Literature DB >> 29337602

Defining the Learning Curve for Hip Arthroscopy: A Threshold Analysis of the Volume-Outcomes Relationship.

Nabil Mehta1, Peter Chamberlin1, Robert G Marx1, Chisa Hidaka1, Yile Ge1, Danyal H Nawabi1, Stephen Lyman1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy has emerged as a successful option for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement and related hip disorders, but the procedure is technically challenging.
PURPOSE: To define the learning curve through which surgeons become proficient at hip arthroscopy. STUDY
DESIGN: Cohort study; level of evidence, 3.
METHODS: The authors identified hip arthroscopy procedures performed by surgeons through a New York State database (Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System) and followed those cases for additional hip surgery (total hip arthroplasty, hip resurfacing, or ipsilateral hip arthroscopy) within 5 years of the original procedure. Career volume for each case was calculated as the number of hip arthroscopy procedures that the surgeon had performed. Volume strata were identified via the stratum-specific likelihood ratio method. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to measure the effect of surgeon career volume on risk of additional hip surgery, adjusting for the following patient characteristics: age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance type, and concurrent diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis.
RESULTS: Among 8041 hip arthroscopies performed by 251 surgeons, 989 (12.3%) cases underwent additional hip surgery within 5 years. Four strata of surgeon career volume associated with distinct frequencies of reoperation were identified: cases in the lowest stratum (0-97) had the highest frequency of additional surgery (15.4%). Frequencies declined for cases in the medium (98-388), high (389-518), and highest (≥519) strata (13.8%, 10.1%, and 2.6%, respectively). There was an increased risk of subsequent surgery in each stratum when compared with the highest stratum (hazard ratio [95% CI]: low volume, 3.22 [2.29-4.54]; medium, 3.40 [2.41-4.82]; high, 2.81 [1.86-4.25]; P < .0001 for all). Patients with a diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis had increased risk of subsequent hip arthroplasty or resurfacing (2.46 [2.09-2.89], P < .0001) . Risk also increased with age: 30 to 39 vs ≤29 years (5.12 [3.29-8.00], P < .0001), 40 to 49 vs ≤29 years (11.30 [7.43-17.190], P < .0001), ≥50 vs ≤29 years (18.39 [12.10-27.96], P < .0001). Increased age and osteoarthritis were not risk factors for revision hip arthroscopy.
CONCLUSION: The learning curve for hip arthroscopy was unexpectedly demanding. Cases performed by surgeons with career volumes ≥519 had significantly lower risk of subsequent hip surgery than those performed by lower-volume surgeons.

Entities:  

Keywords:  femoroacetabular impingement; hip arthroscopy; learning curve; surgeon volume

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29337602     DOI: 10.1177/0363546517749219

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  30 in total

1.  Comparative learning curves for early complications in anatomical and reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Jcs Beazley; J P Evans; N D Furness; C D Smith
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 2.  Effect of various factors on articular cartilage and their implications on arthroscopic procedures: A review of literature.

Authors:  Sandeep Kohli; Varun Tandra; Abhinav Gulihar
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-06-20

3.  Survey results from an international hip course: comparison between experts and non-experts on hip arthroscopy clinical practice and post-operative rehabilitation.

Authors:  Ioanna K Bolia; Karen K Briggs; Lauren Matheny; Marc J Philippon
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-11-22       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Three-Dimensional Quantification of Cam Resection Using MRI Bone Models: A Comparison of 2 Techniques.

Authors:  Thomas D Alter; Derrick M Knapik; Martina Guidetti; Alejandro Espinoza; Jorge Chahla; Shane J Nho; Philip Malloy
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2022-05-06

5.  Travel Distance Does Not Affect Outcomes After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.

Authors:  Nabil Mehta; Ophelie Z Lavoie-Gagne; Matthew R Cohn; Joseph Michalski; Ashlyn Fitch; Adam B Yanke; Brian J Cole; Nikhil N Verma; Brian Forsythe
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-12-24

6.  CORR Insights®: Does Virtual Reality Improve Procedural Completion and Accuracy in an Intramedullary Tibial Nail Procedure? A Randomized Control Trial.

Authors:  Brian B Gilmer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 4.755

7.  The learning curves of a validated virtual reality hip arthroscopy simulator.

Authors:  Jonathan D Bartlett; John E Lawrence; Matthew Yan; Borna Guevel; Max E Stewart; Emmanuel Audenaert; Vikas Khanduja
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-01-27       Impact factor: 3.067

8.  Evaluation of primary hip arthroscopy complications in mid-term follow-up: a multicentric prospective study.

Authors:  Petr Zeman; Moheb Rafi; Jakub Kautzner
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-07-05       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  The Key Parts of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: Implications for the Learning Curve.

Authors:  Austin E Wininger; Sherif Dabash; Thomas J Ellis; Shane J Nho; Joshua D Harris
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-06-29

10.  Iatrogenic Articular Cartilage Injury in Arthroscopic Hip and Knee Videos and the Potential for Cartilage Cell Death When Simulated in a Bovine Model.

Authors:  Jocelyn Compton; Michael Slattery; Mitchell Coleman; Robert Westermann
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 5.973

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.