Revision knee complexity classification-RKCC: a common-sense guide for surgeons to support regional clinical networking in revision knee surgery

Consensus statement on problematic knee replacement and revision knee replacement: A collaboration between EKS and BASK

BACKGROUND

Up to 20% of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients are not satisfied with their outcome. Both the analysis of these patients and revision surgery can be complex, expensive and outcomes can vary widely.

AIM

The aim of this study was to deliver consensus recommendations regarding outpatient analysis, surgical treatment and arrangement of clinical services concerning patients with a problematic TKA or revision knee replacement (RTKA).

METHODS

Members of BASK and EKS were invited to attend a joint meeting in London, UK (December 2019). A formal consensus process was undertaken at the meeting incorporating a multiple round Delphi exercise, with group discussion of areas of agreement and disagreement between rounds. Eighty delegates attended the meeting and five consensus statements were considered, with a threshold level of 80% agreement required as the definition consensus. A further consensus meeting of EKS members in Kitzbuhl, Austria (January 2023) followed similar methodology and considered a further four statements on this topic.

RESULTS

From the first meeting, 5 consensus statements with accompanying supporting evidence and text were agreed. 1) In suspected infection, a recognised diagnostic pathway and definition should be used (e.g. MSIS, ICM, EBJIS) and documented; 2) Revision of an infected TKA should be treated in units with a multidisciplinary team; 3) Initial investigation of a problematic TKA should include a minimum of: clinical investigation, X-Rays and blood tests, with further discussion with the MDT if required; 4) Units providing RTKA should have surgeons with evidence of specific training or experience, and on-going minimum unit numbers; 5) National Orthopaedic/Knee Societies should develop a strategy on Revision TKA provision taking into account: workforce, revision burden, location, hospital infrastructure. From the second meeting a further 4 consensus statements were agreed. Two statements were agreed text content answering the questions: 1) What should be included in the basic diagnostic workup of a painful TKA? and 2) Which are the key factors for surgeons to consider before offering the patient revision surgery? The two other agreed statements are: 3) Pre-operative diagnosis is related to outcome in RTKA and 4) RTKA for pain, without a surgically treatable diagnosis, is unpredictable.

CONCLUSIONS

The agreed joint BASK-EKS consensus statements and the EKS consensus statements on the assessment of problematic RTKA are recommended as the contemporary basis of optimal care for these patients and should inform future training and service developments.

The Investigation and Management of Peri-Prosthetic Joint Infection After Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Update Based on the Latest British Orthopaedic Association Standard and Speciality Standard Guidelines

Peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a significant complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Early identification and management are essential to prevent severe morbidity and mortality in these patients. Long-term complications of PJI include the need for multiple operations, disability, joint stiffness, reduced range of motion, and increased mortality. Clinical signs, inflammatory markers, imaging, tissue sampling, and synovial fluid analysis are required to diagnose PJI. Debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) is an effective management option, but single- or two-stage exchange arthroplasty may be ultimately required. All cases of PJI in TKA must be discussed in a multi-disciplinary (MDT) meeting. This review incorporates the updated British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) standard and speciality standard to provide an up-to-date guideline on the early identification and management of PJI. We highlight that adhering to the BOA guidelines and adopting an MDT approach are essential for optimal patient outcomes.

"Is every revision the same?" definition of complexity in knee revision surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to define a subset of complex rTKA in terms of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes and complications. The secondary outcome of the authors is to propose a simple and easy-to-use guide for clinical network in rTKA management.

METHODS

Complex rTKAs were defined according to the presence of at least two of the following features: periprosthetic joint infection, re- revision, femoral and/or tibial massive bone defects, soft tissue impairment, stiffness, fracture requiring fixed component revision.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients underwent a standard rTKA (group A) while 24 had a complex rTKA (group B). The mean follow-up was 50.2 ± 16.4 months in group A and 49.5 ± 16.8 in group B (p = 0.44). The operative time was longer in group B (200.4 ± 131.4 min vs 110.2 ± 59.8 min). A greater intraoperative total blood loss (3014.2 ± 740.0 vs 2328.5 ± 620.6 ml, p < 0.001), intra and postoperative blood infusion (3.6 ± 1.2 vs 2.1 ± 1.2 units, p < 0.001) was reported in group B. Significant difference was obtained for global complication rate (11.5% group A vs 37.5% group B, p = 0.04), reoperation (7.7% group A vs 33.3% group B, p = p = 0.03) and re-revision (3.8% group A vs 25% group B, p = p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

This study describes a specific entity of rTKA that require higher surgical effort and increased surgical challenge (measured as increased surgical time, need of transfusions and complications). The proposed classification could provide an easy-to-use tool for quick grading of complexity in rTKA.

How to remove a well-fixed metaphyseal sleeve in revision knee arthroplasty: A step-by-step surgical procedure

BACKGROUND

The rising incidence and complexity of revision knee arthroplasty has led to an increase in the use of metaphyseal reconstruction systems. One of the most widely used systems are metaphyseal sleeves as they have demonstrated excellent long-term survival. However, there is concern about the possible difficulty of extracting a sleeve if it were necessary, as no known procedures have yet been validated.

METHODS

We examined the outcomes of removing 23 well-integrated metaphyseal sleeves using the same systematized technique.

RESULTS

All sleeves were extracted without any intraoperative complications. Four subjects required an osteotomy to complete the extraction, while 62% of the sample were found to have an AORI IIB defect. All cases were successfully reconstructed with a new metaphyseal fixation, implanting a new sleeve in 38% of subjects compared with cones in the remaining 62%.

CONCLUSIONS

The technique described here produced successful, reproducible outcomes for the removal of integrated metaphyseal sleeves with minimal bone loss and no intraoperative complications.

Provision of revision knee arthroplasty services across Scotland: A national audit

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that both low surgeon and centre case volumes are associated with poorer outcomes following Revision Knee Arthroplasty (rTKA). Given the unique challenges faced in Scotland relating to funding and geography, understanding details on the complexity of cases is required to guide development of future rTKA services.

METHODS

Utilising the Scottish Collaborative Orthopaedic Trainee Research Network (SCOTnet) a retrospective review of all Scottish 2019 rTKA cases was undertaken. Regional leads co-ordinated local data collection using individual case note review. The number of cases performed by regions, hospitals and individual surgeons were identified. Patient demographics and case complexity (Revision Knee Complexity Classification [RKCC]) were also collected. Results were compared against current standards.

RESULTS

17 units performed rTKA, delivered by 77 surgeons. A total of 506 cases were included. The mean age was 69 years (46% male). Revision for infection accounted for 147/506 (29%) cases. Extensor compromise was present in 35/506 (7%) and 11/506 (2%) required soft tissue reconstruction. According to the RKCC - 214/503 (43%) were classified as R1 (Less complex cases), 228/503 (45%) R2 (complex cases), and 61/503 (12%) R3 (most complex / salvage cases). 5/17 (29%) units met current national guidelines for case volume/year, with only 11/77 (14%) surgeons meeting recommended individual case volumes. 37/77 (48%) surgeons performed ≤ 2 cases per year.

CONCLUSIONS

Most individual centre volumes could be increased by re-organising services or locations providing rTKA within a region. This should provide better access to Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) involvement. We recorded a significant number of very low volume surgeons (≤2 year) that is contradictory to current evidence-based practice.

Bone defect classifications in revision total knee arthroplasty, their reliability and utility: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There are various classification systems described in the literature for managing bone defects in revision knee arthroplasty (RTKA). We analysed the reliability and usefulness of these classification systems.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) To review and critique the various classification systems proposed for bone loss in RTKA. (2) Among all the proposed classifications which one is the most commonly used by surgeons to report their results. (3) What is the reliability of various bone defect classification systems for RTKA. In this review, we have assessed the studies validating those classifications with a detailed description of the limitations and the proposed modifications.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Pubmed/Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane databases and Web of Science databases were searched using multiple search terms and MeSH terms where possible. Studies meeting inclusion criteria were assessed for statistical parameters of reliability of a classification system.

RESULTS

We found 16 classification systems for bone defects in RTKA. Six studies were found evaluating a classification system with reporting their reliability parameters. Fifty-four studies were found which classified bone loss using AORI classification in their series. AORI classification is most commonly reported for classifying bone defects. Type T2B and F2B are the most common bone defects in RTKA. The average kappa value for AORI classification for femoral bone loss was 0.38 (0.27-0.50) and 0.76 (0.63-1) for tibial bone loss assessment.

CONCLUSION

None of the available classification systems is reliably established in determining the bone loss and treatment plans in RTKA. Among all, AORI classification is the most widely used system in clinical practice. The reliability of AORI Classification is fair for femoral bone loss and substantial for tibial bone loss.

Regional economic burden of revision total knee replacement: A cost-complexity analysis

BACKGROUND

GIRFT tasked regional networks with addressing case-load, complexity-spread and cost of revision knee replacement (KR), but the regional cost burden is not clear. The tariff for revision KR is currently not dependent on surgical complexity. 2 years of revision KR complexity data using the validated Revision Knee Complexity Classification (RKCC) checklist as a demonstration of complexity spread in the region has previously been published. The aims of this study were to estimate the annual regional cost of revision TKR using existing data, and estimate the cost/saving of complexity-clustering using existing data from 8 revision centres.

METHODS

Financial data from the regional high-volume centre for one year (2019) of RKCC data collection was obtained. Mean cost, tariff and balance was calculated for R1, R2 and R3 (RKCC), and applied to data from each revision centre to provide local estimates. Complexity clustering was considered using 3 hypothetical scenarios of high-volume centre absorbing R2s and/or R3s in place of R1s.

RESULTS

Mean net loss was £2,290.08 for R1s, £6,471.42 for R2s and £6,454.26 for R3s. The estimated total annual loss for the region was £1,005,025. Complexity-clustering was associated with greater losses; £162,918 for high-volume centre taking R2s and R3s, £37,477.60 for taking just R3s and £125,440 for taking just R2s.

CONCLUSION

Revision TKR surgery is expensive and insufficiently remunerated with current measures. Restructuring of regional workload would create additional financial burden on specialist centres with current tariff awards structure. Managing reimbursement at a regional or central level may help to incentivise compliance with GIRFT ideals.

Development of the Revision Hip Complexity Classification using a modified Delphi technique

Aims

The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks.

Methods

The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds.

Results

The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively.

Conclusion

The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431.

Temporary new implant spacers increase post-reimplantation total knee prosthesis survival after periprosthetic joint infection

PURPOSE

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is considered the gold standard for treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Antibiotic cement spacers can include cement-based spacers (CBS), new components (NEW), and autoclaved components (ACL). The factors that most influence post-reimplantation prosthesis (PRP) survival were determined.

METHODS

A retrospective database review of patients undergoing two-stage exchange arthroplasty from 2008 to 2014 was performed. There were 85 patients, 25 patients and 30 patients in CBS, NEW and ACL groups, respectively. Patient, disease and surgical characteristics were collected and analyzed. Post-reimplantation prosthesis (PRP) survival was modeled using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazard modeling was then performed to identify risk factors associated with implant failure.

RESULTS

Overall PRP survival was 82% in 140 unilateral TKAs. PRP survival between groups was 81%, 96% and 73% within the minimum 2-year follow-up period, respectively. There was a difference in median interval-to-reimplantation between groups (CBS, 72.0 days; NEW, 111.0 days; ACL, 84.0 days, p = 0.003). Adjusting for time-to-reimplantation, NEW spacers demonstrated greater PRP survival compared with ACL spacers (p = 0.044), and a trend towards greater survival compared with CBS spacers (p = 0.086). Excluding early failures (< 90 days), NEW spacers still demonstrated greater survival than ACL spacers (p = 0.046). Lower volume (≤ 10 within this series) surgeons tended to use more CBS spacers, while higher volume surgeons were comfortable with ACL spacers.

CONCLUSIONS

There was greater PRP survival with NEW spacers. NEW spacers also demonstrated an increased inter-stage interval, likely because of increased comfort and motion. There were spacer choice differences between low- and high-volume surgeons.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Revision total knee replacement: A two-year review of complexity data and regional workload in South West England

BACKGROUND

The GIRFT report (2012) sought to address the need for sustainable orthopaedic treatment delivered through regional "networks"; the aim being improved care, decreased cost and reduced revision rate. The aims of this study were to record the number and complexity of revision total knee replacements within a regional network using a validated classification over a two-year period and audit this against National Joint Registry (NJR) records.

METHODS

A region-wide network model where revision TKR cases are assessed locally using the Revision Knee Complexity Classification (RKCC) and local multi-disciplinary team (MDT) was introduced. Data was collected from 8 revision centres over a two-year period using the RKCC. The case volume was audited against the NJR records.

RESULTS

In year 1 (01/01/2018-31/12/2018) 237 RKCC forms were collected from eight centres. 46% of R2s and 63% of R3s were carried out at the higher volume centre. 211 K2 forms were received by the NJR. In year 2 (01/01/2019-31/12/2019) 252 RKCC forms were collected. 46% of R2s and 64% of R3s were carried out at the higher volume centre. 267 K2 forms were received by the NJR.

CONCLUSION

This is the first published set of revision knee data showing complexity percentages across a region. The RKCC has been successfully introduced into the region and this has been sustained. The findings show that a successful network has been established and majority of complex revision knee surgery is occurring in the high-volume centre. NJR data suggests that the RKCC is capturing the complexity and volume of our work accurately.

The revision partial knee classification system: understanding the causative pathology and magnitude of further surgery following partial knee arthroplasty

AIMS

Joint registries classify all further arthroplasty procedures to a knee with an existing partial arthroplasty as revision surgery, regardless of the actual procedure performed. Relatively minor procedures, including bearing exchanges, are classified in the same way as major operations requiring augments and stems. A new classification system is proposed to acknowledge and describe the detail of these procedures, which has implications for risk, recovery, and health economics.

METHODS

Classification categories were proposed by a surgical consensus group, then ranked by patients, according to perceived invasiveness and implications for recovery. In round one, 26 revision cases were classified by the consensus group. Results were tested for inter-rater reliability. In round two, four additional cases were added for clarity. Round three repeated the survey one month later, subject to inter- and intrarater reliability testing. In round four, five additional expert partial knee arthroplasty surgeons were asked to classify the 30 cases according to the proposed revision partial knee classification (RPKC) system.

RESULTS

Four classes were proposed: PR1, where no bone-implant interfaces are affected; PR2, where surgery does not include conversion to total knee arthroplasty, for example, a second partial arthroplasty to a native compartment; PR3, when a standard primary total knee prosthesis is used; and PR4 when revision components are necessary. Round one resulted in 92% inter-rater agreement (Kendall's W 0.97; p < 0.005), rising to 93% in round two (Kendall's W 0.98; p < 0.001). Round three demonstrated 97% agreement (Kendall's W 0.98; p < 0.001), with high intra-rater reliability (interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 0.99). Round four resulted in 80% agreement (Kendall's W 0.92; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The RPKC system accounts for all procedures which may be appropriate following partial knee arthroplasty. It has been shown to be reliable, repeatable and pragmatic. The implications for patient care and health economics are discussed. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):638-645.

Improving outcomes in acute and chronic periprosthetic hip and knee joint infection with a multidisciplinary approach

AIMS

Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT).

METHODS

Data was retrospectively analyzed from a single centre. In all, 29 consecutive joints prior to the implementation of an infection MDT in November 2016 were compared with 29 consecutive joints subsequent to the MDT conception. All individuals who underwent a debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure, a one-stage revision, or a two-stage revision for an acute or chronic PJI in this time period were included. The definition of successfully treated PJI was based on the Delphi international multidisciplinary consensus.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics or comorbidities between the groups. There was also no significant difference in length of overall hospital stay (p = 0.530). The time taken for formal microbiology advice was significantly shorter in the post MDT group (p = 0.0001). There was a significant difference in failure rates between the two groups (p = 0.001), with 12 individuals (41.38%) pre-MDT requiring further revision surgery compared with one individual (6.67%) post-MDT inception.

CONCLUSION

Our standardized multidisciplinary approach for periprosthetic knee and hip joint infection shows a significant reduction in failure rates following revision surgery. Following implementation of our MDT, our success rate in treating PJI is 96.55%, higher than what current literature suggests. We advocate the role of a specialist infection MDT in the management of patients with a PJI to allow an individualized patient-centred approach and care plan, thereby reducing postoperative complications and failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):509-514.

Revision knee arthroplasty: Can good outcomes be achieved at lower volumes?

BACKGROUND

The National Joint Registry (NJR) demonstrates a re-revision rate for primary knee arthroplasty of 14.2% at 7 years. The 2015 Getting it Right First Time (GIRFT) report highlighted that 58% of surgeons undertaking revision knee arthroplasty (RKA) performed fewer than five cases per year. It has been suggested that revision cases be centralised in specialist centres with a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. Such a hub and spoke or cluster models may still require revision surgery to be performed at relatively low volume units.

METHODS

An analysis of RKA surgery performed in a four surgeon, lower volume revision knee unit over 10 years to December 2016 was undertaken. The effect of the introduction of a MDT was reviewed. The minimum follow up was two years. The primary outcome measure was re-revision. Hospital data as well as individual surgeon NJR reports were used to ensure all re-revisions were accounted for. Outcome scores were available for 68% of cases.

RESULTS

There were 192 RKAs performed in 187 patients at a mean (stdev) of 6.3 (5.4) years from the index procedure. The mean age at surgery was 68.2 (10.9) years. Twenty nine (15.5%) patients had died at the time of final review. Twelve (6.3%) cases required a further revision procedure. The commonest complication was stiffness requiring MUA. The overall 7 year survivorship was 94.9% (95% CI 90.2-97.3). The mean Oxford score at 5.4 years was 30.4 (10.4).

CONCLUSIONS

RKA can be reliably performed at lower volume centres with appropriate MDT systems in place.

Revision knee replacement surgery in the NHS: A BASK surgical practice guideline

BACKGROUND

Revision knee replacement (KR) is both challenging for the surgical team and expensive for the healthcare provider. Limited high quality evidence is available to guide decision-making.

AIM

To provide guidelines for surgeons and units delivering revision KR services.

METHODS

A formal consensus process was followed by BASK's Revision Knee Working Group, which included surgeons from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This was supported by analysis of National Joint Registry data.

RESULTS

There are a large number of surgeons operating at NHS sites who undertake a small number of revision KR procedures. To optimise patient outcomes and deliver cost-effective care high-volume revision knee surgeons working at high volume centres should undertake revision KR. This document outlines practice guidelines for units providing a revision KR service and sets out: The current landscape of revision KR in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Service organisation within a network model. The necessary infrastructure required to provide a sustainable revision service. Outcome metrics and auditable standards. Financial mechanisms to support this service model.

CONCLUSIONS

Revision KR patients being treated in the NHS should be provided with the best care available. This report sets out a framework to both guide and support revision KR surgeons and centres to achieve this aim.

Financial analysis of revision knee surgery at a tertiary referral centre as classified according to the Revision Knee Complexity Classification (RKCC)

BACKGROUND

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) can be complex, with greater costs to the treating hospital than primary TKA. A rTKA regional network has been proposed in England. The aim of this work was to accurately quantify current costs and reimbursement for the rTKA service and to assess whether costs are proportional to case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

A review of all rTKA performed at our institution over two consecutive financial years (2017-2019) was performed. Cases were classified according to the Revision Knee Complexity Classification (RKCC) and by mode of failure; "infected" and "non-infected". Financial data was acquired through Patient-Level Information and Costing System (PLICS). The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per episode. Comparisons between groups were analysed using analysis of variance and two-tailed unpaired t-test as appropriate.

RESULTS

159 patients underwent 188 rTKA procedures. Length of stay and cost significantly increased between complexity groups (p < 0.0001) and for infected revisions (p < 0.0001). All groups sustained a mean deficit but this significantly increased with revision complexity (from £1,903 to £5,269 per case) and for infected revisions. The total deficit to the Trust for the two-year rTKA service was £667,091.

CONCLUSIONS

The current level of NHS reimbursement are inadequate for centres that offer rTKA and should be more closely aligned to case complexity. An increase in the most complex rTKA at major revision centres will undoubtedly place an even greater strain on the finances of these units.

Diagnosis and management of the infected total knee replacement: a practical surgical guide

PURPOSE

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a significant burden in health care. Diagnosis and proper management are challenging. A standardised procedure for the diagnostic workup and surgical management provides clear benefits in outcome.

METHODS

Several diagnostic protocols and definitions for PJI were established in recent years. Proper PJI diagnosis remains critical for success and for choosing the optimal treatment option. A distinct workup of diagnostic steps, the evaluation of the results in a multidisciplinary setup and the meticulous surgical management of the infection are the key factors of successful treatment.

RESULTS

The management of PJI after TKA consists of early revision with debridement and implant retention (DAIR) in early cases or staged revision in late infections beyond 30 days postoperative or after onset of acute symptoms. The revision is performed as a two-stage procedure with the use of a fixed or mobile antibiotic spacer, or in selected cases as a single-stage operation with the use of local and systemic antibiotic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper reflects the opinion of two revision surgeons who follow the same protocol for diagnosis and treatment of PJI after TKA, highlighting the key steps in diagnosis and management.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Expert's opinion.

Infected total knee replacement: How I do a one-stage revision

BACKGROUND

As part of a session on the infected knee replacement at the British Orthopaedic Association congress in Liverpool, 2019, this topic was delivered as a lecture. The content and ideas of the lecture have been expanded to produce this article.

METHODS

One-stage revision total knee replacement is not a new concept but remains controversial. This article is not written to persuade any surgeon to undertake the procedure but to simply give a working framework for how one surgeon performs the operation. We will cover the philosophy underpinning the rationale for single-stage revision (not 2-in-1 revision) including extensile exposure, a defined debridement protocol, reconstruction and fixation, antibiotic delivery and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

None.

CONCLUSION

The techniques outlined in this article should give confidence that one-stage revision knee replacement is a viable option when working within a multi-disciplinary team structure.

Investigation and management of prosthetic joint infection in knee replacement: A BASK Surgical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

The burden of knee replacement prosthetic joint infection (KR PJI) is increasing. KR PJI is difficult to treat, outcomes can be poor and it is financially expensive and limited evidence is available to guide treatment decisions.

AIM

To provide guidelines for surgeons and units treating KR PJI.

METHODS

Guideline formation by consensus process undertaken by BASK's Revision Knee Working Group, supported by outputs from UK-PJI meetings.

RESULTS

Improved outcomes should be achieved through provision of care by revision centres in a network model. Treatment of KR PJI should only be undertaken at specialist units with the required infrastructure and a regular infection MDT. This document outlines practice guidelines for units providing a KR PJI service and sets out: CONCLUSIONS: KR PJI patients treated within the NHS should be provided the best care possible. This report sets out guidance and support for surgeons and units to achieve this.

Provision of revision knee surgery and calculation of the effect of a network service reconfiguration: An analysis from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man

BACKGROUND

Revision knee replacement (KR) is technically challenging, expensive, and outcomes can be poor. It is well established that increasing surgeon and unit volumes results in improved outcomes and cost-effectiveness for complex procedures. The aim of this study was to 1) describe the current provision of revision KR in England, Wales and Northern Ireland at the individual surgeon and unit level and 2) investigate the effect on workload of case distribution in a network model.

METHODS

Current practice was mapped using NJR summary statistics containing all revision KR procedures performed over a three-year period (2016-2018). Units were identified as revision centres based on threshold volumes. Units undertaking <20 revisions per year were classified as Primary Arthroplasty Units (PAUs) in calculations on the effect of workload centralisation.

RESULTS

Revision KR was performed by 1353 surgeons at 232 NHS sites. The majority of surgeons and units were low-volume; >1000 surgeons performed <7 and 125 sites performed <20 procedures per year. Reallocation of work from these 125 PAUs (1235 cases, 21% of total workload) to a network model with even redistribution of cases between centres undertaking revision surgery would result in an additional average annual case increase of 11 per unit per year (range six to 14).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision KR workload re-allocation would lift all revision centres above a 30 per year threshold and would appear to be a manageable increase in workload for specialist revision KR centres. Case complexity and local referral agreements will significantly affect the real increase in workload; these factors were not incorporated here.

Top ten research priorities for problematic knee arthroplasty

AIMS

The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting.

RESULTS

A total of 769 questions were received during the initial survey with national reach across the UK. These were refined into 32 unique questions by an independent information specialist. The interim prioritization survey was completed by 201 respondents and 25 questions were taken to a final consensus group meeting between patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Consensus was reached for ranking the top ten questions for publication and dissemination.

CONCLUSIONS

The top ten research priorities focused on pain, infection, stiffness, health service configuration, surgical and non-surgical management strategies, and outcome measures. This list will guide funders and help focus research efforts within the knee arthroplasty community. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1176-1182.