» Articles » PMID: 27172864

Discharge Destination After Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: An Analysis of Postdischarge Outcomes and Placement Risk Factors

Overview
Journal J Arthroplasty
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2016 May 14
PMID 27172864
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Given the rising incidence of revision total joint arthroplasty (RJR), bundled payments will likely be applied to RJR in the near future. This study aimed to compare postdischarge adverse events by discharge destination, identify risk factors for discharge placement, and stratify RJR patients based on these risk factors to identify the most appropriate discharge destination.

Methods: Patients that underwent revision total hip or knee arthroplasty from 2011 to 2013 were identified in the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Analysis of risk factors was assessed using preoperative and intraoperative variables.

Results: A total of 9973 RJR patients from 2011 to 2013 were included for analysis. The most common discharge destination included home (66%), skilled nursing facility (SNF; 23%), and inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF; 11%). Bivariate analysis revealed higher rate of postdischarge 30-day severe adverse events (6.1% vs 4.1%, P < .001) and unplanned readmissions (9.3% vs 6.1%, P < .001) in nonhome vs home patients. In multivariate analysis, SNF and IRF patients were 1.30 and 1.51 times more likely to suffer an unplanned 30-day readmission relative to home patients (P ≤ .01), respectively. After stratifying patients by number of significant risk factors and discharge destination, IRF patients consistently had significantly higher rates of unplanned 30-day readmission than home patients (P ≤ .05).

Conclusion: RJR patients who are discharged to SNF or IRF have significantly increased risk for unplanned readmissions as compared with patients discharged home. Across risk levels, home discharge destination (when feasible) is the optimal strategy compared with IRF, although the distinction between SNF and home is less clear.

Citing Articles

All Enabling Technology Is Not Created Equal: Comparing Outcomes of Computer-Assisted Fluoroscopic Navigation Versus Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Bernstein J, Gupta A, Kabiri M, Ruppenkamp J, Goldstein L, Diaz R J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2024; 8(12).

PMID: 39719008 PMC: 11671058. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-24-00324.


Anterior Versus Posterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty in Femoral Neck Fractures.

McCormick K, Mastroianni M, Herndon C, Sarpong N, Shah R, Cooper H Arthroplast Today. 2024; 30:101573.

PMID: 39606101 PMC: 11599989. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101573.


Factors Influencing Postoperative Inpatient Rehabilitation Requirement After Surgical Intervention for Isolated Hip Fracture: A Multicenter Study.

Lynch D, Romero A, McFadden J, Zeblisky P, Liu H, Ang D Orthop Surg. 2024; 17(1):252-259.

PMID: 39545453 PMC: 11735350. DOI: 10.1111/os.14290.


Socioeconomic area deprivation index is not associated with postoperative complications following revision total hip and knee joint arthroplasty.

Shimizu M, Buddhiraju A, Chen T, Huang Z, Chen S, Xiao P J Orthop. 2024; 58:135-139.

PMID: 39100544 PMC: 11295536. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2024.07.008.


A balance focused biometric does not predict rehabilitation needs and outcomes following total knee arthroplasty.

Lee J, Arora P, Finlay A, Amanatullah D BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024; 25(1):473.

PMID: 38880892 PMC: 11181625. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-024-07580-1.