Dataset Information

Effect of tourniquet use on the risk of revision in total knee replacement surgery: an analysis of the National Joint Registry Data Set.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Tourniquet use in total knee replacement (TKR) is believed to improve the bone-cement interface by reducing bleeding, potentially prolonging implant survival. This study aimed to compare the risk of revision for primary cemented TKR performed with or without a tourniquet.

Design

We analysed data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for all primary cemented TKRs performed in England and Wales between April 2003 and December 2003. Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox regression were used to assess the influence of tourniquet use, age at time of surgery, sex and American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification on risk of revision for all-causes.

Results

Data were available for 16 974 cases of primary cemented TKR, of which 16 132 had surgery with a tourniquet and 842 had surgery without a tourniquet. At 10 years, 3.8% had undergone revision (95% CI 2.6% to 5.5%) in the no-tourniquet group and 3.1% in the tourniquet group (95% CI 2.8% to 3.4%). After adjusting for age at primary surgery, gender and primary ASA score, the HR for all-cause revision for cemented TKR without a tourniquet was 0.82 (95% CI 0.57 to 1.18).

Conclusions

We did not find evidence that using a tourniquet for primary cemented TKR offers a clinically important or statistically significant reduction in the risk of all-cause revision up to 13 years after surgery. Surgeons should consider this evidence when deciding whether to use a tourniquet for cemented TKR.

SUBMITTER: Farhan-Alanie MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8191625 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOne in 10 people in the United Kingdom will need a total knee replacement (TKR) during their lifetime. Access to this life-changing operation has recently been restricted based on body mass index (BMI) due to belief that high BMI may lead to poorer outcomes. We investigated the associations between BMI and revision surgery, mortality, and pain/function using what we believe to be the world's largest joint replacement registry.Methods and findingsWe analysed 493,710 TKRs in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man from 2005 to 2016 to investigate 90-day mortality and 10-year cumulative revision. Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) databases were linked to the NJR to investigate change in Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 6 months postoperatively. After adjustment for age, sex, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for operation, year of primary TKR, and fixation type, patients with high BMI were more likely to undergo revision surgery within 10 years compared to those with "normal" BMI (obese class II hazard ratio (HR) 1.21, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.32 (p < 0.001) and obese class III HR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.26 (p = 0.026)). All BMI classes had revision estimates within the recognised 10-year benchmark of 5%. Overweight and obese class I patients had lower mortality than patients with "normal" BMI (HR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.90 (p = 0.001) and HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.82 (p < 0.001)). All BMI categories saw absolute increases in OKS after 6 months (range 18-20 points). The relative improvement in OKS was lower in overweight and obese patients than those with "normal" BMI, but the difference was below the minimal detectable change (MDC; 4 points). The main limitations were missing BMI particularly in the early years of data collection and a potential selection bias effect of surgeons selecting the fitter patients with raised BMI for surgery.ConclusionsGiven revision estimates in all BMI groups below the recognised threshold, no evidence of increased mortality, and difference in change in OKS below the MDC, this large national registry shows no evidence of poorer outcomes in patients with high BMI. This study does not support rationing of TKR based on increased BMI.

Project description:PurposeInfection is a major complication following joint replacement (JR) surgery. However, little data exist regarding antibiotic utilisation following primary JR and how use changes with subsequent revision surgery. This study aimed to examine variation in antibiotic utilisation rates before and after hip replacement surgery in those revised for infection, revised for other reasons and those without revision.MethodsThis retrospective cohort analysis used linked data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Australian Government Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Patients were included if undergoing total hip replacement (THR) for osteoarthritis in private hospitals between 2002 and 2017. Three groups were examined: primary THR with no subsequent revision (n = 102 577), primary THR with a subsequent revision for reasons other than periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) (n = 3156) and primary THR with a subsequent revision for PJI (n = 520). Monthly antibiotic utilisation rates and prevalence rate ratios (PRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated in the 2 years pre- and post-THR.ResultsPrior to primary THR antibiotic utilisation was 9%-10%. After primary THR, antibiotic utilisation rates were higher among patients revised for PJI (PRR 1.69, 95% CI 1.60-1.79) compared to non-revised patients, while the utilisation rate was lower in patients revised for reasons other than infection (PRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.93-0.98). For those revised for infection, antibiotic utilisation post-revision surgery was two times higher than those revised for other reasons (PRR 2.16, 95% CI 2.08-2.23). Utilisation of injectable antibiotics including, vancomycin, flucloxacillin and cephazolin was higher in those revised for PJI patients 0-2 weeks following surgery but not in those revised for other reasons compared to the non-revised group.ConclusionsOngoing antibiotic utilisation after primary surgery may be an early signal of problems with the THR and should be a prompt for primary care physicians to refer patients to specialists for further appropriate investigations and management.

Project description:National projections of future joint replacement use can help us understand the changing burden of severe osteoarthritis. This study aimed to compare actual utilisation rates for primary total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) to previously forecast estimates for Australia. Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Australian Bureau of Statistics were used to calculate 'actual' THR and TKR utilisation rates for the years 2014-2019, by sex and age group. 'Forecast' utilisation rates for 2014-2019 were derived from an earlier study that modelled two alternate scenarios for THR and TKR in Australia: Scenario 1 assumed a constant rate of surgery; Scenario 2 assumed continued growth in surgery rates. Actual utilisation rates were compared descriptively to forecast rates for females and males (overall and by age group). Rate ratios were calculated to indicate the association between actual and forecast THR and TKR rates, with a rate ratio of 1.00 reflecting perfect alignment. Over the study period, 191,996 THRs (53% in females) and 312,203 TKRs (55% in females) were performed. For both sexes, actual rates lay clearly between the Scenario 1 and 2 forecast estimates. In 2019, actual THR utilisation rates were 179 per 100,000 females (Scenario 1: 156; Scenario 2: 200) and 158 per 100,000 males (Scenario 1: 139; Scenario 2: 191). Actual TKR utilisation rates in 2019 were 289 per 100,000 females (Scenario 1: 275; Scenario 2: 387) and 249 per 100,000 males (Scenario 1: 216; Scenario 2: 312). Age-specific rate ratios were close to 1.00 for all age groups, indicating good alignment between forecast and actual joint replacement rates. These validation analyses showed that linear plus exponential growth forecasting scenarios provided an efficient approximation of actual joint replacement utilisation. This indicates our modelling techniques can be used to judiciously predict future surgery demand, including for age groups with high surgery rates.

Project description:BackgroundHip and knee arthroplasties are common and successful procedures, however, success and durability are not guaranteed. The revision burden, defined as the ratio of implant revisions to the total number of arthroplasties in a specific period, is a measure of the steady state of arthroplasty success in a given registry. This study examines the hypothesis that revision burden would be similar among contemporary joint replacement registries and improving over time compared with historic controls.MethodsWe evaluated the national joint registries of 5 health systems (Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry [AOANJRR]; National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man; New Zealand Joint Registry [NZJR]; Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register [SHAR] and Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register [SKAR]; and the American Joint Replacement Registry [AJRR]) for hip and knee revision burden over the past 4 years or since registry inception. Historic controls were obtained from previously published reports.ResultsThe 2014 hip revision burden varied from 9.7 percent (NJR) to 11.9 percent (NZJR), and the unweighted average was 10.4 percent. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 mean hip revision burden was 11.9, 11.9, and 11.4 percent. The 2014 knee revision burden varied from to 6.0 percent (NJR) to 8.1 percent (AJRR), and the unweighted average for the 5 registries studied was 7.0 percent. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 mean knee revision burden was 6.9, 7.0, and 7.0 percent. Historically, the observed hip revision burden was 15.8 percent and the knee revision burden 8.0 percent.ConclusionsRevision burden has gradually decreased for hip replacements and has remained relatively constant for knee replacements both for the last 4 years and compared to historic controls. Knee revision burden was lower than hip revision burden for each period examined. Revision burden is one measure that may be helpful in following the effect of changes in surgical technique and implant design over time in registry populations and may be a helpful way to compare overall results between registries.