Impact of change of knee prosthesis on early clinical outcomes in a large volume arthroplasty centre
Introduction The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of changing the default knee prosthesis in a high volume dedicated arthroplasty unit from DePuy's PFC® Sigma® to Smith & Nephew's Genesis™ II. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of prospective data on primary t...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 2013-11, Vol.95 (8), p.573-576 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 576 |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | 573 |
container_title | Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England |
container_volume | 95 |
creator | Moonot, P D’Mello, O Tzinga, N Sisak, K Fiddian, NJ Harvey, AH |
description | Introduction The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of changing the default knee prosthesis in a high volume dedicated arthroplasty unit from DePuy's PFC® Sigma® to Smith & Nephew's Genesis™ II. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of prospective data on primary total knee replacements (TKRs) from January 2009 until December 2011. This provided information on the operative time, length of stay, pain at mobilisation, radiography analysis, any complications, and readmission at 30 and 60 days. Results The total numbers of primary TKRs using the PFC® and Genesis™ II prostheses were 1,061 and 1,268 respectively. The results showed a slight increase (maximum of five minutes) in the operative time for all the surgeons except one surgeon, whose operative time reduced by an average of seven minutes. There was no significant adverse outcome after the change in the knee implant. There was no clinically significant increase in the length of stay, pain at mobilisation or complication rates. There was a twofold increase in the wastage of the implant in the Genesis™ II group in the initial learning period. Conclusions Through a competitive process of implant tendering, we have successfully introduced a new implant into a large elective orthopaedic unit. This has resulted in significant financial savings without adversely affecting our clinical practice or patient outcome. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1308/rcsann.2013.95.8.573 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2207829163</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2207829163</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-e1ee1e1ced2676cdbc321ee34cadf886f331d8b5f566f1608716122fc193fdf33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkEtLxDAQx4MouK5-Aw8Bz615tGl6lMXHwoIXPYdsOnG7tklNUmG_vSkrDMww85_XD6F7SkrKiXwMJmrnSkYoL9u6lGXd8Au0olUji4ZIfolWhPC6kLLi1-gmxiMhtG0kXaFuO07aJOwtNgftvmCJvh0AnoKP6QCxj9g7DDoMJ2yG3vVGD9jPyfgRIu4d1njQITf--mEeAeuQDsFPg44pN4BLAW7RldVDhLt_v0afL88fm7di9_663TztCsOrKhVAIRs10DHRCNPtDWc5xSujOyulsJzTTu5rWwthqSCyoYIyZg1tue1ydY0eznPz7T8zxKSOfg4ur1SMkUaylopFVZ1VJn8YA1g1hX7U4aQoUQtPdeapFp6qrZVUmSf_A4MUbG4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2207829163</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Impact of change of knee prosthesis on early clinical outcomes in a large volume arthroplasty centre</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Moonot, P ; D’Mello, O ; Tzinga, N ; Sisak, K ; Fiddian, NJ ; Harvey, AH</creator><creatorcontrib>Moonot, P ; D’Mello, O ; Tzinga, N ; Sisak, K ; Fiddian, NJ ; Harvey, AH</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of changing the default knee prosthesis in a high volume dedicated arthroplasty unit from DePuy's PFC® Sigma® to Smith & Nephew's Genesis™ II. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of prospective data on primary total knee replacements (TKRs) from January 2009 until December 2011. This provided information on the operative time, length of stay, pain at mobilisation, radiography analysis, any complications, and readmission at 30 and 60 days. Results The total numbers of primary TKRs using the PFC® and Genesis™ II prostheses were 1,061 and 1,268 respectively. The results showed a slight increase (maximum of five minutes) in the operative time for all the surgeons except one surgeon, whose operative time reduced by an average of seven minutes. There was no significant adverse outcome after the change in the knee implant. There was no clinically significant increase in the length of stay, pain at mobilisation or complication rates. There was a twofold increase in the wastage of the implant in the Genesis™ II group in the initial learning period. Conclusions Through a competitive process of implant tendering, we have successfully introduced a new implant into a large elective orthopaedic unit. This has resulted in significant financial savings without adversely affecting our clinical practice or patient outcome.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0035-8843</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1478-7083</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2013.95.8.573</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Clinical outcomes ; Cost control ; Failure analysis ; Hospitals ; Joint surgery ; Knee ; Pain ; Prostheses ; Software ; Surgeons ; Survival analysis ; Transplants & implants</subject><ispartof>Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2013-11, Vol.95 (8), p.573-576</ispartof><rights>Copyright Royal College of Surgeons of England Nov 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-e1ee1e1ced2676cdbc321ee34cadf886f331d8b5f566f1608716122fc193fdf33</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Moonot, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D’Mello, O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tzinga, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sisak, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fiddian, NJ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harvey, AH</creatorcontrib><title>Impact of change of knee prosthesis on early clinical outcomes in a large volume arthroplasty centre</title><title>Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England</title><description>Introduction The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of changing the default knee prosthesis in a high volume dedicated arthroplasty unit from DePuy's PFC® Sigma® to Smith & Nephew's Genesis™ II. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of prospective data on primary total knee replacements (TKRs) from January 2009 until December 2011. This provided information on the operative time, length of stay, pain at mobilisation, radiography analysis, any complications, and readmission at 30 and 60 days. Results The total numbers of primary TKRs using the PFC® and Genesis™ II prostheses were 1,061 and 1,268 respectively. The results showed a slight increase (maximum of five minutes) in the operative time for all the surgeons except one surgeon, whose operative time reduced by an average of seven minutes. There was no significant adverse outcome after the change in the knee implant. There was no clinically significant increase in the length of stay, pain at mobilisation or complication rates. There was a twofold increase in the wastage of the implant in the Genesis™ II group in the initial learning period. Conclusions Through a competitive process of implant tendering, we have successfully introduced a new implant into a large elective orthopaedic unit. This has resulted in significant financial savings without adversely affecting our clinical practice or patient outcome.</description><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Cost control</subject><subject>Failure analysis</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Joint surgery</subject><subject>Knee</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Surgeons</subject><subject>Survival analysis</subject><subject>Transplants & implants</subject><issn>0035-8843</issn><issn>1478-7083</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><recordid>eNotkEtLxDAQx4MouK5-Aw8Bz615tGl6lMXHwoIXPYdsOnG7tklNUmG_vSkrDMww85_XD6F7SkrKiXwMJmrnSkYoL9u6lGXd8Au0olUji4ZIfolWhPC6kLLi1-gmxiMhtG0kXaFuO07aJOwtNgftvmCJvh0AnoKP6QCxj9g7DDoMJ2yG3vVGD9jPyfgRIu4d1njQITf--mEeAeuQDsFPg44pN4BLAW7RldVDhLt_v0afL88fm7di9_663TztCsOrKhVAIRs10DHRCNPtDWc5xSujOyulsJzTTu5rWwthqSCyoYIyZg1tue1ydY0eznPz7T8zxKSOfg4ur1SMkUaylopFVZ1VJn8YA1g1hX7U4aQoUQtPdeapFp6qrZVUmSf_A4MUbG4</recordid><startdate>20131101</startdate><enddate>20131101</enddate><creator>Moonot, P</creator><creator>D’Mello, O</creator><creator>Tzinga, N</creator><creator>Sisak, K</creator><creator>Fiddian, NJ</creator><creator>Harvey, AH</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>EHMNL</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131101</creationdate><title>Impact of change of knee prosthesis on early clinical outcomes in a large volume arthroplasty centre</title><author>Moonot, P ; D’Mello, O ; Tzinga, N ; Sisak, K ; Fiddian, NJ ; Harvey, AH</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c344t-e1ee1e1ced2676cdbc321ee34cadf886f331d8b5f566f1608716122fc193fdf33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Cost control</topic><topic>Failure analysis</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Joint surgery</topic><topic>Knee</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Surgeons</topic><topic>Survival analysis</topic><topic>Transplants & implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Moonot, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>D’Mello, O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tzinga, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sisak, K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fiddian, NJ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harvey, AH</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>UK & Ireland Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Moonot, P</au><au>D’Mello, O</au><au>Tzinga, N</au><au>Sisak, K</au><au>Fiddian, NJ</au><au>Harvey, AH</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Impact of change of knee prosthesis on early clinical outcomes in a large volume arthroplasty centre</atitle><jtitle>Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England</jtitle><date>2013-11-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>95</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>573</spage><epage>576</epage><pages>573-576</pages><issn>0035-8843</issn><eissn>1478-7083</eissn><abstract>Introduction The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of changing the default knee prosthesis in a high volume dedicated arthroplasty unit from DePuy's PFC® Sigma® to Smith & Nephew's Genesis™ II. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of prospective data on primary total knee replacements (TKRs) from January 2009 until December 2011. This provided information on the operative time, length of stay, pain at mobilisation, radiography analysis, any complications, and readmission at 30 and 60 days. Results The total numbers of primary TKRs using the PFC® and Genesis™ II prostheses were 1,061 and 1,268 respectively. The results showed a slight increase (maximum of five minutes) in the operative time for all the surgeons except one surgeon, whose operative time reduced by an average of seven minutes. There was no significant adverse outcome after the change in the knee implant. There was no clinically significant increase in the length of stay, pain at mobilisation or complication rates. There was a twofold increase in the wastage of the implant in the Genesis™ II group in the initial learning period. Conclusions Through a competitive process of implant tendering, we have successfully introduced a new implant into a large elective orthopaedic unit. This has resulted in significant financial savings without adversely affecting our clinical practice or patient outcome.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><doi>10.1308/rcsann.2013.95.8.573</doi><tpages>4</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0035-8843 |
ispartof | Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2013-11, Vol.95 (8), p.573-576 |
issn | 0035-8843 1478-7083 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2207829163 |
source | Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central |
subjects | Clinical outcomes Cost control Failure analysis Hospitals Joint surgery Knee Pain Prostheses Software Surgeons Survival analysis Transplants & implants |
title | Impact of change of knee prosthesis on early clinical outcomes in a large volume arthroplasty centre |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T19%3A55%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Impact%20of%20change%20of%20knee%20prosthesis%20on%20early%20clinical%20outcomes%20in%20a%20large%20volume%20arthroplasty%20centre&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20the%20Royal%20College%20of%20Surgeons%20of%20England&rft.au=Moonot,%20P&rft.date=2013-11-01&rft.volume=95&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=573&rft.epage=576&rft.pages=573-576&rft.issn=0035-8843&rft.eissn=1478-7083&rft_id=info:doi/10.1308/rcsann.2013.95.8.573&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2207829163%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2207829163&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |