See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311904947

Comprehensive Operative Note Templates for Primary and Revision Total Hip
and Knee Arthroplasty

Article  in  The Open Orthopaedics Journal · December 2016

DOI: 10.2174/1874325001610010725

CITATION READS

1 450

6 authors, including:

Ali J Electricwala Derek F. Amanatullah

Electricwala Hospital and Clinics Stanford University
17 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS    140 PUBLICATIONS   1,135 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

James Huddleston William Maloney

Stanford University Stanford Medicine
131 PUBLICATIONS   2,627 CITATIONS    288 PUBLICATIONS   10,659 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Juvenile factors and Cartilage regeneration View project

Polyethylene Wear in Young THA Patients View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William Maloney on 27 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Send Orders for Reprints to [email protected]
The Open Orthopaedics Journal, 2016, 10, 725-731 725

The Open Orthopaedics Journal

Content list available at: www.benthamopen.com/TOORTHJ/

DOI: 10.2174/1874325001610010725

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Comprehensive Operative Note Templates for Primary and Revision
Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty
Ali J. Electricwala1,2, Derek F. Amanatullah1, Rapeepat I. Narkbunnam3, James I. Huddleston1,
William J. Maloney1 and Stuart B. Goodman1,*
1
Stanford University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 450 Broadway Street, Redwood City, CA 94063-6342, USA
2
Electricwala Hospital and Clinics, Pune, Maharashtra, India
3
Siriraj Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mahidol University, Bankok, Thailand

Received: August 07, 2016 Revised: October 28, 2016 Accepted: October 28, 2016
Abstract:
Background:
Adequate preoperative planning is the first and most crucial step in the successful completion of a revision total joint arthroplasty.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the availability, adequacy and accuracy of operative notes of primary surgeries in patients
requiring subsequent revision and to construct comprehensive templates of minimum necessary information required in the operative
notes to further simplify re-operations, if they should become necessary.

Methods:
The operative notes of 144 patients (80 revision THA’s and 64 revision TKA’s) who underwent revision total joint arthroplasty at
Stanford Hospital and Clinics in the year 2013 were reviewed. We assessed the availability of operative notes and implant stickers
prior to revision total joint arthroplasty. The availability of implant details within the operative notes was assessed against the
available surgical stickers for adequacy and accuracy. Statistical comparisons were made using the Fischer-exact test and a P-value
of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:
The primary operative note was available in 68 of 144 revisions (47%), 39 of 80 revision THAs (49%) and 29 of 66 revision TKAs
(44%, p = 0.619). Primary implant stickers were available in 46 of 144 revisions (32%), 26 of 80 revision THAs (32%) and 20 of 66
revision TKAs (30%, p = 0.859). Utilizing the operative notes and implant stickers combined identified accurate primary implant
details in only 40 of the 80 revision THAs (50%) and 34 of all 66 revision TKAs (52%, p = 0.870).

Conclusion:
Operative notes are often unavailable or fail to provide the necessary information required which makes planning and execution of
revision hip and knee athroplasty difficult. This emphasizes the need for enhancing the quality of operative notes and records of
patient information. Based on this information, we provide comprehensive operative note templates for primary and revision total hip
and knee arthroplasty.

Keywords: Comprehensive templates, Implant stickers, Operative notes, Planning, Revision.

INTRODUCTION
The importance of operative notes and operative stickers of implants used for primary total joint arthroplasty
surgery is undeniable for the planning of revision total joint arthroplasty. Adequate preoperative planning is the first and
* Address correspondence to this author at the Stanford University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery 450 Broadway Street Redwood City, CA
94063-6342, USA; Tel: +1-650-721-7629; Fax: +1-650-721-3470; E-mail: [email protected]

1874-3250/16 2016 Bentham Open

726 The Open Orthopaedics Journal, 2016, Volume 10 Electricwala et al.

most crucial step in the successful completion of a revision total joint arthoplasty [1]. A detailed knowledge of implants
used in the primary operation makes it possible to make appropriate arrangements for the necessary extraction tools,
components and instrumentation to accomplish the revision surgery. This prevents intra-operative surprises and reduces
stress on the surgical team, decreases operative time, and helps optimize the outcome for the patients by ensuring that
the preoperative plan is carried out smoothly with the necessary instrumentation and prosthesis. Detailed and specific
information of the primary procedure would make it easier to achieve the goals set for the revision surgery.
Furthermore, accurate and detailed documentation of the surgical procedure forms an essential part of good medical
practice [2 - 4]. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the availability, adequacy and accuracy of operative notes of
primary hip and knee arthroplasty in patients requiring subsequent revision, and referred to our institution. Based on the
above information, a second goal was to construct comprehensive operative note templates of minimum necessary
information required in the operative notes of patients undergoing primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty to
further simplify re-operations, if they become necessary.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was approved by our institutional ethics review board. The operative notes of 144 patients who
underwent revision total joint arthroplasty at Stanford Hospital and Clinics in the year 2013 were reviewed. Three
experienced fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeons at a single institution performed all surgeries. 80 patients (56%, 37
males and 43 females) underwent revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Of the 80 revision THAs, 58% were performed
for implant wear (with or without osteolysis), 10% for infection, 8% for instability, 11% for adverse local tissue
reaction, 8% for periprosthetic fracture, 1% for implant fracture, 5% for and miscellaneous (e.g., pain, psoas tendonitis).
The entire socket was changed in 40% of cases, both acetabular and femoral components were replaced in 37% cases,
femoral component alone in 11% cases, head and liner alone in 7% cases, head alone in 3% cases, and liner alone in 2%
cases. 66 patients (44%, 33 males and 33 females) underwent revision TKA. Of the 66 revision TKAs, 35% were
performed for aseptic loosening with or without polyethylene wear, 24% for infection, 15% for instability, 9% for
patellofemoral maltracking, 6% for stiffness, 3% for periprosthetic fracture, and 8% for other causes (e.g., pain,
malrotation). Both femoral and tibial components were revised in 55% cases, femoral component alone and
polyethylene insert in 11% cases, tibial component alone and polyethylene insert in 11% cases, and liner alone in 18%
cases. Patellar component was revised in 5% cases.
We assessed the availability of operative notes and implant stickers prior to revision total joint arthroplasty. The
availability of implant details within the operative notes was assessed against the available surgical stickers for
adequacy and accuracy. Total hip implant details were considered adequate when the sizes of acetabular shell,
acetabular screws (if used), acetabular liner, femoral head component and femoral stem were mentioned along with the
type of bearing surface and the name of the manufacturing company. Total knee implant details were considered
adequate when the size of femoral component, size of the tibial component, thickness of the polyethylene insert, size of
the patellar component, bearing constraint, and the name of the manufacturer were specified. Implant details in the
operative note matching the surgical stickers were considered accurate.
We also assessed the availability of procedure related information including surgical approach as well as quality of
bone and soft tissues. Total knee procedural details were assessed, including the angle selected for distal femoral
resection, angle of posterior tibial slope, the degree of gap balancing, stability in flexion and extension, and adequacy of
patella-femoral tracking. Total hip procedural details were assessed, including, cup abduction and anteversion, femoral
anteversion, the degree of stability achieved, adequacy of limb length discrepancy, and offset correction achieved

Statistics
All categorical variables are reported as the amount and percentage. Statistical comparisons were made using the
Fischer-exact test and a p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS
Operative notes and implant stickers were difficult to obtain prior to revision total joint arthroplasty (Table 1). The
primary operative note was available in 68 of 144 revisions (47%), 39 of 80 revision THAs (49%) and 29 of 66 revision
TKAs (44%, p = 0.619). Primary implant stickers were available in 46 of 144 revisions (32%), 26 of 80 revision THAs
(32%) and 20 of 66 revision TKAs (30%, p = 0.859). When primary implant stickers were unavailable for reference,
operative notes were available 33 of 144 revisions (23%), 17 of 54 remaining revision THAs (32%) and 16 of the 46
Comprehensive Operative Note Templates The Open Orthopaedics Journal, 2016, Volume 10 727

remaining revision TKAs (35%, p = 0.832).

Table 1. Availability of primary operative notes and implant stickers.

Operative Note Implant Sticker At Revision THA At Revision TKA p-value

Available --- 39/80 (49%) 29/66 (44%) 0.619
--- Available 26/80 (32%) 20/66 (30%) 0.859
--- Unavailable 54/80 (67%) 46/66 (70%) 0.859
Available Unavailable 17/54 (31%) 16/46 (35%) 0.832
THA: Total Hip Arthroplasty, TKA: Total Knee Arthroplasty

Specific implant information was in general difficult to obtain prior to revision total joint arthroplasty (Table 2).
Implant details (For hips: size of acetabular shell, number and size of acetabular screws (if used), size of acetabular
liner, size of femoral head component and femoral stem, type of bearing surface, and the name of the manufacturer and
for knees size of femoral component, size of the tibial component, thickness of the polyethylene insert, size of the
patellar component, bearing constraint, or the name of the manufacturer) were mentioned in 31 of the available 39
primary operative notes prior to revision THA (79%) and all 29 available primary operative notes prior to revision TKA
(100%, p = 0.017). Complete and accurate implant details were reported in 14 of the available 39 primary operative
notes prior to revision THA (36%) and 26 of the available 29 primary operative notes prior to revision TKA (90%, p <
0.001). Incomplete implant details were mentioned in 15 of the available 39 primary operative notes prior to revision
THA (38%) and 2 of the available 29 primary operative notes prior to revision TKA (7%, p = 0.001). Inaccurate or
mismatched implant details were mentioned in 2 of the available 39 primary operative notes prior to revision THA (5%)
and 1 of the available 29 primary operative notes prior to revision TKA (1%, p = 1.00). Utilizing the operative notes
and implant stickers combined identified accurate primary implant details in only 40 of the 80 revision THAs (50%)
and 34 of all 66 revision TKAs (52%, p = 0.870).

Table 2. Accuracy of implant information within primary operative notes.

Operative Note Implant Sticker At Revision THA At Revision TKA p-value

Mentioned --- 31/39 (79%) 29/29 (100%) 0.017*
Accurate --- 14/31 (45%) 26/29 (90%) <0.001*
Incomplete --- 15/31 (48%) 2/29 (7%) 0.001*
Inaccurate --- 2/31 (7%) 1/29 (3%) 1.00
THA: Total Hip Arthroplasty, TKA: Total Knee Arthroplasty, * = statistically significant.

The description of surgical technique available in operative notes prior to revision total joint arthroplasty was highly
variable with no obvious standards for reporting (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3. Presence of surgical information within primary THA operative notes.

Information At Revision THA

Surgical Approach 26/39 (67%)
Bone or Soft Tissue Quality 15/39 (39%)
Cup Abduction and Anteversion Angle 18/39 (46%)
Stem Anteversion Angle 21/39 (54%)
Degree of Stability Achieved 14/39 (36%)
Degree of correction of Limb Length and offset 11/39 (28%)
THA: Total Hip Arthroplasty

Table 4. Presence of surgical information within primary TKA operative notes.

Information At Revision TKA

Surgical Approach 17/29 (59%)
Bone or Soft Tissue Quality 5/29 (17%)
Distal Femoral Resection Angle 13/29 (45%)
728 The Open Orthopaedics Journal, 2016, Volume 10 Electricwala et al.

(Table ) contd.....
Information At Revision TKA
Posterior Slope of the Tibia 2/29 (7%)
Releases in Extension/Flexion 15/29 (52%)
Stability in Extension/Flexion 14/29 (48%)
Overall Alignment 14/29 (48%)
Patella Tracking 14/29 (48%)
TKA: Total Knee Arthroplasty

DISCUSSION
Comprehensive and well documented operative notes are crucial for delivery of quality care [5]. Operative notes not
only serve as vital means of communication between surgeons, but are the only comprehensive legal record of an
operation [2 - 5]. Strategies to improve the quality of operative notes include providing a proforma or an aide-memoire
both of which have proven benefits in a number of specialities [6, 7]. A study by Al Hussainy et al.. demonstrated that
operative templates help to produce more comprehensive operative notes [2].
This study demonstrates that primary operative notes are often inadequate and fail to provide the necessary
information required for the planning of revision total joint arthroplasty. The primary operative note and implant
stickers were available in only 47% and 32% cases respectively prior to revision total joint arthroplasty. This may be
due to poor record keeping and the lack of access to electronic medical record systems. In cases with an available
operative note, essential implant related information was available in only 50% cases prior to revision total joint
arthroplasty. This indicates that vital data regarding the primary operation and implants used was not adequately
recorded in the operative note and hence was unavailable to the surgeon at the time of revision surgery. This highlights
the need for improved database, electronic medical record systems and standardized operative note templates.
Implementation of an electronic operation note system could help resolve this problem [8]. There is evidence of the
superiority of computerized operation notes over hand written notes [9].
Operative notes often fail to provide complete details concerning surgical approach and implant details. This may
create intra-operative confusion and anxiety, and increase operative time. Necessary component extraction tools and
instruments, as well as compatible implants may be unavailable during the revision surgery.
Not uncommonly, revision THA may require complex procedures (e.g., acetabular reconstruction, extended troch-
anteric osteotomy, excision of heterotopic ossification, etc.) or special implants (e.g., augments, long revision stem,
constrained liner, etc.). The many challenges the surgeon faces could be reduced by adequate preoperative planning and
by a careful review of the implant stickers and operative notes of the primary surgery. It is specifically important to
identify the components to be removed. This is particularly true if any components are to be left in place. It is crucial
that the characteristics and design of a retained component are compatible with those of the new components. A study
by Jones et al. revealed that at least one component is retained in more than 50% of the patients undergoing revision
THA [10]. In our study, one or more components was retained in 67% cases of revision THA. The most accurate
surgical implant information is the manufacturer’s implant record as documented in the patient’s operative notes. The
availability of this information becomes vital in such circumstances. If the acetabular component is well-fixed and well-
aligned, it may be appropriate to exchange only the liner [11]. The appropriate modular liner should be available. If the
locking mechanism is damaged, a polyethylene liner which can be cemented into a well fixed acetabular shell must be
available [12]. It is also important to know if the stem used is modular or monoblock. If the stem is monoblock, the
diameter of the head should be known, so that in the event that the stem is retained, the appropriate acetabular
component liner can be made available. If the stem is modular, the appropriate modular heads and trial implants should
be available in case the head is damaged. Many implant companies provide more than one modular head taper, so it is
important to know which components are in place. An acetabular component may have screws, which may require a
special screwdriver for removal. Well-fixed cementless fully porous femoral stems may require an extended
trochanteric osteotomy, sectioning the stem, trephining, which must be done with numerous high-speed carbide cutting
tools and trephines. Similarly, removal of cementless acetabular components may be facilitated by the use of sharp
curved osteotomes, which match the diameter of the implant or similar devices such as the Explant system (Zimmer,
Warsaw, IN, USA). Modular femoral components may require special tools to disassemble or retrieve their modular
portions. Removal of well-fixed cemented stems can be facilitated by use of special equipment such as ultrasonic tools;
this requires advance planning because most hospitals do not own such special equipment [1].
Comprehensive Operative Note Templates The Open Orthopaedics Journal, 2016, Volume 10 729

Patient name:
Surgeon:
Primary THA
Side: ☐Right ☐Left
Diagnosis: ☐Osteoarthritis ☐Rheumatoid ☐Osteonecrosis ☐Other:
Previous Surgery: ☐Arthroscopy ☐Osteotomy ☐ORIF ☐Core decompression ☐Other:
Incision: ☐Anterior ☐Anteromedial ☐Anterolateral ☐Posterolateral (Previous Incision Used: Yes/No, circle used incision location)
Approach: ☐Direct Anterior ☐Anterolateral ☐Direct Lateral ☐Posterolateral ☐Mini-Posterior ☐Direct Superior
☐Trochanteric Wafer ☐ETO ☐Wagner ☐Other:
Implant Info: Type: ☐Cemented ☐Uncemented ☐Hybrid ☐Reverse hybrid
Manufacturer:_________________, Design:__________________
Acetabulum:_______, Liner:_______, Femur:_______, Head:_______, Acetabular screws:_______, Other: _______
Bearing surface: ☐Metal on Poly ☐Ceramic on Poly ☐Ceramic on Ceramic ☐Metal on Metal ☐Other: _______
Implant Position: Acetabular Anteversion ____ degrees, Inclination ____ degrees, Femoral Anteversion ____ degrees
Cement: ☐None ☐Simplex ☐Palacos ☐with Antibiotics ☐Pre-mixed ☐Other:

Stability: THA – Assessment of Stability and Leg Length Restoration: _______

Intraoperative Complications: ☐Fracture (Acertabulum/Femur, circle) ☐Nerve injury ☐Vascular Injury ☐Other: _______
☐Medical (Hypo/PE/Arryth/CVA/MI/Death, circle)

Revision THA
Side: ☐Right ☐Left
Reason: ☐Infection ☐Aseptic Loosening ☐Wear/Osteolysis ☐Stiffness ☐Pain ☐HO ☐Peiprosthetic Fracture ☐Implant Failure
☐Suboptimal Position (THA – Acetabulum/Femur, circle) ☐Other: _____
Defect: ☐None ☐Femur (Paprosky: 1/2/3A/3B/4, circle) ☐Acetabulum (Paprosky: 1/2A/2B/2C/3A/3B, circle)
Defect Restoration: ☐Cement ☐Screws ☐Autograft ☐Allograft (Chips/Structural, circle) ☐Augment ☐Biologic
Approach: ☐Direct Anterior ☐Anterolateral ☐Direct Lateral ☐Posterolateral ☐Mini-Posterior ☐Direct Superior
☐Trochanteric Wafer ☐ETO ☐Wagner ☐Other:
Revised: ☐Acetabulum ☐Liner ☐Head ☐Femur
Implant Info: Type: ☐Cemented ☐Uncemented ☐Hybrid ☐Reverse hybrid
Manufacturer:_________________, Design:__________________
Acetabulum:_______, Liner:_______, Femur:_______, Head:_______, Acetabular screws:_______, Other: _______
Bearing surface: ☐Metal on Poly ☐Ceramic on Poly ☐Ceramic on Ceramic ☐Metal on Metal ☐Other: _______
Implant Position: Acetabular Anteversion ____ degrees, Inclination ____ degrees, Femoral Anteversion ____ degrees
Cement: ☐None ☐Simplex ☐Palacos ☐with Antibiotics ☐Pre-mixed ☐Other:

Stability: THA – Assessment of Stability and Leg Length Restoration: _______

Intraoperative Complications: ☐Fracture (Acertabulum/Femur, circle) ☐Nerve injury ☐Vascular Injury ☐Other: _______
☐Medical (Hypo/PE/Arryth/CVA/MI/Death, circle)

Fig. (1). Comprehensive operative note template for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty.
Patient name:
Surgeon:
Primary TKA
Side: ☐Right ☐Left
Diagnosis: ☐Osteoarthritis ☐Rheumatoid ☐Osteonecrosis ☐Other:
Previous Surgery: ☐Arthroscopy ☐Osteotomy ☐ORIF ☐Other:
Incision: ☐Anterior ☐Anteromedial ☐Anterolateral (Previous Incision Used: Yes/No, circle used incision location)
Approach: ☐Medial Parapatellar ☐Midvastus ☐Subvastus ☐Quad Snip ☐TTO ☐Other:
Releases: ☐MCL ☐Popliteus ☐ITB ☐LCL ☐Lateral Retinaculum ☐Posterior Capsule ☐Synovectomy ☐Other:
Cement: ☐None ☐Simplex ☐Palacos ☐with Antibiotics ☐Pre-mixed ☐Other:
Femoral Alignment: Distal Femoral Valgus ____ degrees, ☐Extramedullary ☐Intramedullary ☐Navigation ☐PSI ☐Robotic ☐Other:
Femoral Rotation: ☐Measured Resection (Posterior Condylar/Transepicondylar, circle) ☐Tensioner ☐Other:
Tibial Alignment: Tibial Slope ____ degrees, ☐Extramedullary ☐Intramedullary ☐Navigation ☐PSI ☐Robotic ☐Other:
Tibial Rotation: ☐Tibial Tubercle ☐Tibial Crest ☐Medial Fill ☐PS Box ☐Other:
Patella Resurfacing: ☐No ☐Yes, Resected Patella Thickness ____ mm
Implant Info: Type (PS, CR, Constrained, Hinge), Manufacturer:_________________, Design:__________________
Femur:_______, Tibia:_______, Patella:_______, Insert: ______
Stability: Assessment of Flexion and Extension Gap Balancing and Patellar Tracking
Intraoperative Complications: ☐None ☐Fracture (Femur/Tibia/Patella, circle) ☐Rupture (Patella/Quad/MCL, circle) ☐Vascular Injury
☐Medical (Hypo/PE/Arryth/CVA/MI/Death, circle)

Revision TKA
Side: ☐Right ☐Left
Reason: ☐Infection ☐Aseptic Loosening ☐Wear/Osteolysis ☐Maltracking ☐Stiffness ☐Pain ☐HO ☐Peiprosthetic Fracture ☐Implant
Failure
☐Suboptimal Position (TKA – Femur/Tibia/Patella, circle) ☐Other: _____
Incision: ☐Anterior ☐Anteromedial ☐Anterolateral (Previous Incision Used: Yes/No, circle used incision location)
Approach: ☐Medial Parapatellar ☐Midvastus ☐Subvastus ☐Quad Snip ☐TTO ☐Other:
Revised: ☐Femur ☐Tibia ☐Patella ☐Poly
Defect: ☐Femur (AORI: 1/2A/2B/3, circle) ☐Tibia (AORI: 1/2A/2B/3, circle) ☐Patella
Defect Restoration:☐Cement ☐Screws ☐Autograft ☐Allograft (Chips/Structural, circle) ☐Augment ☐Stem ☐Cone ☐Sleeve ☐Biologic
Implant Info: Type (PS, CR, Constrained, Hinge), Manufacturer:_________________, Design:__________________
Femur:_______, Tibia:_______, Patella:_______, Insert: ______
Augments: ☐Femur (Distal, Posterior, Anterior) ☐Tibia (Medial, Lateral, Bicondylar ☐Type (Block, Wedge, Cone)
Stems: ☐Femur ☐Tibia ☐Offset
Stability: Assessment of Flexion and Extension Gap Balancing and Patellar Tracking
Intraoperative Complications: ☐None ☐Fracture (Femur/Tibia/Patella, circle) ☐Rupture (Patella/Quad/MCL, circle) ☐Vascular Injury
☐Medical (Hypo/PE/Arryth/CVA/MI/Death, circle)

Fig. (2). Comprehensive operative note template for primary and revision total knee arthroplasty.
730 The Open Orthopaedics Journal, 2016, Volume 10 Electricwala et al.

In revision TKA prosthetic components may also be required in addition to tools and instruments for component
extraction. Component extraction requires in depth knowledge of the components implanted at primary TKA. The
surgeon may have to contact the product representatives in order to obtain specific removal tools. The femoral
component may often contain pegs that project into the distal femur and make access to this interface difficult. Offset
osteotomes are useful in such cases. In cases where any component is to be left in place (partial joint revisions), it is
crucial that the characteristics and design of a retained component are compatible with those of the new components. In
our study, one or more components was retained in 50% cases of revision TKA. The most accurate surgical implant
information is the manufacturer’s implant record as documented in the patient’s operative notes. The availability of this
information becomes vital in such circumstances. The more that can be documented in the operative note the better
subsequent patient care will be at the time of revision. A key to stable and successful revision TKA is good prosthetic
alignment, reestablishing symmetry and equality of flexion and extension gaps [13]. The surgeon needs to determine
what is deficient and what is necessary to reconstruct (bone and soft tissue deficits). Specific procedure related details
from the previous surgeon’s operative notes (angle of distal femoral resection, degree of gap balancing in flexion and
extension, angle of posterior tibial slope etc.) may help better plan the revision TKA surgery. Knowledge of the
exposure used from the prior operative note can be important. If a previous lateral patellar arthrotomy was used at
primary TKA, a subsequent medial parapatellar arthrotomy during a revision surgery increases the risk of avascular
necrosis of the patella utilization of the previously chosen lateral arthrotomy might be considered [14]. Based on our
findings, we provide comprehensive operative note templates containing minimum necessary information required in
the operative notes of patients requiring primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty surgery to facilitate later
revision (Figs. 1 and 2). The templates are formulated with the aim to record most necessary operative-procedure and
implant related information easily (tick-box format) in less than a couple of minutes. In addition to the referral patterns
to tertiary medical centers, a key limitation of this study was that it was a single centre analysis. It is therefore
imperative that collaboration between multiple secondary and tertiary care centers be fostered in order to facilitate
better understanding of the lacunae in maintaining patient records and storage of patient related information.
CONCLUSION
Our study demonstrates that operative notes are often unavailable or fail to provide the necessary information
required which makes planning and execution of revision hip and knee athroplasty difficult. This emphasizes the need
for enhancing the quality of operative notes and records of patient information. Standardized operative note templates
may help achieve this. These steps will ensure better preoperative planning, thereby reducing the operative time,
potentially minimizing the risk of complications and improving the chances of success of a revision hip and knee
arthroplasty surgery.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
THA = Total Hip Arthroplasty.
TKA = Total Knee Arthroplasty.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors confirm that this article content has no conflict of interest.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Declared none.
REFERENCES

[1] Barrack RL, Burnett SJ. Preoperative planning for revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87(12): 2800-11.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200512000-00028] [PMID: 16355503]
[2] Al Hussainy H, Ali F, Jones S, McGregor-Riley JC, Sukumar S. Improving the standard of operation notes in orthopaedic and trauma surgery:
the value of a proforma. Injury 2004; 35(11): 1102-6.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2003.10.016] [PMID: 15488499]
[3] General Medical Council. Good medical practice guideline booklet. In: The duties of a doctor registered with the General Medical Council. 3rd
ed. London, UK 2001.
[4] The Royal College of Surgeons of England. Good surgical practice. London, UK: RCSENG – Professional Standards and Regulation 2008.
[5] Mann R, Williams J. Standards in medical record keeping. Clin Med (Lond) 2003; 3(4): 329-32.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7861/clinmedicine.3-4-329] [PMID: 12938746]
 Comprehensive Operative Note Templates The Open Orthopaedics Journal, 2016, Volume 10 731

[6] Bateman ND, Carney AS, Gibbin KP. An audit of the quality of operation notes in an otolaryngology unit. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1999; 44(2):
94-5.
[PMID: 10230203]
[7] Singh R, Chauhan R, Anwar S. Improving the quality of general surgical operation notes in accordance with the Royal College of Surgeons
guidelines: a prospective completed audit loop study. J Eval Clin Pract 2012; 18(3): 578-80.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01626.x] [PMID: 21210903]
[8] Ghani Y, Thakrar R, Kosuge D, Bates P. Smart electronic operation notes in surgery: an innovative way to improve patient care. Int J Surg
2014; 12(5): 30-2.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.10.017] [PMID: 24239938]
[9] OBichere A, Sellu D. The quality of operation notes: can simple word processors help? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1997; 79(5)(Suppl.): 204-8.
[PMID: 9496162]
[10] Jones DL, Vigna F, Barrack RL. The use of modularity in revision total hip replacement. Am J Orthop 2001; 30(4): 297-302.
[PMID: 11334451]
[11] Maloney WJ, Herzwurm P, Paprosky W, Rubash HE, Engh CA. Treatment of pelvic osteolysis associated with a stable acetabular component
inserted without cement as part of a total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997; 79(11): 1628-34.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199711000-00003] [PMID: 9384421]
[12] Jiranek WA. Acetabular liner fixation by cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (417): 217-23.
[PMID: 14646720]
[13] Dennis DA. A stepwise approach to revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2007; 22(4)(Suppl. 1): 32-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.01.001] [PMID: 17570275]
[14] Gold DA, Scott SC, Scott WN. Soft tissue expansion prior to arthroplasty in the multiply-operated knee. A new method of preventing
catastrophic skin problems. J Arthroplasty 1996; 11(5): 512-21.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-5403(96)80102-1] [PMID: 8872568]

© Electricwala et al.; Licensee Bentham Open

This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License
(CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.

View publication stats