Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2009 Jul 1:7:32.
doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-7-32.

Effects of clinical pathways in the joint replacement: a meta-analysis

A Barbieri  1 , K Vanhaecht, P Van Herck, W Sermeus, F Faggiano, S Marchisio, M Panella
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Effects of clinical pathways in the joint replacement: a meta-analysis

A Barbieri et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Background: A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the use of clinical pathways for hip and knee joint replacements when compared with standard medical care. The impact of clinical pathways was evaluated assessing the major outcomes of in-hospital hip and knee joint replacement processes: postoperative complications, number of patients discharged at home, length of in-hospital stay and direct costs.

Methods: Medline, Cinahl, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. The search was performed from 1975 to 2007. Each study was assessed independently by two reviewers. The assessment of methodological quality of the included studies was based on the Jadad methodological approach and on the New Castle Ottawa Scale. Data analysis abided by the guidelines set out by The Cochrane Collaboration regarding statistical methods. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan software, version 4.2.

Results: Twenty-two studies met the study inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis for a total sample of 6,316 patients. The aggregate overall results showed significantly fewer patients suffering postoperative complications in the clinical pathways group when compared with the standard care group. A shorter length of stay in the clinical pathway group was also observed and lower costs during hospital stay were associated with the use of the clinical pathways. No significant differences were found in the rates of discharge to home.

Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis show that clinical pathways can significantly improve the quality of care even if it is not possible to conclude that the implementation of clinical pathways is a cost-effective process, because none of the included studies analysed the cost of the development and implementation of the pathways. Based on the results we assume that pathways have impact on the organisation of care if the care process is structured in a standardised way, teams critically analyse the actual organisation of the process and the multidisciplinary team is highly involved in the re-organisation. Further studies should focus on the evaluation of pathways as complex interventions to help to understand which mechanisms within the clinical pathways can really improve the quality of care. With the need for knee and hip joint replacement on the rise, the use of clinical pathways might contribute to better quality of care and cost-effectiveness.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the selection of the studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Meta-analysis of studies evaluating the effect of clinical pathways and standard care on postoperative complications.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Funnel plot analyses (postoperative complications).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Meta-analysis of studies evaluating the effect of clinical pathways and standard care on discharge-to-home rates.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Funnel plot analyses (discharge to home).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Meta-analysis of studies evaluating the effect of clinical pathways and standard care on LOS.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Funnel plot analyses (LOS).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Meta-analysis of studies evaluating the effect of clinical pathways and standard care on hospitalisation costs.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Funnel plot analyses (hospitalisation costs).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, Chan N, Lau E, Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1487–1497. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02441. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jones CA, Beaupre LA, Johnston DWC, Suarez-Almazor ME. Total joint arthroplasties: current concepts of patient outcomes after surgery. Clin Geriatr Med. 2005;21:527–541. doi: 10.1016/j.cger.2005.02.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sokka T, Kautiainen H, Hannonen P. Stable occurrence of knee and hip total joint replacement in Central Finland between 1986 and 2003: an indication of improved long-term outcomes of rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66:341–344. doi: 10.1136/ard.2006.057067. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Coyte PC, Yong W, Croxford R. Costs and outcomes associated with alternative discharge strategies following joint replacement surgery: analysis of an observational study using a propensity score. J Health Econ. 2000;9:907–929. doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(00)00041-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Information about hip replacements. 2002. http://www.aaos.org/research/stats/Hip_Facts.pdf

MeSH terms