Does surgeon volume influence the outcome after hip hemiarthroplasty for displaced femoral neck fractures; early outcome, complications, and survival of 752 cases
- 56 Downloads
Surgeon volume of hip arthroplasties is of importance with regard to complication and revision rates in total hip arthroplasty. For hip hemiarthroplasty, the effect of surgeon volume on outcome is far less studied. We analyzed the outcome of hip hemiarthroplasties performed by orthopedic surgeons in a retrospective cohort in different volume categories, focusing on early survival of the prosthesis and complications.
Between March 2009 and January 2014, 752 hemiarthroplasties were performed for intracapsular femoral neck fracture by 27 orthopedic surgeons in a large Dutch teaching hospital. Surgeons were divided into four groups, a resident group and three groups based on the number of total hip arthroplasties and hemiarthroplasties performed per year: a low-volume (< 10 arthroplasties per year), moderate-volume (10–35 arthroplasties per year), and high-volume groups (> 35 arthroplasties per year). Outcome measures were stem survival using a competing risk analysis, complication rates, and mortality. Chi-square tests were used to compare complication rates and mortality between groups.
Patients were followed for a minimum of 2 years or until revision or death. Overall 60% of the patients included had died at time of follow-up. We found comparable stem survival rates in the low-volume group (n = 48), moderate-volume group (n = 201), high-volume group (n = 446), and resident group (n = 57). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to dislocation rate, incidence of periprosthetic fracture, infection, and mortality.
Surgeon volume and experience did not influence early outcome and complication rates in hip hemiarthroplasty. Hemiarthroplasty can safely be performed by both experienced hip surgeons and low-volume surgeons.
KeywordsHip hemiarthroplasty Femoral neck fractures Surgical volume Survival Complications
Our research foundation (FORCE) receives money from Zimmer-Biomet, Stryker and Mathys not directly related to this study. Two authors are consultant for Stryker and one author is consultant for A.O., Stryker and Advisory Board for Lima Corporates.
- 15.Ames JB, Lurie JD, Tomek IM et al (2010) Does surgeon volume for total hip arthroplasty affect outcomes after hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture? Am J Orthop 39(8):E84–E89Google Scholar
- 16.Scrucca L, Santucci A, Aversa F (2007) Competing risk analysis using R: an easy guide for clinicians. Bone Marrow Transplant 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bmt.1705727
- 18.Enocson A, Tidermark J, Tornkvist H, Lapidus LJ (2008) Dislocation of hemiarthroplasty after femoral neck fracture: better outcome after the anterolateral approach in a prospective cohort study on 739 consecutive hips. Acta Orthop 79:211–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453670710014996 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Jong L de, Klem TMAL, Kuijper TM, Roukema GR (2017) Factors affecting the rate of surgical site infection in patients after hemiarthroplasty of the hip following a fracture of the neck of the femur. Bone Jt J 99–B:1088–1094. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B8.BJJ-2016-1119.R1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Noailles T, Brulefert K, Chalopin A, Longis PM (2016) What are the risk factors for post-operative infection after hip hemiarthroplasty ? Systematic review of literature. Int Orthop 1843–1848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-015-3033-y
- 24.Carli AV, Negus JJ, Haddad FS (2017) Periprosthetic femoral fractures and trying to avoid them; what is the contribution of femoral component design to the increased risk of periprosthetic femoral fracture? Bone Jt J 99B:50–59. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B1.BJJ-2016-0220.R1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar