Affiliation:
1. MSk Lab, Sir Michael Uren Biomedical Engineering Research Hub, Imperial College London, London, UK
2. Royal College of Surgeons of England and Dunhill Medical Trust Clinical Research Fellowship, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK
3. Health Education Kent, Surrey and Sussex, London, UK
Abstract
Aims Joint registries classify all further arthroplasty procedures to a knee with an existing partial arthroplasty as revision surgery, regardless of the actual procedure performed. Relatively minor procedures, including bearing exchanges, are classified in the same way as major operations requiring augments and stems. A new classification system is proposed to acknowledge and describe the detail of these procedures, which has implications for risk, recovery, and health economics. Methods Classification categories were proposed by a surgical consensus group, then ranked by patients, according to perceived invasiveness and implications for recovery. In round one, 26 revision cases were classified by the consensus group. Results were tested for inter-rater reliability. In round two, four additional cases were added for clarity. Round three repeated the survey one month later, subject to inter- and intrarater reliability testing. In round four, five additional expert partial knee arthroplasty surgeons were asked to classify the 30 cases according to the proposed revision partial knee classification (RPKC) system. Results Four classes were proposed: PR1, where no bone-implant interfaces are affected; PR2, where surgery does not include conversion to total knee arthroplasty, for example, a second partial arthroplasty to a native compartment; PR3, when a standard primary total knee prosthesis is used; and PR4 when revision components are necessary. Round one resulted in 92% inter-rater agreement (Kendall’s W 0.97; p < 0.005), rising to 93% in round two (Kendall’s W 0.98; p < 0.001). Round three demonstrated 97% agreement (Kendall’s W 0.98; p < 0.001), with high intra-rater reliability (interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.99; 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 0.99). Round four resulted in 80% agreement (Kendall’s W 0.92; p < 0.001). Conclusion The RPKC system accounts for all procedures which may be appropriate following partial knee arthroplasty. It has been shown to be reliable, repeatable and pragmatic. The implications for patient care and health economics are discussed. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):638–645.
Publisher
British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
Subject
Pharmacology (medical),Complementary and alternative medicine,Pharmaceutical Science
Reference29 articles.
1. Robertsson O-D, Lund University, Sweden. Annual Report 2018. 2018. https://registercentrum.blob.core.windows.net/shpr/r/Arsrapport_2018_Hoftprotes_ENG_26mars_Final-rJepCXNsLI.pdf (date last accessed 26 July 2021).
2. National Joint Registry for England W, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. 16th Annual Report 2019 National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of man surgical data to 31 December 2018. 2019. https://reports.njrcentre.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR%2016th%20Annual%20Report%202019.pdf (date last accessed 26 July 2021).
3. New Zealand Joint Registry. Twenty-year report January 1999 to December 2018. 2018. https://nzoa.org.nz/sites/default/files/DH8426_NZJR_2020_Report_v5_30Sep.pdf (date last accessed 26 July 2021).
4. Patient safety after partial and total knee replacement
5. Management of aseptic failure of the mobile-bearing Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献