Revision knee arthroplasty: Can good outcomes be achieved at lower volumes?

BACKGROUND: The National Joint Registry (NJR) demonstrates a re-revision rate for primary knee arthroplasty of 14.2% at 7 years. The 2015 Getting it Right First Time (GIRFT) report highlighted that 58% of surgeons undertaking revision knee arthroplasty (RKA) performed fewer than five cases per year. It has been suggested that revision cases be centralised in specialist centres with a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. Such a hub and spoke or cluster models may still require revision surgery to be performed at relatively low volume units. METHODS: An analysis of RKA surgery performed in a four surgeon, lower volume revision knee unit over 10 years to December 2016 was undertaken. The effect of the introduction of a MDT was reviewed. The minimum follow up was two years. The primary outcome measure was re-revision. Hospital data as well as individual surgeon NJR reports were used to ensure all re-revisions were accounted for. Outcome scores were available for 68% of cases. RESULTS: There were 192 RKAs performed in 187 patients at a mean (stdev) of 6.3 (5.4) years from the index procedure. The mean age at surgery was 68.2 (10.9) years. Twenty nine (15.5%) patients had died at the time of final review. Twelve (6.3%) cases required a further revision procedure. The commonest complication was stiffness requiring MUA. The overall 7 year survivorship was 94.9% (95% CI 90.2-97.3). The mean Oxford score at 5.4 years was 30.4 (10.4). CONCLUSIONS: RKA can be reliably performed at lower volume centres with appropriate MDT systems in place.

A review of current surgical practice in the operative treatment of proximal humeral fractures: Does the PROFHER trial demonstrate a need for change?

OBJECTIVES: The PROximal Fracture of the Humerus: Evaluation by Randomisation (PROFHER) trial has recently demonstrated that surgery is non-superior to non-operative treatment in the management of displaced proximal humeral fractures. The objective of this study was to assess current surgical practice in the context of the PROFHER trial in terms of patient demographics, injury characteristics and the nature of the surgical treatment. METHODS: A total of ten consecutive patients undergoing surgery for the treatment of a proximal humeral fracture from each of 11 United Kingdom hospitals were retrospectively identified over a 15 month period between January 2014 and March 2015. Data gathered for the 110 patients included patient demographics, injury characteristics, mode of surgical fixation, the grade of operating surgeon and the cost of the surgical implants. RESULTS: A majority of the patients were female (66%, 73 of 110). The mean patient age was 62 years (range 18 to 89). A majority of patients met the inclusion criteria for the PROFHER trial (75%, 83 of 110). Plate fixation was the most common mode of surgery (68%, 75 patients), followed by intramedullary fixation (12%, 13 patients), reverse shoulder arthroplasty (10%, 11 patients) and hemiarthroplasty (7%, eight patients). The consultant was either the primary operating surgeon or supervising the operating surgeon in a large majority of cases (91%, 100 patients). Implant costs for plate fixation were significantly less than both hemiarthroplasty (p < 0.05) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (p < 0.0001). Implant costs for intramedullary fixation were significantly less than plate fixation (p < 0.01), hemiarthroplasty (p < 0.0001) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study has shown that the majority of a representative sample of patients currently undergoing surgical treatment for a proximal humeral fracture in these United Kingdom centres met the inclusion criteria for the PROFHER trial and that a proportion of these patients may, therefore, have been effectively managed non-operatively.Cite this article: Mr B. J. F. Dean. A review of current surgical practice in the operative treatment of proximal humeral fractures: Does the PROFHER trial demonstrate a need for change? Bone Joint Res 2016;5:178-184. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.55.2000596.