Literature DB >> 24048562

Influence of hospital volume on revision rate after total knee arthroplasty with cement.

Mona Badawy1, Birgitte Espehaug, Kari Indrekvam, Lars B Engesæter, Leif I Havelin, Ove Furnes.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The number of total knee replacements has substantially increased worldwide over the past ten years. Several studies have indicated a correlation between high hospital procedure volume and decreased morbidity and mortality following total knee arthroplasty. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether there is a correlation between procedure volume and the risk of revision following total knee arthroplasty with use of hospital volume data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.
METHODS: Thirty-seven thousand, three hundred and eighty-one total knee arthroplasties that were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 1994 to 2010 were used to examine the annual procedure volume per hospital. Hospital volume was divided into five categories according to the number of procedures performed annually: one to twenty-four (low volume), twenty-five to forty-nine (medium volume), fifty to ninety-nine (medium volume), 100 to 149 (high volume), and ≥150 (high volume). Cox regression (adjusted for age, sex, and diagnosis) was used to estimate the proportion of procedures without revision and the risk ratio (RR) of revision. Analyses were also performed for two commonly used prosthesis brands combined.
RESULTS: The rate of prosthetic survival at ten years was 92.5% (95% confidence interval, 91.5 to 93.4) for hospitals with an annual volume of one to twenty-four procedures and 95.5% (95% confidence interval, 94.1 to 97.0) for hospitals with an annual volume of ≥150 procedures. We found a significantly lower risk of revision for hospitals with an annual volume of 100 to 149 procedures (relative risk = 0.73 [95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.96], p = 0.03) and ≥150 procedures (relative risk = 0.73 [95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 1.00], p = 0.05) compared with hospitals with an annual volume of one to twenty-four procedures. Similar results were found when we analyzed two commonly used prosthesis brands.
CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, there was a significantly higher rate of revision knee arthroplasties at low-volume hospitals as compared with high-volume hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24048562     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.L.00943

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  19 in total

1.  Structured-mentorship Program for Periacetabular Osteotomy Resulted in Few Complications for a Low-volume Pelvic Surgeon.

Authors:  Daud Tai Shan Chou; Lucian Bogdan Solomon; Kerry Costi; Susan Pannach; Oksana Tamara Holubowycz; Donald William Howie
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Have the Causes of Revision for Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties Changed During the Past Two Decades?

Authors:  Gro S Dyrhovden; Stein Håkon L Lygre; Mona Badawy; Øystein Gøthesen; Ove Furnes
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  The Impact of Hospital Volume on Racial Differences in Complications, Readmissions, and Emergency Department Visits Following Total Joint Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Muyibat A Adelani; Matthew R Keller; Robert L Barrack; Margaret A Olsen
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2017-09-25       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  What Is the Association Between Hospital Volume and Complications After Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Large-database Study.

Authors:  Benjamin F Ricciardi; Andrew Y Liu; Bowen Qiu; Thomas G Myers; Caroline P Thirukumaran
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Does Hypothetical Centralization of Revision THA and TKA Exacerbate Existing Geographic or Demographic Disparities in Access to Care by Increased Patient Travel Distances or Times? A Large-database Study.

Authors:  Gabriel Ramirez; Thomas G Myers; Caroline P Thirukumaran; Benjamin F Ricciardi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-12-21       Impact factor: 4.755

6.  Higher revision risk for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in low-volume hospitals.

Authors:  Mona Badawy; Birgitte Espehaug; Kari Indrekvam; Leif I Havelin; Ove Furnes
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 3.717

7.  Failure of aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Tesfaye H Leta; Stein Håkon L Lygre; Arne Skredderstuen; Geir Hallan; Ove Furnes
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 3.717

8.  Better survival of hybrid total knee arthroplasty compared to cemented arthroplasty.

Authors:  Gunnar Petursson; Anne Marie Fenstad; Leif Ivar Havelin; Øystein Gøthesen; Stein Håkon Låstad Lygre; Stephan M Röhrl; Ove Furnes
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Low annual hospital volume of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is not associated with higher revision rates.

Authors:  R Kyle Martin; Andreas Persson; Gilbert Moatshe; Anne Marie Fenstad; Lars Engebretsen; Jon Olav Drogset; Håvard Visnes
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-07-08       Impact factor: 4.114

Review 10.  Risk factors for revision of total knee arthroplasty: a scoping review.

Authors:  L L Jasper; C A Jones; J Mollins; S L Pohar; L A Beaupre
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.