Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37042976›Full record

Observational studyKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2023

Patients in high- and low-revision hospitals have similar outcomes after primary knee arthroplasty: 1-year postoperative results from the Danish prospective multicenter cohort study, SPARK.

Anne Mørup-Petersen, Michael Rindom Krogsgaard, Mogens Laursen, Frank Madsen, Matilde Winther-Jensen, Anders Odgaard

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Anne Mørup-PetersenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Gentofte Hospitalsvej 1, 2900, Hellerup, Denmark. anne.moerup-petersen@regionh.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6743-3316
Michael Rindom KrogsgaardDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Section for Sports Traumatology, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400, Copenhagen, NV, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9976-4865
Mogens LaursenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Hobrovej 18-22, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2791-3921
Frank MadsenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Aarhus University Hospital, Palle Juul-Jensens, Boulevard 99, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3335-6719
Matilde Winther-JensenCenter for Clinical Research and Prevention, Department of Data, Biostatistics and Pharmacoepidemiology, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, University of Copenhagen, Nordre Fasanvej 57, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4447-6292
Anders OdgaardDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev and Gentofte, Gentofte Hospitalsvej 1, 2900, Hellerup, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4841-518X
Frederiksberg Hospital · DKAalborg University Hospital · DKAarhus University Hospital · DKGentofte Hospital · DKUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Region Hovedstaden July 2015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIt is well-known that revision rates after primary knee arthroplasty vary widely. However, it is uncertain whether hospital revision rates are reliable indicators of general surgical quality as defined by patients. The SPARK study compared primary knee arthroplasty surgery at three high-volume hospitals whose revision rates differed for unknown reasons.

methodsThis prospective observational study included primary knee arthroplasty patients (total, medial/lateral unicompartmental and patellofemoral) in two low-revision hospitals (Aarhus University Hospital and Aalborg University Hospital Farsø) and one high-revision hospital (Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev-Gentofte). Patients were followed from preoperatively (2016-17) to 1-year postoperatively with patient-reported outcome measures including Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EQ-5D-5L and Copenhagen Knee ROM (range of motion) Scale. The surgical outcomes were compared across hospitals for patients with comparable grades of radiographic knee osteoarthritis and preoperative OKS. Statistical comparisons (parametric and non-parametric) included all three hospitals.

results97% of the 1452 patients who provided baseline data (89% of those included and 56% of those operated) responded postoperatively (90% at 1 year). Hospitals' utilization of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties differed (Aarhus 49%, Aalborg 14%, and Copenhagen 22%, p < 0.001). 28 patients had revision surgery during the first year (hospital independent, p = 0.1) and were subsequently excluded. 1-year OKS (39 ± 7) was independent of hospital (p = 0.1), even when adjusted for age, sex, Body Mass Index, baseline OKS and osteoarthritis grading. 15% of patients improved less than Minimal Important Change (8 OKS) (Aarhus 19%, Aalborg 13% and Copenhagen 14%, p = 0.051 unadjusted). Patients with comparable preoperative OKS or osteoarthritis grading had similar 1-year results across hospitals (OKS and willingness to repeat surgery, p ≥ 0.087) except for the 64 patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade-4 (Aarhus 4-6 OKS points lower). 86% of patients were satisfied, and 92% were "willing to repeat surgery", independent of hospital (p ≥ 0.1). Hospital revision rates differences diminished during the study period.

conclusionsPatients in hospitals with a history of differing revision rates had comparable patient-reported outcomes 1 year after primary knee arthroplasty, supporting that surgical quality should not be evaluated by revision rates alone. Future studies should explore if revision rate variations may depend as much on revision thresholds and indications as on outcomes of primary surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II (Prospective cohort study).

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeOsteoarthritis, KneeDenmarkHospitals, UniversityHumansProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeEpidemiologyKnee arthroplastyKnee range of motionKnee replacementOsteoarthritisPatient-reported outcome measuresPatient selectionRadiographic classificationRegional variationRevision rate variation

Identifiers

PMID37042976
PMCPMC10356638
OpenAlexW4365136374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.