Aims. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of hospital case volume on the survival of revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Methods. This is a retrospective analysis of Scottish Arthroplasty Project data, a nationwide audit which prospectively collects data on all arthroplasty procedures performed in Scotland. The primary outcome was RTKA survival at ten years. The primary explanatory variable was the effect of hospital case volume per year on RTKA survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the lifespan of RTKA. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards were used to estimate relative revision risks over time. Hazard ratios (HRs) were reported with 95% CI, and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. From 1998 to 2019, 8,301 patients (8,894 knees) underwent RTKA surgery in Scotland (median age at RTKA 70 years (interquartile range (IQR) 63 to 76); median follow-up 6.2 years (IQR 3.0 to 10.2). In all, 4,764 (53.6%) were female, and 781 (8.8%) were treated for infection. Of these 8,894 knees, 957 (10.8%) underwent a second revision procedure. Male sex, younger age at index revision, and positive infection status were associated with need for re-revision. The ten-year survival estimate for RTKA was 87.3% (95% CI 86.5 to 88.1). Adjusting for sex, age, surgeon volume, and indication for revision, high hospital case volume was significantly associated with lower risk of re-revision (HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.94, p < 0.001)). The risk of re-revision steadily declined in centres performing > 20 cases per year; risk reduction was 16% with > 20 cases; 22% with > 30 cases; and 28% with > 40 cases. The lowest level of risk was associated with the highest volume centres. Conclusion. The majority of RTKA in Scotland survive up to ten years. Increasing yearly hospital case volume above 20 cases is independently associated with a significant risk reduction of re-revision. Development of high-volume tertiary centres may lead to an improvement in the overall survival of RTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):602–609

Aims. The primary aim of the study was to perform an analysis to identify the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) relative to manual total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Secondary aims were to assess how case volume and length of hospital stay influenced the relative cost per QALY. Patients and Methods. A Markov decision analysis was performed, using known parameters for costs, outcomes, implant survival, and mortality, to assess the cost-effectiveness of rUKA relative to manual TKA and UKA for patients with isolated medial compartment OA of the knee with a mean age of 65 years. The influence of case volume and shorter hospital stay were assessed. Results. Using a model with an annual case volume of 100 patients, the cost per QALY of rUKA was £1395 and £1170 relative to TKA and UKA, respectively. The cost per QALY was influenced by case volume: a low-volume centre performing ten cases per year would achieve a cost per QALY of £7170 and £8604 relative to TKA and UKA. For a high-volume centre performing 200 rUKAs per year with a mean two-day length of stay, the cost per QALY would be £648; if performed as day-cases, the cost would be reduced to £364 relative to TKA. For a high-volume centre performing 200 rUKAs per year with a shorter length of stay of one day relative to manual UKA, the cost per QALY would be £574. Conclusion . rUKA is a cost-effective alternative to manual TKA and UKA for patients with isolated medial compartment OA of the knee. The cost per QALY of rUKA decreased with reducing length of hospital stay and with increasing case volume, compared with TKA and UKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1063–1070

Aims. To perform an incremental cost-utility analysis and assess the impact of differential costs and case volume on the cost-effectiveness of robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) compared to manual (mUKA). Methods. This was a five-year follow-up study of patients who were randomized to rUKA (n = 64) or mUKA (n = 65). Patients completed the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) preoperatively, and at three months and one, two, and five years postoperatively, which was used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Costs for the primary and additional surgery and healthcare costs were calculated. Results. rUKA was associated with a relative 0.012 QALY gain at five years, which was associated with an incremental cost per QALY of £13,078 for a unit undertaking 400 cases per year. A cost per QALY of less than £20,000 was achieved when ≥ 300 cases were performed per year. However, on removal of the cost for a revision for presumed infection (mUKA group, n = 1) the cost per QALY was greater than £38,000, which was in part due to the increased intraoperative consumable costs associated with rUKA (£626 per patient). When the absolute cost difference (operative and revision costs) was less than £240, a cost per QALY of less than £20,000 was achieved. On removing the cost of the revision for infection, rUKA was cost-neutral when more than 900 cases per year were undertaken and when the consumable costs were zero. Conclusion. rUKA was a cost-effective intervention with an incremental cost per QALY of £13,078 at five years, however when removing the revision for presumed infection, which was arguably a random event, this was no longer the case. The absolute cost difference had to be less than £240 to be cost-effective, which could be achieved by reducing the perioperative costs of rUKA or if there were increased revision costs associated with mUKA with longer follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):889–898

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has advantages over total knee arthroplasty but national joint registries report a significantly higher revision rate for UKA. As a result, most surgeons are highly selective, offering UKA only to a small proportion (up to 5%) of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee, and consequently performing few each year. However, surgeons with large UKA practices have the lowest rates of revision. The overall size of the practice is often beyond the surgeon’s control, therefore case volume may only be increased by broadening the indications for surgery, and offering UKA to a greater proportion of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee. . The aim of this study was to determine the optimal UKA usage (defined as the percentage of knee arthroplasty practice comprised by UKA) to minimise the rate of revision in a sample of 41 986 records from the for National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR). UKA usage has a complex, non-linear relationship with the rate of revision. Acceptable results are achieved with the use of 20% or more. Optimal results are achieved with usage between 40% and 60%. Surgeons with the lowest usage (up to 5%) have the highest rates of revision. With optimal usage, using the most commonly used implant, five-year survival is 96% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.9 to 96.0), compared with 90% (95% CI 88.4 to 91.6) with low usage (5%) previously considered ideal. . The rate of revision of UKA is highest with low usage, implying the use of narrow, and perhaps inappropriate, indications. The widespread use of broad indications, using appropriate implants, would give patients the advantages of UKA, without the high rate of revision. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1506–11

Aims

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) accounts for approximately 5% to 10% of all TKAs. Although the complexity of these procedures is well recognized, few investigators have evaluated the cost and value-added with the implementation of a dedicated revision arthroplasty service. The aim of the present study is to compare and contrast surgeon productivity in several differing models of activity.

We evaluated the impact of pre-coating the tibial component with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) on implant survival in a cohort of 16 548 primary NexGen total knee replacements (TKRs) in 14 113 patients. In 13 835 TKRs a pre-coated tray was used while in 2713 TKRs the non-pre-coated version of the same tray was used. All the TKRs were performed between 2001 and 2009 and were cemented. TKRs implanted with a pre-coated tibial component had a lower cumulative survival than those with a non-pre-coated tibial component (p = 0.01). After adjusting for diagnosis, age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, femoral coupling design, surgeon volume and hospital volume, pre-coating was an independent risk factor for all-cause aseptic revision (hazard ratio 2.75, p = 0.006). Revision for aseptic loosening was uncommon for both pre-coated and non-pre-coated trays (rates of 0.12% and 0%, respectively). Pre-coating with PMMA does not appear to be protective of revision for this tibial tray design at short-term follow-up.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:367–70.