新西兰联合注册中心外科医生水平反馈:报告时间框架对全膝关节置换术后翻修原因分布的影响。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Morgan C H Lingard, Christopher M A Frampton, Gary J Hooper
{"title":"新西兰联合注册中心外科医生水平反馈:报告时间框架对全膝关节置换术后翻修原因分布的影响。","authors":"Morgan C H Lingard, Christopher M A Frampton, Gary J Hooper","doi":"10.1111/ans.70282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>National joint registries have improved arthroplasty surgery by creating databases that monitor implant performance and recognize early implant failure. The New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) provides surgeon reports on individual revision rates, and outliers are identified using funnel plots. Historically, all-time revision rates were used; although reporting shorter timeframes is being considered. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of reporting shorter timeframes on the distribution of reasons for revision following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data was obtained from the NZJR for TKA performed from the registry's inception in 1998 to 31 December 2021. Distribution of reasons for revision for primary TKA was analyzed by postoperative year and reporting timeframe. Reporting timeframes of revision within 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 years were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Infection accounted for 54.5% of reasons for revision in postoperative year one and a lower proportion over time, decreasing to 16.9% in year 10. Aseptic loosening accounted for 9.0% of reasons for revision in postoperative year one, increasing to 56.9% in year 10. Reporting revision within 2 years would result in a 60% increase in the proportion of reasons for revision attributed to deep infection (p < 0.001) and a 65% decrease in the proportion attributed to loosening (p < 0.001) compared with revision within 10 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Revision within 2 years would be a suitable shorter timeframe for reporting to surgeons. While this may ensure feedback reflects recent practice and increase responsiveness to changes in performance, the distribution of reasons for revision would change substantially compared to revision within 10 years, with a markedly higher proportion attributed to infection. Debate regarding the role of individual surgeons in causing deep infections will become increasingly important if this shorter timeframe is reported.</p>","PeriodicalId":8158,"journal":{"name":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New Zealand Joint Registry Surgeon-Level Feedback: The Influence of Reporting Timeframe on Distribution of Reasons for Revision Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.\",\"authors\":\"Morgan C H Lingard, Christopher M A Frampton, Gary J Hooper\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ans.70282\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>National joint registries have improved arthroplasty surgery by creating databases that monitor implant performance and recognize early implant failure. The New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) provides surgeon reports on individual revision rates, and outliers are identified using funnel plots. Historically, all-time revision rates were used; although reporting shorter timeframes is being considered. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of reporting shorter timeframes on the distribution of reasons for revision following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data was obtained from the NZJR for TKA performed from the registry's inception in 1998 to 31 December 2021. Distribution of reasons for revision for primary TKA was analyzed by postoperative year and reporting timeframe. Reporting timeframes of revision within 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 years were evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Infection accounted for 54.5% of reasons for revision in postoperative year one and a lower proportion over time, decreasing to 16.9% in year 10. Aseptic loosening accounted for 9.0% of reasons for revision in postoperative year one, increasing to 56.9% in year 10. Reporting revision within 2 years would result in a 60% increase in the proportion of reasons for revision attributed to deep infection (p < 0.001) and a 65% decrease in the proportion attributed to loosening (p < 0.001) compared with revision within 10 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Revision within 2 years would be a suitable shorter timeframe for reporting to surgeons. While this may ensure feedback reflects recent practice and increase responsiveness to changes in performance, the distribution of reasons for revision would change substantially compared to revision within 10 years, with a markedly higher proportion attributed to infection. Debate regarding the role of individual surgeons in causing deep infections will become increasingly important if this shorter timeframe is reported.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ANZ Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ANZ Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.70282\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.70282","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:通过建立监测假体性能和识别早期假体失效的数据库,国家关节登记处改善了关节置换术。新西兰联合登记处(NZJR)提供外科医生关于个体翻修率的报告,并使用漏斗图确定异常值。历史上使用的是全时修正率;虽然正在考虑缩短报告时间。本研究的目的是评估报告较短时间框架对全膝关节置换术(TKA)后翻修原因分布的影响。方法:从NZJR中获得从1998年注册成立到2021年12月31日进行TKA的数据。按术后年份和报告时间框架分析原发性TKA翻修的原因分布。评估1、2、3、5和10年的修订报告时间框架。结果:感染占术后1年翻修原因的54.5%,随着时间的推移比例逐渐降低,10年降至16.9%。无菌性松动占术后第一年翻修原因的9.0%,10年增加到56.9%。2年内报告翻修会导致因深部感染而翻修的比例增加60% (p)结论:2年内翻修是较短的向外科医生报告的合适时间。虽然这可以确保反馈反映最近的做法,并提高对业绩变化的反应能力,但与10年内的修订相比,修订理由的分布将发生重大变化,其中归因于感染的比例明显更高。如果这种较短的时间框架被报道,关于单个外科医生在引起深部感染中的作用的争论将变得越来越重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
New Zealand Joint Registry Surgeon-Level Feedback: The Influence of Reporting Timeframe on Distribution of Reasons for Revision Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Background: National joint registries have improved arthroplasty surgery by creating databases that monitor implant performance and recognize early implant failure. The New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) provides surgeon reports on individual revision rates, and outliers are identified using funnel plots. Historically, all-time revision rates were used; although reporting shorter timeframes is being considered. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of reporting shorter timeframes on the distribution of reasons for revision following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods: Data was obtained from the NZJR for TKA performed from the registry's inception in 1998 to 31 December 2021. Distribution of reasons for revision for primary TKA was analyzed by postoperative year and reporting timeframe. Reporting timeframes of revision within 1, 2, 3, 5, and 10 years were evaluated.

Results: Infection accounted for 54.5% of reasons for revision in postoperative year one and a lower proportion over time, decreasing to 16.9% in year 10. Aseptic loosening accounted for 9.0% of reasons for revision in postoperative year one, increasing to 56.9% in year 10. Reporting revision within 2 years would result in a 60% increase in the proportion of reasons for revision attributed to deep infection (p < 0.001) and a 65% decrease in the proportion attributed to loosening (p < 0.001) compared with revision within 10 years.

Conclusions: Revision within 2 years would be a suitable shorter timeframe for reporting to surgeons. While this may ensure feedback reflects recent practice and increase responsiveness to changes in performance, the distribution of reasons for revision would change substantially compared to revision within 10 years, with a markedly higher proportion attributed to infection. Debate regarding the role of individual surgeons in causing deep infections will become increasingly important if this shorter timeframe is reported.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ANZ Journal of Surgery
ANZ Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
720
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ANZ Journal of Surgery is published by Wiley on behalf of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons to provide a medium for the publication of peer-reviewed original contributions related to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of surgery and related disciplines. It also provides a programme of continuing education for surgeons. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信