Abstract
Aims
The aim of this study was to conduct evidence synthesis on the available published literature of the impact of the training status of the operating surgeon (trainee vs. consultant) on the survival and revision rate of primary hip and knee replacements.
Patients and Methods
We conducted a systematic review according to Cochrane guidelines. Separate searches were performed for hip and knee replacements, with meta-analysis and presentation of results in parallel. We searched MEDLINE and Embase databases from inception to 17 September 2019 and included controlled trials and cohort studies reporting implant survival estimates, or revision rates of hip and knee replacements according to the grade of the operating surgeon. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019150494).
Results
8 studies (5 hip papers and 3 knee papers) met the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in the survival estimates for total hip replacements (THRs) performed by trainees compared to consultants at 5-years follow-up (97.9% vs 98.1%, p = 0.74). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the revision rate of THRs performed by trainees and consultants at both 5 and 10-year intervals of follow-up (relative risk [RR]: 5yrs = 0.88 (95% CI: 0.46, 1.70; P = 0.71); 10yrs = 0.68 (95% CI: 0.37, 1.26; P = 0.22)). There was no significant difference in the survival estimates at 10-years for total knee replacements (TKRs) performed by trainees compared to consultants (96.2% vs 95.1%, p=0.49).
Conclusion
There is no evidence in the existing literature that trainee surgeons have worse outcomes than their consultant colleagues, in terms of the survival, or rate of revision of hip and knee replacements at 5–10 years follow-up. This may mean that there is genuinely no difference or that, in the context of contemporary training programmes, appropriate case-mix selection and supervision of trainees is currently employed.
