2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Low percentage of surgeons meet the minimum recommended unicompartmental knee arthroplasty usage thresholds: Analysis of 3037 Surgeons from Three National Joint Registries

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose

          The reported usage of UKA is around 10% in the UK, Australian and New Zealand joint registries. However, some authors recommend that a higher UKA usage of 20%, or a minimum 12 UKA cases per year, would reduce revision rates. The purpose of this study was to analyze the percentage of surgeons performing the recommended thresholds in these 3 registries.

          Methods

          Data from the UK, Australian and New Zealand registry databases was utilized from the time period since their respective introduction until 2017. All primary TKA and UKA performed for the diagnosis of osteoarthritis by surgeons with more than 100 recorded knee arthroplasties in their respective registry were included. The results between the registries were compared and a pooled analysis was performed. The number of surgeons meeting the recommended caseload of > 20% UKA yearly or 12 UKA cases yearly was calculated.

          Results

          We identified 3037 knee surgeons performing 1,556,440 knee arthroplasties, of which 131,575 were UKA (8.45%). Over 50% of knee surgeons in each registry had a proportion of less than 5% UKA of their knee replacement procedures. After pooling of data, median surgeon UKA usage was 2.0% (IQR 0–9.1%).

          The percentage of surgeons meeting the proposed caseload criteria was highest in New Zealand, 16.3%, followed by the UK at 12.4% and Australia 11.3% ( p = 0.28).

          Conclusion

          More than 50% of knee surgeons in UK, Australian and New Zealand joint registries perform less than 5% of UKA yearly. The majority of experienced knee surgeons are not meeting the recommended minimum thresholds, which might indicate that the recommended thresholds are not feasible for the vast majority of knee surgeons. The reasons behind this require further research.

          Level of Evidence

          Level III retrospective registry study.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Optimal usage of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study of 41,986 cases from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales.

          Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has advantages over total knee arthroplasty but national joint registries report a significantly higher revision rate for UKA. As a result, most surgeons are highly selective, offering UKA only to a small proportion (up to 5%) of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee, and consequently performing few each year. However, surgeons with large UKA practices have the lowest rates of revision. The overall size of the practice is often beyond the surgeon's control, therefore case volume may only be increased by broadening the indications for surgery, and offering UKA to a greater proportion of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal UKA usage (defined as the percentage of knee arthroplasty practice comprised by UKA) to minimise the rate of revision in a sample of 41 986 records from the for National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR). UKA usage has a complex, non-linear relationship with the rate of revision. Acceptable results are achieved with the use of 20% or more. Optimal results are achieved with usage between 40% and 60%. Surgeons with the lowest usage (up to 5%) have the highest rates of revision. With optimal usage, using the most commonly used implant, five-year survival is 96% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.9 to 96.0), compared with 90% (95% CI 88.4 to 91.6) with low usage (5%) previously considered ideal. The rate of revision of UKA is highest with low usage, implying the use of narrow, and perhaps inappropriate, indications. The widespread use of broad indications, using appropriate implants, would give patients the advantages of UKA, without the high rate of revision.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Unicondylar knee arthroplasty in the UK National Health Service: an analysis of candidacy, outcome and cost efficacy.

            The viability of unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) as a stand-alone or temporising option for the management of gonarthrosis is a topic of considerable contention. Despite recent advances in prosthesis design and surgical technique, as well as mounting evidence of long-term survivorship, UKA remains infrequently used, accounting for just 8-15% of all knee arthroplasties. Instead this group is more typically managed using total knee arthroplasty (TKA). For UKA to warrant increased usage the candidacy for UKA must be prevalent, the outcome must be equivalent or superior to that of TKA, and the costs should be comparatively low. Here we address three issues regarding UKA: 1) a prospective assessment of the proportion of knees needing arthroplasty that are candidates for UKA; 2) retrospective outcome measures comparing TKA, UKA and controls; and 3) an estimation of the difference in costs between TKA and UKA from a hospital perspective. We show in a series of 200 knees that candidacy for UKA is widespread; representing 47.6% of knees. Furthermore, we also show for the first time, that not only is UKA functionally superior to TKA (based on Total Knee Questionnaire (TKQ) scores), but scores in medial and lateral UKA knees do not differ significantly from normal, non-operative age- and sex-matched knees (t=1.14 [38], p=0.163; and t=1.16 [38], p=0.255 respectively). Finally, we report that UKA offers a substantial cost saving over TKA ( pound 1761 per knee) indicating that UKA should be considered the primary treatment option for unicompartmental knee arthritis.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Unnecessary contraindications for mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee replacement.

              The contraindications for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) remain controversial. The views of many surgeons are based on Kozinn and Scott's 1989 publication which stated that patients who weighed more than 82 kg, were younger than 60 years, undertook heavy labour, had exposed bone in the patellofemoral joint or chondrocalcinosis, were not ideal candidates for UKR. Our aim was to determine whether these potential contraindications should apply to patients with a mobile-bearing UKR. In order to do this the outcome of patients with these potential contraindications was compared with that of patients without the contraindications in a prospective series of 1000 UKRs. The outcome was assessed using the Oxford knee score, the American Knee Society score, the Tegner activity score, revision rate and survival. The clinical outcome of patients with each of the potential contraindications was similar to or better than those without each contraindication. Overall, 678 UKRs (68%) were performed in patients who had at least one potential contraindication and only 322 (32%) in patients deemed to be ideal. The survival at ten years was 97.0% (95% confidence interval 93.4 to 100.0) for those with potential contraindications and 93.6% (95% confidence interval 87.2 to 100.0) in the ideal patients. We conclude that the thresholds proposed by Kozinn and Scott using weight, age, activity, the state of the patellofemoral joint and chondrocalcinosis should not be considered to be contraindications for the use of the Oxford UKR.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Klasan.antonio@me.com
                Journal
                Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
                Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
                Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0942-2056
                1433-7347
                17 February 2021
                17 February 2021
                2022
                : 30
                : 3
                : 958-964
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.473675.4, Department for Orthopaedics and Traumatology, , Kepler University Hospital GmbH, ; Krankenhausstrasse 9, 4020 Linz, Austria
                [2 ]GRID grid.9970.7, ISNI 0000 0001 1941 5140, Johannes Kepler University Linz, ; Altenberger Strasse 69, 4040 Linz, Austria
                [3 ]GRID grid.473796.8, Sydney Orthopaedic Research Institute, ; Sydney, Australia
                [4 ]Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Adelaide, Australia
                [5 ]GRID grid.433865.f, Wakefield Orthopaedic Clinic, ; Adelaide, Australia
                [6 ]GRID grid.4514.4, ISNI 0000 0001 0930 2361, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, , Lund University, Clinical Sciences Lund, ; Lund, Sweden
                [7 ]GRID grid.416471.1, ISNI 0000 0004 0372 096X, North Shore Hospital, ; Auckland, New Zealand
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0819-4706
                Article
                6437
                10.1007/s00167-021-06437-7
                8901519
                33595679
                117bff88-1bcd-43b1-9c0b-1b8f33d3a289
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 7 November 2020
                : 5 January 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: Johannes Kepler University Linz
                Categories
                Knee
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) under exclusive licence to European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2022

                Surgery
                total knee arthroplasty,unicompartmental knee arthroplasty,usage,revision,registry
                Surgery
                total knee arthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, usage, revision, registry

                Comments

                Comment on this article