Advertisement

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 1011–1017 | Cite as

Revision knee complexity classification—RKCC: a common-sense guide for surgeons to support regional clinical networking in revision knee surgery

  • J. R. A. PhillipsEmail author
  • L. Al-Mouazzen
  • R. Morgan-Jones
  • J. R. Murray
  • A. J. Porteous
  • A. D. Toms
KNEE

Abstract

Purpose

There is considerable variation in practice throughout Europe in both the services provided and in the outcomes of Revision Knee Surgery. In the UK, a recent report published called get it right first time (GIRFT) aims to improve patient outcomes through providing high quality, cost-effective care, and reducing complications. This has led to the development of a classification system that attempts to classify the complexity of revision knee surgery, aiming to encourage and support regional clinical networking.

Methods

The revision knee classification system (RKCC) incorporates not only complexity, but also patient factors, the presence of infection, the integrity of the extensor mechanism, and the soft tissues. It then provides guidance for clinical network discussion. Reliability and reproducibility testing have been performed to establish the inter- and intra-observer variabilities using this classification.

Results

Good correlation between first attempt non-expert and experts, good intra-observer variability of non-expert, and an excellent correlation between second attempt non-expert and experts has been achieved. This supports the use of RKCC by both inexperienced and experienced surgeons.

Conclusions

The revision knee complexity classification has been proposed that offers a common-sense approach to recognize the increasing complexity in revision TKR cases. It provides a methodological assessment of revision knee cases and support regional clinical networking and triage of appropriate cases to revision units or specialist centres.

Level of Evidence

Expert opinion, Level V.

Notes

Funding

No funding received.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdel MP, Salib C, Mara K, Pagnano M, Perry K, Hanssen A (2018) Extensor mechanism reconstruction with use of marlex mesh: a series study of 77 total knee arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100(15):1309–1318CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonnin M, Lustig S, Huten D (2016) Extensor tendon ruptures after total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 102(1 Suppl):S21–S31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briggs T (2012) Getting it right first time: improving the quality of orthopaedic care within the National Health Service in England. British Orthopaedic AssociationGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Briggs T (2015) A national review of adult elective orthopaedic services in England. Getting it right first time. British Orthopaedic AssociationGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cetrulo CL, Shiba T, Friel MT, Davis B, Buntic RF, Buncke GM, Brooks D (2008) Management of exposed total knee prostheses with microvascular tissue transfer. Microsurgery 28(8):617–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dalury DF, Pomeroy DL, Gorab RS, Adams MJ (2013) Why are total knee arthroplasties being revised? J Arthroplasty 28(8 Suppl):120–121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Engh GA, Ammeen DJ (1999) Bone loss with revision total knee arthroplasty: defect classification and alternatives for reconstruction. Instr Course Lect 48:167–175PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frehill B, Crocombe A, Cirovic S, Agarwal Y, Bradley N (2010) Initial stability of type-2 tibial defect treatments. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 224(1):77–85CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kurtz S, Ong KL, Schmier J, Mowat F, Saleh K, Dybvik E, Kärrholm J, Garellick G, Havelin L, Furnes O, Malchau H, Lau E (2007) Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(Suppl 3):144–151PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lan YT, Jiang JK, Chang SC, Yang SH, Lin CC, Lin HH, Wang HS, Chen WS, Lin TC, Lin JK (2016) Improved outcomes of colorectal cancer patients with liver metastases in the era of the multidisciplinary teams. Int J Colorectal Dis 31(2):403–411CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liddle AD, Pandit H, Judge A, Murray DW (2016) Effect of surgical caseload on revision rate following total and unicompartmental knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(1):1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lim CT, Amanatullah DF, Huddleston JI, Harris AH, Hwang KL, Maloney WJ, Goodman SB (2017) Reconstruction of disrupted extensor mechanism after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 32(10):3134–3140CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marlow NE, Barraclough B, Collier NA, Dickinson IC, Fawcett J, Graham J, Maddern GJ (2010) Centralization and the relationship between volume and outcome in knee arthroplasty procedures. ANZ J Surg 80(4):234–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McPherson EJ, Tontz W, Patzakis M, Woodsome C, Holtom P, Norris L, Shufelt C (1999) Outcome of infected total knee utilizing a staging system for prosthetic joint infection. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ) 28(3):161–165Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    McPherson EJ, Woodson C, Holtom P, Roidis N, Shufelt C, Patzakis M (2002) Periprosthetic total hip infection: outcomes using a staging system. Clin Orthop Relat Res (403):8–15Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Metcalfe D, Perry DC, Bouamra O, Salim A, Woodford M, Edwards A, Lecky FE, Costa M (2016) Regionalisation of trauma care in England. Bone Joint J 98-B(9):1253–1261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Morgan-Jones R (2013) Infected knee replacement symposium, City Hall, Cardiff. 12–14 March 2013Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Munro A, Brown M, Niblock P, Steele R, Carey F (2015) Do Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) processes influence survival in patients with colorectal cancer? A population-based experience. BMC Cancer 15:686CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Cancer Intelligence Network (2010) Bone sarcomas: incidence and survival rates in England. http://www.ncin.org.uk/publications/data_briefings/bone_sarcomas_incidence_and_survival. Accessed 26 Feb 2019
  21. 21.
    Oduwole K, Molony DC, Walls R, Bashir S, Mulhall KJ (2010) Increasing financial burden of revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18(7):945–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pamilo K, Peltola M, Paloneva J, Mäkelä K, Häkkinen U, Remes V (2015) Hospital volume affects outcome after total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 86(1):41–47CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Panegrossi G, Ceretti M, Papalia M, Casella F, Favetti F, Falez F (2014) Bone loss management in total knee revision surgery. Int Orthop 38(2):419–427CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patel A, Pavlou G, Mújica-Mota R, Toms AD (2015) The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset. Bone Joint J 97-B(8):1076–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Petretta R, Phillips JR, Toms AD (2017) Management of acute periprosthetic joint infection of the knee - Algorithms for the on call surgeon. Surgeon 15(2):83–92CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Podmore B, Hutchings A, van der Meulen J, Aggarwal A, Konan S (2018) Impact of comorbid conditions on outcomes of hip and knee replacement surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 8(7):e021784CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stephens MR, Lewis WG, Brewster AE et al (2006) Multidisciplinary team management is associated with improved outcomes after surgery for esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 19(3):164–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stone E, Rankin N, Kerr S, Fong K et al (2018) Does presentation at multidisciplinary team meetings improve lung cancer survival? Findings from a consecutive cohort study. Lung Cancer 124:199–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Thienpont E (2016) Revision knee surgery techniques. EFORT Open Rev 1(5):233–238CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Young KS, Chummun S, Wright T, Darley E, Chapman TW, Porteous AJ, Murray JR, Khan U (2016) Management of the exposed total knee prosthesis, a six-year review. Knee 23(4):736–739CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Exeter Knee Reconstruction Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic CentreRoyal Devon and Exeter HospitalExeterUK
  2. 2.University Hospital LlandoughCardiffUK
  3. 3.Southmead HospitalBristolUK

Personalised recommendations