Monitoring surgical performance: an application of industrial quality process control to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Quality control is receiving increasing attention from surgeons as a key to meeting the needs of patients and the requirements of health care authorities. The objective of the study was to evaluate a continuous monitoring program for surgical performance in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. We measured the differential anterior knee laxity immediately after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by two experienced surgeons. Surgical technique including the choice of ancillary devices and implant material was at the surgeon’s discretion. The target was an immediate postoperative differential knee laxity at 20° of knee flexion of −1.5 mm. The cumulative summation test (CUSUM) was used to detect inadequate performance. Seventy-nine consecutive patients were included in the study. Median postoperative differential knee laxity at 20° flexion was −2 mm (interquartile range −4 to 0 mm; SD = 2.3). The CUSUM test at 20° knee flexion emitted an alarm at the 12th procedure, indicating that performance was inadequate with a tendency for laxity to be above the target of −1.5 mm. Two alarms were emitted after the 28th procedure, indicating that laxity tended to be below the target. Monitoring of immediate postoperative differential anterior knee laxity in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is feasible and can provide useful information on actual surgeon performance. Clinical relevance: continuous monitoring of the quality of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may help surgeons to detect deviations from optimal performance when new surgical techniques and innovative fixation devices are introduced.

[1]  P. L. Goldsmith,et al.  Cumulative Sum Tests: Theory and Practice , 1969 .

[2]  A. Huitson,et al.  Cumulative Sum Tests: Theory and Practice , 1968 .

[3]  J. Holden,et al.  The shipman inquiry. , 2004, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[4]  S M Howell,et al.  The Relationship between the Angle of the Tibial Tunnel in the Coronal Plane and Loss of Flexion and Anterior Laxity after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2001, The American journal of sports medicine.

[5]  G. Teasdale Learning from Bristol: report of the public inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984-1995 , 2002, British journal of neurosurgery.

[6]  D. Fithian,et al.  Fate of the anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. , 2002, The Orthopedic clinics of North America.

[7]  Mika Vihavainen,et al.  The Fixation Strength of Six Hamstring Tendon Graft Fixation Devices in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Part I: Femoral Site * , 2003, The American journal of sports medicine.

[8]  Mika Vihavainen,et al.  The Fixation Strength of Six Hamstring Tendon Graft Fixation Devices in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Part II: Tibial Site * , 2003, The American journal of sports medicine.

[9]  R. Pedowitz,et al.  Initial laxity does not correlate with subsequent laxity after ACL reconstruction in humans: a prospective evaluation. , 2004, American journal of orthopedics.

[10]  R. Porcher,et al.  Use of the Cusum Technique for Evaluation of a CT-based Navigation System for Total Knee Replacement , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  H. Jonsson,et al.  Positive pivot shift after ACL reconstruction predicts later osteoarthrosis63 patients followed 5–9 years after surgery , 2004, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[12]  D. Biau,et al.  Bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts versus hamstring autografts for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: meta-analysis , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  J. Lewsey,et al.  Continuous monitoring of the performance of hip prostheses. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[14]  J. Nyland,et al.  Anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction: a literature review , 2007, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[15]  A. Amis,et al.  The Effects of Different Tensioning Strategies on Knee Laxity and Graft Tension after Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2007, The American journal of sports medicine.

[16]  Stefano Zaffagnini,et al.  Double-bundle ACL reconstruction: influence of femoral tunnel orientation in knee laxity analysed with a navigation system – an in-vitro biomechanical study , 2008, BMC musculoskeletal disorders.

[17]  R Porcher,et al.  Quantitative and individualized assessment of the learning curve using LC‐CUSUM , 2008, The British journal of surgery.

[18]  Kurt P Spindler,et al.  Clinical practice. Anterior cruciate ligament tear. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  Masataka Deie,et al.  Intraoperative evaluation of anteroposterior and rotational stabilities in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: lower femoral tunnel placed single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction , 2009, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[20]  Stephen Lyman,et al.  Epidemiology of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: trends, readmissions, and subsequent knee surgery. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[21]  R. Porcher,et al.  Monitoring surgical performance: an application to total hip replacement. , 2009, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.