Revision knee arthroplasty is a complex procedure with the number and cost of knee revision procedures performed per year expected to rise. Few studies have examined adverse events following revision arthroplasty. The objective of this study was to determine rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications) and to compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the UK Hospital Episode Statistics. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications were included in the elective indications cohort. 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty cases were included of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% CI 0.37-0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44-0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection, however, was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75-2.35; odds ratio [OR] 3.54; 95% CI 2.81-4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94-6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39-8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. These findings highlight the burden of complications associated with revision knee arthroplasty. They will inform shared decision-making for patients considering revision knee arthroplasty for elective indications. Patients presenting with infection of a knee arthroplasty or a periprosthetic fracture are at very high risk of adverse events. It is important that acute hospital services and tertiary referral centres caring for these patients are appropriately supported to ensure appropriate urgency and an anticipation for increased care requirements.
Technical skill is an essential domain of surgical competency. Arthroscopic surgery forms a particularly challenging subset of these skills. The innate ability to acquire these skills is not fully understood. The aim of this study was to investigate the innate arthroscopic skills and learning curve patterns of medical students - our future surgeons. Two arthroscopic tasks (one shoulder and one knee) were set up in a bioskills laboratory to represent core skills required for arthroscopic training. Twenty medical students with no previous arthroscopic surgery experience were recruited and their performance assessed whilst undertaking each task on 30 occasions. The primary outcome variable was success or failure. Individuals were assessed as ‘competent’ if they stabilised their learning curve within 20 episodes. The secondary outcome measure was an objective assessment of technical dexterity using a validated Motion Analysis system (time taken to complete tasks, total path length of the subject's hands, and number of hand movements).Background
Methods
The ability to learn arthroscopic surgery is an important aspect of modern day orthopaedic surgery. Knowing that variation in innate ability exists amongst medical students, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of training on the arthroscopic surgical performance of our future orthopaedic surgeons (medical students). Two arthroscopic tasks (one shoulder and one knee) were set up in a bioskills laboratory to represent core skills required for arthroscopic training. Thirty three medical students with no previous arthroscopic surgery experience were randomised to a ‘Trained’ (n=16) and ‘Non-trained’ (n=17) cohort. Both groups watched an instructional video. The Trained cohort also received specific training on the tasks prior to their first episode. Thirty episodes of each task were then undertaken. The primary outcome variable was success or failure. Individuals were assessed as ‘competent’ if they stabilised their learning curve within 20 episodes. The secondary outcome measure was an objective assessment of technical dexterity using a validated Motion Analysis system (time taken to complete tasks, total path length of the subject's hands, and number of hand movements).Background
Methods
