Low Hospital Volume Increases Revision Rate and Mortality Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 17,773 Cases

Association between surgeon and hospital volume and outcome of first-time revision hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening

Aims

This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening.

Methods

We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip arthroplasties (RHAs) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome.

Results

Among 12,961 RHAs there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant's first RHA (hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.12)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 24 cases (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHAs performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 167 RHAs were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.59)), and those having undertaken fewer than 307 RHAs were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3.05 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.82)).

Conclusion

This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHA for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralization of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons.

Time trends in case-mix and risk of revision following hip and knee arthroplasty in public and private hospitals: a cross-sectional analysis based on 476,312 procedures from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

This study aims to assess time trends in case-mix and to evaluate the risk of revision and causes following primary THA, TKA, and UKA in private and public hospitals in the Netherlands.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 476,312 primary arthroplasties (public: n = 413,560 and private n = 62,752) implanted between 2014 and 2023 using Dutch Arthroplasty Register data. We explored patient demographics, procedure details, trends over time, and revisions per hospital type. Adjusted revision risk was calculated for comparable subgroups (ASA I/II, age ≤ 75, BMI ≤ 30, osteoarthritis diagnosis, and moderate-high socioeconomic status (SES).

RESULTS

The volume of THAs and TKAs in private hospitals increased from 4% and 9% in 2014, to 18% and 21% in 2022. Patients in private hospitals were younger, had lower ASA classification, lower BMI, and higher SES compared with public hospital patients. In private hospitals, age and ASA II proportion increased over time. Multivariable Cox regression demonstrated a lower revision risk for primary THA (HR 0.7, CI 0.7-0.8), TKA (HR 0.8, CI 0.7-0.9), and UKA (HR 0.8, CI 0.7-0.9) in private hospitals. After initial arthroplasty in private hospitals, 49% of THA and 37% of TKA revisions were performed in public hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Patients in private hospitals were younger, had lower ASA classification, lower BMI, and higher SES com-pared with public hospital patients. The number of arthroplasties increased in private hospitals, with a lower revision risk compared with public hospitals.

Re-revision and mortality rate following revision total hip arthroplasty for infection

Aims

This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data.

Methods

This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA.

Results

The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA.

Conclusion

The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the 'real world'. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with infection.

No Association Between Hospital Volume and Early Second Revision Rate in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Dutch Orthopaedic Register

BACKGROUND

Revision knee arthroplasty (R-KA) is rising globally. Technical difficulty of R-KA varies from liner exchange to full revision. Centralization has been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity rates. The present study aimed to evaluate the association between hospital R-KA volume and overall second revision rate, as well as revision rate for different types of revision.

METHODS

The R -KAs between 2010 and 2020 with available data on the primary KA in the Dutch Orthopaedic Arthroplasty Register were included. Minor revisions were excluded. Implant data and anonymous patient characteristics were obtained from the Dutch Orthopaedic Arthroplasty Register. Survival analyses and competing risk analysis were performed per volume category (≤12, 13 to 24, or ≥25 cases/year) at 1, 3, and 5 years following R-KA. There were 8,072 R-KA cases available. Median follow-up was 3.7 years (range 0 to 13.7 years). There were a total of 1,460 second revisions (18.1%) at the end of follow-up.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences between second revision rates of the three volume groups. Adjusted hazard ratio for second revision were 0.97 (Confidence Interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.11) for hospitals with 13 to 24 cases/year and 0.94 (CI 0.83 to 1.07) with ≥25 cases/year compared to low volume (≤12 cases/year). Type of revision did not influence second revision rate.

CONCLUSION

Second revision rate of R-KA does not seem to be dependent on hospital volume or type of revision in the Netherlands.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Observational registry study.

Association between hospital onset of infection and outcomes in sepsis patients - A propensity score matched cohort study based on health claims data in Germany

BACKGROUND

Hospital-acquired infections are a common source of sepsis. Hospital onset of sepsis was found to be associated with higher acute mortality and hospital costs, yet its impact on long-term patient-relevant outcomes and costs is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the association between sepsis origin and acute and long-term outcomes based on a nationwide population-based cohort of sepsis patients in Germany.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used nationwide health claims data from 23 million health insurance beneficiaries. Sepsis patients with hospital-acquired infections (HAI) were identified by ICD-10-codes in a cohort of adult patients with hospital-treated sepsis between 2013 and 2014. Cases without these ICD-10-codes were considered as sepsis cases with community-acquired infection (CAI) and were matched with HAI sepsis patients by propensity score matching. Outcomes included in-hospital/12-month mortality and costs, as well as readmissions and nursing care dependency until 12 months postsepsis.

RESULTS

We matched 33,110 HAI sepsis patients with 28,614 CAI sepsis patients and 22,234 HAI sepsis hospital survivors with 19,364 CAI sepsis hospital survivors. HAI sepsis patients had a higher hospital mortality than CAI sepsis patients (32.8% vs. 25.4%, RR 1.3, p < .001). Similarly, 12-months postacute mortality was higher (37.2% vs. 30.1%, RR=1.2, p < .001). Hospital and 12-month health care costs were 178% and 22% higher in HAI patients than in CAI patients, respectively. Twelve months postsepsis, HAI sepsis survivors were more often newly dependent on nursing care (33.4% vs. 24.0%, RR=1.4, p < .001) and experienced 5% more hospital readmissions (mean number of readmissions: 2.1 vs. 2.0, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

HAI sepsis patients face an increased risk of adverse outcomes both during the acute sepsis episode and in the long-term. Measures to prevent HAI and its progression into sepsis may be an opportunity to mitigate the burden of long-term impairments and costs of sepsis, e.g., by early detection of HAI progressing into sepsis, particularly in normal wards; adequate sepsis management and adherence to sepsis bundles in hospital-acquired sepsis; and an improved infection prevention and control.

Rural-Urban Differences in Hospital and Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Total Hip Arthroplasty

Background

Rural patients have unique health-care factors influencing outcomes of arthroplasty, hypothetically putting these patients at increased risk for complications following total joint arthroplasty. The aim of this study is to better understand differences in patient outcomes and satisfaction between rural and urban patients receiving care in an urban setting and to provide more equitable care.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty at a single large academic center between January 2013 and August 2020. Demographic, operative, and hospital outcomes were obtained from the institutional electronic medical record. Rurality was determined by rural-urban code (RUC) classifications by zip code with RUC codes 1-3 defined as urban and RUC 4-10 defined as rural.

Results

Patients from urban areas were more likely to visit the emergency department within 30 days postoperatively (P = .006) and be readmitted within 90 days (P < .001). However, unplanned (P < .001) admissions were higher in the rural group. There was no statistical difference in postoperative complications (P = .4). At 6 months, rural patients had higher patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score total (P = .05), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score interval (P = .05), self-reported functional improvement (P < .05), improvements in pain (P < .05), and that the surgery met expectations (P < .05). However, these values did not reach minimal clinically important difference.

Conclusions

There may be differences in emergency department visits, readmissions, and PROMs in rural vs urban populations undergoing total hip arthroplasty in an urban setting. Patient access to care and attitudes of rural patients toward health care may underlie these findings. Understanding differences in PROMs, satisfaction, and hospital-based outcomes based on rurality is essential to provide equitable arthroplasty care.

Consultant revision hip arthroplasty volumes and new consultant volume trajectories in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man

Aims

This study describes the variation in the annual volumes of revision hip arthroplasty (RHA) undertaken by consultant surgeons nationally, and the rate of accrual of RHA and corresponding primary hip arthroplasty (PHA) volume for new consultants entering practice.

Methods

National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man were received for 84,816 RHAs and 818,979 PHAs recorded between April 2011 and December 2019. RHA data comprised all revision procedures, including first-time revisions of PHA and any subsequent re-revisions recorded in public and private healthcare organizations. Annual procedure volumes undertaken by the responsible consultant surgeon in the 12 months prior to every index procedure were determined. We identified a cohort of 'new' HA consultants who commenced practice from 2012 and describe their rate of accrual of PHA and RHA experience.

Results

The median annual consultant RHA volume, averaged across all cases, was 21 (interquartile range (IQR) 11 to 34; range 0 to 181). Of 1,695 consultants submitting RHA cases within the study period, the top 20% of surgeons by annual volume performed 74.2% of total RHA case volume. More than half of all consultants who had ever undertaken a RHA maintained an annual volume of just one or fewer RHA, however, collectively contributed less than 3% of the total RHA case volume. Consultant PHA and RHA volumes were positively correlated. Lower-volume surgeons were more likely to undertake RHA for urgent indications (such as infection) as a proportion of their practice, and to do so on weekends and public holidays.

Conclusion

The majority of RHAs were undertaken by higher-volume surgeons. There was considerable variation in RHA volumes by indication, day of the week, and between consultants nationally. The rate of accrual of RHA experience by new consultants is low, and has important implications for establishing an experienced RHA consultant workforce.

Understanding the 30-day mortality burden after revision total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a challenging procedure that burdens the healthcare system. Despite being associated with worse outcomes relative to its primary counterpart, postoperative mortality after revision THA remains ill-defined. The present study aimed to (1) establish the overall 30-day mortality rate after revision THA and (2) explore the mortality rate stratified by age, comorbidity burden, and aseptic versus septic failure.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons - National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent revision THA from 2011 to 2019. A total of 23,501 patients were identified and grouped into mortality (n = 161) and mortality-free (n = 23,340) cohorts. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and aseptic/septic failure were evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall 30-day mortality was 0.69%. The mortality rate by age group (normalised per 1000 patients) was 0 (18-39 years [Y]), 0.67 (40-49 Y), 1.10 (50-59 Y), 2.58 (60-69 Y), 6.15 (70-79 Y) 19.32 (80-89 Y), and 58.22 (90+Y) (p < 0.001). The mortality rate by ASA classification (normalised per 1000 patients) was 0 (ASA I), 1.47 (ASA II), 6.94 (ASA III), 45.42 (ASA IV), and 200 (ASA V) (p < 0.001). The 30-day mortality rate for the septic and aseptic cohorts was 1.03% and 0.65%, respectively (p = 0.038). CCI scores (p < 0.001), diabetes (p < 0.001), systematic sepsis (p < 0.001), poor functional status (p < 0.001), BMI < 24.9 kg/m2 (p < 0.001), and dirty/infected wounds (p < 0.001) were all associated with increased mortality risk.

CONCLUSIONS

1 in 145 patients will suffer mortality during the 30 days after revision THA. PJI-related revision THA was associated with 1.5-fold increase in 30-day mortality rate compared to its aseptic counterpart. Certain patient determinants and baseline comorbidities, as measured by ASA and CCI scores, were associated with higher 30-day mortality rates. Therefore, it is imperative to identify such risk factors and implement perioperative patient optimisation pathways to mitigate the risk among vulnerable patients.

Comparative Survival of Contemporary Cementless Acetabular Components Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The advent of highly porous ingrowth surfaces and highly crosslinked polyethylene has been expected to improve implant survivorship in revision total hip arthroplasty. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the survival of several contemporary acetabular designs following revision total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

Acetabular revisions performed from 2000 to 2019 were identified from our institutional total joint registry. We studied 3,348 revision hips, implanted with 1 of 7 cementless acetabular designs. These were paired with highly crosslinked polyethylene or dual-mobility liners. A historical series of 258 Harris-Galante-1 components, paired with conventional polyethylene, was used as reference. Survivorship analyses were performed. For the 2,976 hips with minimum 2-year follow-up, the median follow-up was 8 years (range, 2 to 35 years).

RESULTS

Contemporary components with adequate follow-up had survivorship free of acetabular rerevision of ≥95% at 10-year follow-up. Relative to Harris-Galante-1 components, 10-year survivorship free of all-cause acetabular cup rerevision was significantly higher in Zimmer Trabecular Metarevision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2-0.45), Zimmer Trabecular MetaModular (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13-0.89), Zimmer Trilogy (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.24-0.69), DePuy Pinnacle Porocoat (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11-0.51), and Stryker Tritanium revision (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.91) shells. Among contemporary components, there were only 23 rerevisions for acetabular aseptic loosening and no rerevisions for polyethylene wear.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary acetabular ingrowth and bearing surfaces were associated with no rerevisions for wear and aseptic loosening was uncommon, particularly with highly porous designs. Therefore, it appears that contemporary revision acetabular components have dramatically improved upon historical results at available follow-up.

Urban-Rural Disparities in Case Fatality of Community-Acquired Sepsis in Germany: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to examine urban-rural disparities in sepsis case fatality rates among patients with community-acquired sepsis in Germany.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using de-identified data of the nationwide statutory health insurance AOK, covering approx. 30% of the German population. We compared in-hospital- and 12-month case fatality between rural and urban sepsis patients. We calculated odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals and the estimated adjusted odds ratio (OR_adj) using logistic regression models to account for potential differences in the distribution of age, comorbidities, and sepsis characteristics between rural and urban citizens.

RESULTS

We identified 118,893 hospitalized patients with community-acquired sepsis in 2013-2014 with direct hospital admittance. Sepsis patients from rural areas had lower in-hospital case fatality rates compared to their urban counterparts (23.7% vs. 25.5%, p < 0.001, Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.91 (95% CI 0.88, 0.94), OR_adj = 0.89 (95% CI 0.86, 0.92)). Similar differences were observable for 12-month case fatalities (45.8% rural vs. 47.0% urban 12-month case fatality, p < 0.001, OR = 0.95 (95% CI 0.93, 0.98), OR_adj = 0.92 (95% CI 0.89, 0.94)). Survival benefits were also observable in rural patients with severe community-acquired sepsis or patients admitted as emergencies. Rural patients of <40 years had half the odds of dying in hospital compared to urban patients in this age bracket (OR_adj = 0.49 (95% CI 0.23, 0.75), p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Rural residence is associated with short- and long-term survival benefits in patients with community-acquired sepsis. Further research on patient, community, and health-care system factors is needed to understand the causative mechanisms of these disparities.

Stay Short or Go Long in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty With Paprosky Type II Femoral Defects: A Comparative Study With the Use of an Uncemented Distal Fixating Modular Stem and a Primary Monobloc Conical Stem With 5-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

In the revisions for Paprosky type II femoral defects, diaphyseal fixating femoral stems are commonly used. To preserve bone stock, the use of a shorter primary conical stem could be an adequate alternative. The objective of this study is to compare the results of a primary conical stem to the more commonly used diaphyseal fixating modular revision stem in revision total hip arthroplasty surgery with Paprosky type II femoral defects.

METHODS

A total of 59 consecutive patients with Paprosky type II femoral defects from our prospective revision registry were included. Thirty patients who received a long distal fixating modular stem (Revision Stem, Lima Corporate) and 29 patients who received a primary conical short stem (Wagner Cone, Zimmer) were prospectively followed. Minimal follow-up time was 2 years for subsidence and patient-reported outcome measures and 5 years for complications, reoperation, and revision. We compared subsidence, perioperative complications, reoperations, femoral component survival, Oxford Hip Score, EuroQol 5 Dimension, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain at rest, and VAS for pain during activity between stems.

RESULTS

Both groups were comparable regarding demographic, clinical, and surgery-related characteristics. We found more perioperative complications and stem revisions with the modular revision stem than with the primary conical stem. There were no statistical differences in subsidence, EuroQol 5 Dimension, Oxford Hip Score, and VAS for pain at rest or during activity between both stems.

CONCLUSION

In revision total hip arthroplasty with Paprosky type II femoral defects, uncemented primary monobloc conical femoral stems showed the same clinical result as distal fixating modular stems with fewer complications and fewer stem revisions.

Are Trends in Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty Sustainable? Declining Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Reimbursement for Hospitalizations

BACKGROUND

While the burden of revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures increases within the United States, it is unclear whether health care resource allocation for these complex cases has kept pace. This study examined the trends in hospital-level reimbursements for revision TJA hospitalizations.

METHODS

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) inpatient utilization and payment public use files from 2014 to 2019 were queried for diagnostic-related groups (DRGs) for revision TJA: DRG 467 (revision of hip or knee arthroplasty with complication or comorbidity [CC]) and DRG 468 (revision of hip or knee arthroplasty without CC or major CC). From 2014 to 2019, 170,808 revision TJA hospitalizations were billed to Medicare, and revision TJA procedures increased by 3,121 (10.7%). After adjusting to 2019 US dollars with the consumer price index, a multiple linear mixed-model regression analysis was performed. Analysis of covariance compared regressions from 2014 to 2019 for mean-adjusted Medicare payment and mean- adjusted charge were submitted for these DRGs.

RESULTS

Mean-adjusted average Medicare payment for DRG 467 decreased by $804.37 (-3.5%) from 2014 to 2019, whereas, that for DRG 468 decreased by $647.33 (-3.6%). The average inflation-adjusted Medicare payment for DRG 467 decreased at a greater rate during the study period, compared to that for DRG 468 (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

The decline in reimbursement for DRGs 467 and 468 reveals decreasing incentives for revision TJA hospitalizations. Further research should assess the efficacy of current Medicare payment algorithms and identify modifications which may provide for fair hospital level reimbursements.

[Planning revision hip arthroplasty : What are the structural requirements?]

The results of many studies and register reports show that the frequency of primary hip arthroplasty per hospital, but also per surgeon, influence the outcome. In the large spectrum of revision hip arthroplasty volume-outcome effects have also partially been proven. It is obvious that with the increasing complexity of revision surgery and comorbidities, higher demands exist concerning collaborating disciplines as well as training and intervention frequency of the surgical team. Further aspects regarding organisation and structure such as the availability of specific revision implants and instruments must be ensured. In order to provide sustainable resources for revision surgery in an arthroplasty centre, organization of education and training for staff members in different disciplines and working levels must be ensured without quality impairment.

Surgeon and Facility Volumes Are Associated With Social Disparities and Post-Operative Complications After Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to further characterize the volume dependence of facilities and surgeons on morbidity and mortality after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

Adults who underwent THA from 2009 to 2014 were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification and Procedural codes in the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. Complication rates were compared across surgeon and facility volumes using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression controlling for factors such as the Social Deprivation Index. Surgeon and facility volumes were compared between the low and high volume using cutoffs established by prior research.

RESULTS

In total, 99,832 patients were included. Low volume facilities had higher rates of readmission, urinary tract infection (UTI), acute renal failure, pneumonia, surgical site infection (SSI), cellulitis, wound complications, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), in-hospital mortality, and revision. Low volume surgeons had higher rates of readmission, UTI, acute renal failure, pneumonia, SSI, acute respiratory failure, pulmonary embolism, cellulitis, wound complications, in-hospital mortality, cardiorespiratory arrest, DVT, and revision. African Americans, Hispanics, and those with federal insurance had increased rates of readmission. Those with ≥1 Charlson comorbidities or from areas of higher social deprivation had increased incidence of treatment by low volume surgeons and facilities.

CONCLUSION

Both low volume facilities and surgeons performing primary THA have higher rates of readmission, UTI, acute renal failure, pneumonia, SSI, cellulitis, wound complications, DVT, in-hospital mortality, and revision. Demographic disparities exist between who is treated at low vs high volume surgeons and facilities placing those groups at higher risks for complications.

Does Hypothetical Centralization of Revision THA and TKA Exacerbate Existing Geographic or Demographic Disparities in Access to Care by Increased Patient Travel Distances or Times? A Large-database Study

BACKGROUND

Higher hospital volume is associated with lower rates of adverse outcomes after revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Centralizing revision TJA care to higher-volume hospitals might reduce early complication and readmission rates after revision TJA; however, the effect of centralizing revision TJA care on patient populations who are more likely to experience challenges with access to care is unknown.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Does a hypothetical policy of transferring patients undergoing revision TJA from lower-to higher-volume hospitals increase patient travel distance and time? (2) Does a hypothetical policy of transferring patients undergoing revision TJA from lower- to higher-volume hospitals disproportionately affect travel distance or time in low income, rural, or racial/ethnic minority populations?

METHODS

Using the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Groups 466-468, we identified 37,147 patients with inpatient stays undergoing revision TJA from 2008 to 2016 in the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System administrative database for New York State. Revisions with missing or out-of-state patient identifiers (3474 of 37,147) or those associated with closed or merged facilities (180 of 37,147) were excluded. We chose this database for our study because of relative advantages to other available databases: comprehensive catchment of all surgical procedures in New York State, regardless of payer; each patient can be followed across episodes of care and hospitals in New York State; and New York State has an excellent cross-section of hospital types for TJA, including rural and urban hospitals, critical access hospitals, and some of the highest-volume centers for TJA in the United States. We divided hospitals into quartiles based on the mean revision TJA volume. Overall, 80% (118 of 147) of hospitals were not for profit, 18% (26 of 147) were government owned, 78% (115 of 147) were located in urban areas, and 48% (70 of 147) had fewer than 200 beds. The mean patient age was 66 years old, 59% (19,888 of 33,493) of patients were females, 79% (26,376 of 33,493) were white, 82% (27,410 of 33,493) were elective admissions, and 56% (18,656 of 33,493) of admissions were from government insurance. Three policy scenarios were evaluated: transferring patients from the lowest 25% by volume hospitals, transferring patients in the lowest 50% by volume hospitals, and transferring patients in the lowest 75% by volume hospitals to the nearest higher-volume institution by distance. Patients who changed hospitals and travelled more than 60 miles or longer than 60 minutes with consideration for average traffic patterns after the policy was enacted were considered adversely affected. The secondary outcome of interest was the impact of the three centralization policies, as defined above, on lower-income, nonwhite, rural versus urban counties, and Hispanic ethnicity.

RESULTS

Transferring patients from the lowest 25% by volume hospitals resulted in only one patient stay that was affected by an increase in travel distance and travel time. Transferring patients from the lowest 50% by volume hospitals resulted in 9% (3050 of 33,493) of patients being transferred, with only 1% (312 of 33,493) of patients affected by either an increased travel distance or travel time. Transferring patients from the lowest 75% by volume hospitals resulted in 28% (9323 of 33,493) of patients being transferred, with 2% (814 of 33,493) of patients affected by either an increased travel distance or travel time. Nonwhite patients were less likely to encounter an increased travel distance or time after being transferred from the lowest 50% by volume hospitals (odds ratio 0.31 [95% CI 0.15 to 0.65]; p = 0.002) or being transferred from the lowest 75% by volume hospitals (OR 0.10 [95% CI 0.07 to 0.15]; p < 0.001) than white patients were. Hispanic patients were more likely to experience increased travel distance or time after being transferred from the lowest 50% by volume hospitals (OR 12.3 [95% CI 5.04 to 30.2]; p < 0.001) and being transferred from the lowest 75% by volume hospitals (OR 3.24 [95% CI 2.24 to 4.68]; p < 0.001) than non-Hispanic patients were. Patients from a county with a lower median income were more likely to experience increased travel distances or time after being transferred from the lowest 50% by volume hospitals (OR 69.5 [95% CI 17.0 to 283]; p < 0.001) and being transferred from the lowest 75% by volume hospitals (OR 3.86 [95% CI 3.21 to 4.64]; p < 0.001) than patients from counties with a higher median income. Patients from rural counties were more likely to be affected after being transferred from the lowest 50% by volume hospitals (OR 98 [95% CI 49.6 to 192.2]; p < 0.001) and being transferred from the lowest 75% by volume hospitals (OR 11.7 [95% CI 9.89 to 14.0]; p < 0.001) than patients from urban counties.

CONCLUSION

Although centralizing revision TJA care to higher-volume institutions in New York State did not appear to increase the travel burden for most patients, policies that centralize revision TJA care will need to be carefully designed to minimize the disproportionate impact on patient populations that already face challenges with access to healthcare. Further studies should examine the feasibility of establishing centers of excellence designations for revision TJA, the effect of best practices adoption by lower volume institutions to improve revision TJA care, and the potential role of care-extending technology such as telemedicine to improve access to care to reduce the effects of travel distances on affected patient populations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, prognostic study.

[Abscesstonsillectomy: Uni- or bilateral?]

OBJECTIVE

In addition to an empirical use of antibiotics for treatment of a peritonsillar abscess (PTA) there is a drainage of pus or the abscess tonsillectomy. Postoperative bleeding after abscesstonsillectomy (ABTE) is this surgery's most feared complication which can rarely lead to patients' deaths. The objective of this study was to compare bleeding complications of ABTE with and without contralateral tonsillectomy (TE) and to analyze the occurrence of a metachronous PTA at the contralateral side.

METHODS

Retrospective study of n= 655 patients undergoing ABTE with and without TE of the contralateral side from January 2004 to February 2019. Bleeding complications needing surgical hemostasis were analyzed regarding demographic and surgical parameters. In addition, occurrence of PTA and need for ABTE of the contralateral side after unilateral ABTE were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 10/655 (1.5 %) patients presented with postoperative bleeding after ABTE. In 404/655 an ABTE with contralateral TE was performed. Here, 8/404 (1.98 %) patients showed contra- or bilateral bleeding. Only in 2/251 (0.7 %) patients occurred a bleeding complication after unilateral ABTE. Therefore, bleeding after unilateral ABTE was significantly lower than ABTE with contralateral TE (1.98 % vs. 0.7 %, p= 0.001). In 0.8 % of the patients a contralateral ABTE was necessary due to a metachronous PTA.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the rate of postoperative bleeding after ABTE (1.5 %) was low. Unilateral ABTE showed significantly lower postoperative bleeding rates compared to ABTE with contralateral TE. Consequently, the indication of a contralateral TE must be very strict.

In-hospital Mortality after Septic Revision TKA: Analysis of the New York and Florida State Inpatient Databases

The aims of this study were to investigate (1) in-hospital mortality rates following septic revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA); (2) compare septic rTKA mortality rates between differing knee revision volume (KRV) hospitals; and (3) identify independent risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality after septic rTKA (up to 2-year follow-up). The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases of New York and Florida were used to identify septic rTKA, and control groups of aseptic rTKA and primary TKA between 2007 and 2012 via International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes. Mortality was compared between septic rTKA and aseptic rTKA/primary TKA control groups. Hospital KRV was stratified, and independent risk factors of in-hospital mortality were identified and analyzed using unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses. In this study, 3,531 septic rTKA patients were identified; 105 (3%) patients suffered in-hospital mortality, compared with the control aseptic rTKA (n = 178; 1.7%; p < 0.0001) and primary TKA groups (n = 930; 0.6%; p < 0.0001). Being an octogenarian (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 2.361; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.514-3.683; p < 0.0002) and having a medium- or high-Elixhauser comorbidity score was associated with in-hospital mortality (AOR: 2.073; 95% CI: 1.334-3.223; p = 0.0012, and AOR: 4.127; 95% CI: 2.268-7.512, p < 0.0001). There were no significant in-hospital mortality rate differences in high- versus medium- versus low-KRV hospitals (1.9 vs. 3.6 vs. 2.9%, respectively, p = 0.0558). Age >81 years and higher comorbidity burden were found to contribute to increased risk of 2-year postoperative mortality after septic rTKA. This association could not be established for hospital KRV.

In-Hospital Mortality Is Associated With Low-Volume Hip Revision Centers After Septic Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) after septic failure is associated with higher morbidity and mortality compared with aseptic revisions. The goals of this study were to characterize (1) the in-hospital mortality rate for patients with septic rTHA, (2) the effect of hospital hip revision surgery volume (HRV) on mortality after septic rTHA, and (3) the independent risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality rates after rTHA with 2-year follow-up. The authors analyzed the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases of New York and Florida to identify cases of septic rTHA from 2007 to 2012 with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes. The authors included patients with (1) no history of THA for 2 years before the index admission and (2) 2 years of follow-up. Groups with primary THA and aseptic rTHA were identified as control groups. Logistic regression was used to evaluate independent associations. Of 3057 patients with septic rTHA, 5.2% (n=160) had in-hospital mortality vs 2.9% of those with primary THA (n=3525, P=.0001) and 2.1% of those with aseptic rTHA (n=252, P=.0001). Octogenarian status, medium-risk Elixhauser comorbidity score, and high-risk Elixhauser comorbidity score were independent risk factors for mortality (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.587, 95% CI=1.103-2.282, P=.0128; AOR=2.439, 95% CI=1.680-3.541, P<.0001; and AOR=6.367, 95% CI=4.134-9.804, P<.0001, respectively). Undergoing rTHA in a high-HRV hospital was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR=0.539, 95% CI=0.332-0.877, P=.0127). Receiving care in a low-HRV hospital increased the risk of 2-year postoperative patient mortality. Similarly, older age and a higher comorbidity burden were independently associated with increased 2-year postoperative mortality. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(1):57-63.].

Epidemiology and Costs of Postsepsis Morbidity, Nursing Care Dependency, and Mortality in Germany, 2013 to 2017

IMPORTANCE

Sepsis survivorship is associated with postsepsis morbidity, but epidemiological data from population-based cohorts are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the frequency and co-occurrence of new diagnoses consistent with postsepsis morbidity and mortality as well as new nursing care dependency and total health care costs after sepsis.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study based on nationwide health claims data included a population-based cohort of 23.0 million beneficiaries of a large German health insurance provider. Patients aged 15 years and older with incident hospital-treated sepsis in 2013 to 2014 were included. Data were analyzed from January 2009 to December 2017.

EXPOSURES

Sepsis, identified by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) hospital discharge codes.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

New medical, psychological, and cognitive diagnoses; long-term mortality; dependency on nursing care; and overall health care costs in survivors at 1 to 12, 13 to 24, and 25 to 36 months after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Among 23.0 million eligible individuals, we identified 159 684 patients hospitalized with sepsis in 2013 to 2014. The mean (SD) age was 73.8 (12.8) years, and 75 809 (47.5%; 95% CI, 47.2%-47.7%) were female patients. In-hospital mortality was 27.0% (43 177 patients; 95% CI, 26.8%-27.3%). Among 116 507 hospital survivors, 86 578 (74.3%; 95% CI, 74.1%-74.6%) had a new diagnosis in the first year post sepsis; 28 405 (24.4%; 95% CI, 24.1%-24.6%) had diagnoses co-occurring in medical, psychological, or cognitive domains; and 23 572 of 74 878 survivors (31.5%; 95% CI, 31.1%-31.8%) without prior nursing care dependency were newly dependent on nursing care. In total, 35 765 survivors (30.7%; 95% CI, 30.4%-31.0%) died within the first year. In the second and third year, 53 089 (65.8%; 95% CI, 65.4%-66.1%) and 40 959 (59.4%; 95% CI, 59.0%-59.8%) had new diagnoses, respectively. Health care costs for sepsis hospital survivors for 3 years post sepsis totaled a mean of €29 088/patient ($32 868/patient) (SD, €44 195 [$49 938]). New postsepsis morbidity (>1 new diagnosis) was more common in survivors of severe sepsis (75.6% [95% CI, 75.1%-76.0%]) than nonsevere sepsis (73.7% [95% CI, 73.4%-74.0%]; P < .001) and more common in survivors treated in the intensive care unit (78.3% [95% CI, 77.8%-78.7%]) than in those not treated in the intensive care unit (72.8% [95% CI, 72.5%-73.1%]; P < .001). Postsepsis morbidity was 68.5% (95% CI, 67.5%-69.5%) among survivors without prior morbidity and 56.1% (95% CI, 54.2%-57.9%) in survivors younger than 40 years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, new medical, psychological, and cognitive diagnoses consistent with postsepsis morbidity were common after sepsis, including among patients with less severe sepsis, no prior diagnoses, and younger age. This calls for more efforts to elucidate the underlying mechanisms, define optimal screening for common new diagnoses, and test interventions to prevent and treat postsepsis morbidity.

[Quality criteria in arthroplasty]

The discipline of orthopedics and trauma surgery strives for constant improvement of the quality of results in arthroplasty; however, in order to enable targeted alterations to the establish standard operating procedures, dedicated documentation of the current quality of results is necessary. This can be achieved by so-called external quality assurance, evaluation of routine data of healthcare providers, analysis of clinical studies and the consultation of registry data. To achieve further improvement of the quality of results, legislature has been passed setting requirements for minimum quantities and by the specialist society (German Society for Orthopedics and Orthopedic Surgery, DGOOC) the adherence to certain process and structural guidelines within the framework of the certification system EndoCert®. A valid score for risk adjustment for assessment of the level of difficulty of orthopedic surgical interventions is so far lacking. As a future direction, the application of risk stratification concerning patient-specific anatomy should be developed. Through the combination of dedicated certification systems, the recording and evaluation of external inpatient quality assurance data, further quality assurance through routinely collected data and the development of adequate minimum quantity regulations, sustainable improvement of the quality of results can be achieved.

Mortality After Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

In counseling patients about the complications of revision total hip arthroplasty (revTHA), it is imperative that mortality be considered. The actual mortality rate by indication of revision is ill-defined. The purpose of this study is to determine the mortality rate after revTHA.

METHODS

An institutional database identified 596 patients who had undergone revTHA between 2012 and 2018. Medical records, national, state, and local death indexes were queried for mortality status and indication for revTHA. For survivors, the last clinical visit date was used for censoring in the mortality analysis. Mortality rates were calculated for all clinical patients and then by specific indication for revision.

RESULTS

The overall 2-year mortality rate following revTHA was 19.5 deaths per 1000 or 1 in 51 patients. Patients presenting with a periprosthetic fracture had a significantly higher 2-year mortality rate of 74.5 deaths per 1000 or 1 in 13 patients (P < .001), while an indication of dislocation or instability had a slightly higher 2-year mortality rate of 50.3 per 1000 (1 in 20) but this difference was not significant (P = .531). Other indications such as mechanical loosening or infection did not have a significantly different mortality rate.

CONCLUSION

The overall 2-year mortality rate following revTHA was 19.5 deaths per 1000 which was largely attributed to patients with a periprosthetic fracture (74.5 per 1000) with other indications not significantly impacting mortality. Mortality rates and specific rates by indication for revision should be considered when counseling patients prior to revTHA.

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.

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.

Management of aseptic failure of the mobile-bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) accounts for 9.1% of primary knee arthroplasties (KAs) in the UK. However, wider uptake is limited by higher revision rates compared with total knee arthroplasties (TKA) and concerns over subsequent poor function. The aim of this study was to understand the revision strategies and clinical outcomes for aseptic, failed UKAs at a high-volume centre.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-centre cohort study of 48 patients (31 female, 17 male) with 52 revision UKAs from 2006 to 2018. Median time to revision was 67 (range 4-180) months. Indications for revision were progression of osteoarthritis (n = 31 knees, 59.6%), unexplained pain (n = 10 knees, 19.2%), aseptic loosening (n = 6 knees, 11.5%), medial collateral ligament incompetence (n = 3 knees, 5.8%) and recurrent bearing dislocation (n = 2 knees, 3.8%). Technical details of surgery, complications and functional outcome were recorded.

RESULTS

Failed UKAs were revised to primary TKAs (n = 29 knees, 55.8%), revision TKAs (n = 9 knees, 17.3%), bicompartmental KAs (n = 11 knees, 21.2%), or unicompartmental-to-unicompartmental KAs (n = 3 knees, 5.8%). Median follow up was 81 (range 24-164) months. Four patients (7.7%) died from unrelated causes. No re-revisions were identified. Surgical complications required re-operation in five knees (9.6%). Median Oxford Knee Score at latest follow up was 38 (range 9-48) points and median EQ5D3L index 0.707 (range -0.247 to 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Aseptic, revision UKA at a high-volume centre had good clinical outcomes. Bicompartmental KA demonstrated excellent function and should be considered an alternative to TKA for progression of osteoarthritis for appropriately trained surgeons.

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.

Evidence-Based Hospital Procedural Volumes as Predictors of Outcomes After Revision Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to define the evidence-based institutional volume-outcome relationship in revision hip arthroplasty. We hypothesized that high-volume centers would be associated with superior outcomes, and that stratum-specific likelihood ratio (SSLR) analysis would delineate concrete volume thresholds for optimizing outcomes.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmission Database was queried from 2011 to 2016 for patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty. SSLR analysis was used to determine hospital volume cutoffs specific for outcomes of interest. Volume categories were confirmed with multivariate regression.

RESULTS

SSLR analysis produced distinct hospital volume cutoffs for all outcomes. Each subsequent volume threshold diminished patients' risk for adverse outcomes. Tertiles were identified for 90-day infection (≤6, 7-51, ≥52 cases per year). Quartiles were found for 90-day readmission (≤5, 6-15, 16-79, ≥80), 90-day prosthesis-related complication (≤5, 6-16, 17-65, ≥66), 90-day dislocation (≤5, 6-19, 20-79, ≥80), and non-home discharge (≤5, 6-15, 16-40, and ≥41). Quintiles were generated for extended length of stay >2 days (≤2, 3-10, 11-20, 21-30, ≥31). Heptiles were produced for medical complications within 90 days (≤2, 3-8, 9-16, 17-51, 52-89, ≥90).

CONCLUSION

This is the first known study to define evidence-based thresholds for the impact of hospital volume on revision joint arthroplasty. This supports the notion that institutional volume functions as a surrogate for protocolized interdisciplinary coordination of care and surgical experience, and that high-volume centers offer enhanced outcomes for complex cases. Additional studies should investigate the potential role for incentivization of such institutions, as they offer optimal outcomes for revision hip arthroplasty.

Low Hospital Volume Increases Re-Revision Rate Following Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 23,644 Cases

BACKGROUND

Along with rising numbers of primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the number of revision total knee arthroplasties (R-TKAs) has been increasing. R-TKA is a complex procedure requiring special instruments, implants, and surgical skills. Therefore it is likely that hospitals with more R-TKAs have more experience with this type of surgery and therefore fewer complications. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between hospital volume and re-revision rate following R-TKA.

METHODS

Using nationwide healthcare insurance data for inpatient hospital treatment, 23,644 aseptic R-TKAs in 21,573 patients treated between January 2013 and December 2017 were analyzed. Outcomes were 90-day mortality, 1-year re-revision rate, and in-house adverse events. The effect of hospital volumes on outcomes were analyzed by means of multivariate logistic regression. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

Hospital volume had a significant effect on 1-year re-revision rate (≤12 R-TKA/a: OR 1.44, CI 1.20-1.72; 13-24 R-TKA/a: OR 1.43, CI 1.20-1.71; 25-52 R-TKA/a: OR 1.13, CI 0.94-1.35; ≥53 R-TKA/a: reference). Ninety-day mortality and major in-house adverse events decreased with increasing volume per year, but after risk adjustment this was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

We found evidence of higher risk for re-revision surgery in hospitals with fewer than 25 R-TKA per year. It might contribute to improved patient care if complex elective procedures like R-TKA which require experience and a specific logistic background were performed in specialized centers.