Priority 3 from the Revision Knee Replacement PSP
|UNCERTAINTY: What are the most effective ways to organise health care and avoid delay to improve the results and patients’ experience of revision knee surgery? (JLA PSP Priority 3)
|JLA question ID
|Studies in various fields have suggested that surgical volume may be related to patient outcomes, and following the success of centralisation of services within major trauma/ vascular surgery, health professionals were keen to explore the best models for infrastructure. Patient were also keen on organisation of services as it has a direct consequence on their experience and quality of life when dealing with a problematic knee replacement.
|Health Research Classification System category
|Extra information provided by this PSP
|Original uncertainty examples
|How can GPs improve how they respond to pain and stiffness after knee replacement? ~ Redo surgery involves careful op, constant care while hospitalized for wound, healing- this can make a big difference to how quickly the patient gets well and mobilised. A good surgeon who knows about infections, etc ~ Does a MDT approach to treating revision knee patients improve the outcome for patients? ~ Are periprosthetic fractures best managed as part as a trauma service or as part of an urgent elective service? ~ Is there a pathway that should be started when patients are still having problems at 1 year following knee replacement ~ Should patients be seen directly by the operating surgeon sooner rather than repeated primary care when having problems at 2 years
|See data spreadsheet on JLA website
|PSP unique ID
|Revision Knee Replacement
|Total number of uncertainties identified by this PSP.
|32 (To see a full list of all uncertainties identified, please see the detailed spreadsheet held on the JLA website)
|Date of priority setting workshop
|21 May 2019