Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39810729›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025

Higher hospital volume reduces early failure rates in single-stage revision TKR for infection: An analysis of the United Kingdom National Joint Registry and National Administrative Databases.

Alexander H Matthews, William K Gray, Jonathan P Evans, Ruth Knight, Jonathan T Evans, Sarah E Lamb, Tim Briggs, Andrew Porteous, Shiraz A Sabah, Abtin Alvand and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors.

Alexander H MatthewsGetting It Right First Time Programme, NHS England, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1606-5840
William K GrayGetting It Right First Time Programme, NHS England, London, UK.
Jonathan P EvansRoyal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK.
Ruth KnightLiverpool Clinical Trials Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jonathan T EvansRoyal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK.
Sarah E LambUniversity of Exeter College of Life and Environmental Studies: University of Exeter Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Exeter, UK.
Tim BriggsGetting It Right First Time Programme, NHS England, London, UK.
Andrew PorteousNorth Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Shiraz A SabahNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Abtin AlvandNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrew PriceNuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrew D TomsRoyal Devon University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, UK.

Funding

NHS England
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRevision knee replacement (RevKR) for infection is rare but increasing. It is hypothesised that higher hospital volume reduces adverse outcomes. The aim was to estimate the association of surgical unit volume with outcomes following first, single-stage RevKR for infection.

methodsThis population-based cohort study merged data from the United Kingdom National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, National Patient Reported Outcome Measures and the Civil Registrations of Death. Patients undergoing procedures between 1 January 2009 and 30 June 2019 were included. Early outcomes were chosen to reflect the quality of the surgical provision and included re-revision at 2 years, mortality, serious medical complications, length of stay and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Adjusted fixed effect multivariable regression models were used to examine the association between surgical unit mean annual caseload and the risk of adverse outcomes.

resultsA total of 1477 patients underwent first-time single-stage RevKRs for infection across 267 surgical units and 716 surgeons. Following adjustment for age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade, surgeon volume, year of surgery and operation funder and modelling surgical unit volume with restricted cubic spline, a greater mean annual volume was associated with a lower risk of re-revision at 2 years. The odds of re-revision in hospitals performing fewer than or equal to 12 cases per year was 2.53 (95% confidence interval = 1.50-4.31) times more likely than hospitals performing three to four cases per month. Annual variation in surgical unit volume was not associated with mortality and serious medical complications within 90 days. Only 99 out of 1477 (7%) of patients had linked PROMs which precluded subsequent analysis.

conclusionOverall, higher volume surgical units had lower rates of early re-revision following the first RevKR for infection. We were unable to provide recommended specific volume thresholds for units; however, the probability of re-revision appears to be lowest in the highest volume units. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeHospitals, High-VolumeProsthesis-Related InfectionsReoperationAgedAged, 80 and overDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesUnited Kingdomcomplicationsinfectionmortality ratesrevision ratesrevision total knee replacementvolume‐outcomes

Identifiers

PMID39810729
PMCPMC12104792

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.