Improvements in networking processes for hip or knee revision arthroplasty: a silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Background:

Improvements in outcomes following hip and knee revision arthroplasties have been demonstrated following the introduction of specialised orthopaedic services in the form of ‘hub and spoke’ networking models. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, these networks have undergone some inevitable adaptations. We investigated the impact of recent adaptations on the performance of our regional revision arthroplasty network.

Methods:

A retrospective review of all referrals that were discussed at our regional revision arthroplasty meeting, over 2 separate phases, was undertaken. Phase 1 included data between March 2018 and April 2019, representing an interval prior to COVID-19 pandemic. Phase-2 included data between September 2020 and March 2021 (during COVID-19 pandemic). Data were collected from East Midland South Orthopaedic Network (EMSSON) database and included data relating to indication and time to revision surgery, surgeon’s proposal plan, network proposal plan, and executed definitive plan. We compared and analysed network performance between 2 phases.

Results:

In phase 1, 99 cases were discussed in EMSSON meetings, equating to 35.7% of the region’s revision arthroplasty volume, according to the National Joint Registry (NJR) records. Plan alterations were recommended in 48/99 cases (48.5%), of which 41/48 (85.4%) were adhered to. Phase 2 included 98 discussed cases, equating to 81.6% of the region’s revision arthroplasty volume. Plan alterations were recommended in 20/98 cases (20.4%), all of which were adhered to (100%). Adherence to recommended adaptations showed significant improvement (p < 0.03).

Conclusions:

Based upon our observations, a greater volume and proportion of revision arthroplasty cases are now being discussed. Adherence to MDT recommendations has significantly improved following the described adaptations. The number of recommended adaptations to management plans have decreased, indicating an educational value of the network.

Overall, these findings demonstrate a trend towards NHS England’s target of 100% of revision arthroplasty cases undergoing MDT discussion.

Keywords

GIRFT regional networking revision arthroplasty specialised orthopaedic services

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. NJR reports, https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/ (accessed March 2022).

Culliford

Maskell

Judge

, et al. Future projections of total hip and knee arthroplasty in the UK: results from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015; 23: 594–600.

Patel

Pavlou

Mújica-Mota

, et al. The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B: 1076–1081.

Duncan

Sayers

Getting it right first time: what have we learnt?

Surgery (Oxford) 2023; 41: 489–494.

Okoro

Tomescu

Paterson

, et al. Analysis of the relationship between surgeon procedure volume and complications after total knee arthroplasty using a propensity-matched cohort study. BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol 2021; 3: e000072.

Critchley

Baker

Deehan

Does surgical volume affect outcome after primary and revision knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature. Knee 2012; 19: 513–518.

Halder

Gehrke

Günster

, et al. Low hospital volume increases re-revision rate following aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty: an analysis of 23,644 cases. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35: 1054–1059.

Dillon

Prentice

Burfeind

, et al. Risk factors for re-revision surgery in shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020; 28: e1049–e1058.

Bloch

Raglan

Manktelow

, et al. The East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network: the future of revision arthroplasty? Bull R Coll Surg Engl 2017; 99: 66–70.