The Efficacy and Safety of Inpatient Rehabilitation Compared With Home Discharge After Hip or Knee Arthroplasty: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BackgroundTotal hip and knee arthroplasties (THKAs) are successful procedures in managing end-stage arthritis when nonoperative treatments fail. The immediate postoperative period is an important time for the body to recuperate and rehabilitate. Studies have shown that early intensive rehabilitation can enhance recovery. Rehabilitation can be provided as inpatient rehabilitation (IR) or discharge with home rehabilitation. These options have been studied, but literature on the efficacy and safety of IR compared to home discharge is scarce, and evidence is not well established. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of IR to home discharge with rehabilitation after THKA.MethodsA multidatabase search was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Data from studies assessing the efficacy and safety of IR and home as discharge destinations after THKA were extracted and analyzed.ResultsFifteen studies were included, consisting of 37,411 IR patients and 172,219 home discharge patients. These studies had heterogeneous reporting methods, with some conflicting results. There was no clinically significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups. Readmission was nearly 5 times (odds ratio = 4.87, 95% confidence interval = 3.24-7.33, P < .001) and periprosthetic complications nearly 3 times (odds ratio = 2.82, 95% confidence interval: 1.54-5.24, P < .001) higher in IR patients than those discharged home after THKA.ConclusionAlthough IR is associated with higher risks of complications and readmissions, this may be because of patient selection bias in the clinical setting. Following THKA, it is safe to discharge patients to home with rehabilitation whenever possible.Evidence levelLevel II, Meta-analysis of heterogeneous studies.     

Interobserver Variation of Colonic Polyp Measurement at Computed Tomography Colonography

BackgroundThe concept of “advanced polyps” is well accepted and is defined as polyps ≥10 mm and/or those having a villous component and/or demonstrating areas of dysplasia. Of these parameters, computed tomography colonography (CTC) can only document size. The accepted management of CTC-detected “advanced polyps” is to recommend excision if feasible, whereas the management of “intermediate” (6–9 mm) polyps is more controversial, and interval surveillance may be acceptable. Therefore, distinction between 6-9 mm and ≥10 mm is important.MethodsDatasets containing 26 polyps originally reported as between 8-12 mm in diameter were reviewed independently by 4 CTC-accredited radiologists. Observers tabulated the largest measurement for each polyp on axial, coronal, sagittal, and endoluminal views at lung-window settings. These measurements were also compared to those determined by the computer-aided detection (CAD) software.ResultsThe interobserver reliability intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for sagittal projection was 0.80 (“excellent” category of Hosmer and Lemeshow [2004]), 0.71 for axial (“acceptable”), 0.69 for coronal, and 0.41 for endoluminal (“unacceptable”). The largest of sagittal/axial/coronal measurement gave the best reliability with the smallest variance (ICC = 0.80; 95% CI 0.67–0.89). For 8 of 26 polyps, at least one radiologist's measurement placed the polyp in a different category compared to a colleague. For the majority of the polyps, the CAD significantly overestimated the readings compared to the largest of the manual measurements with an average difference of 1.6 mm (P < .0001 for sagittal/axial/coronal). This resulted in 33% of polyps falling into a different category—10% were lower and 23% were higher (P < .034).ConclusionIt is apparent that around the cutoff point of 10 mm between “advanced” and “intermediate” polyps, interobserver performance is variable.