession as a whole.¹⁴ To avoid duplications and bring synergy to all our efforts, we should continue to develop new partnerships in our specialty societies⁶ and speak with one voice to our patients and to the public.¹⁵ Joshua Jacobs¹¹ reminds us of the warning Benjamin Franklin imparted to the signers of the Declaration of Independence, “We must hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately.” To ensure the continued strength of the house of orthopedics, we must live by this tenet.

Advocacy

The federal government has become increasingly involved in regulating the practice of medicine.⁹ Orthopedic surgery has been hit especially hard, because the cost of implants and continued innovation has fueled the belief that our profession is a major contributor to unsustainable health care costs.¹¹ We now face multiple legislative regulations related to physician reimbursement, ownership, self-referral, medical liability, and mandates of the Affordable Care Act.⁹ As a result, there has been a decreasing role for orthopedic surgeons as independent practitioners, with more orthopedists forgoing physician-owned practices for large hospital corporations. We are also in increasing competition for limited resources.¹⁰ This is compounded by the fact that those regulating health care, paying for health care, and allocating research funding fail to comprehend the high societal needs for treatment of musculoskeletal diseases and injuries,⁶ which will only increase in the coming decades.¹⁴

The aforementioned challenges make our involvement at all levels of the political process more necessary than ever before.^5,9 E. Anthony Rankin⁸ reminds us, “As physicians, we cannot in good conscience allow our patients’ access to quality orthopedic care to be determined solely by the government, the insurance companies, the trial lawyers, or others…. Either we will have a voice in defining the future of health care, or it will be defined by others for us.” Our advocacy approach, however, should be very careful. Joshua Jacobs¹¹ cautions that “we will be most effective if our advocacy message is presented as a potential solution to the current health care crisis, not just as a demand for fair reimbursement.” Instead, we can achieve this goal with what Richard Gelberman² summarized as “doing what we do best: accumulating knowledge, positioning ourselves as the authorities that we are, and using what we learn to advocate for better patient care and research.”

Value Medicine

Orthopedic surgeons are now expected to provide not just high-quality care but low-cost care. In line with the emerging emphasis on value, sharp focus has been placed on the assessment of physician performance and treatment outcomes as quality-of-care measures.⁶ But how have we measured the quality of the care we provide? We have not, or, at least, we have not had valid or reliable means of doing so.⁶ Gone are the days of telling the world of the excellence of our profession in the treatment of musculoskeletal disease. We now must prove to our patients, the government, and payers that what we do works.^12,13 If we fail to communicate the cost effectiveness of our interventions, our new knowledge and technologies will not be accepted or funded.¹⁰ We should, however, not be discouraged by the new “value equation,” but use it as an incentive to provide evidence-based care and to improve the efficiency of resource utilization.¹⁴ Today, we are urged to be leaders in quality improvement, both in our individual orthopedic practices and as a profession.^10,12,13

Conclusion

Meeting increasingly higher demands for musculoskeletal care in an evolving medical landscape will bring a new set of challenges that will be more frequent and more intense than those in the past.¹⁴ Today, we are tasked with providing fiscally efficient, culturally competent, high-quality, evidence-based, and compassionate care. We are also tasked with reclaiming our ability to shape the future of our profession at the policymaking level. In doing so, the need for unity, advocacy, commitment to education and research, women and minority representation, and open communication with the public has never been more relevant. As we continue to advance as a profession, we must resist the temptation to look back in defiance of change but move forward, confident in our ability to evolve. ◾

Orthopedic surgery is going through a time of remarkable change. Health care reform, heightened public scrutiny, shifting population demographics, increased reliance on the Internet for information, ongoing metamorphosis of our profession into a business, and lack of consistent high-quality clinical evidence have created a new frontier of challenges and opportunities. At heart are the needs to deliver high-quality education that is in line with new technological media, to reclaim our ability to guide musculoskeletal care at the policymaking level, to fortify our long-held tradition of ethical responsibility, to invest in research and the training of physician-scientists, to maintain unity among the different subspecialties, and to increase female and minority representation. Never before has understanding and applying the key tenets of our philosophy as orthopedic surgeons been more crucial.

The changing landscape of orthopedic practice has been an unsettling topic in many of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) presidential addresses in recent years.^1-11 What are the challenges and what can we learn moving forward? In this article, we seek to answer these questions by drawing insights from the combined experience and wisdom of past AAOS presidents since the turn of the 21st century.

Education

Education is the cornerstone of providing quality musculoskeletal care¹² and staying up to date with technological advances.¹³ The modes of education delivery, however, have changed. No longer is orthopedic education confined to tangible textbooks and journal articles, nor is it limited to those of us in the profession. Instead, orthopedic education has shifted toward online learning¹⁴ and is available to patients and nonorthopedic providers.¹² With more patients gaining access to rapidly growing online resources, a unique challenge has arisen: an abundance of data with variable quality of evidence influencing the decision-making process. This has created what Richard Kyle¹⁵ described as the “trap of the new technology war,” where patient misinformation and direct-to-consumer marketing can lead to dangerous musculoskeletal care delivery, including unrealistic patient expectations.³ To compound the problem, our ability to provide orthopedic education in formats compatible with the new learning mediums has not been up to the demand, with issues of cost, accessibility, and efficacy plaguing the current process.^3,5 Also, we have yet to unlock the benefits of surgical simulation, which has the potential to provide more effective training at no risk to the patient.^4,13 By adapting to the new learning formats, we can provide numerous new opportunities for keeping up to date on evolving practice management principles, which, with added accessibility, will be used more often by orthopedic surgeons and the public.¹³ 

Research

Research is vital for quality improvement and the continuation of excellence.⁵ It is only with research that we can provide groundbreaking advances and measure the outcomes of our interventions.² Unfortunately, orthopedic research funding continues to be disproportionately low, especially given that musculoskeletal ailments are the leading cause of both physician visits and chronic impairment in the United States.² For example, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases receives only 10% of what our country spends on cancer research and 15% of what is spent on heart- and lung-disease research.² To compound the problem of limited funding, the number of physician-scientists has been dropping at an alarming rate.² As a result, we must not only refocus our research efforts so that they are efficient and effective, but we must also invest in the training of orthopedic physician-scientists to ensure a continuous stream of groundbreaking discoveries. We owe it to our patients to provide them with proven, effective, and high-quality care.

Industry Relationships

Local and national attention will continue to focus on our relationships with industry. The challenge is twofold: mitigating the negative portrayal of industry relationships and navigating the changes applied to industry funding for research and education.⁹ Our collaboration with industry is important for the development and advancement of orthopedics,¹⁵ but it must be guided by the professional and ethical guidelines established by the AAOS, ensuring that the best interest of patients remains a top priority.^8,15 We must maintain the public’s trust by using every opportunity to convey our lone goal in collaborating with industry, ie, improving patient care.⁹ According to James Beaty,⁷ any relationship with industry should be “so ethical that it could be printed on the front page of the newspaper and we could face our neighbors with our heads held high.”

Gender and Minority Representation

The racial and ethnic makeup of the United States is undergoing a rapid change. Over the next 4 decades, the white population is projected to become the minority, while women will continue to outnumber men.¹⁶ Despite the rapidly changing demographics of the United States, health care disparities persist. As of 2011, minorities and women made up only 22.55% and 14.52%, respectively, of all orthopedic surgery residents.¹⁷ This limited diversity in orthopedic training programs is alarming and may lead to suboptimal physician–patient relationships, because patients tend to be more comfortable with and respond better to the care provided by physicians of similar background.³ In addition, if we do not integrate women into orthopedics, the number of female medical students applying to orthopedic residency programs might decline.³

Equating excellent medical care with diversity and cultural competence requires that we bridge the gap that has prevented patients from obtaining high-quality care.⁸ To achieve this goal, we need to continue recruiting orthopedic surgeons from all segments of our population. Ultimately, health care disparities can be effectively reduced through the delivery of culturally competent care.⁸

Physician–Patient Relationship

Medical liability has resulted in the development of damaging attitudes among physicians, with many viewing patients as potential adversaries and even avoiding high-risk procedures altogether.⁶ This deterioration of the physician–patient relationship has been another troubling consequence of managed care that emphasizes quantity and speed.¹ As a result, we are perceived by the public as impersonal, poor listeners, and difficult to see on short notice.¹

The poor perception of orthopedic surgeons by the general public is not acceptable for a field that places such a high value on excellence. Patient-centered care is at the core of quality improvement, and improving patient relationships starts and ends with us and with each patient we treat.⁶ In a health care environment in which the average orthopedic surgeon cares for thousands of patients each year, we must make certain to use each opportunity to engage our patients and enhance our relationships with them.⁶ The basic necessities of patient-centered care include empowerment of the patient through education, better communication, and transparency; providing accurate and evidence-based information; and cooperation among physicians.^3,6 The benefits of improving personal relationships with patients are multifold and could have lasting positive effects: increased physician and patient satisfaction, better patient compliance, greater practice efficiency, and fewer malpractice lawsuits.¹ We can also benefit from mobilizing a greater constituency to advocate alongside us.⁶

Unity

Despite accounting for less than 3% of all physicians, orthopedic surgeons have assumed an influential voice in the field of medicine.¹³ This is attributed not only to the success of our interventions but, more importantly, to the fact that we have “stuck together.”¹³ The concept of “sticking together” may seem a cliché and facile but will certainly be a pressing need as we move ahead. We draw strength from the breadth and diversity of our subspecialties, but this strength may become a weakness if we do not join in promoting the betterment of our profession as a whole.¹⁴ To avoid duplications and bring synergy to all our efforts, we should continue to develop new partnerships in our specialty societies⁶ and speak with one voice to our patients and to the public.¹⁵ Joshua Jacobs¹¹ reminds us of the warning Benjamin Franklin imparted to the signers of the Declaration of Independence, “We must hang together, or most assuredly, we will all hang separately.” To ensure the continued strength of the house of orthopedics, we must live by this tenet.

Advocacy

The federal government has become increasingly involved in regulating the practice of medicine.⁹ Orthopedic surgery has been hit especially hard, because the cost of implants and continued innovation has fueled the belief that our profession is a major contributor to unsustainable health care costs.¹¹ We now face multiple legislative regulations related to physician reimbursement, ownership, self-referral, medical liability, and mandates of the Affordable Care Act.⁹ As a result, there has been a decreasing role for orthopedic surgeons as independent practitioners, with more orthopedists forgoing physician-owned practices for large hospital corporations. We are also in increasing competition for limited resources.¹⁰ This is compounded by the fact that those regulating health care, paying for health care, and allocating research funding fail to comprehend the high societal needs for treatment of musculoskeletal diseases and injuries,⁶ which will only increase in the coming decades.¹⁴

The aforementioned challenges make our involvement at all levels of the political process more necessary than ever before.^5,9 E. Anthony Rankin⁸ reminds us, “As physicians, we cannot in good conscience allow our patients’ access to quality orthopedic care to be determined solely by the government, the insurance companies, the trial lawyers, or others…. Either we will have a voice in defining the future of health care, or it will be defined by others for us.” Our advocacy approach, however, should be very careful. Joshua Jacobs¹¹ cautions that “we will be most effective if our advocacy message is presented as a potential solution to the current health care crisis, not just as a demand for fair reimbursement.” Instead, we can achieve this goal with what Richard Gelberman² summarized as “doing what we do best: accumulating knowledge, positioning ourselves as the authorities that we are, and using what we learn to advocate for better patient care and research.”

Value Medicine

Orthopedic surgeons are now expected to provide not just high-quality care but low-cost care. In line with the emerging emphasis on value, sharp focus has been placed on the assessment of physician performance and treatment outcomes as quality-of-care measures.⁶ But how have we measured the quality of the care we provide? We have not, or, at least, we have not had valid or reliable means of doing so.⁶ Gone are the days of telling the world of the excellence of our profession in the treatment of musculoskeletal disease. We now must prove to our patients, the government, and payers that what we do works.^12,13 If we fail to communicate the cost effectiveness of our interventions, our new knowledge and technologies will not be accepted or funded.¹⁰ We should, however, not be discouraged by the new “value equation,” but use it as an incentive to provide evidence-based care and to improve the efficiency of resource utilization.¹⁴ Today, we are urged to be leaders in quality improvement, both in our individual orthopedic practices and as a profession.^10,12,13

Conclusion

Meeting increasingly higher demands for musculoskeletal care in an evolving medical landscape will bring a new set of challenges that will be more frequent and more intense than those in the past.¹⁴ Today, we are tasked with providing fiscally efficient, culturally competent, high-quality, evidence-based, and compassionate care. We are also tasked with reclaiming our ability to shape the future of our profession at the policymaking level. In doing so, the need for unity, advocacy, commitment to education and research, women and minority representation, and open communication with the public has never been more relevant. As we continue to advance as a profession, we must resist the temptation to look back in defiance of change but move forward, confident in our ability to evolve. ◾

Medicare beneficiaries’ demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has increased significantly over the past several years, with recent studies reporting 209,945 primary THAs and 243,802 primary TKAs performed annually.^1,2 With this demand has come an increase in the percentage of patients discharged to an extended-care facility (ECF) for skilled nursing care or acute rehabilitation—an estimated 49.3% for THA and 41.5% for TKA.^1,2 To qualify for discharge to an ECF, Medicare beneficiaries are required to have an inpatient stay of at least 3 consecutive days.³ Although the basis of this rule is unclear, it is thought to prevent hasty discharge of unstable patients.

We conducted a study to explore the effect of this policy on length of stay (LOS) in a population of patients who underwent primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Based on a pilot study by our group, we hypothesized that such a statuary requirement would be associated with increased LOS and would not prevent discharge of potentially unstable patients. Specifically, we explored whether patients who could have been discharged earlier experienced any later inpatient complications or 30-day readmission to justify staying past their discharge readiness.

Materials and Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained for this study. Between 2011 and 2012, the senior authors (Dr. Wellman, Dr. Attarian, Dr. Bolognesi) treated 985 patients with Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 27130 (THA) and 27447 (TKA). Of the 985 patients, 287 (29.13%) were discharged to an ECF and were included in the study. Three of the 287 were excluded: 2 for requiring preadmission for medical optimization and 1 for having another procedure with plastic surgery. All patients were admitted from home on day of surgery and had a standardized clinical pathway with respect to pain control, mobilization, and anticoagulation. Physical therapy and occupational therapy (PT/OT) were initiated on day of surgery and were continued daily until discharge.

The primary outcome was discharge readiness, defined as meeting the criteria of stable blood pressure, pulse, and breathing; no fever over 101.5°F for 24 hours before discharge; wound healing with no concerns; pain controlled with oral medications; and ambulation or the potential for rehabilitation at the receiving facility. Secondary outcomes were changes in PT/OT progress, medical interventions, and 30-day readmission rate. PT/OT progress was categorized as either slow or steady by the therapist assigned to each patient at time of hospitalization. Steady progress indicated overall improvement on several measures, including transfers, ambulation distance, and ability to adhere to postoperative precautions; slow progress indicated no improvement on these measures.

Results for continuous variables were summarized with means, standard deviations, and ranges, and results for categorical variables were summarized with counts and percentages. Student t test was used to evaluate increase in LOS, and the McNemar test for paired data was used to analyze rehabilitation gains from readiness-for-discharge day to the next postoperative day (POD). SAS Version 9.2 software (SAS Institute) was used for all analyses.

Results

Of the 284 patients included in the study, 203 were female (71.5%), 81 male (28.5%). Mean (SD) age was 68 (11) years (range, 21-92 years). One hundred seventy-nine patients (63.0%) underwent TKA, and 105 (37.0%) underwent THA. Two hundred twenty-seven patients (80.0%) were discharged to skilled nursing care, and 57 (20.1%) to inpatient rehabilitation. Mean (SD) LOS was 3.44 (0.92) days (range, 3-9 days). One hundred eighty-three patients (64.4%) were ready for discharge on POD 2, 76 (26.8%) on POD 3, and 25 (8.8%) after POD 3. Delaying discharge until POD 3 increased LOS by 1.08 days (P < .001). Two hundred nine patients (73.6%) were discharged on POD 3, and 75 (26.4%) after POD 3. Reasons for being discharged after POD 3 were lack of ECF bed availability (48 patients, 64.0%) and postoperative complications (27 patients, 36.0%). Patients ready for discharge on POD 2 had fewer complications than patients ready after POD 2 (P < .001).

Analysis of the 183 patients who were ready for discharge on POD 2 demonstrated a statistically significant (P = .038) change in rehabilitation progress by staying an additional hospital day. However, this difference was not clinically significant: Only 17.5% of patients improved, while 82.5% remained unchanged or declined in progress. Most important, among patients who demonstrated rehabilitation gains, the improvement was not sufficient to change the decision regarding discharge destination. Three patients (1.6%) ready for discharge on POD 2 were readmitted within 30 days of discharge (2 for wound infection, 1 for syncope). Risk for 30-day readmission or development of an inpatient complication in patients ready for discharge on POD 2 was not significant (P = .073). Table 1 summarizes the statistical results.

As age 65 years or older is one of the major criteria for Medicare eligibility, a secondary analysis was performed to explore whether there were age-related differences in the study outcomes. We found no significant differences between patients 65 years or older and patients younger than 65 years with respect to discharge readiness, LOS, postoperative complications, or 30-day readmission. Table 2 summarizes the statistical results based on age.

Discussion

Consistent with our pilot study,⁴ the majority of patients discharged to an ECF were ready for discharge on POD 2. Delaying discharge until POD 3 increased LOS by 1.08 days with no significant risk in 30-day readmission if patients were allowed to be discharged 1 day earlier. Different from our pilot study results, however, 17.5% of patients who stayed past their discharge readiness showed improvement in PT/OT progress, though this was not clinically sufficient to alter the decision regarding discharge destination. This difference can be attributed to the fact that the current study (vs the pilot study) was adequately powered for this outcome.

Our study was specifically designed to evaluate the effect of Medicare’s 3-day rule—the requirement of an inpatient hospital stay of at least 3 consecutive days to qualify for coverage for treatment at an ECF. This policy creates tremendous unnecessary hospitalization and resource utilization and denies patients earlier access to specialized postacute care. To put the economic implications of this policy in perspective, almost half of the 1 million TJAs performed annually are performed for Medicare beneficiaries, and almost half of those patients are discharged to an ECF.^1,2,5 This equates to about 161,000 days of unnecessary hospitalization per year (64.4% of 250,000 patients), which translates into $310,730,000 in expenditures based on an average cost of $1930 per inpatient day for state/local government, nonprofit, and for-profit hospitals.⁶ Furthermore, with a growing trend toward outpatient TJA, the Medicare statute may leave substantial bills for patients who happen to require unplanned discharge to an ECF.

This study had its weaknesses. First, it was a retrospective review of charts at a single tertiary-care hospital. However, observer bias may have been eliminated, as the data were collected before a study was planned. An outcome such as discharge readiness, if prospectively assessed, could easily have been influenced by study personnel. Second, our patient sample was too small to definitively resolve this issue and be able to effect public policy change. However, there was sufficient power for the primary outcome. We also analyzed a consecutive group of patients who underwent a standardized postoperative clinical pathway with clear discharge-readiness criteria.

The effect of this study in the era of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative deserves special attention. The BPCI initiative is divided into 4 models that reconcile payments associated with an episode of care (eg, TKA) against a predetermined payment amount.⁷ Relevant to our study, BPCI model 2 covers inpatient hospitalization up to 30, 60, or 90 days after discharge and includes a waiver of the 3-day rule for inpatient hospitalization. There are only 60 BPCI model 2–participating health care organizations. On the basis of our study results, we think the waiver is a step in the right direction, as no demonstrable benefits were realized from having patients stay hospitalized longer. However, the waiver should not be limited to select entities, and we hope that, with further research, the statutory requirement of 3-day inpatient hospitalization will be repealed.

Conclusion

Our study results call into question the validity of Medicare’s 3-day rule, and we hope they stimulate further research to definitively resolve this question. The majority of our study patients destined for discharge to an ECF could have been safely discharged on POD 2. The implications of reducing LOS cannot be overstated. From a hospital perspective, reducing LOS eliminates unnecessary hospitalization and resource utilization. From a patient perspective, it allows earlier access to specialized care and eliminates billing confusion. From a payer perspective, it may reduce costs significantly.

Medicare beneficiaries’ demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has increased significantly over the past several years, with recent studies reporting 209,945 primary THAs and 243,802 primary TKAs performed annually.^1,2 With this demand has come an increase in the percentage of patients discharged to an extended-care facility (ECF) for skilled nursing care or acute rehabilitation—an estimated 49.3% for THA and 41.5% for TKA.^1,2 To qualify for discharge to an ECF, Medicare beneficiaries are required to have an inpatient stay of at least 3 consecutive days.³ Although the basis of this rule is unclear, it is thought to prevent hasty discharge of unstable patients.

We conducted a study to explore the effect of this policy on length of stay (LOS) in a population of patients who underwent primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Based on a pilot study by our group, we hypothesized that such a statuary requirement would be associated with increased LOS and would not prevent discharge of potentially unstable patients. Specifically, we explored whether patients who could have been discharged earlier experienced any later inpatient complications or 30-day readmission to justify staying past their discharge readiness.

Materials and Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained for this study. Between 2011 and 2012, the senior authors (Dr. Wellman, Dr. Attarian, Dr. Bolognesi) treated 985 patients with Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 27130 (THA) and 27447 (TKA). Of the 985 patients, 287 (29.13%) were discharged to an ECF and were included in the study. Three of the 287 were excluded: 2 for requiring preadmission for medical optimization and 1 for having another procedure with plastic surgery. All patients were admitted from home on day of surgery and had a standardized clinical pathway with respect to pain control, mobilization, and anticoagulation. Physical therapy and occupational therapy (PT/OT) were initiated on day of surgery and were continued daily until discharge.

The primary outcome was discharge readiness, defined as meeting the criteria of stable blood pressure, pulse, and breathing; no fever over 101.5°F for 24 hours before discharge; wound healing with no concerns; pain controlled with oral medications; and ambulation or the potential for rehabilitation at the receiving facility. Secondary outcomes were changes in PT/OT progress, medical interventions, and 30-day readmission rate. PT/OT progress was categorized as either slow or steady by the therapist assigned to each patient at time of hospitalization. Steady progress indicated overall improvement on several measures, including transfers, ambulation distance, and ability to adhere to postoperative precautions; slow progress indicated no improvement on these measures.

Results for continuous variables were summarized with means, standard deviations, and ranges, and results for categorical variables were summarized with counts and percentages. Student t test was used to evaluate increase in LOS, and the McNemar test for paired data was used to analyze rehabilitation gains from readiness-for-discharge day to the next postoperative day (POD). SAS Version 9.2 software (SAS Institute) was used for all analyses.

Results

Of the 284 patients included in the study, 203 were female (71.5%), 81 male (28.5%). Mean (SD) age was 68 (11) years (range, 21-92 years). One hundred seventy-nine patients (63.0%) underwent TKA, and 105 (37.0%) underwent THA. Two hundred twenty-seven patients (80.0%) were discharged to skilled nursing care, and 57 (20.1%) to inpatient rehabilitation. Mean (SD) LOS was 3.44 (0.92) days (range, 3-9 days). One hundred eighty-three patients (64.4%) were ready for discharge on POD 2, 76 (26.8%) on POD 3, and 25 (8.8%) after POD 3. Delaying discharge until POD 3 increased LOS by 1.08 days (P < .001). Two hundred nine patients (73.6%) were discharged on POD 3, and 75 (26.4%) after POD 3. Reasons for being discharged after POD 3 were lack of ECF bed availability (48 patients, 64.0%) and postoperative complications (27 patients, 36.0%). Patients ready for discharge on POD 2 had fewer complications than patients ready after POD 2 (P < .001).

Analysis of the 183 patients who were ready for discharge on POD 2 demonstrated a statistically significant (P = .038) change in rehabilitation progress by staying an additional hospital day. However, this difference was not clinically significant: Only 17.5% of patients improved, while 82.5% remained unchanged or declined in progress. Most important, among patients who demonstrated rehabilitation gains, the improvement was not sufficient to change the decision regarding discharge destination. Three patients (1.6%) ready for discharge on POD 2 were readmitted within 30 days of discharge (2 for wound infection, 1 for syncope). Risk for 30-day readmission or development of an inpatient complication in patients ready for discharge on POD 2 was not significant (P = .073). Table 1 summarizes the statistical results.

As age 65 years or older is one of the major criteria for Medicare eligibility, a secondary analysis was performed to explore whether there were age-related differences in the study outcomes. We found no significant differences between patients 65 years or older and patients younger than 65 years with respect to discharge readiness, LOS, postoperative complications, or 30-day readmission. Table 2 summarizes the statistical results based on age.

Discussion

Consistent with our pilot study,⁴ the majority of patients discharged to an ECF were ready for discharge on POD 2. Delaying discharge until POD 3 increased LOS by 1.08 days with no significant risk in 30-day readmission if patients were allowed to be discharged 1 day earlier. Different from our pilot study results, however, 17.5% of patients who stayed past their discharge readiness showed improvement in PT/OT progress, though this was not clinically sufficient to alter the decision regarding discharge destination. This difference can be attributed to the fact that the current study (vs the pilot study) was adequately powered for this outcome.

Our study was specifically designed to evaluate the effect of Medicare’s 3-day rule—the requirement of an inpatient hospital stay of at least 3 consecutive days to qualify for coverage for treatment at an ECF. This policy creates tremendous unnecessary hospitalization and resource utilization and denies patients earlier access to specialized postacute care. To put the economic implications of this policy in perspective, almost half of the 1 million TJAs performed annually are performed for Medicare beneficiaries, and almost half of those patients are discharged to an ECF.^1,2,5 This equates to about 161,000 days of unnecessary hospitalization per year (64.4% of 250,000 patients), which translates into $310,730,000 in expenditures based on an average cost of $1930 per inpatient day for state/local government, nonprofit, and for-profit hospitals.⁶ Furthermore, with a growing trend toward outpatient TJA, the Medicare statute may leave substantial bills for patients who happen to require unplanned discharge to an ECF.

This study had its weaknesses. First, it was a retrospective review of charts at a single tertiary-care hospital. However, observer bias may have been eliminated, as the data were collected before a study was planned. An outcome such as discharge readiness, if prospectively assessed, could easily have been influenced by study personnel. Second, our patient sample was too small to definitively resolve this issue and be able to effect public policy change. However, there was sufficient power for the primary outcome. We also analyzed a consecutive group of patients who underwent a standardized postoperative clinical pathway with clear discharge-readiness criteria.

The effect of this study in the era of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative deserves special attention. The BPCI initiative is divided into 4 models that reconcile payments associated with an episode of care (eg, TKA) against a predetermined payment amount.⁷ Relevant to our study, BPCI model 2 covers inpatient hospitalization up to 30, 60, or 90 days after discharge and includes a waiver of the 3-day rule for inpatient hospitalization. There are only 60 BPCI model 2–participating health care organizations. On the basis of our study results, we think the waiver is a step in the right direction, as no demonstrable benefits were realized from having patients stay hospitalized longer. However, the waiver should not be limited to select entities, and we hope that, with further research, the statutory requirement of 3-day inpatient hospitalization will be repealed.

Conclusion

Our study results call into question the validity of Medicare’s 3-day rule, and we hope they stimulate further research to definitively resolve this question. The majority of our study patients destined for discharge to an ECF could have been safely discharged on POD 2. The implications of reducing LOS cannot be overstated. From a hospital perspective, reducing LOS eliminates unnecessary hospitalization and resource utilization. From a patient perspective, it allows earlier access to specialized care and eliminates billing confusion. From a payer perspective, it may reduce costs significantly.

Medicare beneficiaries’ demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has increased significantly over the past several years, with recent studies reporting 209,945 primary THAs and 243,802 primary TKAs performed annually.^1,2 With this demand has come an increase in the percentage of patients discharged to an extended-care facility (ECF) for skilled nursing care or acute rehabilitation—an estimated 49.3% for THA and 41.5% for TKA.^1,2 To qualify for discharge to an ECF, Medicare beneficiaries are required to have an inpatient stay of at least 3 consecutive days.³ Although the basis of this rule is unclear, it is thought to prevent hasty discharge of unstable patients.

We conducted a study to explore the effect of this policy on length of stay (LOS) in a population of patients who underwent primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Based on a pilot study by our group, we hypothesized that such a statuary requirement would be associated with increased LOS and would not prevent discharge of potentially unstable patients. Specifically, we explored whether patients who could have been discharged earlier experienced any later inpatient complications or 30-day readmission to justify staying past their discharge readiness.

Materials and Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained for this study. Between 2011 and 2012, the senior authors (Dr. Wellman, Dr. Attarian, Dr. Bolognesi) treated 985 patients with Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes 27130 (THA) and 27447 (TKA). Of the 985 patients, 287 (29.13%) were discharged to an ECF and were included in the study. Three of the 287 were excluded: 2 for requiring preadmission for medical optimization and 1 for having another procedure with plastic surgery. All patients were admitted from home on day of surgery and had a standardized clinical pathway with respect to pain control, mobilization, and anticoagulation. Physical therapy and occupational therapy (PT/OT) were initiated on day of surgery and were continued daily until discharge.

The primary outcome was discharge readiness, defined as meeting the criteria of stable blood pressure, pulse, and breathing; no fever over 101.5°F for 24 hours before discharge; wound healing with no concerns; pain controlled with oral medications; and ambulation or the potential for rehabilitation at the receiving facility. Secondary outcomes were changes in PT/OT progress, medical interventions, and 30-day readmission rate. PT/OT progress was categorized as either slow or steady by the therapist assigned to each patient at time of hospitalization. Steady progress indicated overall improvement on several measures, including transfers, ambulation distance, and ability to adhere to postoperative precautions; slow progress indicated no improvement on these measures.

Results for continuous variables were summarized with means, standard deviations, and ranges, and results for categorical variables were summarized with counts and percentages. Student t test was used to evaluate increase in LOS, and the McNemar test for paired data was used to analyze rehabilitation gains from readiness-for-discharge day to the next postoperative day (POD). SAS Version 9.2 software (SAS Institute) was used for all analyses.

Results

Of the 284 patients included in the study, 203 were female (71.5%), 81 male (28.5%). Mean (SD) age was 68 (11) years (range, 21-92 years). One hundred seventy-nine patients (63.0%) underwent TKA, and 105 (37.0%) underwent THA. Two hundred twenty-seven patients (80.0%) were discharged to skilled nursing care, and 57 (20.1%) to inpatient rehabilitation. Mean (SD) LOS was 3.44 (0.92) days (range, 3-9 days). One hundred eighty-three patients (64.4%) were ready for discharge on POD 2, 76 (26.8%) on POD 3, and 25 (8.8%) after POD 3. Delaying discharge until POD 3 increased LOS by 1.08 days (P < .001). Two hundred nine patients (73.6%) were discharged on POD 3, and 75 (26.4%) after POD 3. Reasons for being discharged after POD 3 were lack of ECF bed availability (48 patients, 64.0%) and postoperative complications (27 patients, 36.0%). Patients ready for discharge on POD 2 had fewer complications than patients ready after POD 2 (P < .001).

Analysis of the 183 patients who were ready for discharge on POD 2 demonstrated a statistically significant (P = .038) change in rehabilitation progress by staying an additional hospital day. However, this difference was not clinically significant: Only 17.5% of patients improved, while 82.5% remained unchanged or declined in progress. Most important, among patients who demonstrated rehabilitation gains, the improvement was not sufficient to change the decision regarding discharge destination. Three patients (1.6%) ready for discharge on POD 2 were readmitted within 30 days of discharge (2 for wound infection, 1 for syncope). Risk for 30-day readmission or development of an inpatient complication in patients ready for discharge on POD 2 was not significant (P = .073). Table 1 summarizes the statistical results.

As age 65 years or older is one of the major criteria for Medicare eligibility, a secondary analysis was performed to explore whether there were age-related differences in the study outcomes. We found no significant differences between patients 65 years or older and patients younger than 65 years with respect to discharge readiness, LOS, postoperative complications, or 30-day readmission. Table 2 summarizes the statistical results based on age.

Discussion

Consistent with our pilot study,⁴ the majority of patients discharged to an ECF were ready for discharge on POD 2. Delaying discharge until POD 3 increased LOS by 1.08 days with no significant risk in 30-day readmission if patients were allowed to be discharged 1 day earlier. Different from our pilot study results, however, 17.5% of patients who stayed past their discharge readiness showed improvement in PT/OT progress, though this was not clinically sufficient to alter the decision regarding discharge destination. This difference can be attributed to the fact that the current study (vs the pilot study) was adequately powered for this outcome.

Our study was specifically designed to evaluate the effect of Medicare’s 3-day rule—the requirement of an inpatient hospital stay of at least 3 consecutive days to qualify for coverage for treatment at an ECF. This policy creates tremendous unnecessary hospitalization and resource utilization and denies patients earlier access to specialized postacute care. To put the economic implications of this policy in perspective, almost half of the 1 million TJAs performed annually are performed for Medicare beneficiaries, and almost half of those patients are discharged to an ECF.^1,2,5 This equates to about 161,000 days of unnecessary hospitalization per year (64.4% of 250,000 patients), which translates into $310,730,000 in expenditures based on an average cost of $1930 per inpatient day for state/local government, nonprofit, and for-profit hospitals.⁶ Furthermore, with a growing trend toward outpatient TJA, the Medicare statute may leave substantial bills for patients who happen to require unplanned discharge to an ECF.

This study had its weaknesses. First, it was a retrospective review of charts at a single tertiary-care hospital. However, observer bias may have been eliminated, as the data were collected before a study was planned. An outcome such as discharge readiness, if prospectively assessed, could easily have been influenced by study personnel. Second, our patient sample was too small to definitively resolve this issue and be able to effect public policy change. However, there was sufficient power for the primary outcome. We also analyzed a consecutive group of patients who underwent a standardized postoperative clinical pathway with clear discharge-readiness criteria.

The effect of this study in the era of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative deserves special attention. The BPCI initiative is divided into 4 models that reconcile payments associated with an episode of care (eg, TKA) against a predetermined payment amount.⁷ Relevant to our study, BPCI model 2 covers inpatient hospitalization up to 30, 60, or 90 days after discharge and includes a waiver of the 3-day rule for inpatient hospitalization. There are only 60 BPCI model 2–participating health care organizations. On the basis of our study results, we think the waiver is a step in the right direction, as no demonstrable benefits were realized from having patients stay hospitalized longer. However, the waiver should not be limited to select entities, and we hope that, with further research, the statutory requirement of 3-day inpatient hospitalization will be repealed.

Conclusion

Our study results call into question the validity of Medicare’s 3-day rule, and we hope they stimulate further research to definitively resolve this question. The majority of our study patients destined for discharge to an ECF could have been safely discharged on POD 2. The implications of reducing LOS cannot be overstated. From a hospital perspective, reducing LOS eliminates unnecessary hospitalization and resource utilization. From a patient perspective, it allows earlier access to specialized care and eliminates billing confusion. From a payer perspective, it may reduce costs significantly.

Fracture blisters are a relatively uncommon complication of high-energy fractures, with an incidence of 2.9%.¹ In the lower extremity, fracture blisters almost always occur distal to the knee.¹ Histologically, the blisters represent an injury to the dermoepidermal junction.² On physical examination, there are tense blood- and/or clear fluid–filled bullae overlying markedly swollen and edematous soft tissue,¹ resembling a second-degree burn.³ Infection may develop after fracture blisters,¹ and this is perhaps the most dreaded complication of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 71-year-old man with end-stage osteoarthritis of the right knee underwent an elective TKA with cemented components (Legion PS; Smith & Nephew). His medical history included venous insufficiency, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, morbid obesity (body mass index, 50), and a previous uneventful left TKA. Tourniquet time was 78 minutes and estimated blood loss was 100 mL. An intra-articular drain was used and was removed on the first postoperative day. After wound closure, a soft splint bandage consisting of 2 to 3 layers of cotton and bias wrap was applied. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily was started on the first postoperative day.

Upon removal of the surgical dressings on the second postoperative day, the anterior leg was found to have a combination of tense clear fluid– and blood-filled blisters on markedly swollen and erythematous skin. The incision was minimally involved (Figure A). There was diffuse 2+ pitting edema with hyperesthesia in the affected skin distal to the knee. Prior to these findings, the patient had complained of increasing pain in his operative leg, but there was no escalation in analgesic requirements. There was no evidence of compartment syndrome on serial examinations. An ultrasound of the lower extremity was negative for DVT. Plain films did not show iatrogenic fractures. There was no intraoperative vascular injury, and the foot pulses remained unchanged between the time the patient was in the preoperative holding unit, the postanesthesia care unit, and the orthopedic ward. The operative leg was treated with elevation and loosely applied Kerlix roll gauze (Kendall, Covidien), but active blister formation continued for another 2 days. A 10-day prophylactic course of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole was initiated on the third postoperative day after the blisters started to rupture. The patient was allowed to bear weight as tolerated, but his physical therapy (PT) course was limited by pain and fear “of losing his leg.” He declined several PT sessions and was hesitant to use continuous passive motion. The patient was discharged to a short-term rehabilitation facility with weekly outpatient follow-up. On the second postoperative week, his fluid-filled blisters completely reepithelialized, but the blood-filled blisters required an additional week for reepithelialization (Figure B). While the patient’s knee was stiff because of limited PT participation, it was not until the second postoperative week when most of the fracture blisters had healed that he was able to resume an intensive knee exercise program, avoiding the need for manipulation under anesthesia.

Discussion

Giordano and colleagues² identified 2 types of fracture blisters: clear fluid– and blood-filled. While both types involved disruption of the dermoepidermal junction, greater disruption and complete absence of dermal epithelial cells was observed in the hemorrhagic type. Clinical follow-up of the patients in the study by Giordano and colleagues² showed that the mean time for reepithelialization was 12 days for fluid-filled blisters and 16 days for blood-filled blisters. These findings are similar to what we observed in our case report. In particular, the fluid-filled blisters healed in 2 weeks, whereas the blood-filled blisters required 3 weeks to heal.

The etiology of the fracture blisters in this patient is likely multifactorial and related to age, obesity, venous insufficiency, and diabetes mellitus. Farage and colleagues⁴ described a series of progressive degenerative changes in the aging skin, including vascular atrophy and degradation of dermal connective tissue, leading to compromised skin competence. The integrity of the dermis can be further reduced in patients with diabetes through glycosylation of collagen fibrils.⁵ Compared with age-matched normal controls, patients with insulin-dependent diabetes have a reduced threshold to suction-induced blister formation.⁶ Obesity is another potential contributing factor, with multiple studies showing significantly impaired venous flow in obese patients.^7,8 Taken together, soft-tissue swelling after surgery in the setting of chronic venous insufficiency and compromised skin due to advanced age and diabetes may lead to markedly elevated interstitial pressure. One mechanism to relieve such abnormally high pressure is the formation of fracture blisters.¹

Surgical risk factors that could have contributed to the complication in this case include the surgical skin preparation solution (ChloraPrep; CareFusion), use of adhesive antimicrobial drape (Ioban, 3M), tourniquet time, dressing choice, and DVT prophylaxis regimen. While the skin preparation solution is an unlikely culprit since the presentation is not consistent with contact dermatitis, inappropriate strapping or removal of the adhesive drape could result in stretch injury of the skin, shearing the dermoepidermal junction and causing tension blisters.⁹ There were no intraoperative complications and the tourniquet time was appropriate (78 minutes). Postoperatively, no compressive or adhesive dressings were used. With regards to DVT prophylaxis, the patient received a single dose of enoxaparin on the first postoperative day. While heparin-induced hemorrhagic blisters have been reported,¹⁰ I do not feel that the use of enoxaparin was a contributing factor. Heparin-induced blisters have been described as systemic blisters,¹⁰ whereas the blisters in this case were confined to the operative extremity. The patient was not taking any nutritional supplements (eg, fish oil, vitamin E) that could have increased his risk of bleeding. Throughout his hospital stay, he was hemodynamically stable and did not require blood transfusion.

Management of fracture blisters is controversial, and there is no consensus on appropriate soft-tissue handling. In this patient, the blisters were left intact. Blister fluid has been shown to be sterile, containing growth factors, opsonins, and activated neutrophils that aid in healing and infection prevention.¹ Giordano and Koval¹¹ found no difference in the outcome of 3 soft-tissue treatment techniques: (1) aspiration of the blister, (2) deroofing of the blister followed by application of a topical antibiotic cream or coverage with nonadherent dressing, or (3) keeping the blister intact and covered with loose dressing or exposed to air. In contrast, Strauss and colleagues¹² found that deroofing the fracture blister to healthy tissue followed by twice-daily application of silver sulfadiazine antibiotic cream promoted reepithelialization and resulted in better cosmetic appearance and higher patient satisfaction. 

The optimal dressing for fracture blisters remains elusive. Madden and colleagues¹³ showed that the use of occlusive nonadherent dressing was associated with significantly faster healing and less pain compared with semiocclusive, antibiotic-impregnated dressings. In another study, Varela and colleagues¹ found no differences in blister healing between patients treated with either (1) dry dressing and casting, (2) Silvadene dressing (King Pharmaceuticals), or (3) whirlpool débridement and Silvadene dressing.

Infection is perhaps the most dreaded complication of fracture blisters after TKA. Varela and colleagues¹ showed that, while the fluid in intact blisters was a sterile transudate, polymicrobial colonization with skin flora often occurred soon after blister rupture and persisted until reepithelialization. Our patient received a 10-day course of prophylactic antibiotics and no superficial or deep infection developed; however, the real contribution of antibiotic prophylaxis to the absence of infection cannot be established based solely on 1 case.

Pain is another concern associated with fracture blisters. Our patient had significant pain that limited his ability to participate in PT, resulting in limited knee range of motion and eventual discharge to a short-term rehabilitation facility. Fortunately, after resolution of the fracture blisters, he was able to participate in an aggressive rehabilitation program. By 6 weeks after surgery, he had significant improvement in his knee motion, avoiding the need for manipulation under anesthesia.

Conclusion

This case represents the first reported fracture blisters after primary TKA. The risk of deep surgical site infection, a devastating complication after TKA, is perhaps the most frightening concern of this rare complication. While the etiology and the management are controversial, there is evidence to recommend prophylactic antibiotics after blister rupture and skin desquamation. The decision to withhold DVT prophylaxis should be based on individual patient risk factors and blister type (blood-filled vs clear fluid–filled). Patients should be encouraged to continue knee exercises during reepithelialization to avoid stiffness.

Fracture blisters are a relatively uncommon complication of high-energy fractures, with an incidence of 2.9%.¹ In the lower extremity, fracture blisters almost always occur distal to the knee.¹ Histologically, the blisters represent an injury to the dermoepidermal junction.² On physical examination, there are tense blood- and/or clear fluid–filled bullae overlying markedly swollen and edematous soft tissue,¹ resembling a second-degree burn.³ Infection may develop after fracture blisters,¹ and this is perhaps the most dreaded complication of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 71-year-old man with end-stage osteoarthritis of the right knee underwent an elective TKA with cemented components (Legion PS; Smith & Nephew). His medical history included venous insufficiency, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, morbid obesity (body mass index, 50), and a previous uneventful left TKA. Tourniquet time was 78 minutes and estimated blood loss was 100 mL. An intra-articular drain was used and was removed on the first postoperative day. After wound closure, a soft splint bandage consisting of 2 to 3 layers of cotton and bias wrap was applied. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily was started on the first postoperative day.

Upon removal of the surgical dressings on the second postoperative day, the anterior leg was found to have a combination of tense clear fluid– and blood-filled blisters on markedly swollen and erythematous skin. The incision was minimally involved (Figure A). There was diffuse 2+ pitting edema with hyperesthesia in the affected skin distal to the knee. Prior to these findings, the patient had complained of increasing pain in his operative leg, but there was no escalation in analgesic requirements. There was no evidence of compartment syndrome on serial examinations. An ultrasound of the lower extremity was negative for DVT. Plain films did not show iatrogenic fractures. There was no intraoperative vascular injury, and the foot pulses remained unchanged between the time the patient was in the preoperative holding unit, the postanesthesia care unit, and the orthopedic ward. The operative leg was treated with elevation and loosely applied Kerlix roll gauze (Kendall, Covidien), but active blister formation continued for another 2 days. A 10-day prophylactic course of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole was initiated on the third postoperative day after the blisters started to rupture. The patient was allowed to bear weight as tolerated, but his physical therapy (PT) course was limited by pain and fear “of losing his leg.” He declined several PT sessions and was hesitant to use continuous passive motion. The patient was discharged to a short-term rehabilitation facility with weekly outpatient follow-up. On the second postoperative week, his fluid-filled blisters completely reepithelialized, but the blood-filled blisters required an additional week for reepithelialization (Figure B). While the patient’s knee was stiff because of limited PT participation, it was not until the second postoperative week when most of the fracture blisters had healed that he was able to resume an intensive knee exercise program, avoiding the need for manipulation under anesthesia.

Discussion

Giordano and colleagues² identified 2 types of fracture blisters: clear fluid– and blood-filled. While both types involved disruption of the dermoepidermal junction, greater disruption and complete absence of dermal epithelial cells was observed in the hemorrhagic type. Clinical follow-up of the patients in the study by Giordano and colleagues² showed that the mean time for reepithelialization was 12 days for fluid-filled blisters and 16 days for blood-filled blisters. These findings are similar to what we observed in our case report. In particular, the fluid-filled blisters healed in 2 weeks, whereas the blood-filled blisters required 3 weeks to heal.

The etiology of the fracture blisters in this patient is likely multifactorial and related to age, obesity, venous insufficiency, and diabetes mellitus. Farage and colleagues⁴ described a series of progressive degenerative changes in the aging skin, including vascular atrophy and degradation of dermal connective tissue, leading to compromised skin competence. The integrity of the dermis can be further reduced in patients with diabetes through glycosylation of collagen fibrils.⁵ Compared with age-matched normal controls, patients with insulin-dependent diabetes have a reduced threshold to suction-induced blister formation.⁶ Obesity is another potential contributing factor, with multiple studies showing significantly impaired venous flow in obese patients.^7,8 Taken together, soft-tissue swelling after surgery in the setting of chronic venous insufficiency and compromised skin due to advanced age and diabetes may lead to markedly elevated interstitial pressure. One mechanism to relieve such abnormally high pressure is the formation of fracture blisters.¹

Surgical risk factors that could have contributed to the complication in this case include the surgical skin preparation solution (ChloraPrep; CareFusion), use of adhesive antimicrobial drape (Ioban, 3M), tourniquet time, dressing choice, and DVT prophylaxis regimen. While the skin preparation solution is an unlikely culprit since the presentation is not consistent with contact dermatitis, inappropriate strapping or removal of the adhesive drape could result in stretch injury of the skin, shearing the dermoepidermal junction and causing tension blisters.⁹ There were no intraoperative complications and the tourniquet time was appropriate (78 minutes). Postoperatively, no compressive or adhesive dressings were used. With regards to DVT prophylaxis, the patient received a single dose of enoxaparin on the first postoperative day. While heparin-induced hemorrhagic blisters have been reported,¹⁰ I do not feel that the use of enoxaparin was a contributing factor. Heparin-induced blisters have been described as systemic blisters,¹⁰ whereas the blisters in this case were confined to the operative extremity. The patient was not taking any nutritional supplements (eg, fish oil, vitamin E) that could have increased his risk of bleeding. Throughout his hospital stay, he was hemodynamically stable and did not require blood transfusion.

Management of fracture blisters is controversial, and there is no consensus on appropriate soft-tissue handling. In this patient, the blisters were left intact. Blister fluid has been shown to be sterile, containing growth factors, opsonins, and activated neutrophils that aid in healing and infection prevention.¹ Giordano and Koval¹¹ found no difference in the outcome of 3 soft-tissue treatment techniques: (1) aspiration of the blister, (2) deroofing of the blister followed by application of a topical antibiotic cream or coverage with nonadherent dressing, or (3) keeping the blister intact and covered with loose dressing or exposed to air. In contrast, Strauss and colleagues¹² found that deroofing the fracture blister to healthy tissue followed by twice-daily application of silver sulfadiazine antibiotic cream promoted reepithelialization and resulted in better cosmetic appearance and higher patient satisfaction. 

The optimal dressing for fracture blisters remains elusive. Madden and colleagues¹³ showed that the use of occlusive nonadherent dressing was associated with significantly faster healing and less pain compared with semiocclusive, antibiotic-impregnated dressings. In another study, Varela and colleagues¹ found no differences in blister healing between patients treated with either (1) dry dressing and casting, (2) Silvadene dressing (King Pharmaceuticals), or (3) whirlpool débridement and Silvadene dressing.

Infection is perhaps the most dreaded complication of fracture blisters after TKA. Varela and colleagues¹ showed that, while the fluid in intact blisters was a sterile transudate, polymicrobial colonization with skin flora often occurred soon after blister rupture and persisted until reepithelialization. Our patient received a 10-day course of prophylactic antibiotics and no superficial or deep infection developed; however, the real contribution of antibiotic prophylaxis to the absence of infection cannot be established based solely on 1 case.

Pain is another concern associated with fracture blisters. Our patient had significant pain that limited his ability to participate in PT, resulting in limited knee range of motion and eventual discharge to a short-term rehabilitation facility. Fortunately, after resolution of the fracture blisters, he was able to participate in an aggressive rehabilitation program. By 6 weeks after surgery, he had significant improvement in his knee motion, avoiding the need for manipulation under anesthesia.

Conclusion

This case represents the first reported fracture blisters after primary TKA. The risk of deep surgical site infection, a devastating complication after TKA, is perhaps the most frightening concern of this rare complication. While the etiology and the management are controversial, there is evidence to recommend prophylactic antibiotics after blister rupture and skin desquamation. The decision to withhold DVT prophylaxis should be based on individual patient risk factors and blister type (blood-filled vs clear fluid–filled). Patients should be encouraged to continue knee exercises during reepithelialization to avoid stiffness.

Fracture blisters are a relatively uncommon complication of high-energy fractures, with an incidence of 2.9%.¹ In the lower extremity, fracture blisters almost always occur distal to the knee.¹ Histologically, the blisters represent an injury to the dermoepidermal junction.² On physical examination, there are tense blood- and/or clear fluid–filled bullae overlying markedly swollen and edematous soft tissue,¹ resembling a second-degree burn.³ Infection may develop after fracture blisters,¹ and this is perhaps the most dreaded complication of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 71-year-old man with end-stage osteoarthritis of the right knee underwent an elective TKA with cemented components (Legion PS; Smith & Nephew). His medical history included venous insufficiency, type 2 diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive sleep apnea, hypertension, morbid obesity (body mass index, 50), and a previous uneventful left TKA. Tourniquet time was 78 minutes and estimated blood loss was 100 mL. An intra-articular drain was used and was removed on the first postoperative day. After wound closure, a soft splint bandage consisting of 2 to 3 layers of cotton and bias wrap was applied. Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis with enoxaparin 40 mg once daily was started on the first postoperative day.

Upon removal of the surgical dressings on the second postoperative day, the anterior leg was found to have a combination of tense clear fluid– and blood-filled blisters on markedly swollen and erythematous skin. The incision was minimally involved (Figure A). There was diffuse 2+ pitting edema with hyperesthesia in the affected skin distal to the knee. Prior to these findings, the patient had complained of increasing pain in his operative leg, but there was no escalation in analgesic requirements. There was no evidence of compartment syndrome on serial examinations. An ultrasound of the lower extremity was negative for DVT. Plain films did not show iatrogenic fractures. There was no intraoperative vascular injury, and the foot pulses remained unchanged between the time the patient was in the preoperative holding unit, the postanesthesia care unit, and the orthopedic ward. The operative leg was treated with elevation and loosely applied Kerlix roll gauze (Kendall, Covidien), but active blister formation continued for another 2 days. A 10-day prophylactic course of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole was initiated on the third postoperative day after the blisters started to rupture. The patient was allowed to bear weight as tolerated, but his physical therapy (PT) course was limited by pain and fear “of losing his leg.” He declined several PT sessions and was hesitant to use continuous passive motion. The patient was discharged to a short-term rehabilitation facility with weekly outpatient follow-up. On the second postoperative week, his fluid-filled blisters completely reepithelialized, but the blood-filled blisters required an additional week for reepithelialization (Figure B). While the patient’s knee was stiff because of limited PT participation, it was not until the second postoperative week when most of the fracture blisters had healed that he was able to resume an intensive knee exercise program, avoiding the need for manipulation under anesthesia.

Discussion

Giordano and colleagues² identified 2 types of fracture blisters: clear fluid– and blood-filled. While both types involved disruption of the dermoepidermal junction, greater disruption and complete absence of dermal epithelial cells was observed in the hemorrhagic type. Clinical follow-up of the patients in the study by Giordano and colleagues² showed that the mean time for reepithelialization was 12 days for fluid-filled blisters and 16 days for blood-filled blisters. These findings are similar to what we observed in our case report. In particular, the fluid-filled blisters healed in 2 weeks, whereas the blood-filled blisters required 3 weeks to heal.

The etiology of the fracture blisters in this patient is likely multifactorial and related to age, obesity, venous insufficiency, and diabetes mellitus. Farage and colleagues⁴ described a series of progressive degenerative changes in the aging skin, including vascular atrophy and degradation of dermal connective tissue, leading to compromised skin competence. The integrity of the dermis can be further reduced in patients with diabetes through glycosylation of collagen fibrils.⁵ Compared with age-matched normal controls, patients with insulin-dependent diabetes have a reduced threshold to suction-induced blister formation.⁶ Obesity is another potential contributing factor, with multiple studies showing significantly impaired venous flow in obese patients.^7,8 Taken together, soft-tissue swelling after surgery in the setting of chronic venous insufficiency and compromised skin due to advanced age and diabetes may lead to markedly elevated interstitial pressure. One mechanism to relieve such abnormally high pressure is the formation of fracture blisters.¹

Surgical risk factors that could have contributed to the complication in this case include the surgical skin preparation solution (ChloraPrep; CareFusion), use of adhesive antimicrobial drape (Ioban, 3M), tourniquet time, dressing choice, and DVT prophylaxis regimen. While the skin preparation solution is an unlikely culprit since the presentation is not consistent with contact dermatitis, inappropriate strapping or removal of the adhesive drape could result in stretch injury of the skin, shearing the dermoepidermal junction and causing tension blisters.⁹ There were no intraoperative complications and the tourniquet time was appropriate (78 minutes). Postoperatively, no compressive or adhesive dressings were used. With regards to DVT prophylaxis, the patient received a single dose of enoxaparin on the first postoperative day. While heparin-induced hemorrhagic blisters have been reported,¹⁰ I do not feel that the use of enoxaparin was a contributing factor. Heparin-induced blisters have been described as systemic blisters,¹⁰ whereas the blisters in this case were confined to the operative extremity. The patient was not taking any nutritional supplements (eg, fish oil, vitamin E) that could have increased his risk of bleeding. Throughout his hospital stay, he was hemodynamically stable and did not require blood transfusion.

Management of fracture blisters is controversial, and there is no consensus on appropriate soft-tissue handling. In this patient, the blisters were left intact. Blister fluid has been shown to be sterile, containing growth factors, opsonins, and activated neutrophils that aid in healing and infection prevention.¹ Giordano and Koval¹¹ found no difference in the outcome of 3 soft-tissue treatment techniques: (1) aspiration of the blister, (2) deroofing of the blister followed by application of a topical antibiotic cream or coverage with nonadherent dressing, or (3) keeping the blister intact and covered with loose dressing or exposed to air. In contrast, Strauss and colleagues¹² found that deroofing the fracture blister to healthy tissue followed by twice-daily application of silver sulfadiazine antibiotic cream promoted reepithelialization and resulted in better cosmetic appearance and higher patient satisfaction. 

The optimal dressing for fracture blisters remains elusive. Madden and colleagues¹³ showed that the use of occlusive nonadherent dressing was associated with significantly faster healing and less pain compared with semiocclusive, antibiotic-impregnated dressings. In another study, Varela and colleagues¹ found no differences in blister healing between patients treated with either (1) dry dressing and casting, (2) Silvadene dressing (King Pharmaceuticals), or (3) whirlpool débridement and Silvadene dressing.

Infection is perhaps the most dreaded complication of fracture blisters after TKA. Varela and colleagues¹ showed that, while the fluid in intact blisters was a sterile transudate, polymicrobial colonization with skin flora often occurred soon after blister rupture and persisted until reepithelialization. Our patient received a 10-day course of prophylactic antibiotics and no superficial or deep infection developed; however, the real contribution of antibiotic prophylaxis to the absence of infection cannot be established based solely on 1 case.

Pain is another concern associated with fracture blisters. Our patient had significant pain that limited his ability to participate in PT, resulting in limited knee range of motion and eventual discharge to a short-term rehabilitation facility. Fortunately, after resolution of the fracture blisters, he was able to participate in an aggressive rehabilitation program. By 6 weeks after surgery, he had significant improvement in his knee motion, avoiding the need for manipulation under anesthesia.

Conclusion

This case represents the first reported fracture blisters after primary TKA. The risk of deep surgical site infection, a devastating complication after TKA, is perhaps the most frightening concern of this rare complication. While the etiology and the management are controversial, there is evidence to recommend prophylactic antibiotics after blister rupture and skin desquamation. The decision to withhold DVT prophylaxis should be based on individual patient risk factors and blister type (blood-filled vs clear fluid–filled). Patients should be encouraged to continue knee exercises during reepithelialization to avoid stiffness.