@robcfl

First, I do research on the procedure (on line) to see how it is done, why, and what alternatives there are and the cost and benefits of each. Doing that I can usually NIH research papers and can start cross referencing what I see there.

Second, locally there is a magazine (Phoenix Magazine) that annual rates doctors based on a survey of doctors, not patients. So I see what they have to say.

Then I start looking for doctors who seem to be using the best methods. I prefer someone doing that but also someone who has done lots of them. So I start looking for that. I see yelp reviews, healgh reviews, etc.

In my case I eventually found a video of my first choice surgeon doing a TKR at an orthopedic conference using the newest subvastus approach with tranexamic acid rather than a touriquet implanting a bicruciate retaining implant. All the best and the video is from 2020.

Further research on my surgeon shows that he has been doing subvastus TKRs since at least 2015 so he vastly experienced, especially in doing a bicruciate retaining implant (which I am hoping to get but is more complex than the traditional method of cutting the ACL).

I would also ask my doctors who they would go to and especially if any of them have had a TKR. I would ask friends but I would then research their recommendations. Someone might say he had a lot of pain from a tourniquet (like my brother) but that is irrelevant if the surgeon is going to use tranexamic acid instead (by the way I found a study that showed this was a fine way to proceed).

Most doctor web sites indicate what type of procedures the surgeon does. So a beginning point would be if the surgeon's own website lists procedures but doesn't include revisions that this is not the surgeon you want for a possible revision.

There are of course great centers of medical excellence (Mayo, Cleveland Clinic, Mass General, Scripps, etc. etc.). They are excellent places to go if you have a complex condition that requires diagnosis and will provide excellent surgical practices. But they are not necessarily the best for what you want to do.

I was researching my brother's surgeon and found a 13 year old debate he was having with a Mayo surgeon who was arguing that old fashioned mechanical alignment was fine and the newer kinematic and Functional alignment were not necessary. 13 years later I went into the Mayo website and, lo and behold, they now argue for a form of functional alignment. Does that mean that Mayo is crap? Absolutely NOT. But for a particular problem or procedure, there might be a better choice out there.

Does this help?