R Kyle Martin1,2, Andreas Persson3,4,5, Gilbert Moatshe3,6, Anne Marie Fenstad5, Lars Engebretsen3,6, Jon Olav Drogset5,7, Håvard Visnes3,5,8. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA. rkylemmartin@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, 1900 CentraCare Circle, Saint Cloud, MN, 56303, USA. rkylemmartin@gmail.com. 3. Oslo Sports Trauma Research Center, Norwegian School of Sports Sciences, Oslo, Norway. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Martina Hansens Hospital, Baerum, Norway. 5. Norwegian National Knee Ligament Register, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway. 6. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Trondheim University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway. 8. Department of Orthopaedics, Sorlandet Hospital Kristiansand, Kristiansand, Norway.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surgery performed in low-volume centres has been associated with longer operating time, longer hospital stays, lower functional outcomes, and higher rates of revision surgery, complications and mortality. This has been reported consistently in the arthroplasty literature, but there is a paucity of data regarding the relationship between surgical volume and outcome following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The purpose was to compare ACL reconstruction failure rates between hospitals performing different annual surgical volumes. METHODS: All patients from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Register having primary autograft ACL reconstruction between 2004 and 2016 were included. Hospital volume was divided into quintiles based on the number of ACL reconstructions performed annually, defined arbitrarily as: 1-12 (V1), 13-24 (V2), 25-49 (V3), 50-99 (V4) and ≥ 100 (V5) annual procedures. Kaplan-Meier estimated survival curves and survival percentages were calculated with revision ACL reconstruction as the end point. Secondary outcome measures included (1) mean change in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life (QoL) and Sport subsections from pre-operative to 5-year follow-up and (2) subjective failure defined as KOOS QoL < 44. RESULTS: Twenty thousand eight hundred and fifty patients met the inclusion criteria and 1195 (5.7%) underwent subsequent revision ACL reconstruction over the study period. Revision rates were lower in the lower volume hospitals compared with the higher volume hospitals (p < 0.001). There was no clinically significant difference in improvement between pre-operative and 5-year follow-up KOOS scores between hospital volume categories, but a higher proportion of patients having surgery at lower volume hospitals reported a subjective failure. Patients in the lower volume categories (V1-3) were more often male and older compared to the higher volume hospitals (V4-5). Concomitant meniscal injuries and participation in pivoting sports were most common in V5 compared with V1 (p < 0.001). Median operative time decreased as hospital volume increased, ranging from 90 min at V1 hospitals to 56 min at V5 hospitals (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients having ACL reconstruction at lower volume hospitals had a lower rate of subsequent revision surgery relative to higher volume hospitals. However, complications occurred more frequently, operative duration was longer, and the number of patients reporting a subjective failure of ACL reconstruction was highest at these lower volume hospitals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
PURPOSE: Surgery performed in low-volume centres has been associated with longer operating time, longer hospital stays, lower functional outcomes, and higher rates of revision surgery, complications and mortality. This has been reported consistently in the arthroplasty literature, but there is a paucity of data regarding the relationship between surgical volume and outcome following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The purpose was to compare ACL reconstruction failure rates between hospitals performing different annual surgical volumes. METHODS: All patients from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Register having primary autograft ACL reconstruction between 2004 and 2016 were included. Hospital volume was divided into quintiles based on the number of ACL reconstructions performed annually, defined arbitrarily as: 1-12 (V1), 13-24 (V2), 25-49 (V3), 50-99 (V4) and ≥ 100 (V5) annual procedures. Kaplan-Meier estimated survival curves and survival percentages were calculated with revision ACL reconstruction as the end point. Secondary outcome measures included (1) mean change in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life (QoL) and Sport subsections from pre-operative to 5-year follow-up and (2) subjective failure defined as KOOS QoL < 44. RESULTS: Twenty thousand eight hundred and fifty patients met the inclusion criteria and 1195 (5.7%) underwent subsequent revision ACL reconstruction over the study period. Revision rates were lower in the lower volume hospitals compared with the higher volume hospitals (p < 0.001). There was no clinically significant difference in improvement between pre-operative and 5-year follow-up KOOS scores between hospital volume categories, but a higher proportion of patients having surgery at lower volume hospitals reported a subjective failure. Patients in the lower volume categories (V1-3) were more often male and older compared to the higher volume hospitals (V4-5). Concomitant meniscal injuries and participation in pivoting sports were most common in V5 compared with V1 (p < 0.001). Median operative time decreased as hospital volume increased, ranging from 90 min at V1 hospitals to 56 min at V5 hospitals (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients having ACL reconstruction at lower volume hospitals had a lower rate of subsequent revision surgery relative to higher volume hospitals. However, complications occurred more frequently, operative duration was longer, and the number of patients reporting a subjective failure of ACL reconstruction was highest at these lower volume hospitals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
Authors: Mona Badawy; Birgitte Espehaug; Kari Indrekvam; Lars B Engesæter; Leif I Havelin; Ove Furnes Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Peter-Paul M Willemse; Niall F Davis; Nikolaos Grivas; Fabio Zattoni; Michael Lardas; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Paolo Dell'Oglio; James F Donaldson; Nicola Fossati; Giorgio Gandaglia; Silke Gillessen; Jeremy P Grummet; Ann M Henry; Matthew Liew; Steven MacLennan; Malcolm D Mason; Lisa Moris; Karin Plass; Shane O'Hanlon; Muhammad Imran Omar; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Karl H Pang; Catherine C Paterson; Guillaume Ploussard; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Derya Tilki; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Theodorus H van der Kwast; Henk G van der Poel; Thomas Wiegel; Cathy Yuhong Yuan; Philip Cornford; Nicolas Mottet; Thomas B L Lam Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2021-12-31 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel Andernord; Haukur Björnsson; Max Petzold; Bengt I Eriksson; Magnus Forssblad; Jón Karlsson; Kristian Samuelsson Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-04-28 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Mattias Ahldén; Kristian Samuelsson; Ninni Sernert; Magnus Forssblad; Jón Karlsson; Jüri Kartus Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Harman M Bruins; Erik Veskimäe; Virginia Hernández; Yann Neuzillet; Richard Cathomas; Eva M Compérat; Nigel C Cowan; Georgios Gakis; Estefania Linares Espinós; Anja Lorch; Maria J Ribal; Mathieu Rouanne; George N Thalmann; Yuhong Yuan; Antoine G van der Heijden; J Alfred Witjes Journal: Eur Urol Oncol Date: 2019-12-19
Authors: Eric I Benchimol; Liam Smeeth; Astrid Guttmann; Katie Harron; David Moher; Irene Petersen; Henrik T Sørensen; Erik von Elm; Sinéad M Langan Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-10-06 Impact factor: 11.069