Am I the right surgeon, in the right hospital, with the right equipment and staff to do this operation?

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.

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.

Factors predicting repeat revision and outcome after aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: results from the New Zealand Joint Registry

PURPOSE

The number of Revision TKAs performed continues to increase; however there is limited data on risk factors for failure. Additionally, clinical decisions regarding when and how to revise a failed TKA may be as important as the technical aspects of the procedure. The purpose of this study was to analyze factors predicting repeat revision following aseptic revision TKA.

METHODS

Of 85,769 primary TKAs recorded on the New Zealand National Joint Registry, 1720 patients undergoing subsequent revision for aseptic indications between January 1999 and December 2015 were identified. Re-revision was recorded in 208 patients (12.1%). The analysis included demographic characteristics, surgeon revision case volume, surgical time, surgical ownership of index TKA as independent variables using logistic and linear regression. The primary outcome measure was incidence of subsequent re-revision and Oxford Knee Scores of revised TKAs (OKS). The secondary outcome measure was the influence of component exchange in major revisions on re-revision rate.

RESULTS

Younger patients undergoing a revision (HR 0.974) and male gender (HR 0.666) were predictors of re-revision. Elapsed time since index surgery (unstandardized coefficient 0.060) and lower ASA score (UC - 2.749) were significant predictors of OKS. Femoral component revision was a predictor of re-revision (HR 1.696) and had the lowest OKS, compared to tibial and all component revision (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat revision TKA is a rare and complex procedure influenced by a number of confounding factors. Using raw registry data, younger and male patients were found to be at a higher risk of re-revision after aseptic revision TKA. A longer time between primary TKA and revision was associated with better clinical outcomes. Isolated femoral component exchange led to worse outcomes both in terms of survivorship and functional scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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.