Cargando…
Clinical prioritisation of revision knee surgical procedures: BASK working group consensus document
BACKGROUND: Elective orthopaedic surgery during the Covid-19 pandemic requires careful case prioritisation. We aimed to produce consensus-based guidelines on the prioritisation of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures. METHOD: Twenty-three revision TKA scenarios were assigned priority (N...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Published by Elsevier B.V.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9759366/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33307320 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2020.10.011 |
_version_ | 1784852214374727680 |
---|---|
author | Kalson, N.S. Mathews, J.A. Toms, A.D. Murray, J.R.D. |
author_facet | Kalson, N.S. Mathews, J.A. Toms, A.D. Murray, J.R.D. |
author_sort | Kalson, N.S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Elective orthopaedic surgery during the Covid-19 pandemic requires careful case prioritisation. We aimed to produce consensus-based guidelines on the prioritisation of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures. METHOD: Twenty-three revision TKA scenarios were assigned priority (NHS England/Royal College of Surgeons scale) by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) Revision Knee Working Group (n = 24). Consensus agreement was defined as ≥70% respondents (18/24) giving the same prioritisation. Two voting rounds were undertaken; procedures achieving <70% agreement were given their most commonly assigned priority. RESULTS: 18/23 procedures achieved ≥70% agreement. Three were P1a (surgery within <24 h); DAIR for sepsis, peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF) fixation and PPF-revision TKA. Three were P1b (<72 h); debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for a stable patient, flap coverage for an open knee, and acute extensor mechanism rupture. Eight were P2 (<4 weeks), including aseptic loosening at risk of collapse, inter-stage patients with poor functioning spacers. Five were P3 (<3 months), including second stage revision for infection, revision for instability with limited mobility. Four were P4 (can wait >3 months) e.g. aseptic loosening. CONCLUSION: Sepsis and PPF surgery are the most urgent procedures. Although most procedures should be undertaken within one to three months (P2/3), these cases represent a small revision practice volume; P4 cases (e.g. aseptic loosening without risk of collapse) make up most surgeons’ caseload. These recommendations are a guideline; patient co-morbidities, Covid-19 pathways, availability of support services and multi-disciplinary team discussion within the regional revision network will dictate prioritisation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9759366 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Published by Elsevier B.V. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97593662022-12-19 Clinical prioritisation of revision knee surgical procedures: BASK working group consensus document Kalson, N.S. Mathews, J.A. Toms, A.D. Murray, J.R.D. Knee Article BACKGROUND: Elective orthopaedic surgery during the Covid-19 pandemic requires careful case prioritisation. We aimed to produce consensus-based guidelines on the prioritisation of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures. METHOD: Twenty-three revision TKA scenarios were assigned priority (NHS England/Royal College of Surgeons scale) by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK) Revision Knee Working Group (n = 24). Consensus agreement was defined as ≥70% respondents (18/24) giving the same prioritisation. Two voting rounds were undertaken; procedures achieving <70% agreement were given their most commonly assigned priority. RESULTS: 18/23 procedures achieved ≥70% agreement. Three were P1a (surgery within <24 h); DAIR for sepsis, peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF) fixation and PPF-revision TKA. Three were P1b (<72 h); debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) for a stable patient, flap coverage for an open knee, and acute extensor mechanism rupture. Eight were P2 (<4 weeks), including aseptic loosening at risk of collapse, inter-stage patients with poor functioning spacers. Five were P3 (<3 months), including second stage revision for infection, revision for instability with limited mobility. Four were P4 (can wait >3 months) e.g. aseptic loosening. CONCLUSION: Sepsis and PPF surgery are the most urgent procedures. Although most procedures should be undertaken within one to three months (P2/3), these cases represent a small revision practice volume; P4 cases (e.g. aseptic loosening without risk of collapse) make up most surgeons’ caseload. These recommendations are a guideline; patient co-morbidities, Covid-19 pathways, availability of support services and multi-disciplinary team discussion within the regional revision network will dictate prioritisation. Published by Elsevier B.V. 2021-01 2020-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9759366/ /pubmed/33307320 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2020.10.011 Text en Crown Copyright © 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. |
spellingShingle | Article Kalson, N.S. Mathews, J.A. Toms, A.D. Murray, J.R.D. Clinical prioritisation of revision knee surgical procedures: BASK working group consensus document |
title | Clinical prioritisation of revision knee surgical procedures: BASK working group consensus document |
title_full | Clinical prioritisation of revision knee surgical procedures: BASK working group consensus document |
title_fullStr | Clinical prioritisation of revision knee surgical procedures: BASK working group consensus document |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical prioritisation of revision knee surgical procedures: BASK working group consensus document |
title_short | Clinical prioritisation of revision knee surgical procedures: BASK working group consensus document |
title_sort | clinical prioritisation of revision knee surgical procedures: bask working group consensus document |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9759366/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33307320 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2020.10.011 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kalsonns clinicalprioritisationofrevisionkneesurgicalproceduresbaskworkinggroupconsensusdocument AT mathewsja clinicalprioritisationofrevisionkneesurgicalproceduresbaskworkinggroupconsensusdocument AT tomsad clinicalprioritisationofrevisionkneesurgicalproceduresbaskworkinggroupconsensusdocument AT murrayjrd clinicalprioritisationofrevisionkneesurgicalproceduresbaskworkinggroupconsensusdocument AT clinicalprioritisationofrevisionkneesurgicalproceduresbaskworkinggroupconsensusdocument |