BACKGROUND: The GIRFT report (2012) sought to address the need for sustainable orthopaedic treatment delivered through regional "networks"; the aim being improved care, decreased cost and reduced revision rate. The aims of this study were to record the number and complexity of revision total knee replacements within a regional network using a validated classification over a two-year period and audit this against National Joint Registry (NJR) records. METHODS: A region-wide network model where revision TKR cases are assessed locally using the Revision Knee Complexity Classification (RKCC) and local multi-disciplinary team (MDT) was introduced. Data was collected from 8 revision centres over a two-year period using the RKCC. The case volume was audited against the NJR records. RESULTS: In year 1 (01/01/2018-31/12/2018) 237 RKCC forms were collected from eight centres. 46% of R2s and 63% of R3s were carried out at the higher volume centre. 211 K2 forms were received by the NJR. In year 2 (01/01/2019-31/12/2019) 252 RKCC forms were collected. 46% of R2s and 64% of R3s were carried out at the higher volume centre. 267 K2 forms were received by the NJR. CONCLUSION: This is the first published set of revision knee data showing complexity percentages across a region. The RKCC has been successfully introduced into the region and this has been sustained. The findings show that a successful network has been established and majority of complex revision knee surgery is occurring in the high-volume centre. NJR data suggests that the RKCC is capturing the complexity and volume of our work accurately.
BACKGROUND: The GIRFT report (2012) sought to address the need for sustainable orthopaedic treatment delivered through regional "networks"; the aim being improved care, decreased cost and reduced revision rate. The aims of this study were to record the number and complexity of revision total knee replacements within a regional network using a validated classification over a two-year period and audit this against National Joint Registry (NJR) records. METHODS: A region-wide network model where revision TKR cases are assessed locally using the Revision Knee Complexity Classification (RKCC) and local multi-disciplinary team (MDT) was introduced. Data was collected from 8 revision centres over a two-year period using the RKCC. The case volume was audited against the NJR records. RESULTS: In year 1 (01/01/2018-31/12/2018) 237 RKCC forms were collected from eight centres. 46% of R2s and 63% of R3s were carried out at the higher volume centre. 211 K2 forms were received by the NJR. In year 2 (01/01/2019-31/12/2019) 252 RKCC forms were collected. 46% of R2s and 64% of R3s were carried out at the higher volume centre. 267 K2 forms were received by the NJR. CONCLUSION: This is the first published set of revision knee data showing complexity percentages across a region. The RKCC has been successfully introduced into the region and this has been sustained. The findings show that a successful network has been established and majority of complex revision knee surgery is occurring in the high-volume centre. NJR data suggests that the RKCC is capturing the complexity and volume of our work accurately.
Authors: Shiraz A Sabah; Lennart von Fritsch; Tanvir Khan; Alexander D Shearman; Raja Bhaskara Rajasekaran; David J Beard; Andrew J Price; Abtin Alvand Journal: J Exp Orthop Date: 2022-04-14