A systematic review and meta-analysis of trainee- versus consultant surgeon-performed elective total hip arthroplasty

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures. Some concern exists that trainee-performed THA may adversely affect patient outcomes. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes following THA performed by surgical trainees and consultant surgeons.

A systematic search was performed to identify articles comparing outcomes following trainee- versus consultant-performed THA. Outcomes assessed included rate of revision surgery, dislocation, deep infection, mean operation time, length of hospital stay and Harris Hip Score (HHS) up to one year. A meta-analysis was conducted using odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs). A subgroup analysis for supervised trainees versus consultants was also performed.

The final analysis included seven non-randomized studies of 40 810 THAs, of which 6393 (15.7%) were performed by trainees and 34 417 (84.3%) were performed by consultants. In total, 5651 (88.4%) THAs in the trainee group were performed under supervision. There was no significant difference in revision rate between the trainee and consultant groups (OR 1.09; p = 0.51). Trainees took significantly longer to perform THA compared with consultants (WMD 12.9; p < 0.01). The trainee group was associated with a lower HHS at one year compared with consultants (WMD -1.26; p < 0.01). There was no difference in rate of dislocation, deep infection or length of hospital stay between the two groups.

The present study suggests that supervised trainees can achieve similar clinical outcomes to consultant surgeons, with a slightly longer operation time. In selected patients, trainee-performed THA is safe and effective.