Abstract
Objectives
The number of revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures continues to rise, a direct consequence of the increase in primary TKA. The number of arthroplasty-trained orthopaedic surgeons has failed to increase at a corresponding rate, and the increased burden will ultimately fall on non-specialized orthopaedists. Resident involvement in primary TKA has not been found to increase postoperative complications, but revision TKA is more complex and the impact of resident involvement has not been well studied.
Methods
Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database, this study identified 1834 revision TKA procedures between the years 2008 and 2012. Of these procedures, 863 included resident involvement. Demographic information, comorbidities, operative times, length of stay (LOS), and 30-day postoperative complications were stratified by resident and non-resident involvement and analyzed.
Results
Resident involvement was not associated with a significant increase in short-term complications. Operative times were significantly longer with resident involvement (147.50 min with resident involvement vs. 124.55 min without a resident, p < 0.001). Length of stay after procedures with resident involvement was higher by 0.34 days, but this did not reach significance (p = 0.061).
Conclusion
Resident involvement in revision total knee arthroplasty was associated with a significant increase in operative time; however, there were no significant increases in postoperative complication rates within 30 days. These findings support continued resident involvement in revision total knee arthroplasty cases and postoperative management.
Keywords: NSQIP, Postoperative outcomes, Resident training, Revision total knee arthroplasty, Total knee arthroplasty
الملخص
أهداف البحث
نتيجة لازدياد عدد عمليات تقويم مفصل الركبة، فإن عدد عمليات مراجعة تقويم مفصل الركبة مستمر في الارتفاع. لكن عدد جراحي العظام المدربين على تقويم المفاصل لم يواكب هذه الازدياد، وسيقع العبء المتزايد في النهاية على عاتق جراحي العظام غير المتخصصين. أظهرت الأبحاث أن مشاركة الأطباء المقيمين في عمليات تقويم مفصل الركبة الأولية لا ترتبط بزيادة مضاعفات ما بعد الجراحة، ولكن عمليات مراجعة تقويم مفصل الركبة أكثر تعقيدا ولم يتم دراسة تأثير مشاركة المقيمين بشكل جيد.
طرق البحث
باستخدام قاعدة بيانات البرنامج الوطني لتحسين جودة الجراحة بالكلية الأمريكية للجراحين، شملت هذه الدراسة 1834 عملية مراجعة تقويم مفصل الركبة أجريت بين عامي 2008 و 2012. من هذه العمليات، شارك الأطباء المقيمون في 863 عملية. تم تصنيف وتحليل المعلومات الديموغرافية، والأمراض المصاحبة، وأوقات الجراحة، ومدة الإقامة، ومضاعفات ما بعد الجراحة لمدة 30 يوما، حسب مشاركة الأطباء المقيمين.
النتائج
لم ترتبط مشاركة الأطباء المقيمين مع زيادة مهمة في المضاعفات على المدى القصير. كانت أوقات العمليات أطول بشكل ملحوظ مع مشاركة المقيمين (147.5 دقيقة مع مشاركة المقيمين مقابل 124.55 دقيقة بدون مقيم). كما كانت مدة الإقامة بعد الإجراءات بمشاركة المقيمين أعلى بمقدار 0.34 يوما، لكن هذا لم يصل إلى الأهمية الإحصائية.
الاستنتاجات
ارتبطت مشاركة المقيمين في مراجعة تقويم مفصل الركبة بزيادة كبيرة في وقت الجراحة. ومع ذلك، لم تكن هناك زيادة كبيرة في معدل المضاعفات بعد الجراحة في غضون 30 يوما. تدعم هذه النتائج استمرار مشاركة المقيمين في مراجعة حالات تقويم مفصل الركبة وإدارة ما بعد الجراحة.
الكلمات المفتاحية: نتائج ما بعد الجراحة, مراجعة تقويم مفصل الركبة الكلي, تدريب المقيمين, تقويم مفصل الركبة الكلي
Introduction
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is commonly performed to alleviate pain and improve function in patients with end-stage joint disease.1,2 The success rates of 93.8% at 10 years and high patient satisfaction scores have resulted in an expansion of the patient population in whom the procedure is indicated.3,4 These factors, in combination with an aging and increasingly comorbid population, are expected to increase the number of primary and revision TKAs performed. By 2030, the number of revision TKA surgeries is expected to reach 268,200 per year.5 While the rate of revision has remained constant at approximately 6.2–7.0%, the total number of revisions continues to climb from the increase in primary TKA.6, 7, 8
The projections for the demand for revision TKA exceed the supply of fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons. Therefore, it is essential that non-arthroplasty trained surgeons become well-versed in revision TKA during residency training.9 Revision TKA offers unique challenges such as bone loss, ligamentous insufficiency, and deformity.10,11 Residents must have experience and be adept at overcoming any challenge that may arise. With heightened resident involvement, it is vital to evaluate their possible impact on the outcome of revision TKA procedures.
The assessment of factors that may contribute to post-surgical complications for revision TKA would allow insight to reduce costs and improve patient outcomes. Previous studies have shown that resident involvement in orthopaedic procedures does not result in increased complication rates.12, 13, 14 However, the specific effects of resident involvement in revision TKA have yet to be determined.
The goal of this study is to determine the impact of resident involvement on revision TKA outcomes using patient comorbidities, preoperative variables, and 30-day postoperative complications recorded by the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.
Materials and Methods
The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) is a national database that compiles data on surgical outcomes and clinical information. Data was collected from 2008 to 2012 from over 400 hospitals including private, public, academic, and non-academic hospitals in both rural and urban locations. This database is maintained by the American College of Surgeons and follows patients for a total of 30 days postoperatively to determine any complications that may arise during this time. Complications, comorbidities, demographics, and other preoperative factors are recorded to assist in understanding variables that may contribute to patient outcomes.
Patient selection
Patients selected for the study underwent a revision total knee arthroplasty defined by the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) Codes 27486 (revision of total knee arthroplasty, with or without allograft; 1 component) and 27487 (revision of total knee arthroplasty, with or without allograft; femoral and entire tibial component) between 2008 and 2012. A total of 1834 revision TKAs met this inclusion criteria, and 47.06% (n = 863) documented the involvement of a resident physician. The remaining 52.94% (n = 971) documented no resident physician involvement. Additionally, 31.46% (n = 577) of the included procedures were CPT Code 27486, and 68.54% (n = 1257) were CPT Code 27487. Procedures that failed to record resident involvement data (n = 2250) were excluded from the study.
Data collection
The NSQIP records the highest level of resident surgeon scrubbed in on the procedure. This variable is listed as “PGY” in the database, and the surgical reviewer records the resident level “1–6” in the field for this variable. Cases that did not include resident involvement recorded a “0” in this field. This study included procedures that recorded residents level PGY1-5, notably excluding fellows (PGY6). Excluded cases left this field for resident training level blank.
Demographics and outcomes
Patient demographics and comorbidities are recorded in Table 1. Outcomes within 30 days post-surgery included graft/prosthesis/flap failure, surgical site infections, wound dehiscence, reoperation, pneumonia, unplanned intubation, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), ventilation greater than 48 h, renal insufficiency, acute renal failure, urinary tract infection, stroke, peripheral nerve injury, cardiac arrest, and myocardial infarction.
Table 1.
Medical comorbidities and preoperative demographics.
| Medical comorbidities and preoperative demographics (expressed as percentages) | Resident present (863) | Resident not present (971) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 43.90 | 38.76 | 0.0286 |
| Female | 56.10 | 61.24 | |
| ASA classification | |||
| ASA 1 | 1.51 | 1.03 | 0.118 |
| ASA 2 | 43.92 | 40.10 | |
| ASA 3 | 50.52 | 55.67 | |
| ASA 4 | 3.94 | 2.99 | |
| ASA 5 | 0.12 | 0.00 | |
| Race | |||
| American Indian or Alaska Native | 0.54 | 1.12 | 0.120 |
| Asian | 0.27 | 0.56 | |
| Black or African American | 12.25 | 9.38 | |
| Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 0.00 | 0.22 | |
| White | 86.94 | 88.73 | |
| Anesthesia | |||
| Epidural | 2.78 | 2.78 | <0.001 |
| General | 59.44 | 59.90 | |
| MAC/IV sedation | 0.46 | 0.21 | |
| Monitored anesthesia care | 0.12 | 0.21 | |
| Regional | 10.20 | 2.37 | |
| Spinal | 26.42 | 34.43 | |
| None | 0.35 | 0.00 | |
| Other | 0.23 | 0.10 | |
| COPD | 3.71 | 3.81 | 1 |
| Congestive heart failure in 30 days before surgery | 0.35 | 0.31 | 1 |
| History of myocardial infarction 6 months prior to surgery | 0.12 | 0.21 | 1 |
| History of angina in 1 month before surgery | 0.70 | 0.85 | 0.792 |
| Acute renal failure (post-op) | 0.23 | 0.31 | 1 |
| Previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) | 9.40 | 9.59 | 0.936 |
| EtOH >2 drinks/day in 2 weeks before admission | 2.32 | 2.77 | 0.654 |
| Previous cardiac surgery | 5.22 | 5.33 | 1 |
| History of revascularization/amputation for peripheral vascular disease | 0.70 | 0.85 | 0.792 |
| Currently on dialysis (pre-op) | 0.35 | 0.62 | 0.514 |
| History of transient ischemic attacks (TIA) | 3.48 | 3.94 | 0.621 |
| CVA/Stroke with neurological deficit | 0.70 | 1.28 | 0.243 |
| Paraplegia | 0.46 | 0.43 | 1 |
| Hemiplegia | 0.00 | 0.11 | 1 |
| Quadriplegia | 0.12 | 0.00 | 0.479 |
| Chemotherapy for malignancy in ≤30 days pre-op | 0.35 | 0.21 | 0.675 |
| Disseminated cancer | 0.23 | 0.21 | 1 |
| Steroid use for chronic condition | 4.17 | 3.09 | 0.258 |
| Weight loss (>10% loss body weight in last 6 months) | 0.58 | 0.93 | 0.434 |
| Bleeding disorders | 5.10 | 4.94 | 0.915 |
| Prior operation within 30 days | 2.67 | 3.28 | 0.491 |
| Hypertension requiring medication | 64.08 | 70.75 | 0.0027 |
| Current smoker within one year | 11.12 | 11.64 | 0.769 |
| Diabetes status | |||
| Diabetes mellitus managed with insulin | 6.84 | 6.18 | 0.0012 |
| Diabetes mellitus managed without oral agents or insulin | 81.58 | 78.58 | |
| Diabetes mellitus managed with non-oral and non-insulin agents | 8.23 | 7.62 | |
| Diabetes mellitus managed with oral agents | 3.36 | 7.62 | |
| Functional health status prior to surgery | |||
| Independent | 94.29 | 94.42 | 0.945 |
| Partially dependent | 5.71 | 5.58 | |
| Inpatient | 98.84 | 99.28 | 0.342 |
Statistical analysis
Preoperative demographics, medical comorbidities, and postoperative outcomes were compared between cases with and without resident involvement using two-sided chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Variables related to operative time and length of stay (LOS) were adjusted using a multivariable linear regression in order to remove their potentially confounding influence on the association between operative time or LOS and resident involvement. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina).
Results
Complications with resident involvement
Preoperative characteristics are shown in Table 1. Variables showing statistical significance using two-sided chi-square and Fisher's exact tests include gender (43.90 with resident involvement vs 38.76 without a resident, p = 0.0286), type of anesthesia (p < 0.001), hypertension requiring medication (64.08 with a resident vs. 70.75 without a resident, p = 0.0027), and diabetes status (p = 0.0012). Table 2 shows univariate comparisons of complication rates between revision TKA procedures performed with and without resident involvement. A statistically significant increase was observed in both total operative time and LOS with resident involvement (147.50 min with a resident vs. 124.55 min without a resident, p < 0.001 and 4.77 days with a resident vs. 4.01 days without a resident, p < 0.001, respectively). Although not reaching significance, many complication rates decreased with resident involvement.
Table 2.
Total operative time, length of stay, and postoperative complications.
| Operative time, length of stay, and postoperative complications | Resident present (863) | Resident not present (971) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operative time (min) | 147.50 | 124.55 | <0.001 |
| Length of stay (days) | 4.77 | 4.01 | <0.001 |
| Graft/Prosthesis/Flap failure | 0.00% | 0.10% | 1 |
| Superficial infection | 0.93% | 0.41% | 0.246 |
| Deep infection | 0.46% | 0.93% | 0.276 |
| Wound dehiscence | 0.81% | 0.72% | 1 |
| Reoperation | 3.01% | 4.02% | 0.258 |
| Pneumonia | 0.58% | 0.62% | 1 |
| Unplanned intubation | 0.35% | 0.41% | 1 |
| Deep vein thrombosis | 1.16% | 0.62% | 0.315 |
| Pulmonary embolism | 0.12% | 0.62% | 0.129 |
| Ventilation >48 h | 0.23% | 0.41% | 0.690 |
| Renal insufficiency | 0.35% | 0.31% | 1 |
| Acute renal failure | 0.12% | 0.31% | 0.627 |
| Urinary tract infection | 1.74% | 1.75% | 1 |
| Stroke/CVA | 0.00% | 0.10% | 1 |
| Peripheral nerve injury | 0.12% | 0.31% | 0.627 |
| Cardiac arrest | 0.00% | 0.21% | 0.502 |
| Myocardial infarction | 0.23% | 0.51% | 0.458 |
Multivariable regression model/risk factors
Significant results from the regression model for operative times are shown in Table 3. Operative times increased by 25.92 min with resident involvement (p < 0.001). Patients with ASA Classification 1 had shorter operative times by 38.87 min (p = 0.016). Operative time also decreased in patients who had a prior operation within 30 days (−25.40 min, p = 0.006), and for those designated as outpatient (−51.91 min, p = 0.002).
Table 3.
Multivariable regression analysis with total operative time as the dependent variable.
| Covariates | Change in operative time, min | P-value |
|---|---|---|
| Gender – Female | −12.95 | <0.001 |
| ASA Classification 1 | −38.87 | 0.016 |
| ASA Classification 2 | −7.74 | 0.036 |
| Race – Black or African American | 13.77 | 0.010 |
| Anesthesia – Regional | −10.61 | <0.001 |
| Anesthesia – Spinal | −12.02 | 0.001 |
| Prior operation within 30 days – Yes | −25.40 | 0.006 |
| Outpatient | −51.91 | 0.002 |
| Resident present | 25.92 | <0.001 |
Significant results from the regression model for LOS are shown in Table 4. Patients who had a prior operation within 30 days of revision TKA had longer hospital stays (+6.95 days, p < 0.001). Patients identifying as Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander had an increase in LOS by 5.31 days (p = 0.032). Those who experienced a cerebrovascular accident (CVA) had an increase in LOS (+1.94 days, p = 0.034). The involvement of a resident did not translate to a significant increase in LOS (+0.34 days, p = 0.061).
Table 4.
Multivariable regression analysis with length of hospital stay as the dependent variable.
| Covariates | Change in length of hospital stay, days | P-value |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.029 | <0.001 |
| ASA classification 2 | −0.81 | <0.001 |
| ASA classification 4 | 1.88 | <0.001 |
| Race – Black or African American | 1.34 | <0.001 |
| Race – Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander | 5.31 | 0.032 |
| Cerebrovascular accident | 1.94 | 0.034 |
| Steroid use for a chronic condition | 1.11 | 0.024 |
| Prior operation within 30 days – Yes | 6.95 | <0.001 |
| Outpatient | −2.70 | 0.003 |
| Resident present | 0.34 | 0.061 |
Discussion
The results of this study using the ACS-NSQIP database suggest that resident involvement in revision total knee arthroplasty does not significantly increase postoperative complications within 30 days. This large national database study of 1834 cases found that operative time increased an average of 25.92 min. Despite this increase in operation time the number of 30-day postoperative complications was low in both patient cohorts. This highlights the general safety and efficacity of revision knee arthroplasty procedures. Importantly, the increase in operative time seen with resident participation did not lead to an increase in deep infections (0.46% versus 0.93%).
It is projected that the number of revision TKA surgeries performed yearly will increase to 268,200 by 2030.5 As the total number of revision TKAs continues to rise, it is crucial that non-arthroplasty fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons develop the skills necessary to execute these challenging and unique procedures. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) recognizes total knee arthroplasty as a core competency with an established minimum quota to be performed by orthopaedic surgery residents.15 However, revision procedures present opportunities for additional complications and proficiency is not directly measured. It is crucial that residents finish their training with a strong understanding and proficiency in revision knee arthroplasty to be able to face the increased burden on the field. This leaves attending surgeons with the challenge of balancing patient care and creating a safe environment for resident education.16
Patients can be wary of resident participation when undergoing surgery. Their comfort level with the resident can hinge on the training level of the resident, attending participation in the procedure, the complexity of the surgery, and the steps of the procedure that the resident will be performing.17,18 Resident involvement has been linked to increased patient morbidity in general and vascular surgeries.19 This increase in patient morbidity has not been seen in orthopaedic procedures.13,20, 21, 22 However, these studies focused on primary arthroplasty cases and the effect of resident participation in more complex revision cases is still largely unknown. A study reviewing resident involvement in revision total joint arthroplasty revealed an increase in patient morbidity, but it did not stratify patients according to the type of revision arthroplasty performed.23 This increase in postoperative complications with resident involvement was not seen in this study. Similar to several other orthopedic procedures,24 these results encourage resident involvement during revision TKAs.
Both septic and aseptic complications can lead to revision surgery after primary TKAs. These complications can include periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), periprosthetic fractures, aseptic loosening, polyethylene wear, and implant failure. As a result, patients are often left with significant bone loss and soft tissue damage that can be challenging to overcome and lead to poor operative outcomes compared to primary arthroplasty.25, 26, 27 After revision surgery, one of the most feared complications is infection, as it can lead to poor long-term outcomes, with septic complications found to increase more rapidly following revision TKA.28 A known risk factor for PJIs following arthroplasty procedures is increased operative times.29 No association between resident involvement and postoperative infections was observed, despite longer operative times with resident participation.
The multivariable regression analysis separated out demographic and preoperative variables to determine individual factors impacting LOS and operative time. This revealed reduced operative times with female gender, ASA classifications 1 and 2, regional or spinal anesthesia, recent surgical procedure, and outpatient procedure. These findings have been supported by previous studies.30, 31, 32, 33 Similar to other surgical specialties, operative time increased with resident involvement.34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 Teaching on altered anatomy present during revision TKA is challenging and may be a factor contributing to this finding. This may also stem from residents lacking confidence in their surgical skills due to decreased autonomy and stricter requirements regarding faculty supervision.40, 41, 42 It is crucial that orthopaedic residents gain these skills and are able to perform at an attending level to help combat the growing demand for revision knee arthroplasty.43
Patient's LOS showed a modest increase with resident presence (0.34 days), but this did not reach significance. This is similar to the findings of other studies that analyzed the impact of residents on patient LOS.23,44 Age, ASA classification, race, history of stroke, and medication effects were all associated with a statistically significant increase in LOS. These preoperative risk factors have been linked to increased patient morbidity and increased LOS in primary TKA procedures.23 The results of this and previous studies suggest that patient comorbidities are the strongest predictor for increased length of stay, not the involvement of a resident.
Strengths and limitations
The NSQIP database helps to evaluate the impact of resident involvement during orthopaedic procedures on a large scale. The data was collected by a trained surgical reviewer: this is more accurate than what is produced by insurance claims, but the extent of resident involvement was not quantified. Furthermore, the data was collected across multiple institutions and may not be completely standardized. The database does not account for resident involvement in post-operative care or control for perioperative care provided by residents of other specialties (i.e. medicine or anesthesia). Additionally, the database only collects outcomes within 30 days of surgery so long-term outcomes are not recorded. Some adverse consequences of common surgical missteps will not be present until years after the procedure.45 It should also be noted that data is from 2008 to 2012. This is because the datapoint for resident involvement was removed from the NSQIP after 2012, so we were not able to include more recent data.
Despite these limitations, this is the largest study to evaluate the impact of resident involvement on 30-day postoperative complications for revision TKA. These results indicate that resident participation during revision TKAs is not harmful and may be protective in some cases.
Conclusion
Resident involvement in revision TKA resulted in no significant increase in 30-day complication rates, morbidity, or mortality. Resident involvement significantly increased operative time but did not increase infection rate or total length of stay. These findings support continued resident involvement in revision total knee arthroplasty cases and postoperative management.
Source of funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Ethical approval
IRB approval was not necessary given that these data were obtained from a de-identified national database.
Authors contributions
BA: formal analysis, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing; JBW: formal analysis, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing; KC, BS: formal analysis, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing; MS: writing – original draft preparation, writing - review and editing; GM: formal analysis, writing – review and editing; NM: conceptualization, supervision, writing – review and editing; RJ: conceptualization, supervision, writing – review and editing; SN: conceptualization, supervision, project administration, writing – review and editing. All authors have critically reviewed and approved the final draft and are responsible for the content and similarity index of the manuscript.
ACS NSQIP disclaimer
The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the hospitals participating in the ACS NSQIP are the source of the data used herein; they have not verified and are not responsible for the statistical validity of the data analysis or the conclusions derived by the authors.
Footnotes
Peer review under responsibility of Taibah University.
References
- 1.Cram P., Lu X., Kates S.L., Singh J.A., Li Y., Wolf B.R. Total knee arthroplasty volume, utilization, and outcomes among medicare beneficiaries, 1991-2010. JAMA - J Am Med Assoc. 2012;308:1227–1236. doi: 10.1001/2012.jama.11153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Ranawat C.S., Flynn W.F., Saddler S., Hansraj K.K., Maynard M.J. Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty: a 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1993;286:94–102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Losina E., Thornhill T.S., Rome B.N., Wright J., Katz J.N. The dramatic increase in total knee replacement utilization rates in the United States cannot be fully explained by growth in population size and the obesity epidemic. J Bone Joint Surg Ser A. 2012;94:201–207. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01958. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Harris I.A., Harris A.M., Naylor J.M., Adie S., Mittal R., Dao A.T. Discordance between patient and surgeon satisfaction after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2013;28:722–727. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.07.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kurtz S., Ong K., Lau E., Mowat F., Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Ser A. 2007;89(4):780–785. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Pabinger C., Berghold A., Boehler N., Labek G. Revision rates after knee replacement: cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies versus joint registers. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21:263–268. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.11.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.McGrory B.J., Etkin C.D., Lewallen D.G. Comparing contemporary revision burden among hip and knee joint replacement registries. Arthroplasty Today. 2016;2:83–86. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2016.04.003. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kurtz S., Mowat F., Ong K., Chan N., Lau E., Halpern M. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Ser A. 2005;87:1487–1497. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02441. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Fehring T.K., Odum S.M., Troyer J.L., Iorio R., Kurtz S.M., Lau E.C. Joint replacement access in 2016. A supply side crisis. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:1175–1181. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.07.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Crawford D.A., Berend K.R., Morris M.J., Adams J.B., Lombardi A.V. Results of a modular revision system in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:2792–2798. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.03.076. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Huff T.W., Sculco T.P. Management of bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:32–36. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Edelstein A.I., Lovecchio F.C., Saha S., Hsu W.K., Kim J.Y.S. Impact of resident involvement on orthopaedic surgery outcomes: an analysis of 30,628 patients from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. J Bone Joint Surg Am Vol. 2014;96 doi: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Cvetanovich G.L., Schairer W.W., Haughom B.D., Nicholson G.P., Romeo A.A. Does resident involvement have an impact on postoperative complications after total shoulder arthroplasty? An analysis of 1382 cases. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:1567–1573. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.03.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Haughom B.D., Schairer W.W., Hellman M.D., Yi P.H., Levine B.R. Does resident involvement impact post-operative complications following primary total knee arthroplasty? An analysis of 24,529 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1468–1472. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.02.036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Brown M.A., Erdman M.K., Munger A.M., Miller A.N. Despite growing number of women surgeons, authorship gender disparity in orthopaedic literature persists over 30 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019;478:1542–1552. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000849. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Babineau T.J., Becker J., Gibbons G., Sentovich S., Hess D., Robertson S., et al. The “cost” of operative training for surgical residents. Arch Surg. 2004;139:366–369. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.139.4.366. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kempenich J.W., Willis R.E., Blue R.J., Al Fayyadh M.J., Cromer R.M., Schenarts P.J., et al. The effect of patient education on the perceptions of resident participation in surgical care. J Surg Educ. 2016;73:111–116. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.05.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Petravick M.E., Edgington J.P., Idowu O.A., Shi L.L., Lee M.J. It all depends on who does what: a survey of patient and family member comfort with surgical trainees operating. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:1001–1006. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.05.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Raval M.V., Wang X., Cohen M.E., Ingraham A.M., Bentrem D.J., Dimick J.B., et al. The influence of resident involvement on surgical outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;212:889–898. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.12.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Storey R., Frampton C., Kieser D., Ailabouni R., Hooper G. Does orthopaedic training compromise the outcome in knee joint arthroplasty? J Surg Educ. 2018;75:1292–1298. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.02.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Haughom B.D., Schairer W.W., Hellman M.D., Yi P.H., Levine B.R. Resident involvement does not influence complication after total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 13,109 cases. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1919–1924. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bao M.H., Keeney B.J., Moschetti W.E., Paddock N.G., Jevsevar D.S. Resident participation is not associated with worse outcomes after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476:1375–1390. doi: 10.1007/s11999.0000000000000002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Pugely A.J., Gao Y., Martin C.T., Callaghan J.J., Weinstein S.L., Marsh J.L. The effect of resident participation on short-term outcomes after orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2290–2300. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3567-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Giordano L., Oliviero A., Peretti G.M., Maffulli N. The presence of residents during orthopedic operation exerts no negative influence on outcome. Br Med Bull. 2019;130:65–80. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldz009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Bourne R.B., Maloney W.J., Wright J.G. An AOA critical issue: the outcome of the outcomes movement. J Bone Joint Surg Ser A. 2004;86:633–640. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200403000-00026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Hanssen A.D., Rand J.A., Osmon D.R. Treatment of the infected total knee arthroplasty with insertion of another prosthesis: the effect of antibiotic-impregnated bone cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;309:44–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Fehring T.K., Odum S., Griffin W.L., Mason J.B., Nadaud M. Early failures in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;392:315–318. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200111000-00041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lee D.-H., Lee S.-H., Song E.-K., Seon J.-K., Lim H.-A., Yang H.-Y. Causes and clinical outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2017;29:104–109. doi: 10.5792/ksrr.16.035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Wang Q., Goswami K., Shohat N., Aalirezaie A., Manrique J., Parvizi J. Longer operative time results in a higher rate of subsequent periprosthetic joint infection in patients undergoing primary joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34:947–953. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.01.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Garbarino L.J., Gold P.A., Sodhi N., Anis H.K., Ehiorobo J.O., Boraiah S., et al. The effect of operative time on in-hospital length of stay in revision total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med. 2019;7:66. doi: 10.21037/atm.2019.01.54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Badawy M., Espehaug B., Fenstad A.M., Indrekvam K., Dale H., Havelin L.I., et al. Patient and surgical factors affecting procedure duration and revision risk due to deep infection in primary total knee arthroplasty. BMC Muscoskel Disord. 2017;18:544. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1915-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Joshi Y., Ali M., Pradhan N., Wainwright O. Correlation between ASA grade, BMI, and length of stay of patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Orthop Proc. 2018;6:629–640. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Mauermann W.J., Shilling A.M., Zuo Z. A comparison of neuraxial block versus general anesthesia for elective total hip replacement: a meta-analysis. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:1018–1025. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000237267.75543.59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Papandria D., Rhee D., Ortega G., Zhang Y., Gorgy A., Makary M.A., et al. Assessing trainee impact on operative time for common general surgical procedures in ACS-NSQIP. J Surg Educ. 2012;69:149–155. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2011.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Matulewicz R.S., Pilecki M., Rambachan A., Kim J.Y.S., Kundu S.D. Impact of resident involvement on urological surgery outcomes: an analysis of 40,000 patients from the ACS NSQIP database. J Urol. 2014;192:885–890. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.096. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Lim S., Parsa A.T., Kim B.D., Rosenow J.M., Kim J.Y.S. Impact of resident involvement in neurosurgery: an analysis of 8748 patients from the 2011 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. J Neurosurg. 2015;122:962–970. doi: 10.3171/2014.11.JNS1494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Coates K.W., Kuehl T.J., Bachofen C.G., Shull B.L. Analysis of surgical complications and patient outcomes in a residency training program. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:1380–1383. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.115045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Jordan S.W., Mioton L.M., Smetona J., Aggarwal A., Wang E., Dumanian G.A., et al. Resident involvement and plastic surgery outcomes: an analysis of 10,356 patients from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131:763–773. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182818bdd. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Tseng W.H., Jin L., Canter R.J., Martinez S.R., Khatri V.P., Gauvin J., et al. Surgical resident involvement is safe for common elective general surgery procedures. J Am Coll Surg. 2011;213:19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.03.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Dougherty P.J., DeMaio M., DeRosa G.P. CORR ® curriculum — orthopaedic education: developing safe, independent practitioners. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;213:3710–3713. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4582-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Russ S., Rout S., Caris J., Mansell J., Davies R., Mayer E., et al. Measuring variation in use of the WHO surgical safety checklist in the operating room: a multicenter prospective cross-sectional study. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.09.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Cullati S., Le Du S., Raë A.C., Micallef M., Khabiri E., Ourahmoune A., et al. Is the Surgical Safety Checklist successfully conducted? An observational study of social interactions in the operating rooms of a tertiary hospital. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22:639–646. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001634. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Harris J.D., Staheli G., LeClere L., Andersone D., McCormick F. What effects have resident work-hour changes had on education, quality of life, and safety? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473:1600–1608. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-3968-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Advani V., Ahad S., Gonczy C., Markwell S., Hassan I. Does resident involvement effect surgical times and complication rates during laparoscopic appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis? An analysis of 16,849 cases from the ACS-NSQIP. Am J Surg. 2012;203:347–351. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.08.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Sharkey P.F., Hozack W.J., Rothman R.H., Shastri S., Jacoby S.M. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;404:7–13. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200211000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]