Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 29, 2025
Three-Dimensional Preoperative Virtual Planning in Derotational Proximal Femoral Osteotomy
Published on: February 17, 2023
Association Between Surgeon Volume and Patient Outcomes After Elective Patellofemoral Arthroplasty: A
Martinique Vella-Baldacchino1, Andrew Rhys Davies2, Alex Bottle3
1MSk Lab, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, England.
Background:
The objective of this study was to determine the relationship between surgical volume and patient outcome after arthroplasty of the patellofemoral joint, to improve patient outcomes and inform future resource planning.
Methods:
All patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA) records in the National Joint Registry from January 2003 to December 2021 were linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics database for England. The main outcome measure was revision surgery. Secondary outcome measures were serious adverse effects, patient selection characteristics, and implant designs used. Associations of early and late revision with surgical volume were examined based on surgical volume, and reasons for revision were explored.
Results:
Of the knee arthroplasty surgeons in the database, 858 (26%) performed ≥1 PFA during the study period; 14,615 PFA cases were available for analysis. The modal caseload was 2 per year. High-volume surgeons were defined as surgeons performing >5 PFAs per year. The hazard ratio (HR) for a high-volume surgeon was 0.98 per additional PFA per year, and the patients treated by these surgeons had a lower risk of revision than than those treated by low-volume surgeons irrespective of the patient's age. High-volume surgeons were more likely to identify and treat patients with patellar disorders than low-volume surgeons (odds ratio [OR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.77; p < 0.05), and their patients were less likely to have serious adverse effects as these surgeons' experience increased (OR per additional PFA per year, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95 to 0.99; p = 0.02). Inlay implants had a higher risk of revision than onlay implants irrespective of surgical experience: for low-volume surgeons, inlays had an HR of 1.68 (95% CI, 1.23 to 2.30; p = 0.01), and for high-volume surgeons, inlays had an HR of 2.38 (95% CI, 1.83 to 3.11; p = 0.01). The most common reason for revision was progressive osteoarthritis. High-volume surgeons' patients were less likely than low-volume surgeons' patients to have an early revision (<2 years postoperatively) (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.93; p < 0.05).
Conclusions:
An association was found between surgeons performing >5 PFAs per year and a lower revision rate. This study should inform surgical planning services to improve the outcomes of PFA.
Level Of Evidence:
Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
