Surgeon preference and variation of surgical care

Shared decision making in primary malignant bone tumour surgery around the knee in children and young adults: protocol for a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Children and young adults needing surgery for a primary malignant bone tumour around the knee face a difficult, life-changing decision. A previous study showed that this population wants to be involved more in the decision-making process and that more involvement leads to less decisional stress and regret. Therefore, a well-designed and standardized decision-making process based on the principles of shared decision-making needs to be designed, implemented, and evaluated.

METHODS

We developed a shared decision-making (SDM) model for this patient population, including an online decision aid (DA). This model has been implemented in the standard care of patients with a primary malignant bone tumour around the knee. Following implementation, we will analyse its effect on the decision-making process and the impact on patient experiences using questionnaires and interviews. Moreover, potential areas for improvement will be identified.

DISCUSSION

Given the importance of involving patients and parents in surgical decision-making, particularly in life-changing surgery such as malignant bone tumour surgery, and given the lack of SDM models applicable for this purpose, we want to share our model with the international community, including our study protocol for evaluating and optimising the model. This study will generate valuable knowledge to facilitate the optimisation of current patient care for local treatment. The sharing of our implementation and study protocol can serve as an example for other centres interested in implementing SDM methods in an era characterized by more empowered patients and parents who desire autonomy and reliable and realistic information.

Practice Changes Induced by a Traveling Fellowship

The John N. Insall Knee Society Traveling Fellowship selects four international arthroplasty or sports fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons to spend 1 month traveling to various Knee Society members' joint replacement and knee surgery centers in North America. The fellowship aims to foster research and education and shares ideas among fellows and Knee Society members. The role of such traveling fellowships on surgeon preferences has yet to be investigated. A 59-question survey encompassing patient selection, preoperative planning, intraoperative techniques, and postoperative protocols was completed by the four 2018 Insall Traveling Fellows before and immediately after the completion of traveling fellowship to assess anticipated practice changes (e.g., initial excitement) related to their participation in a traveling fellowship. The same survey was completed 4 years after the completion of the traveling fellowship to assess the implementation of the anticipated practice changes. Survey questions were divided into two groups based on levels of evidence in the literature. Immediately after fellowship, there was a median of 6.5 (range: 3-12) anticipated changes in consensus topics and a median of 14.5 (range: 5-17) anticipated changes in controversial topics. There was no statistical difference in the excitement to change consensus or controversial topics (p = 0.921). Four years after completing a traveling fellowship, a median of 2.5 (range: 0-3) consensus topics and 4 (range: 2-6) controversial topics were implemented. There was no statistical difference in the implementation of consensus or controversial topics (p = 0.709). There was a statistically significant decline in the implementation of changes in consensus and controversial preferences compared with the initial level of excitement (p = 0.038 and 0.031, respectively). After the John N. Insall Knee Society Traveling Fellowship, there is excitement for practice change in consensus and controversial topics related to total knee arthroplasty. However, few practice changes that had initial excitement were implemented after 4-year follow-up. Ultimately, the effects of time, practice inertia, and institutional friction overcome most of the anticipated changes induced by a traveling fellowship.

Value assessment frameworks: who is valuing the care in healthcare?

Many healthcare agencies are producing evidence-based guidance and policy that may determine the availability of particular healthcare products and procedures, effectively rationing aspects of healthcare. They claim legitimacy for their decisions through reference to evidence-based scientific method and the implementation of just decision-making procedures, often citing the criteria of 'accountability for reasonableness'; publicity, relevance, challenge and revision, and regulation. Central to most decision methods are estimates of gains in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), a measure that combines the length and quality of survival. However, all agree that the QALY alone is not a sufficient measure of all relevant aspects of potential healthcare benefits, and a number of value assessment frameworks have been suggested. I argue that the practical implementation of these procedures has the potential to lead to a distorted assessment of value. Undue weight may be ascribed to certain attributes, particularly those that favour commercial or political interests, while other attributes that are highly valued by society, particularly those related to care processes, may be omitted or undervalued. This may be compounded by a lack of transparency to relevant stakeholders, resulting in an inability for them to participate in, or challenge, the decisions. The makes it likely that costly new technologies, for which inflated prices can be justified by the current value frameworks, are displacing aspects of healthcare that are highly valued by society.

A qualitative study of clinician attitudes towards closed-loop systems in mainstream diabetes care in England

AIM

Clinicians mediate access to new technologies. Consequently, their views on specific devices may influence user access to diabetes technology in mainstream care. As yet, little is known about clinicians' views about closed-loop systems. This qualitative study explored clinicians' views on the likely impacts of future closed-loop systems in mainstream diabetes care in England.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with 36 clinicians from a range of professional backgrounds in five hospital outpatient clinics (two adult, two pregnancy, one paediatric) in England to explore possible consequences of closed-loop systems for users and clinicians. Data analysis utilized a framework approach.

RESULTS

Clinicians reported a range of expected benefits for future users, including improved glucose control and quality of life. Expected burdens included continued need for manual input and the risk of losing basic self-care skills. In terms of future clinical workloads, three clinicians emphasized only positive impacts, seven emphasized both positive and negative impacts, and 17 mentioned only negative impacts. Our most prominent finding, expressed by 24 clinicians, was that closed-loop systems would generate initial challenges due to the need for staff training, user education and support, and new analytical capacities, alongside existing intra-clinic variations in technological experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians recognize the value of closed-loop systems in terms of health benefits, but also identify a range of concerns for both users and healthcare staff, which could impact negatively on user access. Future implementation efforts should address these concerns by providing training and support for healthcare teams, taking varied technological expertise into account.

Surgical Risk Is Not Linear: Derivation and Validation of a Novel, User-friendly, and Machine-learning-based Predictive OpTimal Trees in Emergency Surgery Risk (POTTER) Calculator

INTRODUCTION

Most risk assessment tools assume that the impact of risk factors is linear and cumulative. Using novel machine-learning techniques, we sought to design an interactive, nonlinear risk calculator for Emergency Surgery (ES).

METHODS

All ES patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) 2007 to 2013 database were included (derivation cohort). Optimal Classification Trees (OCT) were leveraged to train machine-learning algorithms to predict postoperative mortality, morbidity, and 18 specific complications (eg, sepsis, surgical site infection). Unlike classic heuristics (eg, logistic regression), OCT is adaptive and reboots itself with each variable, thus accounting for nonlinear interactions among variables. An application [Predictive OpTimal Trees in Emergency Surgery Risk (POTTER)] was then designed as the algorithms' interactive and user-friendly interface. POTTER performance was measured (c-statistic) using the 2014 ACS-NSQIP database (validation cohort) and compared with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), Emergency Surgery Score (ESS), and ACS-NSQIP calculators' performance.

RESULTS

Based on 382,960 ES patients, comprehensive decision-making algorithms were derived, and POTTER was created where the provider's answer to a question interactively dictates the subsequent question. For any specific patient, the number of questions needed to predict mortality ranged from 4 to 11. The mortality c-statistic was 0.9162, higher than ASA (0.8743), ESS (0.8910), and ACS (0.8975). The morbidity c-statistics was similarly the highest (0.8414).

CONCLUSION

POTTER is a highly accurate and user-friendly ES risk calculator with the potential to continuously improve accuracy with ongoing machine-learning. POTTER might prove useful as a tool for bedside preoperative counseling of ES patients and families.

Practice variation in total hip arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty for treatment of fractured neck of femur in Australia

Aims

Displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF) may be treated with partial (hemiarthroplasty, HA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA), with recent recommendations advising that THA be used in community-ambulant patients. This study aims to determine the association between the proportion of FNF treated with THA and year of surgery, day of the week, surgeon practice, and private versus public hospitals, adjusting for known confounders.

Patients and Methods

Data from 67 620 patients in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) from 1999 to 2016 inclusive were used to generate unadjusted and adjusted analyses of the associations between patient, time, surgeon and institution factors, and the proportion of FNF treated with THA.

Results

Overall, THA was used in 23.7% of patients. THA was more frequently used over time, in younger patients, in healthier patients, in cases performed on weekdays (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.27; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 1.41), in private hospitals (adjusted OR 4.34; 95% CI 3.94 to 4.79) and by surgeons whose hip arthroplasty practice has a relatively higher proportion of elective patients (adjusted OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.49 to 1.83).

Conclusion

Practice variation exists in the proportion of FNF patients treated with THA due to variables other than patient factors. This may reflect variation in resources available and surgeon preference, and uncertainty regarding the relative indication.

Surgeon's Preference in Total Knee Replacement: A Quantitative Examination of Attributes, Reasons for Alteration, and Barriers to Change

BACKGROUND

The reasons why surgeons prefer a particular total knee replacement (TKR) to other viable options with lower cost or lower revision risk remain uncertain. This study examined the concept of surgeon's preference in TKR; including the self-assigned utility of their preferred prosthesis, reasons to alter usual preference and barriers to permanently changing preference.

METHODS

Using a multinational electronic survey, 347 TKR performing orthopedic surgeons were studied using anonymous mandatory responses, mutually exclusive closed options, multiple responses blocking, automatic stem randomization, Likert scale weighting, and an absence of neutral options.

RESULTS

The highest rated of the 17 attributes were "reproducibility of outcome," "best functional outcome," and "better kinematics." The lowest rated were a "key-opinion leader or mentor uses it" and "new or innovative." "Lowest revision risk" ranked 10th, with 19.9% of surgeons stating it did not influence their preference. Cost did not influence 52.1% of surgeons and 33.7% agreed that their institution or system limited their preference. Surgeon's demographics and preferred prosthesis or technique altered some attribute ratings including surgical volume, country of practice, type of preferred implant; however, revision risk rating was not altered by any factor. Cost considerations altered rating of barriers to technique change.

CONCLUSION

Understanding why surgeons prefer certain TKR prostheses or techniques to other viable alternatives is vital to reduce unwarranted variation. This study suggests that the self-assigned reasons driving surgeon's preferences, reasons for preference alteration, and barriers to change are multifactorial, diverse, and complex, with revision risk not being the highest rated attribute.

The Effect on Long-Term Survivorship of Surgeon Preference for Posterior-Stabilized or Minimally Stabilized Total Knee Replacement: An Analysis of 63,416 Prostheses from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

Controversy still exists as to the optimum management of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) in total knee arthroplasty. Surgeons can choose to kinematically substitute the PCL with a posterior-stabilized total knee replacement or alternatively to utilize a cruciate-retaining, also known as minimally stabilized, total knee replacement. Proponents of posterior-stabilized total knee replacement propose that the reported lower survivorship in registries when directly compared with minimally stabilized total knee replacement is due to confounders such as selection bias because of the preferential usage of posterior-stabilized total knee replacement in more complex or severe cases. In this study, we aimed to eliminate these possible confounders by performing an instrumental variable analysis based on surgeon preference to choose either posterior-stabilized or minimally stabilized total knee replacement, rather than the actual prosthesis received.

METHODS

Cumulative percent revision, hazard ratio (HR), and revision diagnosis data were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2014, for 2 cohorts of patients, those treated by high-volume surgeons who preferred minimally stabilized replacements and those treated by high-volume surgeons who preferred posterior-stabilized replacements. All patients had a diagnosis of osteoarthritis and underwent fixed-bearing total knee replacement with patellar resurfacing.

RESULTS

At 13 years, the cumulative percent revision was 5.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.0% to 6.2%) for the surgeons who preferred the minimally stabilized replacements compared with 6.0% (95% CI, 4.2% to 8.5%) for the surgeons who preferred the posterior-stabilized replacements. The revision risk for the surgeons who preferred posterior-stabilized replacements was significantly higher for all causes (HR = 1.45 [95% CI, 1.30 to 1.63]; p < 0.001), for loosening or lysis (HR = 1.93 [95% CI, 1.58 to 2.37]; p < 0.001), and for infection (HR = 1.51 [95% CI, 1.25 to 1.82]; p < 0.001). This finding was irrespective of patient age and was evident with cemented fixation and with both cross-linked polyethylene and non-cross-linked polyethylene. However, the higher revision risk was only evident in male patients.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a 45% higher risk of revision for the patients of surgeons who preferred a posterior-stabilized total knee replacement compared with the patients of surgeons who preferred a minimally stabilized total knee replacement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.