Connect
MJA
MJA

An enhanced recovery after surgery program for hip and knee arthroplasty

Nicholas Christelis, Sophie Wallace, Claire E Sage, Uate Babitu, Susan Liew, James Dugal, Ibolya Nyulasi, Nora Mutalima, Ton Tran and Paul S Myles
Med J Aust 2015; 202 (7): 363-368. || doi: 10.5694/mja14.00601

Summary

Objective: To institute and evaluate the benefits of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program across three hospitals in Victoria.

Design, setting and participants: We used a before-and-after quality improvement study design consisting of three phases: pre-ERAS program data collection from March to September 2012; ERAS training and implementation during September 2012; and change performance measurement following ERAS implementation from October 2012 to May 2013.

Main outcome measures: The primary end point was duration of hospital stay after knee or hip arthroplasty. Secondary end points were adherence to the ERAS bundle, and process and patient recovery characteristics.

Results: We enrolled 412 patients to the pre-ERAS (existing-practice) phase and compared them with 297 patients in the ERAS phase. For ERAS patients, compared with existing-practice patients, hospital stay was reduced (geometric mean, 5.3 [SD, 1.6] v 4.9 [SD, 1.6] days; P < 0.001) and there was a significant improvement in the proportion of patients ready for discharge on Day 3 after surgery (41% v 59%; P < 0.001). The most common reason for delayed discharge was patients waiting for review or access to rehabilitation services. There were markedly improved indicators of processes and outcomes of care, including improved patient education, reduced fasting times, less blood loss, better analgesia, earlier ambulation and improved overall quality of recovery.

Conclusion: We found that an ERAS program could be successfully implemented in elective joint arthroplasty, leading to a shorter duration of hospital stay. We recommend this orthopaedic ERAS pathway.

Please login with your free MJA account to view this article in full

  • Nicholas Christelis1,2
  • Sophie Wallace1
  • Claire E Sage1
  • Uate Babitu3
  • Susan Liew1
  • James Dugal3
  • Ibolya Nyulasi1,0,0,2
  • Nora Mutalima4
  • Ton Tran5
  • Paul S Myles1

  • 1 The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, VIC.
  • 2 Monash University, Melbourne, VIC.
  • 3 Bendigo Hospital, Bendigo, VIC.
  • 4 Dandenong Hospital, Melbourne, VIC.
  • 5 Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC.


Acknowledgements: 

We thank the research and clinical staff of each of the three hospitals.

Competing interests:

This project received funding from the Victorian Department of Health (Chris Potter, Senior Policy Officer). This included a payment to Paul Myles for protocol development, analysis and writing of a report.

  • 1. March LM, Bagga H. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis in Australia. Med J Aust 2004; 180 (5 Suppl): S6-S10. <MJA full text>
  • 2. Kehlet H, Mogensen T. Hospital stay of 2 days after open sigmoidectomy with a multimodal rehabilitation programme. Br J Surg 1999; 86: 227-230.
  • 3. Starks I, Wainwright TW, Lewis J, et al. Older patients have the most to gain from orthopaedic enhanced recovery programmes. Age Ageing 2014; 43: 642-648.
  • 4. Larsen K, Hvass KE, Hansen TB, et al. Effectiveness of accelerated perioperative care and rehabilitation intervention compared to current intervention after hip and knee arthroplasty. A before-after trial of 247 patients with a 3-month follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008; 9: 59.
  • 5. Malviya A, Martin K, Harper I, et al. Enhanced recovery program for hip and knee replacement reduces death rate. Acta Orthop 2011; 82: 577-581.
  • 6. Ibrahim MS, Khan MA, Nizam I, Haddad FS. Peri-operative interventions producing better functional outcomes and enhanced recovery following total hip and knee arthroplasty: an evidence-based review. BMC Med 2013; 11: 37.
  • 7. Kehlet H, Søballe K. Fast-track hip and knee replacement — what are the issues? Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 271-272.
  • 8. Husted H, Jensen CM, Solgaard S, Kehlet H. Reduced length of stay following hip and knee arthroplasty in Denmark 2000-2009: from research to implementation. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132: 101-104.
  • 9. Stark PA, Myles PS, Burke JA. Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15. Anesthesiology 2013; 118: 1332-1340.
  • 10. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/ (accessed Oct 2014).
  • 11. Mehta RL, Kellum JA, Shah SV, et al. Acute Kidney Injury Network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit Care 2007; 11: R31.
  • 12. Bellomo R, Ronco C, Kellum JA, et al. Acute renal failure – definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit Care 2004; 8: R204-R212.
  • 13. Liu KD, Thompson BT, Ancukiewicz M, et al. Acute kidney injury in patients with acute lung injury: impact of fluid accumulation on classification of acute kidney injury and associated outcomes. Crit Care Med 2011; 39: 2665-2671.
  • 14. Thompson EG, Gower ST, Beilby DS, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery program for elective abdominal surgery at three Victorian hospitals. Anaesth Intensive Care 2012; 40: 450-459.
  • 15. Husted H, Lunn TH, Troelsen A, et al. Why still in hospital after fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty? Acta Orthop 2011; 82: 679-684.
  • 16. Maessen J, Dejong CH, Hausel J, et al. A protocol is not enough to implement an enhanced recovery programme for colorectal resection. Br J Surg 2007; 94: 224-231.
  • 17. Scott NB, McDonald D, Campbell J, et al. The use of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) principles in Scottish orthopaedic units – an implementation and follow-up at 1 year, 2010-2011: a report from the Musculoskeletal Audit, Scotland. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2013; 133: 117-124.
  • 18. Garson L, Schwarzkopf R, Vakharia S, et al. Implementation of a total joint replacement-focused perioperative surgical home: a management case report. Anesth Analg 2014; 118: 1081-1089.

Author

remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Comment
Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Responses are now closed for this article.