Background: There are different procedures for both, the diagnosis and the therapy of a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), however, national or international guidelines for a standardised treatment regime are still lacking. The present paper evaluates the use of the predominant treatment protocols for PJI in certified total joint replacement centres (EPZ) in Germany based on an EndoCert questionnaire. Materials and methods: The questionnaire was developed in cooperation with the EndoCert Certification Commission to survey the treatment protocols for septic revision arthroplasties in EPZ. Questions targeted the various treatment options including prosthesis preserving procedures (DAIR - Debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention of the prosthesis), one-stage revision, two-stage revision, removal of the endoprosthesis and diagnostic sampling prior to re-implantation. All certified EPZ participated (n = 504) and the results from the current survey in 2020 were compared to data from a previous analysis in 2015. Results: The number of centres that performed DAIR up to a maximum of 4 weeks and more than 10 weeks after index surgery decreased since 2015, while the number of centres that provided a one-stage revision as a treatment option increased (hip: + 6.3%; knee: + 6.6%). The majority of the centres (73.2%) indicated a 4–8 week period as the preferred interval between prosthesis removal and re-implantation in two-stage revision in hip as well as knee revisions. Centres with a higher number of revision surgeries (> 200 revisions/year), opted even more often for the 4–8 week period (92.3%). In two-stage revision the use of metal-based spacers with/without reinforcement with antibiotic-containing cement as an interim placeholder was significantly reduced in 2020 compared to 2015. There was also a clear preference for cemented anchoring in two-stage revision arthroplasty in the knee in 2020, whereas the majority of hip replacements was cementless. Additionally, in 2020 the number of samples for microbiological testing during the removal of the infected endoprosthesis increased and 72% of the centres took five or more samples. Overall, the number of EPZ with a standardised protocol for the procedure expanded from 2015 to 2020. Conclusion: While there was a trend towards standardised therapeutic algorithms for PJI with more uniform choices among the centres in 2020 compared to 2015, the treatment often remains an individual decision. However, since a consistent treatment regime is of vital importance with an expected rise of total numbers of revision arthroplasties, uniform definitions with regard to comparability and standardisation are necessary for the further development of the EndoCert system.

Background: Our study aimed to identify the relationship between treatment outcome assessed by patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) and satisfaction measured by calculation of the Net Promoter Score (NPS), which identifies promoters, following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim was to evaluate this association separately in primary and revision THA and to determine thresholds based on PROMs that identify detractors of the surgical procedure or the centre. Methods: A total of 1,243 patients who underwent primary or revision THA at our hospital were asked to complete questionnaires of the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Euroquol-5D (EQ-5D) and information on pain intensity preoperatively, three and 12 months after surgery. Postoperatively, the patients were additionally asked about their satisfaction with the procedure and the hospital by using three different NPS questions. The association between PROMs and NPS was evaluated based on group comparisons of primary or revision THA and receiver operating characteristics analysis (ROC) to determine threshold values. Results: At 12 months the NPS of all three questions were invariably linked to treatment outcome in patients after primary THA and patients with a single revision. In these two treatment groups, promoters always showed significantly better PROM scores than detractors. The NPS score was always higher in the primary group in comparison to the single revision group, e.g. 66.4% would undergo the procedure again in the first group, while only 33.0% would opt for this in the latter group. The high thresholds for the PROMs at 12 months, that were calculated by ROC analysis to identify promoter/detractors, indicate that patients` satisfaction required very good joint function and pain relief. However, the NPS was not a suitable tool to identify patients who need further care in an early phase after surgery. Conclusions: With NPS already a single question or a single parameter provides the desired information regarding patient satisfaction and also treatment success. Trial registration: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee at the Medical Faculty of the University Rostock: “Ethikkommission an der Medizinischen Fakultät der Universität Rostock”, Address: St.-Georg Str. 108 18055 Rostock, Germany, reference number: A2015–0055.

Background The annual report of EndoCert publishes the results of the quality indicators (QI) and key figures of all certified centres for joint replacement (EndoProthetikZentren – EPZ). For some results it seems that centres with fewer revisions might have higher complication rates. However, to avoid misinterpretation the results have to be evaluated in more detail. The influence of the quantity of the revisions or the revision quotient on the quality of outcome was investigated. Material and Methods This study included all certified EPZ and centres of excellence for joint replacement (EPXmax) (n = 492) and evaluated the data from 2016. Centres beyond the action limit were identified with the help of funnel plots and a confidence limit of 99.7% as action limit. Additionally data of the quality indicators were analysed with ANCOVA. The level of significance was p < 0.05. Results The comparison by ANCOVA with number of revisions as co-variate showed no differences in the complication rates when related to the quantity of revisions. When considering a so called revision quotient (ratio of revision to all joint replacements) significant differences in the rate of fractures and fissures as well as in mortality for hip replacements and also in mortality for knee replacements were observed. Conclusion EPZ with fewer revisions do not have higher complication rates than centers with high numbers of revisions. Thus, the quantity of revisions has no influence on the quality of the outcome, considering that on the basis of the data of the EndoCert system no risk adjustment of patient-specific data was performed. Therefore the revisioin quotient of an EPZ shows that quantity is not equal with quality.

To improve arthroplasty care quality, the EndoCert initiative focuses on structural, processual, and surgeon-related quality assurance. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a surgeon’s case load in certified centers on quality of care, distinguished by different types of surgeons. Data from the annual reports of EndoCert certified centers for the years 2017 to 2021 were analyzed. The study revealed reduced numbers of cases, while the number of surgeons remained constant. Since 2020, the decrease in the average case load per surgeons has become more pronounced. There were also differences between senior (sECrs) and EndoCert-registered surgeons (ECrs). Before the 2020 pandemic, over half of surgeons exceeded minimum annual case requirements, while, afterwards, this number declined, especially for the ECrs. Affiliated surgeons, who are also sECrs or ECrs, performed predominantly lower numbers of arthroplasties. However, a higher percentage of affiliated surgeons in a center correlated with faster surgeries and lower mortality rates. High numbers of arthroplasties per center or surgeon were not necessarily associated with better quality indicators, especially in the knee. While the comprehensive quality standards may offset volume effects, EndoCert should reconsider minimum volume regulations based on surgeon, but also on each joint.

Zusammenfassung: Hintergrund Ziel der Studie ist die Überprüfung, ob sich die postoperative Ergebnisqualität und die Komplikationswahrscheinlichkeit hüftendoprothetischer Eingriffe signifikant bei Operateuren in Weiterbildung von denen der sog. Hauptoperateure im Rahmen der EndoCert-Struktur unterscheiden. Material und Methoden Eingeschlossen wurden 192 Patienten, die mit einer primären Hüftendoprothese versorgt wurden. Zur Evaluierung der Ergebnisqualität wurden präoperativ und 12 Monate postoperativ der Harris-Hip-Score, WOMAC, SF-36 und der EuroQol-5D abgefragt. Zudem wurden als Komplikationen die vom EndoCert-System definierten Qualitätsindikatoren erfasst. Ergebnisse Signifikante Verbesserungen der postoperativen Score-Werte in Abhängigkeit von der Qualifikation des verantwortlichen Operateurs konnten sowohl bei Senior-/Hauptoperateuren als auch bei Ärzten in Weiterbildung festgestellt werden. Sofern ein Operateur in Facharztweiterbildung von einem Senior-/Hauptoperateur assistiert wird, ist kein Anstieg des peri- und postoperativen Komplikationsrisikos zu verzeichnen. Dagegen ergeben sich signifikante Unterschiede hinsichtlich einer verlängerten OP-Dauer. Schlussfolgerung Durch die Umsetzung des EndoCert-Verfahrens wird sichergestellt, dass die postoperative Ergebnisqualität und die Komplikationswahrscheinlichkeit nach künstlichem Hüftgelenkersatz nicht von der Qualifikation des Erstoperateurs abhängig sind.