Aims: Although readmission has historically been of primary interest, emergency department (ED) visits are increasingly a point of focus and can serve as a potentially unnecessary gateway to readmission. This study aims to analyze the difference between primary and revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) cases in terms of the rate and reasons associated with 90-day ED visits. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent TJA from 2011 to 2021 at a single, large, tertiary urban institution. Patients were separated into two cohorts based on whether they underwent primary or revision TJA (rTJA). Outcomes of interest included ED visit within 90-days of surgery, as well as reasons for ED visit and readmission rate. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to compare the two groups while accounting for all statistically significant demographic variables. Results: Overall, 28,033 patients were included, of whom 24,930 (89%) underwent primary and 3,103 (11%) underwent rTJA. The overall rate of 90-day ED visits was significantly lower for patients who underwent primary TJA in comparison to those who underwent rTJA (3.9% vs 7.0%; p < 0.001). Among those who presented to the ED, the readmission rate was statistically lower for patients who underwent primary TJA compared to rTJA (23.5% vs 32.1%; p < 0.001). Conclusion: ED visits present a significant burden to the healthcare system. Patients who undergo rTJA are more likely to present to the ED within 90 days following surgery compared to primary TJA patients. However, among patients in both cohorts who visited the ED, three-quarters did not require readmission. Future efforts should aim to develop cost-effective and patient-centred interventions that can aid in reducing preventable ED visits following TJA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):543–548.

This study was the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes between conventional open surgery and biportal endoscopy for decompression and fusion of lumbar degenerative disease. Although conventional open spine surgery has been the standard approach for decades, biportal endoscopy has gained attention as a minimally invasive alternative with potential surgical outcome benefits. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis including eight comparative studies on open and biportal endoscopic spine surgery. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified studies that reported outcomes, such as the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, complication rates, operative time, and hospital stay. Data were analyzed using a random effects model to evaluate the effect size between the two approaches. We analyzed 414 open and 383 biportal endoscopic lumbar surgical procedures. The open group had a mean age of 61.0 years and comprised 42.0% men, whereas the biportal group had a mean age of 59.8 years and comprised 46.7% men. Compared with open spine surgery, biportal surgery was associated with a significantly longer operative time but shorter length of hospital stay and similar preoperative VAS scores, ODI score, and postoperative outcomes at 1 year. Fusion subgroup analysis showed significantly lower VAS score for back pain with biportal surgery than with open surgery, but the other measures were comparable. Despite its longer operative time, biportal endoscopy led to shorter hospital stay and similar long-term pain and disability outcomes, compared with open spine surgery. Given the significant improvement in short-term leg pain relief after fusion procedures, biportal endoscopic spine surgery is a potential minimally invasive alternative to open surgery that warrants further study.

Background: Patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) are at risk for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). To treat PJI, orthopaedic surgeons can perform 1-stage or 2-stage revision arthroplasty. Although 2-stage revision yields superior long-term outcomes, the optimal antibiotic therapy duration and route of administration between stages remain uncertain. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify if variations in antibiotic therapy, duration, and administration during 2-stage hip or knee revision arthroplasty affect PJI eradication rates and surgical outcome measures. Methods: A literature search was performed using the PubMed and Google Scholar databases to identify all original reports from January 2000 to June 2021 involving 2-stage revision arthroplasty to treat PJI. Studies were included if they specified antibiotic duration, an intravenous (IV) route of antibiotic administration, type of antibiotic, and 2-stage revision PJI eradication rate and had a mean or median follow-up of at least 2 years after the second-stage operation. Included studies were classified into 3 groups based on the length of IV antibiotic therapy after prosthesis explantation: prolonged IV antibiotic therapy of 4 to 6 weeks, shortened IV antibiotic therapy of ≤2 weeks, and shortened course of IV antibiotic therapy followed by 6 to 12 weeks of oral antibiotics. Results: Nine studies were included. Three studies utilizing a prolonged IV antibiotic therapy had PJI eradication rates of 79% to 96%. Four studies using a shortened IV antibiotic therapy showed PJI eradication rates of 88% to 100%. Finally, 2 studies utilizing a shortened course of IV antibiotic therapy with oral antibiotics had PJI eradication rates of 95% and 97%. There was no significant difference in eradication rates across IV antibiotic duration strategies, despite a diverse array of cultured microorganisms across the studies. Conclusions: Although the numbers are small, this systematic review suggests that prolonged IV antibiotic duration, shortened IV antibiotic duration, and shortened IV antibiotic duration supplemented with oral antibiotics confer similar PJI eradication rates after hip or knee arthroplasty. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Study Design: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Objectives: Lumbar degenerative disease (LDD) is prevalent among aging adults. While tubular retraction is a widely used minimally invasive approach, biportal endoscopic spine surgery has emerged as a potential alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical outcomes of tubular retraction and biportal endoscopy for decompression procedures (discectomy, laminectomy, laminotomy) and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in LDD patients. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies was conducted per PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus identified relevant studies published before October 7, 2024. Data were analyzed using a random-effects model to assess Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, complication rates, operative time, and length of stay at preoperative, ≤2-weeks postoperative, and ≥1-year postoperative time points. Results: A total of 772 patients were included (400 tubular, 372 biportal). Biportal endoscopic surgery was associated with a lower complication rate (10.73% vs 15.94%; P < .001) and lower ≤2-week postoperative VAS back pain (2.70 ± 0.27 vs 3.55 ± 0.49; P < .001) relative to tubular spine surgery. Biportal decompression had a lower complication rate (15.13% vs 22.34%; P = .006) but similar patient-reported outcomes. Biportal TLIF had longer operative times (189.93 ± 25.90 vs 145.1 ± 14.90 min; P = .026) but lower complication rates (6.33% vs 9.55%; P = .026) and ≥1-year VAS leg pain (1.88 ± 0.29 vs 2.02 ± 0.26; P < .001). Conclusions: Biportal endoscopy for LDD had lower complication rates and similar patient-reported outcomes relative to tubular retraction, though longer operative times in TLIF subanalysis. Future studies are necessary to validate findings and guide patient-specific decision-making.

Systematic review and meta-analysis. To perform a comprehensive meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes of uniportal versus biportal endoscopic spine surgery across decompression procedures in patients with lumbar degenerative disease (LDD). Uniportal endoscopic spine surgery has been a widely adopted minimally invasive technique, whereas biportal endoscopy has recently emerged as a promising alternative with potential advantages in surgical outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Eleven studies encompassing 374 uniportal and 368 biportal patients were included. Outcomes analyzed were Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores for back and leg pain, complication rates, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Biportal endoscopic surgery was associated with a significantly lower ODI at 1-3 months and at final follow-up compared with uniportal surgery. However, uniportal discectomy demonstrated significantly shorter operative time and length of hospital stay than biportal discectomy. No significant differences were observed between approaches in terms of VAS scores, complication rates, or ODI at other time points. Both uniportal and biportal endoscopic spine surgeries yield comparable postoperative outcomes in LDD. Although biportal surgery showed a modest advantage in ODI improvement, it did not reach the minimal clinically important difference. Uniportal surgery demonstrated greater efficiency in terms of operative time and recovery, particularly for discectomy procedures.

Introduction: Advanced age is considered a major risk factor for postoperative complications in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Consequently, older patients undergoing THA may require more detailed pre-procedural examinations and more healthcare resources postoperatively than younger patients. The purpose of this study was to compare discharge parameters and complication rates of THA in patients ⩾90 years old to those <90 years old. Methods: A retrospective review of 14,824 THA patients from 2011 to 2021 at a high-volume, urban academic centre was conducted. Patients ⩾90 years old were propensity-matched to a control group of patients aged <90 years old. Patient demographics, surgical time, hospital length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and 90-day revision, readmission, and mortality rates were collected. Demographic differences and outcomes were assessed using chi-square and independent sample t-tests. Results: After propensity matching, the average age in the younger cohort (YC, n = 54) was 75.81 ± 7.89, and 91.61 ± 1.73 for the older cohort (OC, n = 54). The OC had a longer LOS than the YC (mean 3.90 vs. 3.06 days; p = 0.031). Discharge disposition significantly differed ( p = 0.007); older patients were more likely to be discharged to skilled nursing facilities (33.3% vs. 14.8%) or acute rehabilitation centres (14.8% vs. 3.7%) and less likely to be discharged to prior place of residence (home self-managed/home with services, 51.9% vs. 79.6%). There was no significant difference in surgical time (93.87 ± 29.75 vs. 96.09 ± 26.31 min; p = 0.682), 90-day revision rate (3.7% vs. 0%; p = 0.153), 90-day readmission rate (9.4% vs. 3.7%; p = 0.543), and 90-day mortality rate (1.9% vs. 1.9%; p = 1.000). Conclusions: Although THA patients over 90 years of age had a longer LOS and differing discharge disposition, these patients had similar complications compared to their younger counterparts. Thus, our study supports similar efficacy of THA in patients 90 years and older relative to younger THA candidates.