Can We Avoid Implant-selection Errors in Total Joint Arthroplasty?

[Partial or full component exchange in hip revision? : The relevance of off-label use and mix & match]

Off-label use is frequently practiced in hip revision arthroplasty, as there may be indications for the application of implants for purposes outside the one the manufacturers intended (i.e. large bone and soft tissue defects, obesity). Patients may also benefit from selective application of mix & match in hip revision, when the exchange of one component only is necessary and the invasiveness of surgery can be reduced. Currently, there are no formal guidelines for these situations. Therefore, within a recent EFORT initiative, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations have been developed for the safe application of off-label use and mix & match in revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

EFORT recommendations for off-label use, mix & match and mismatch in hip and knee arthroplasty

Off-label use is frequently practiced in primary and revision arthroplasty, as there may be indications for the application of implants for purposes outside the one the manufacturers intended.

Under certain circumstances, patients may benefit from selective application of mix & match. This can refer to primary hip arthroplasty (if evidence suggests that the combination of devices from different manufacturers has superior results) and revision hip or knee arthroplasty (when the exchange of one component only is necessary and the invasiveness of surgery can be reduced).

Within the EFORT ‘Implant and Patient Safety Initiative’, evidence- and consensus-based recommendations have been developed for the safe application of off-label use and mix & match in primary as well as revision hip and knee arthroplasty.

Prior to the application of a medical device for hip or knee arthroplasty off-label and within a mix & match situation, surgeons should balance the risks and benefits to the patient, obtain informed consent, and document the decision process appropriately.

Nevertheless, it is crucial for surgeons to only combine implants that are compatible. Mismatch of components, where their sizes or connections do not fit, may have catastrophic effects and is a surgical mistake.

Surgeons must be fully aware of the features of the components that they use in off-label indications or during mix & match applications, must be appropriately trained and must audit their results.

Considering the frequent practice of off-label and mix & match as well as the potential medico-legal issues, further research is necessary to obtain more data about the appropriate indications and outcomes for those procedures.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:982-1005. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210080

Never events in orthopaedics: A nationwide data analysis and guidance on preventative measures

BACKGROUND

Never Events (NE) are serious clinical incidents that are wholly preventable if appropriate institutional safeguards are in place and followed. They are often used as a surrogate of the quality of healthcare delivered by an institution. Most NEs are surgical and orthopaedic surgery is one of the most involved specialties.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify common NE themes associated with orthopaedics within the National Health Service (NHS) of England.

METHOD

We conducted an observational study analysing the annual NE data published by the NHS England from 2012 to 2020 to collate all orthopaedic surgery-related NE and construct relevant recurring themes.

RESULTS

We identified 460 orthopaedic NE out of a total of 3247 (14.16%) reported NE to NHS England. There were 206 Wrong implants/prostheses under 8 different themes. Wrong hip and knee prosthesis were the commonest "wrong implants" (n = 94; 45.63% and n = 91; 44.17% respectively). There were 197 "Wrong-site surgery" incidents in 22 different themes. The commonest of these was the laterality problems accounting for 64 (32.48%) incidents followed by 63 (31.97%) incidents of wrong spinal level interventions. There were 18 (9.13%) incidents of intervention on the wrong patients and 17 (8.62%) wrong incisions. Retained pieces of instruments were the commonest retained foreign body with 15 (26.13%) incidents. The next categories were retained drill parts and retained instruments with 13 (22.80%) incidents each.

CONCLUSION

We identified 47 different themes of NE specific to orthopaedic surgery. Awareness of these themes would help in their prevention. Site marking can be challenging in the presence of cast and on operating on the digits and spine. Addition of a Real-time intra-operative implant scan to the National Joint Registry can avoid wrong implant selection while Fiducial markers, intraoperative imaging, O-arm navigation, and second time-out could help prevent wrong level spinal surgery.