Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Postoperative pain and patient satisfaction are not influenced by daytime and duration of knee and hip arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The number of total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA and TKA) is steadily increasing. Many factors that influence pain have been reported, but little is known about the correlation between the time of day and the duration of surgery and postoperative pain. On one hand, surgical interventions are performed faster due to economic pressure; on the other hand, obtaining sound surgical skills and a thorough education are most important for young surgeons, particularly at university hospitals. Amidst these different interests, it is the patient who should be the focus of all medical efforts. Therefore, our study investigated the effects of the time of day and the duration of total knee and hip arthroplasty on postoperative pain perception and patient satisfaction.

Methods

623 patients were analyzed 24 h after primary total knee or hip arthroplasty regarding pain, patient satisfaction, and side effects by means of the questionnaires of the German-wide project Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Management (QUIPS).

Results

The time of day and the duration of knee or hip arthroplasty were not correlated with maximum, minimum, and activity-related pain and patient satisfaction rated on a numeric rating scale (NRS).

Conclusions

This study is the first to show that neither the time of day nor the duration of surgery has any influence on patient satisfaction and postoperative pain 24 h after total knee or hip arthroplasty; regarding these aspects, young orthopaedic surgeons may be trained in the operating theatre without time pressure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C (2007) The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 370(9597):1508–1519

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the united states from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Benditz A, Drescher J, Greimel F, Zeman F, Grifka J, Meißner W, Völlner F (2016) Implementing a benchmarking and feedback concept decreases postoperative pain after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study including 256 patients. Sci Rep 6:38218

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Benditz A, Völlner F, Baier C, Götz J, Grifka J, Keshmiri A (2015) Course of pain after operative orthopedic interventions: characterization exemplified by total knee arthroplasty. Schmerz 30(2):181–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gerbershagen HJ, Pogatzki-Zahn E, Aduckathil S, Peelen LM, Kappen TH, van Wijck AJ et al (2014) Procedure-specific risk factor analysis for the development of severe postoperative pain. Anesthesiology 120(5):1237–1245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Benditz A, Greimel F, Auer P, Zeman F, Göttermann A, Grifka J et al (2016) Can consistent benchmarking within a standardized pain management concept decrease postoperative pain after total hip arthroplasty? A prospective cohort study including 367 patients. J Pain Res 9:1205–1213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Weber P, Paulus AC, Hallmen D, Steinbrück A, Schmidutz F, Jansson V (2017) Does the certification according to EndoCert lead to a better quality of treatment? Orthopade 46(1):78–84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fehring TK, Odum SM, Troyer JL, Iorio R, Kurtz SM, Lau EC (2010) Joint replacement access in 2016: a supply side crisis. J Arthroplasty 25(8):1175–1181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Haughom BD, Schairer WW, Hellman MD, Yi PH, Levine BR (2014) Resident involvement does not influence complication after total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 13,109 cases. J Arthroplasty 29(10):1919–1924

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reidy MJ, Faulkner A, Shitole B, Clift B (2016) Do trainee surgeons have an adverse effect on the outcome after total hip arthroplasty?: a ten-year review. Bone Joint J 98-B(3):301–306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hedlundh U, Ahnfelt L, Hybbinette CH, Weckstrom J, Fredin H (1996) Surgical experience related to dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(2):206–209

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schoenfeld AJ, Serrano JA, Waterman BR, Bader JO, Belmont PJ (2013) The impact of resident involvement on post-operative morbidity and mortality following orthopaedic procedures: a study of 43,343 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133(11):1483–1491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sendtner E, Borowiak K, Schuster T, Woerner M, Grifka J, Renkawitz T (2011) Tackling the learning curve: comparison between the anterior, minimally invasive (micro-hip®) and the lateral, transgluteal (bauer) approach for primary total hip replacement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131(5):597–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chughtai M, Jauregui JJ, Mistry JB, Elmallah RK, Diedrich AM, Bonutti PM et al (2016) What influences how patients rate their hospital after total knee arthroplasty? Surg Technol Int 28:261–265

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mistry JB, Chughtai M, Elmallah RK, Le S, Bonutti PM, Delanois RE, Mont MA (2016) What influences how patients rate their hospital after total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty 31(11):2422–2425

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kopkow C, Schmitt J, Haase E, Lange T, Günther KP, Lützner J (2015) Objectifying results in total knee arthroplasty: is “patient satisfaction” adequate. Orthopade 4:261-4–266-8

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kesterke N, Egeter J, Erhardt JB, Jost B, Giesinger K (2015) Patient-reported outcome assessment after total joint replacement: Comparison of questionnaire completion times on paper and tablet computer. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 7:935–941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Valera M, Ibañez N, Sancho R, Tey M (2016) Reliability of tönnis classification in early hip arthritis: a useless reference for hippreserving surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1:27–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Baumann F, Ernstberger T, Loibl M, Zeman F, Nerlich M, Tibesku C (2016) Validation of the german forgotten joint score (G-FJS) according to the COSMIN checklist: Does a reduction in joint awareness indicate clinical improvement after arthroplasty of the knee? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2:257–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rothaug J, Weiss T, Meissner W (2012) External validity of pain-linked functional interference: are we measuring what we want to measure? Schmerz 26(4):396–401

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bozic KJ, Beringer D (2007) Economic considerations in minimally invasive total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 463:20–25

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lavernia CJ, Sierra RJ, Hernandez RA (2000) The cost of teaching total knee arthroplasty surgery to orthopaedic surgery residents. Clin Orthop Relat Res 380:99–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Woolson ST, Kang MN (2007) A comparison of the results of total hip and knee arthroplasty performed on a teaching service or a private practice service. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(3):601–607

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Weber M, Völlner F, Benditz A, Schwarz T, Wörner M, Craiovan B et al (2016) Total knee arthroplasty in the elderly. Orthopade 46:34–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kehlet H, Wilkinson RC, Fischer HB, Camu F (2007) PROSPECT: evidence-based, procedure-specific postoperative pain management. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 21(1):149–159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Myles PS, Williams DL, Hendrata M, Anderson H, Weeks AM (2000) Patient satisfaction after anaesthesia and surgery: results of a prospective survey of 10,811 patients. Br J Anaesth 84(1):6–10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Monika Schöll for the linguistic review of our manuscript and Melanie Schmidt for her support collecting the data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, University Medical Centre Regensburg, Asklepios Klinikum Bad Abbach, Kaiser-Karl-V-Allee 3, 93077, Bad Abbach, Germany

    A. Benditz, G. Maderbacher, Joachim Grifka, Markus Weber, Frederik von Kunow, Felix Greimel & Armin Keshmiri

  2. Centre for Clinical Studies, University Medical Centre Regensburg, Franz-Josef-Strauß-Allee 11, 93053, Regensburg, Germany

    Florian Zeman

Authors
  1. A. Benditz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Maderbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Florian Zeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Joachim Grifka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Markus Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Frederik von Kunow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Felix Greimel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Armin Keshmiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AB, GM, FZ, JG, FK, MW, FG, and AK made substantial contributions to the conception and design, analysis, and interpretation of data. AB, FG, GM, and AK made substantial contributions to the acquisition of data. All authors were involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content. In addition, all authors gave final approval of the version to be published. All authors agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Benditz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The project was approved by the Ethics Committee and the Data Security Board of the Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany, as well as by the Ethics Committee of the University of Regensburg. The study is registered in the German Register of Clinical Studies (DRKS) under the Number DRKS00006153 (WHO Register). All procedures conducted in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the Helsinki declaration of 1964 and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Benditz, A., Maderbacher, G., Zeman, F. et al. Postoperative pain and patient satisfaction are not influenced by daytime and duration of knee and hip arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137, 1343–1348 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2769-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2769-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation