Association Between Surgeon Volume and Patient Outcomes After Elective Patellofemoral Arthroplasty: A Population-Based Cohort Study Using Data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England.

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Martinique Vella-Baldacchino, Andrew Rhys Davies, Alex Bottle, Justin Cobb, Alex D Liddle
{"title":"Association Between Surgeon Volume and Patient Outcomes After Elective Patellofemoral Arthroplasty: A Population-Based Cohort Study Using Data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England.","authors":"Martinique Vella-Baldacchino, Andrew Rhys Davies, Alex Bottle, Justin Cobb, Alex D Liddle","doi":"10.2106/JBJS.24.00703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between surgical volume and patient outcome after arthroplasty of the patellofemoral joint, to improve patient outcomes and inform future resource planning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) records in the National Joint Registry from January 2003 to December 2021 were linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics database for England. The main outcome measure was revision surgery. Secondary outcome measures were serious adverse effects, patient selection characteristics, and implant designs used. Associations of early and late revision with surgical volume were examined based on surgical volume, and reasons for revision were explored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the knee arthroplasty surgeons in the database, 858 (26%) performed ≥1 PFA during the study period; 14,615 PFA cases were available for analysis. The modal caseload was 2 per year. High-volume surgeons were defined as surgeons performing >5 PFAs per year. The hazard ratio (HR) for a high-volume surgeon was 0.98 per additional PFA per year, and the patients treated by these surgeons had a lower risk of revision than than those treated by low-volume surgeons irrespective of the patient's age. High-volume surgeons were more likely to identify and treat patients with patellar disorders than low-volume surgeons (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.77; p < 0.05), and their patients were less likely to have serious adverse effects as these surgeons' experience increased (OR per additional PFA per year, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95 to 0.99; p = 0.02). Inlay implants had a higher risk of revision than onlay implants irrespective of surgical experience: for low-volume surgeons, inlays had an HR of 1.68 (95% CI, 1.23 to 2.30; p = 0.01), and for high-volume surgeons, inlays had an HR of 2.38 (95% CI, 1.83 to 3.11; p = 0.01). The most common reason for revision was progressive osteoarthritis. High-volume surgeons' patients were less likely than low-volume surgeons' patients to have an early revision (<2 years postoperatively) (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.93; p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>An association was found between surgeons performing >5 PFAs per year and a lower revision rate. This study should inform surgical planning services to improve the outcomes of PFA.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":15273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","volume":" ","pages":"819-828"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.24.00703","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between surgical volume and patient outcome after arthroplasty of the patellofemoral joint, to improve patient outcomes and inform future resource planning.

Methods: All patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) records in the National Joint Registry from January 2003 to December 2021 were linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics database for England. The main outcome measure was revision surgery. Secondary outcome measures were serious adverse effects, patient selection characteristics, and implant designs used. Associations of early and late revision with surgical volume were examined based on surgical volume, and reasons for revision were explored.

Results: Of the knee arthroplasty surgeons in the database, 858 (26%) performed ≥1 PFA during the study period; 14,615 PFA cases were available for analysis. The modal caseload was 2 per year. High-volume surgeons were defined as surgeons performing >5 PFAs per year. The hazard ratio (HR) for a high-volume surgeon was 0.98 per additional PFA per year, and the patients treated by these surgeons had a lower risk of revision than than those treated by low-volume surgeons irrespective of the patient's age. High-volume surgeons were more likely to identify and treat patients with patellar disorders than low-volume surgeons (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.77; p < 0.05), and their patients were less likely to have serious adverse effects as these surgeons' experience increased (OR per additional PFA per year, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95 to 0.99; p = 0.02). Inlay implants had a higher risk of revision than onlay implants irrespective of surgical experience: for low-volume surgeons, inlays had an HR of 1.68 (95% CI, 1.23 to 2.30; p = 0.01), and for high-volume surgeons, inlays had an HR of 2.38 (95% CI, 1.83 to 3.11; p = 0.01). The most common reason for revision was progressive osteoarthritis. High-volume surgeons' patients were less likely than low-volume surgeons' patients to have an early revision (<2 years postoperatively) (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.93; p < 0.05).

Conclusions: An association was found between surgeons performing >5 PFAs per year and a lower revision rate. This study should inform surgical planning services to improve the outcomes of PFA.

Level of evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

选择性髌骨股骨置换术后外科医生数量与患者预后之间的关系:一项基于人群的队列研究,使用来自英国国家联合登记和医院事件统计的数据。
背景:本研究的目的是确定髌股关节置换术后手术量与患者预后之间的关系,以改善患者预后并为未来的资源规划提供信息。方法:将2003年1月至2021年12月国家联合登记处的所有髌骨股骨置换术(PFA)记录与英国医院事件统计数据库相关联。主要结局指标为翻修手术。次要结局指标是严重不良反应、患者选择特征和使用的种植体设计。根据手术量检查早期和晚期翻修与手术量的关系,并探讨翻修的原因。结果:在数据库中的膝关节置换外科医生中,858名(26%)在研究期间进行了≥1次PFA;14615例PFA病例可供分析。模态病例量为每年2例。大容量外科医生被定义为每年进行50次pfa的外科医生。大容量外科医生的风险比(HR)为每年每增加PFA 0.98,并且与患者年龄无关,接受这些外科医生治疗的患者的翻修风险低于接受小容量外科医生治疗的患者。大容量外科医生比小容量外科医生更容易识别和治疗髌骨疾病患者(优势比[OR], 1.34;95%置信区间[CI], 1.09 ~ 1.77;p < 0.05),并且随着这些外科医生经验的增加,他们的患者发生严重不良反应的可能性更小(OR /每年额外的PFA, 0.97;95% CI, 0.95 ~ 0.99;P = 0.02)。无论手术经验如何,嵌体种植体的翻修风险高于嵌体种植体:对于小容量外科医生,嵌体种植体的风险比为1.68 (95% CI, 1.23至2.30;p = 0.01),对于大容量外科医生,嵌体的风险比为2.38 (95% CI, 1.83至3.11;P = 0.01)。最常见的翻修原因是进行性骨关节炎。大容量外科医生的患者比小容量外科医生的患者更不可能进行早期翻修(结论:发现每年进行bb50 - 5次PFAs的外科医生与较低的翻修率有关。这项研究应该为外科计划服务提供信息,以改善PFA的结果。证据等级:治疗性III级。有关证据水平的完整描述,请参见作者说明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.90
自引率
7.50%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) has been the most valued source of information for orthopaedic surgeons and researchers for over 125 years and is the gold standard in peer-reviewed scientific information in the field. A core journal and essential reading for general as well as specialist orthopaedic surgeons worldwide, The Journal publishes evidence-based research to enhance the quality of care for orthopaedic patients. Standards of excellence and high quality are maintained in everything we do, from the science of the content published to the customer service we provide. JBJS is an independent, non-profit journal.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信