Association between surgeon training grade and the risk of revision following unicompartmental knee replacement: an analysis of National Joint Registry data

Background Unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) are performed by surgeons at various stages in training with varying levels of supervision, but we do not know if this is a safe practice with comparable outcomes to consultant-performed UKR. The aim of this study was to use registry data for England and Wales to investigate the association between surgeon grade (consultant, or trainee), the senior supervision of trainees (supervised by a scrubbed consultant, or not), and the risk of revision surgery following UKR.

Methods and findings We conducted an observational study using prospectively collected data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR). We included adult patients who underwent primary UKR for osteoarthritis (n = 106,206), recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2019. Exposures were the grade of the operating surgeon (consultant, or trainee) and whether or not trainees were directly supervised by a consultant during the procedure (referred to as “supervised by a scrubbed consultant”). The primary outcome was all-cause revision surgery. The secondary outcome was the number of procedures revised for the following specific indications: aseptic loosening/lysis, infection, progression of osteoarthritis, unexplained pain, and instability. Flexible parametric survival models were adjusted for patient, operation, and healthcare setting factors.

We included 106,206 UKRs in 91,626 patients, of which 4,382 (4.1%) procedures were performed by a trainee. The unadjusted cumulative probability of failure at 15 years was 17.13% (95% CI [16.44, 17.85]) for consultants, 16.42% (95% CI [14.09, 19.08]) for trainees overall, 15.98% (95% CI [13.36, 19.07]) for trainees supervised by a scrubbed consultant, and 17.32% (95% CI [13.24, 22.50]) for trainees not supervised by a scrubbed consultant. There was no association between surgeon grade and all-cause revision in either crude or adjusted models (adjusted HR = 1.01, 95% CI [0.90, 1.13]; p = 0.88). Trainees achieved comparable all-cause survival to consultants, regardless of the level of scrubbed consultant supervision (supervised: adjusted HR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.87, 1.14]; p = 0.94; unsupervised: adjusted HR = 1.03, 95% CI [0.87, 1.22]; p = 0.74).

Limitations of this study relate to its observational design and include: the potential for nonrandom allocation of cases by consultants to trainees; residual confounding; and the use of the binary variable “surgeon grade,” which does not capture variations in the level of experience between trainees.