ABSTRACT
This document reports the numbers of prostheses recorded and reported to the NJR between 1 January and 31 December 2020. The tables show volumes of components as they have been entered into the registry, regardless of construct. The procedure counts in this document are presented without adjustment and may vary from counts found in the corresponding main NJR Annual Report analysis. If a procedure has been submitted with missing implant information this will also cause numbers to differ. Procedure counts below four have been suppressed. Components are listed and described according to the current classifications used in the registry. It must be noted that due to COVID-19, the ratio of revision to primary procedures increased in 2020 and this may affect the relative changes in the types and brands of implants used in comparison to previous years. As this document was not published for 2019 Annual Report data, comparison has been made with the 2018 Annual Report data.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Elective orthopaedic surgery during the Covid-19 pandemic requires careful case prioritisation. We aimed to produce consensus-based guidelines on the prioritisation of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures. METHOD: Twenty-three revision TKA scenarios were assigned priority (NHS England/Royal College of Surgeons scale) by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) Revision Knee Working Group (n = 24). Consensus agreement was defined as ≥70% respondents (18/24) giving the same prioritisation. Two voting rounds were undertaken; procedures achieving <70% agreement were given their most commonly assigned priority. RESULTS: 18/23 procedures achieved ≥70% agreement. Three were P1a (surgery within <24 h); DAIR for sepsis, peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF) fixation and PPF-revision TKA. Three were P1b (<72 h); debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for a stable patient, flap coverage for an open knee, and acute extensor mechanism rupture. Eight were P2 (<4 weeks), including aseptic loosening at risk of collapse, inter-stage patients with poor functioning spacers. Five were P3 (<3 months), including second stage revision for infection, revision for instability with limited mobility. Four were P4 (can wait >3 months) e.g. aseptic loosening. CONCLUSION: Sepsis and PPF surgery are the most urgent procedures. Although most procedures should be undertaken within one to three months (P2/3), these cases represent a small revision practice volume; P4 cases (e.g. aseptic loosening without risk of collapse) make up most surgeons' caseload. These recommendations are a guideline; patient co-morbidities, Covid-19 pathways, availability of support services and multi-disciplinary team discussion within the regional revision network will dictate prioritisation.