Non-fast Track Research Articles

Complications after lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in a fast-track setting: a prospective cohort study of 170 procedures.

In existing studies on fasttrack unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), the majority of surgeries are medial. There are substantial differences between lateral and medial UKA, which is why outcomes cannot automatically be compared. To gain information on the feasibility and safety of fast-track protocols in lateral UKAs, we investigated length of stay (LOS) and early complications after lateral UKA, performed using a fast-track protocol in well-established fast-track centers. We retrospectively evaluated prospectively collected data on patients undergoing lateral UKA in a fast-track setup from 2010 to 2018 at 7 Danish fast-track centers. Data on patient characteristics, LOS, complications, reoperations, and revisions was analyzed using descriptive statistics. Safety and feasibility were defined as complication and reoperation rates within 90 days comparable to non-fast track lateral UKA or fast-track medial UKA. We included 170 of patients with a mean age of 66 (SD 12) years. Median LOS was 1 day (interquartile range 1-1), which was unchanged from 2012-2018. 18% were discharged on the day of surgery. Within 90 days, 7 patients experienced medical complications and 5 patients experienced surgical complications. 3 patients underwent reoperation, 2 were soft tissue revisions and the third was removal of an exostosis due to catching of the patella. 1 patient was revised due to a bearing dislocation. Our findings suggest that lateral UKA in a fast-track setting is feasible and safe.

Fast-Track Programs in Total Hip and Knee Replacement at Swedish Hospitals-Influence on 2-Year Risk of Revision and Mortality.

Purpose: We aimed to study the influence of fast-track care programs in total hip and total knee replacements (THR and TKR) at Swedish hospitals on the risk of revision and mortality within 2 years after the operation. Methods: Data were collected from the Swedish Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Registers (SHAR and SKAR), including 67,913 THR and 59,268 TKR operations from 2011 to 2015 on patients with osteoarthritis. Operations from 2011 to 2015 Revision and mortality in the fast-track group were compared with non-fast-track using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis with adjustments. Results: The hazard ratio (HR) for revision within 2 years after THR with fast-track was 1.19 (CI: 1.03–1.39), indicating increased risk, whereas no increased risk was found in TKR (HR 0.91; CI: 0.79–1.06). The risk of death within 2 years was estimated with a HR of 0.85 (CI: 0.74–0.97) for TKR and 0.96 (CI: 0.85–1.09) for THR in fast-track hospitals compared to non-fast-track. Conclusions: Fast-track programs at Swedish hospitals were associated with an increased risk of revision in THR but not in TKR, while we found the mortality to be lower (TKR) or similar (THR) as compared to non-fast track.

Preliminary application of postoperative fast track transfer to intensive care unit for the geriatric hip fractures under enhanced recovery after surgery

Objective: To develop a fast track transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) for the perioperative high-risk elderly patients after hip fracture surgery and analyze the preliminary clinical effect of the application. Methods: From January 2014 to December 2017, before the application of postoperative fast track transfer to ICU, the clinical data of 195 elderly patients with hip fracture were included in a retrospective analysis. Among 195 hip fracture patients, 18 were transferred to ICU post operation (non-fast track group). Multivariate logistic regression analysis was applied to investigate relevant risk factors for transferring to ICU after hip fracture surgery. Based on risk factors acquired from the analysis and clinical experience, the fast track transfer to ICU for the perioperative high-risk elderly patients after hip fracture surgery was constructed according to the preliminary and experiential criteria. From January 2018 to December 2019, the clinical data of 70 patients (fast track group) who were transferred to ICU after hip fracture surgery through the fast track were collected and compared with non-fast track group. Results: Multivariate regression analysis revealed that American Society of Anesthesiologists classification(≥Ⅲ) (OR=4.260, 95%CI:1.157-15.683, P=0.029), pre-hospital stage (≥48 h) (OR=4.301, 95%CI:1.212-15.266, P=0.024), hemoglobin concentration at admission(<90 g/L) (OR=7.979, 95%CI:1.936-32.889, P=0.004), coronary heart disease as one comorbidity(OR=6.063, 95%CI:1.695-21.693, P=0.006) were independent risk factors for transferring to ICU after hip fracture surgery. There were no significant difference in gender, age, fracture type, hemoglobin concentration at admission and time of pre-hospital stage between the non-fast track group and fast track group(all P>0.05). However, the number of comorbidities in the fast track group was significantly higher than that in the non-fast track group (Z=-1.995, P=0.046). The time to surgery, postoperative hospital stay, and length of hospital stay in fast track group were all significantly less than those in non-fast track group (Z=-2.121, -2.726, -3.130, all P<0.05). Also, there were fewer medical consultations needed and fewer patients who stayed in ICU more than or equal to 2 nights in fast track group than that in non-fast track group(all P<0.05). There were no significant difference in the rate of patients who transferred from the general ward to ICU after transferring from ICU to the general ward, the proportion of patients who received more than or equal to 4 departments, operation time, hospitalization expense, mortality during hospitalization, 30-day mortality and 90-day mortality after operation between the two groups(all P>0.05). Conclusions: The fast track constructed in this study can reduce time to surgery, postoperative hospitalization stay and length of hospitalization stay for the perioperative high-risk elderly patients with hip fractures and is a specific clinical application of eras concept based on multidisciplinary team.

Effect of using a head injury fast-track system on reducing the mortality rate among severe head injury patients in Southern Thailand: A retrospective study with historical control.

Context:Head injuries are the leading cause of traumatic morbidity and mortality. Timely proper management can reduce the mortality rate.Aims:This study aimed to examine the effects of a fast-track system on reducing head injury mortality using the data in Southern Thailand.Settings and Design:A retrospective study of data from the medical records of severe head injury patients admitted to Hatyai Hospital from October 2012 to May 2017.Subjects and Methods:The records of subjects were selected for participants aged more than 11 years, having Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) <9, no injuries in other organs, and neither hypoxemia nor hypotension. A total of 193 participants fulfilling these criteria were analyzed. Of these, 108 participants were managed in the fast track.Statistical Analysis Used:The fast-track group was compared with normal track participants by using logistic regression after preliminary analysis to identify the risk factors using the Chi-squared tests.Results:After adjustment for confounders, namely acute subdural hematoma, linear skull fracture and diffuse brain injury, and mortality in the fast-track group (13%) was significantly lower than that in the nonfast track group (22.4%).Conclusions:Using the fast-track system can reduce mortality from severe head injuries and should be implemented in the health services system.

Variation in 'Fast-Track' Referrals for Suspected Cancer by Patient Characteristic and Cancer Diagnosis: Evidence From 670,000 Patients With Cancers of 35 Different Sites

Background: In England, 'fast-track' (also known as 'two-week wait') general practitioner referrals for suspected cancer in symptomatic patients are used to shorten diagnostic intervals and are supported by clinical guidelines. However, the use of the fast-track pathway may vary for different patient groups. Methods: We examined data from 669,220 patients with 35 cancers diagnosed 2006-2010 following either fast-track or nonfast track primary-to-secondary care referrals using a bespoke English dataset, the 'Routes to Diagnosis' data. We estimated the proportion of fast-track referrals by sociodemographic characteristics and cancer diagnosis and used logistic regression to estimate respective crude and adjusted odds ratios. We additionally explored whether sociodemographic associations varied by cancer. Results: There were large variations in the odds of fast-track referral by cancer ( P &lt; 0.001). Patients with testicular and breast cancer were most likely to have been diagnosed after a fast-track referral (adjusted odds ratios 2.73 and 2.35 respectively, using rectal cancer as reference); while patients with brain cancer and leukemias least likely (adjusted odds ratios 0.05 and 0.09 respectively for brain cancer and acute myeloid leukemia). There were sex, age and deprivation differences in the odds of fast-track referral ( P &lt; 0.013), which varied in their size and direction for patients with different cancers ( P &lt; 0.001). For example, fast-track referrals were least likely in younger women with endometrial cancer and in older men with testicular cancer. Conclusion: Fast-track referrals are less likely for cancers characterized by nonspecific presenting symptoms and patients belonging to low incidence demographic strata. Interventions beyond clinical guidelines for “alarm” symptoms are needed to improve diagnostic timeliness.

Fast-tracking for total knee replacement reduces use of institutional care without compromising quality

Background and purpose — Fast-tracking shortens the length of the primary treatment period (length of stay, LOS) after total knee replacement (TKR). We evaluated the influence of the fast-track concept on the length of uninterrupted institutional care (LUIC) and other outcomes after TKR.Patients and methods — 4,256 TKRs performed in 4 hospitals between 2009–2010 and 2012–2013 were identified from the Finnish Hospital Discharge Register and the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Hospitals were classified as fast track (Hospital A) and non-fast track (Hospitals B, C and D). We analyzed length of uninterrupted institutional care (LUIC), LOS, discharge destination, readmission, revision, manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) and mortality rate in each hospital. We compared these outcomes for TKRs performed in Hospital A before and after fast-track implementation and we also compared Hospital A outcomes with the corresponding outcomes for the other 3 hospitals.Results — After fast-track implementation, median LOS in Hospital A fell from 5 to 3 days (p < 0.001) and (median) LUIC from 7 to 3 (p < 0.001) days. These reductions in LOS and LUIC were accompanied by an increase in the discharge rate to home (p = 0.01). Fast-tracking in Hospital A led to no increase in 14- and 42-day readmissions, MUA, revision or mortality compared with the rates before fast-tracking, or with those in the other hospitals. Of the 4 hospitals, LOS and LUIC were most reduced in Hospital A.Interpretation — A fast-track protocol reduces LUIC and LOS after TKR without increasing readmission, complication or revision rates.

Observational cross-sectional study of compliance with the fast track protocol in elective surgery for colon cancer in Spain

The purpose of this study was to establish the degree of compliance with the fast track (enhanced recovery) protocol in habitual clinical practice and to determine which measures are fundamental for achieving the results obtained by applying the entire protocol. Observational, cross-sectional, multicenter trial was conducted. Participating hospitals prospectively recorded data from at least ten consecutive patients undergoing surgery for colon cancer who were applied some or all of the items comprising the enhanced recovery protocol. The data were analyzed both globally and dividing the sample into the two groups of patients. Data on 363 patients from 25 hospitals were recorded, one hundred seventy-three in the "non-fast track" group and 190 in the "fast track" group. The non-fast track group complied with a mean of 5.4 (±1.8) items and the fast track group with a mean of 8.4 (±1.8) items. The mean functional hospital stay was 7.3 (±5.1) days in the non-fast track group and 6.2 (±5.1) days in the fast track group (p < 0.05). Morbidity was 31.1 % in the fast track group and 24.3 % in the non-fast track group, though the differences were not statistically significant. The only prognostic factors that have an impact on improving the results are measures against hypothermia and mobilization before 24 h. Compliance with the enhanced recovery protocol is not exhaustive in habitual clinical practice. However, greater compliance was associated with shorter hospital stay without any increase in morbidity. The only items clearly associated with reduced functional hospital stay were measures against hypothermia and mobilization before 24 h.

P57 Fast track referral of patients with malignant mesothelioma is not associated with better survival

BackgroundFew studies have examined the effect on survival in lung cancer of fast-track referral, while those that do have questioned the utility of the two-week fast track referral rule 1....

The association between referral source and outcome in patients with colorectal cancer

AimThe colorectal two-week wait fast track (FT) referral system was nationally implemented in the UK in 2000 to ensure patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) received prompt access to specialized services. The aim of this study was to determine the association between the mechanism of referral to colorectal services and the 5-year outcomes for patients with CRC. MethodsConsecutive patients with newly diagnosed CRC presenting between October 2002 and September 2004 were identified retrospectively. Analysis for survival and recurrence of disease at 5 years from presentation was undertaken. Outcomes for patients were compared between fast track (FT), non-fast track (NFT) and emergency referral (ER) routes, using Kaplan–Meier survival estimates. ResultsOut of 189 patients, 96 (51%) presented via the FT, 41 (22.5%) via the NFT and 52 (27.5%) via the ER referral route. The 5-year overall survival was 52.6% ± 5.1, 41.5% ± 7.7 and 38.5% ± 6.7 for the FT-, NFT- and ER groups respectively (p = 0.075). The 5-year cancer specific survival was 60.3% ± 5.2, 58.8% ± 5.3 and 43.5% ± 7.2 for the FT-, NFT- and ER groups respectively (p = 0.056). Patients referred as emergencies had worse 5-year overall survival; 49.3% ± 4.3 (FT&NFT) vs. 38.5% ± 6.7 (ER) (p = 0.042) and 5-year cancer specific survival 59.8% ± 4.4 (FT&NFT) vs. 43.5% ± 7.2 (ER) (p = 0.016). A total of 136 patients (FT n = 71, NFT n = 34, ER n = 31) underwent potentially curative surgery. Differences in 5-year survival did not reach statistical significance in these patients. ConclusionReferral route to specialist services for patients with CRC via the fast track pathway compared to non-fast track pathway was not associated with improved survival.

Facilitated "fast track" referral reduces time from abnormal screening mammogram to diagnosis.

The Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC) implemented voluntary, facilitated referral to diagnostic imaging ("Fast Track") after testing 5 interventions to reduce time from an abnormal screening mammogram to diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to compare time intervals for patients evaluated through the Fast Track process with patients who were not. Data were extracted from the SMPBC database for women with abnormal screens conducted from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005 (N = 40,292). After exclusions, 39,607 screens were analyzed. Median and 90th percentile times were calculated from abnormal screen to diagnosis and for three subintervals: abnormal screen to notification, notification to first assessment, and first assessment to diagnosis. One third of abnormal screens were investigated through Fast Track imaging facilities. Overall, the median time from abnormal screen to diagnosis was 8 days faster for Fast Track compared with non-Fast Track. There was no clinically significant difference in time from abnormal screen to notification. The median time from notification to first assessment was 1.1 weeks (Fast Track) compared with 2.4 weeks (non-Fast Track), a reduction of 9 days or 54% in the interval targeted by the Fast Track strategy. The time interval distribution from first assessment to diagnosis was significantly different only for those having a core biopsy (average 3 days faster for Fast Track). Facilitated referral to diagnostic imaging reduces average time from notification of abnormal screen to first assessment by more than half. Additional strategies are needed to address diagnostic investigation beyond initial imaging procedures.

Facilitated “Fast Track” Referral Reduces Time from Abnormal Screening Mammogram to Diagnosis

The Screening Mammography Program of British Columbia (SMPBC) implemented voluntary, facilitated referral to diagnostic imaging (“Fast Track”) after testing 5 interventions to reduce time from an abnormal screening mammogram to diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to compare time intervals for patients evaluated through the Fast Track process with patients who were not. Data were extracted from the SMPBC database for women with abnormal screens conducted from January 1, 2003 to June 30, 2005 (N=40,292). After exclusions, 39,607 screens were analyzed. Median and 90th percentile times were calculated from abnormal screen to diagnosis and for three subintervals: abnormal screen to notification, notification to first assessment, and first assessment to diagnosis. One third of abnormal screens were investigated through Fast Track imaging facilities. Overall, the median time from abnormal screen to diagnosis was 8 days faster for Fast Track compared with non-Fast Track. There was no clinically significant difference in time from abnormal screen to notification. The median time from notification to first assessment was 1.1 weeks (Fast Track) compared with 2.4 weeks (non-Fast Track), a reduction of 9 days or 54% in the interval targeted by the Fast Track strategy. The time interval distribution from first assessment to diagnosis was significantly different only for those having a core biopsy (average 3 days faster for Fast Track). Facilitated referral to diagnostic imaging reduces average time from notification of abnormal screen to first assessment by more than half. Additional strategies are needed to address diagnostic investigation beyond initial imaging procedures.

The association between referral source and stage of disease in patients with colorectal cancer

The colorectal fast track (FT) referral system was set up to ensure patients with suspected cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) received prompt access to specialized services. The aim of this study was to ascertain the association between referral source and the time it took to be seen by a colorectal surgeon to establish whether referral source had any association with the stage of disease at presentation in patients with CRC. Consecutive patients with newly diagnosed CRC presenting between October 2002 and September 2004 were identified retrospectively. Mode of presentation, symptoms, treatment and histopathology data were analysed. Data for 193 patients were analysed. Ninety seven patients (50%) presented via the FT system, 43 (22.5%) from nonfast track outpatient sources (NFT) and 53 (27.5%) as emergencies. NFT patients took significantly longer to be seen by a colorectal specialist than FT patients (median 69 vs 31 days; P < 0.001) and to initiation of treatment (median 57.5 vs 42.5 days; P = 0.001). Overall 152 patients (79%) presented with symptoms that met the FT criteria. A significantly lower number of NFT (P = 0.001) and emergency patients (P < 0.001) presented with FT symptoms compared with patients referred through the FT system. There was no significant difference between referral groups in patients undergoing surgery with potentially curative intent or stage of disease. Nonfast track referral leads to a significant delay in being seen by a specialist and in initiation of treatment but no association with more advanced stage of disease or a reduction in potentially curative surgery was found.