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

What is the impact of longer patient travel distances and times on perioperative outcomes following revision knee replacement: a retrospective observational study using data for England from Hospital Episode Statistics

OBJECTIVES

Patients undergoing revision total knee replacement (RevKR) surgery often have difficulties mobilising and increasingly rely on family support. Evolving practice in England aims to manage these patients in specialised centres with the intention of improving outcomes. This practice will result in longer travel distances and times in this frailer group of patients. We want to examine the types of distances and travel times patients can be expected to travel for this complex orthopaedic surgery and to explore concerns of how these impact patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational study from the Hospital Episode Statistics. Multivariable adjusted logistic regression models were used to investigate the relationship between patient travel distances and times with perioperative outcomes.

SETTING

Patients presenting to tertiary referral centres between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2019. A tertiary referral centre was defined as a trust performing >49 revisions in the year prior.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients undergoing RevKR procedures for any reason between 1 January 2016 ando 31 December 2019.

EXPOSURE

The shortest patient level travel distance and time was calculated using the Department of Health Journey Time Statistics using Transport Accessibility and Connectivity Calculator software and Dijkstra's algorithm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome is emergency readmission within 30 days. Secondary outcomes are mortality within 90 days and length of inpatient stay.

RESULTS

6880 patients underwent RevKR at 36 tertiary referral centres. There was a weak correlation between social deprivation and travel distance, with patients from the most deprived areas travelling longer distances. Overall, 30-day readmission was not statistically associated with longer driving distance (OR 1.00 95% CI 0.99 to 1.02) or peak driving times (OR 1.00 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no association between increasing travel distance and time on perioperative outcomes for RevKR patients.

Higher hospital volume reduces early failure rates in single-stage revision TKR for infection: An analysis of the United Kingdom National Joint Registry and National Administrative Databases

PURPOSE

Revision knee replacement (RevKR) for infection is rare but increasing. It is hypothesised that higher hospital volume reduces adverse outcomes. The aim was to estimate the association of surgical unit volume with outcomes following first, single-stage RevKR for infection.

METHODS

This population-based cohort study merged data from the United Kingdom National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, National Patient Reported Outcome Measures and the Civil Registrations of Death. Patients undergoing procedures between 1 January 2009 and 30 June 2019 were included. Early outcomes were chosen to reflect the quality of the surgical provision and included re-revision at 2 years, mortality, serious medical complications, length of stay and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Adjusted fixed effect multivariable regression models were used to examine the association between surgical unit mean annual caseload and the risk of adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1477 patients underwent first-time single-stage RevKRs for infection across 267 surgical units and 716 surgeons. Following adjustment for age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade, surgeon volume, year of surgery and operation funder and modelling surgical unit volume with restricted cubic spline, a greater mean annual volume was associated with a lower risk of re-revision at 2 years. The odds of re-revision in hospitals performing fewer than or equal to 12 cases per year was 2.53 (95% confidence interval = 1.50-4.31) times more likely than hospitals performing three to four cases per month. Annual variation in surgical unit volume was not associated with mortality and serious medical complications within 90 days. Only 99 out of 1477 (7%) of patients had linked PROMs which precluded subsequent analysis.

CONCLUSION

Overall, higher volume surgical units had lower rates of early re-revision following the first RevKR for infection. We were unable to provide recommended specific volume thresholds for units; however, the probability of re-revision appears to be lowest in the highest volume units.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data.

Association between surgeon volume and patient outcomes after elective shoulder replacement surgery using data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England: population based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between surgeon volume and patient outcomes after elective shoulder replacement surgery to improve patient outcomes and inform future resource planning for joint replacement surgery.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Public and private hospitals in the United Kingdom, 2012-20.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged 18 years or older who had shoulder replacement surgery, identified in the National Joint Registry, with linkage of participants in England to Hospital Episode Statistics data.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measure was revision surgery. Secondary outcome measures were reoperation within 12 months, serious adverse events, and prolonged hospital stay (>3 nights) after shoulder replacement surgery.

RESULTS

39 281 shoulder replacement procedures undertaken by 638 consultant surgeons at 416 surgical units met the inclusion criteria and were available for analysis. Multilevel mixed effects models and restricted cubic splines were fit to examine the association between a surgeon's mean annual volume and risk of adverse patient outcomes, with a minimum volume threshold of 10.4 procedures yearly identified. Below this threshold the risk of revision surgery was significantly increased, as much as twice that of surgeons with the lowest risk (hazard ratio 1.94, 95% confidence interval 1.27 to 2.97). A greater mean annual surgical volume was also associated with a significantly lower risk of reoperations, fewer serious adverse events, and shorter hospital stay, with no thresholds identified. Annual variation in surgeon volume was not associated with any of the outcomes assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

In the healthcare system represented by these registry data, an association was found between surgeons who averaged more than 10.4 shoulder replacements yearly and lower rates of revision surgery and reoperation, lower risk of serious adverse events, and shorter hospital stays. These findings should inform resource planning for surgical services and joint replacement surgery waiting lists and improve patient outcomes after shoulder replacement surgery.

The impact of a revision arthroplasty network on patient outcomes

Aims

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA.

Methods

The revision arthroplasty network was established in January 2015 and covered five hospitals in the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of the East Midlands of England. This comprises a collaborative weekly multidisciplinary meeting where upcoming rTKA and rTHA procedures are discussed, and a plan agreed. Using the Hospital Episode Statistics database, revision procedures carried out between April 2011 and March 2018 (allowing two-year follow-up) from the five network hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in England. Age, sex, and mean Hospital Frailty Risk scores were used as covariates. The primary outcome was re-revision surgery within one year of the index revision. Secondary outcomes were re-revision surgery within two years, any complication within one and two years, and median length of hospital stay.

Results

A total of 57,621 rTHA and 33,828 rTKA procedures were performed across England, of which 1,485 (2.6%) and 1,028 (3.0%), respectively, were conducted within the network. Re-revision rates within one year for rTHA were 7.3% and 6.0%, and for rTKA were 11.6% and 7.4% pre- and postintervention, respectively, within the network. This compares to a pre-to-post change from 7.4% to 6.8% for rTHA and from 11.7% to 9.7% for rTKA for the rest of England. In comparative interrupted time-series analysis for rTKA there was a significant immediate improvement in one-year re-revision rates for the revision network compared to the rest of England (p = 0.024), but no significant change for rTHA (p = 0.504). For the secondary outcomes studied, there was a significant improvement in trend for one- and two-year complication rates for rTHA for the revision network compared to the rest of England.

Conclusion

Re-revision rates for rTKA and complication rates for rTHA improved significantly at one and two years with the introduction of a revision arthroplasty network, when compared to the rest of England. Most of the outcomes studied improved to a greater extent in the network hospitals compared to the rest of England when comparing the pre- and postintervention periods.