The Journal of arthroplasty · 2024
Revision Hip Arthroplasty Performed by Fellowship-Trained Versus Non-Fellowship-Trained Surgeons: A Comparison of Perioperative Management and Complications.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Burnett Robert A, Dobson Cale B, Turkmani Amr, Sporer Scott M, Levine Brett R, Della Valle Craig J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Successful revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) requires major resource allocation and a surgical team adept at managing these complex cases. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of rTHA performed by fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained surgeons.
METHODS: A national administrative database was utilized to identify 5,880 patients who underwent aseptic rTHA and 1,622 patients who underwent head-liner exchange for infection by fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained surgeons from 2010 to 2020 with a 5-year follow-up. Postoperative opioid and anticoagulant prescriptions were compared among surgeons. Patients treated by fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained surgeons had propensity scores matched based on age, sex, comorbidity index, and diagnosis. The 5-year surgical complications were compared using descriptive statistics. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine the odds of failure following head-liner exchange when performed by a fellowship-trained versus non-fellowship-trained surgeon.
RESULTS: Aseptic rTHA patients treated by fellowship-trained surgeons received fewer opioids (132 versus 165 milligram morphine equivalents per patient) and nonaspirin anticoagulants (21.4 versus 32.0%, P < .001). Fellowship-training was associated with lower dislocation rates (9.9 versus 14.2%, P = .011), fewer postoperative infections, and fewer periprosthetic fractures and re-revisions (15.2 versus 21.3%, P < .001). Head-liner exchange for infection performed by fellowship-trained surgeons was associated with lower odds of failure (31.2 versus 45.7%, odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.91, P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: rTHA performed by adult reconstruction fellowship-trained surgeons results in fewer re-revisions in aseptic cases and head-liner exchanges. Variations in resources, volumes, and perioperative protocols may account for some of the differences.
METHODS: A national administrative database was utilized to identify 5,880 patients who underwent aseptic rTHA and 1,622 patients who underwent head-liner exchange for infection by fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained surgeons from 2010 to 2020 with a 5-year follow-up. Postoperative opioid and anticoagulant prescriptions were compared among surgeons. Patients treated by fellowship-trained and non-fellowship-trained surgeons had propensity scores matched based on age, sex, comorbidity index, and diagnosis. The 5-year surgical complications were compared using descriptive statistics. Multivariable analysis was performed to determine the odds of failure following head-liner exchange when performed by a fellowship-trained versus non-fellowship-trained surgeon.
RESULTS: Aseptic rTHA patients treated by fellowship-trained surgeons received fewer opioids (132 versus 165 milligram morphine equivalents per patient) and nonaspirin anticoagulants (21.4 versus 32.0%, P < .001). Fellowship-training was associated with lower dislocation rates (9.9 versus 14.2%, P = .011), fewer postoperative infections, and fewer periprosthetic fractures and re-revisions (15.2 versus 21.3%, P < .001). Head-liner exchange for infection performed by fellowship-trained surgeons was associated with lower odds of failure (31.2 versus 45.7%, odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.91, P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: rTHA performed by adult reconstruction fellowship-trained surgeons results in fewer re-revisions in aseptic cases and head-liner exchanges. Variations in resources, volumes, and perioperative protocols may account for some of the differences.