Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Original article

Vol. 155 No. 3 (2025)

The relationship between surgeon case load and revision rates in total hip arthroplasty: Evidence from the Swiss National Joint Registry

Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2025;155:3850
Published
25.03.2025

Summary

STUDY AIMS: Higher surgeon volume has been correlated with improved therapy outcomes following total hip arthroplasty, and many countries have implemented minimum volume standards as a precondition for claiming reimbursement. However, there are large differences between healthcare systems worldwide and the applicability of international studies to a particular local healthcare environment may be limited. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between surgeon case load (= number of procedures per year) and short-term revision rates (within two years of the index procedure) in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty for hip osteoarthritis in a nationwide, registry-based study. In addition, the effects of increasing minimum volume standard thresholds on the potential reduction of the revision burden was simulated.

METHODS: All patients registered in the Swiss National Joint Registry (SIRIS) for undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty for hip osteoarthritis between 2015 and 2021 were considered. Patients were aggregated according to the lead surgeon’s individual code. Surgeons lacking five years of uninterrupted practice were excluded. Multiple logistic and bivariate multinomial regressions were employed to model the odds of revision surgery (overall and for specific diagnoses) as a function of surgeon case load. Two-year revision rates, the proportional reduction of the revision burden and the number of patients hypothetically needing treatment reassignment to higher-volume surgeons were simulated for increasing minimum volume standard thresholds.

RESULTS: In total, 74,565 total hip arthroplasty procedures performed by 384 surgeons were assessed. The mean surgeon case load was 28.7 total hip arthroplasties / year (min/max: 1.8/269.1; median: 18.1). The average overall 2-year revision rate in the observation period was 2.25%. A higher surgeon case load was associated with lower cumulative revision rates (revision for any reason, and revision due to infection, dislocation and femoral periprosthetic fracture). Overall revision rates of surgeons with a minimal case load of up to 10 / 20 / 50 total hip arthroplasties / year were 2.18% / 2.01 % / 1.70%, respectively. Implementation of a minimum volume standard of 10 / 20 / 50 total hip arthroplasties / year would reduce the overall 2-year revision rates by 3.2%, 10.5% and 23.8%, respectively, but also require that 5.1%, 18.1% and 53.8% of patients be reassigned to higher-volume surgeons instead of initially intended lower volume surgeons.

CONCLUSION: A higher surgeon case load independently predicts a lower overall 2-year revision rate in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty for hip osteoarthritis in Switzerland. Implementation of a minimal case load has the potential to significantly reduce 2-year revision rates, at the cost of more patients needing to have their treatment reassigned.

References

  1. Siddiqi A, Alamanda VK, Barrington JW, Chen AF, De A, Huddleston JI 3rd, et al. Effects of Hospital and Surgeon Volume on Patient Outcomes After Total Joint Arthroplasty: Reported From the American Joint Replacement Registry. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022 Jun;30(11):e811–21. 10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00946
  2. Featherall J, Brigati DP, Faour M, Messner W, Higuera CA. Implementation of a Total Hip Arthroplasty Care Pathway at a High-Volume Health System: Effect on Length of Stay, Discharge Disposition, and 90-Day Complications. J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jun;33(6):1675–80. 10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.038
  3. Schwartz AM, Farley KX, Guild GN, Bradbury TL Jr. Projections and Epidemiology of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6 6S):S79–85. 10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.030
  4. Nemes S, Gordon M, Rogmark C, Rolfson O. Projections of total hip replacement in Sweden from 2013 to 2030. Acta Orthop. 2014 Jun;85(3):238–43. 10.3109/17453674.2014.913224
  5. Michaëlsson K. Surgeon volume and early complications after primary total hip arthroplasty. BMJ. 2014 May;348(may23 1):g3433. 10.1136/bmj.g3433
  6. Ravi B, Jenkinson R, Austin PC, Croxford R, Wasserstein D, Escott B, et al. Relation between surgeon volume and risk of complications after total hip arthroplasty: propensity score matched cohort study. BMJ. 2014 May;348(may23 1):g3284. 10.1136/bmj.g3284
  7. Katz JN, Phillips CB, Baron JA, Fossel AH, Mahomed NN, Barrett J, et al. Association of hospital and surgeon volume of total hip replacement with functional status and satisfaction three years following surgery. Arthritis Rheum. 2003 Feb;48(2):560–8. 10.1002/art.10754
  8. Scharfe J, Pfisterer-Heise S, Kugler CM, Shehu E, Wolf T, Mathes T, et al. The effect of minimum volume standards in hospitals (MIVOS) - protocol of a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2023 Jan;12(1):11. 10.1186/s13643-022-02160-7
  9. Oakley CT, Arraut J, Lygrisse K, Schwarzkopf R, Slover JD, Rozell JC. The Effect of Surgeon and Hospital Volume on Total Hip Arthroplasty Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: An American Joint Replacement Registry Study. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2023 Feb;31(4):205–11. 10.5435/JAAOS-D-22-00525
  10. Hoskins W, Rainbird S, Lorimer M, Graves SE, Bingham R. What Can We Learn From Surgeons Who Perform THA and TKA and Have the Lowest Revision Rates? A Study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022 Mar;480(3):464–81. 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002007
  11. Sayers A, Steele F, Whitehouse MR, Price A, Ben-Shlomo Y, Blom AW. Association between surgical volume and failure of primary total hip replacement in England and Wales: findings from a prospective national joint replacement register. BMJ Open. 2020 Sep;10(9):e033045. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033045
  12. Glassou EN, Hansen TB, Mäkelä K, Havelin LI, Furnes O, Badawy M, et al. Association between hospital procedure volume and risk of revision after total hip arthroplasty: a population-based study within the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016 Mar;24(3):419–26. 10.1016/j.joca.2015.09.014
  13. Amato L, Fusco D, Acampora A, Bontempi K, Rosa AC, Colais P, et al. Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data. Epidemiol Prev. 2017;41 5-6 (Suppl 2):1–128. 10.19191/EP17.5-6S2.P001.100
  14. Manley M, Ong K, Lau E, Kurtz SM. Effect of volume on total hip arthroplasty revision rates in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 Nov;90(11):2446–51. 10.2106/JBJS.G.01300
  15. Vogel JF, Barkhausen M, Pross CM, Geissler A. Defining minimum volume thresholds to increase quality of care: a new patient-oriented approach using mixed integer programming. Eur J Health Econ. 2022 Sep;23(7):1085–104. 10.1007/s10198-021-01406-w
  16. Beck M, Brand C, Christen B, Zdravkovic V. SIRIS report 2021 - Annual Report of the Swiss National Joint Registry, Hip and Knee 2022. Available from: https://www.swiss-medtech.ch/sites/default/files/2021-12/211130_SIRIS-Report%202021_online.pdf
  17. Mufarrih SH, Ghani MO, Martins RS, Qureshi NQ, Mufarrih SA, Malik AT, et al. Effect of hospital volume on outcomes of total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Dec;14(1):468. 10.1186/s13018-019-1531-0
  18. Battaglia TC, Mulhall KJ, Brown TE, Saleh KJ. Increased surgical volume is associated with lower THA dislocation rates. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. Volume 447. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2006. pp. 28–33. 10.1097/01.blo.0000218743.99741.f0
  19. Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, Zurakowski D, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA, et al. The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Feb;469(2):319–29. 10.1007/s11999-010-1487-1
  20. Biedermann R, Tonin A, Krismer M, Rachbauer F, Eibl G, Stöckl B. Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005 Jun;87(6):762–9. 10.1302/0301-620X.87B6.14745
  21. Siebenmorgen JP, Stronach BM, Mears SC, Stambough JB. The Use of Intraoperative Digital Radiography Alignment Software to Assess Implant Placement in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2021 Dec;14(6):369–77. 10.1007/s12178-021-09722-7
  22. Wiegers EJ, Sewalt CA, Venema E, Schep NW, Verhaar JA, Lingsma HF, et al. The volume-outcome relationship for hip fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 2,023,469 patients. Acta Orthop. 2019 Feb;90(1):26–32. 10.1080/17453674.2018.1545383
  23. Katz JN, Wright EA, Wright J, Malchau H, Mahomed NN, Stedman M, et al. Twelve-year risk of revision after primary total hip replacement in the U.S. Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Oct;94(20):1825–32. 10.2106/JBJS.K.00569