Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery Kingston General Hospital, Queen's University, 76 Stuart St, Nickle 3, Rm 9-309, Kingston, ON K7L 2V7, Canada.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Dec 14;13:250. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-250.
A number of factors have been identified as influencing total knee arthroplasty outcomes, including patient factors such as gender and medical comorbidity, technical factors such as alignment of the prosthesis, and provider factors such as hospital and surgeon procedure volumes. Recently, strategies aimed at optimizing provider factors have been proposed, including regionalization of total joint arthroplasty to higher volume centers, and adoption of volume standards. To contribute to the discussions concerning the optimization of provider factors and proposals to regionalize total knee arthroplasty practices, we undertook a systematic review to investigate the association between surgeon volume and primary total knee arthroplasty outcomes.
We performed a systematic review examining the association between surgeon volume and primary knee arthroplasty outcomes. To be included in the review, the study population had to include patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. Studies had to report on the association between surgeon volume and primary total knee arthroplasty outcomes, including perioperative mortality and morbidity, patient-reported outcomes, or total knee arthroplasty implant survivorship. There were no restrictions placed on study design or language.
Studies were variable in defining surgeon volume ('low': <3 to <52 total knee arthroplasty per year; 'high': >5 to >70 total knee arthroplasty per year). Mortality rate, survivorship and thromboembolic events were not found to be associated with surgeon volume. We found a significant association between low surgeon volume and higher rate of infection (0.26% - 2.8% higher), procedure time (165 min versus 135 min), longer length of stay (0.4 - 2.13 days longer), transfusion rate (13% versus 4%), and worse patient reported outcomes.
Findings suggest a trend towards better outcomes for higher volume surgeons, but results must be interpreted with caution.
有许多因素被认为会影响全膝关节置换术的结果,包括患者因素(如性别和合并症)、技术因素(如假体的对线)和提供者因素(如医院和外科医生的手术量)。最近,提出了旨在优化提供者因素的策略,包括将全关节置换术向高容量中心区域化,以及采用容量标准。为了促进关于优化提供者因素和建议将全膝关节置换术实践区域化的讨论,我们进行了一项系统评价,以调查外科医生手术量与初次全膝关节置换术结果之间的关系。
我们进行了一项系统评价,调查外科医生手术量与初次全膝关节置换术结果之间的关系。纳入的研究必须包括接受初次全膝关节置换术的患者。研究必须报告外科医生手术量与初次全膝关节置换术结果之间的关系,包括围手术期死亡率和发病率、患者报告的结果或全膝关节置换术植入物存活率。对研究设计和语言没有限制。
研究在定义外科医生手术量方面存在差异(“低”:<3 至 <52 例/年;“高”:>5 至>70 例/年)。死亡率、存活率和血栓栓塞事件与外科医生手术量无关。我们发现低手术量与更高的感染率(高 0.26%至 2.8%)、手术时间(165 分钟比 135 分钟)、更长的住院时间(高 0.4 至 2.13 天)、输血率(高 13%至 4%)和较差的患者报告结果之间存在显著关联。
研究结果表明,高手术量外科医生的结果更好,但结果必须谨慎解释。