Weißbuch Konservative Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Millionen Menschen in Deutschland leiden an Rückenschmerz, Arthrose oder Osteoporose. Bei den meisten Betroffenen ist ein operativer Eingriff nicht angezeigt – stattdessen kommen konservative Verfahren wie Medikamente, manuelle Medizin, Schmerz- oder Physiotherapie zum Einsatz. Durch die steigenden Erkrankungszahlen haben Orthopäden und Unfallchirurgen einen gewaltigen Versorgungsauftrag, der mit der alternden Gesellschaft in Zukunft noch weiter wachsen wird. Konservative Behandlungsmethoden in der Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie müssen daher gleichberechtigt neben dem operativen Teil stehen. Dieses Weißbuch bietet erstmalig strukturierte, evidenzbasierte Erkenntnisse zur Evaluation der konservativen Therapie in Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie. Erfahrene Experten stellen zu jedem Indikationsgebiet die konservativer Behandlungsmethoden dar, beurteilen deren Stellenwert, decken Versorgungsmängel auf und beschreiben, wie die Defizite im konservativen Bereich so entwickelt werden können, dass das Fach Orthopädie / Unfallchirurgie in seiner ganzen Breite zukunftsfähig abgebildet wird

Evaluation of the standard procedure for treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of total knee and hip arthroplasty: a comparison of the 2015 and 2020 census in total joint replacement centres in Germany

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

Indication for spinal surgery: associated factors and regional differences in Germany

Background Rising surgery rates have raised questions about the indications for spinal surgery. The study investigated patient-level and regional factors associated with spinal surgery for patients with spinal diseases. Methods We undertook a cohort study based on routine healthcare data from Germany of 18.4 million patients within 60.9 million episodes of two patient-years before a possible spinal surgery in the time period 2008 to 2016. Using a Poisson model, the effects of a broad range of patient-related (sociodemographic, morbidity, social status), disease- and healthcare-related (physicians’ specialty, conservative treatments) and regional variables were analyzed. Results There was substantial regional heterogeneity in the occurrence of spinal surgery which decreased by only one quarter when controlling for the various determinants assessed. Previous musculoskeletal and mental health disorders as well as physical therapy were associated with a lower probability of surgery in the fully-adjusted model. Prescriptions for pain medication and consultations of specialists were associated with a higher probability of surgery. However, the specific severity of the vertebral diseases could not be taken into account in the analysis. Furthermore, a substantial proportion of patients with surgery did not receive a consultation with an outpatient specialist (29.5%), preoperative diagnostics (37.0%) or physical therapy (48.3%) before hospital admission. Conclusion This large study on spinal diseases in Germany highlights important patterns in medical care of spinal diseases and their association with the probability of spinal surgery. However, only a relatively small proportion of the regional heterogeneity in spinal surgery could be explained by the extensive consideration of confounders, which suggests the relevance of other unmeasured factors like physicians’ preferences

Evaluation of the standard procedure for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in Germany - results of a survey within the EndoCert initiative

Background!#!The periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication in the field of arthroplasty. Despite the rising number of primary joint replacements, no unified therapeutic standard has been established for the treatment of PJI yet.!##!Methods!#!A survey on the principles of treatment of PJI in Germany was conducted. A total of 515 EndoProthetikZentren (EPZ) were included, resulting in a response rate of 100%.!##!Results!#!For early infections 97.6% of the centers use prosthesis-preserving procedures (DAIR). A one-stage exchange was implemented by less than 50% of the centers. If implemented, this treatment entails a prior selection of patients for a successful treatment. The two-stage exchange is performed in all centers, and most centers proceed with the implantation of a cemented spacer between stages. 75% of the centers proceed with a center-based concept for the treatment of PJI.!##!Conclusion!#!The aim of a uniform PJI standard at the centers has not yet been fully achieved. Further improvements within the certification were initiated. The most relevant treatment options in Germany are displayed. The two-stage revision with a cemented spacer is the most widely implemented treatment. This exposition of principles could help for the further development of standardized treatment guidelines and definitions