Provision of revision knee arthroplasty services across Scotland: A national audit

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that both low surgeon and centre case volumes are associated with poorer outcomes following Revision Knee Arthroplasty (rTKA). Given the unique challenges faced in Scotland relating to funding and geography, understanding details on the complexity of cases is required to guide development of future rTKA services. METHODS: Utilising the Scottish Collaborative Orthopaedic Trainee Research Network (SCOTnet) a retrospective review of all Scottish 2019 rTKA cases was undertaken. Regional leads co-ordinated local data collection using individual case note review. The number of cases performed by regions, hospitals and individual surgeons were identified. Patient demographics and case complexity (Revision Knee Complexity Classification [RKCC]) were also collected. Results were compared against current standards. RESULTS: 17 units performed rTKA, delivered by 77 surgeons. A total of 506 cases were included. The mean age was 69 years (46% male). Revision for infection accounted for 147/506 (29%) cases. Extensor compromise was present in 35/506 (7%) and 11/506 (2%) required soft tissue reconstruction. According to the RKCC - 214/503 (43%) were classified as R1 (Less complex cases), 228/503 (45%) R2 (complex cases), and 61/503 (12%) R3 (most complex / salvage cases). 5/17 (29%) units met current national guidelines for case volume/year, with only 11/77 (14%) surgeons meeting recommended individual case volumes. 37/77 (48%) surgeons performed ≤ 2 cases per year. CONCLUSIONS: Most individual centre volumes could be increased by re-organising services or locations providing rTKA within a region. This should provide better access to Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) involvement. We recorded a significant number of very low volume surgeons (≤2 year) that is contradictory to current evidence-based practice.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.