Development of the Revision Hip Complexity Classification using a modified Delphi technique

Abstract

Aims The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. Methods The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds. Results The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively. Conclusion The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431.

Consultant revision hip arthroplasty volumes and new consultant volume trajectories in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man

“…The formation of complex arthroplasty networks has begun in several regions with favourable impacts reported, 10 and is supported by recent work to stratify RHA complexity. 11 We observed large variation in the RHA volume trajectories of new consultants entering practice, which is likely explained by the heterogeneous nature of clinical practice among individual consultants and the healthcare organizations in which they work. The volumes achieved by new consultants may be influenced by several different determinants, including the scope of their practice, their individual job plans, the needs of the health service or hospital, the healthcare needs of their local population, and the personal preference of a consultant to maintain a RHA practice.…”

Contemporary mortality rate and outcomes in nonagenarians after aseptic revision hip and knee arthroplasty

“…24 Accordingly, techniques and multidisciplinary medical care should focus on preventing periprosthetic fracture occurrence in nonagenarians, 19 as they can lead to a devastating succession of complications and reoperations. [24][25][26] We found that medical complications were common, with an appreciable level of major complications, including cardiac ischaemia (7%) and gastrointestinal bleeding (4%). As shown by others, delirium was the most common medical complication.…”

Consensus guidelines on the management of musculoskeletal infection affecting children in the UK

“…11 This has the advantage that a large number of individuals can contribute anonymously, without the process being dominated by a few individuals who may have particularly strong views on a topic. 12-14 In 2011, a review of the use of Delphi in healthcare provided guidance to the optimal rigorous approach for medical publications, 15 and where applicable, we have followed their recommendations. The AGREE II reporting checklist has become the internationally accepted standard for the evaluation of the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines, 16 and we have also followed their approach.…”