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.

Primary hip and knee arthroplasty in a temporary operating theatre is associated with a significant increase in deep periprosthetic infection.

AIMS: Infection following total hip or knee arthroplasty is a serious complication. We noted an increase in post-operative infection in cases carried out in temporary operating theatres. We therefore compared those cases performed in standard and temporary operating theatres and examined the deep periprosthetic infection rates. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1223 primary hip and knee arthroplasties were performed between August 2012 and June 2013. A total of 539 (44%) were performed in temporary theatres. The two groups were matched for age, gender, body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. RESULTS: The deep infection rate for standard operating theatres was 0 of 684 (0%); for temporary theatres it was eight of 539 (1.5%) (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Use of a temporary operating theatre for primary hip and knee arthroplasty was associated with an unacceptable increase in deep infection. We do not advocate the use of these theatres for primary joint arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:917-20.

Thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran leads to an increased incidence of wound leakage and an increased length of stay after total joint replacement.

Since the introduction of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on thromboprophylaxis and the use of extended thromboprophylaxis with new oral agents, there have been reports of complications arising as a result of their use. We have looked at the incidence of wound complications after the introduction of dabigatran for thromboprophylaxis in our unit. We investigated the rate of venous thromboembolism and wound leakage in 1728 patients undergoing primary joint replacement, both before and after the introduction of dabigatran, and following its subsequent withdrawal from our unit. We found that the use of dabigatran led to a significant increase in post-operative wound leakage (20% with dabigatran, 5% with a multimodal regimen; p < 0.001), which also resulted in an increased duration of hospital stay. The rate of thromboembolism in patients receiving dabigatran was higher (1.3%) than in those receiving the multimodal thromboprophylaxis regimen, including low molecular weight heparin as an inpatient and the extended use of aspirin (0.3%, p = 0.047). We have ceased the use of dabigatran for thromboprophylaxis in these patients.