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

• Published in: The knee Vol. 27; no. 5; pp. 1593 - 1600
• Main Authors: Kalson, N.S., Mathews, J.A., Miles, J., Bloch, B.V., Price, A.J., Phillips, J.R.A., Toms, A.D., Baker, P.N., Alvand, A., Barrett, D., Carrington, R., Eyres, K., Gambhir, A., Hopgood, P., Howells, N., Jackson, W., James, P., Jeys, L., Kerry, R., Mockford, B., Morgan-Jones, R., Murray, J., Pavlou, G., Porteous, A., Sarungi, M., Spencer-Jones, R., Walmsley, P., Waterson, B., Whittaker, J.P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01-10-2020; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Arthroplasty; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - methods; England; Humans; Joint surgery; Knee; Mortality; Northern Ireland; Registries; Reoperation - statistics & numerical data; Revision; Revisions; Service organisation; Statistical analysis; Surgeon volume; Surgeons; Surgeons - statistics & numerical data; Surgery; Wales; Workload - statistics & numerical data; Workloads; England; Northern Ireland; Wales; United Kingdom > UK; Isle of Man; Arthroplasty; Service organisation; Revision; Surgeon volume
• ISSN: 0968-0160; 1873-5800
• DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2020.07.094

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.
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.
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).
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.