Aims. Our primary aim was to establish the proportion of female orthopaedic consultants who perform arthroplasty via cases submitted to the National Joint Registry (NJR), which covers England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and Guernsey. Secondary aims included comparing time since specialist registration, private practice participation, and number of hospitals worked in between male and female surgeons. Methods. Publicly available data from the NJR was extracted on the types of arthroplasty performed by each surgeon, and the number of procedures of each type undertaken. Each surgeon was cross-referenced with the General Medical Council (GMC) website, using GMC number to extract surgeon demographic data. These included sex, region of practice, and dates of full and specialist registration. Results. Of 2,895 surgeons contributing to the NJR in 2023, 102 (4%) were female. The highest proportions of female surgeons were among those who performed elbow (n = 25; 5%), shoulder (n = 24; 4%), and ankle (n = 8; 4%) arthroplasty. Hip (n = 66; 3%) and knee arthroplasty (n = 39; 2%) had the lowest female representation. Female surgeons had been practising for a median of 10.4 years since specialist registration compared to 13.7 years for males (p < 0.001). Northern Ireland was the region with the highest proportion of female arthroplasty surgeons (8%). A greater proportion of male surgeons worked in private practice (63% vs 24%; p < 0.001) and in multiple hospitals (74% vs 40%; p < 0.001). Conclusion. Only 4% of surgeons currently contributing cases to the NJR are female, with the highest proportion performing elbow arthroplasty (5%). Female orthopaedic surgeons in the NJR are earlier in their careers than male surgeons, and are less involved in private practice. There is a wide geographical variation in the proportion of female arthroplasty surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):637–643

The National Joint Registry (NJR) was set up by the Department of Health to collect information on all joint replacements. The NJR data is externally validated against nationally collated Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Errors associated with the use of HES data have been widely documented. We sought to explore the accuracy of the NJR data, for a single surgeon, against a prospectively collected personal logbook. The NJR and logbook were compared over a 3-year period (01/07/2009 to 30/06/2012). Total procedure recorded in the personal logbook was 684 and in the NJR was 681. TKR in personal log book was 304 and in NJR 316, revision knee's in personal logbook 45 and in NJR 36, THR 274 in personal logbook and 271 in NJR, revision hip procedures in personal logbook 64 and 58 in NJR. Whilst the total number of procedures captured correlates closely (681 vs 684) there is more variation with the different individual procedures. This may be due to the addition of 11% of HES data used for this time period by the NJR as it is known to be inaccurate. This therefore demonstrates the importance of maintaining your own accurate records

Introduction. Despite the increasing numbers of ankle replacements that are being performed there are still limited studies on the survival of ankle replacements and comparisons between different implants. The primary aim of this study is to link NJR data with NHS digital data to determine the true failure rates of ankle replacements. Secondary outcomes include analysis risk factors for failure, patient demographics and outcomes of individual prosthesis. Methods. A data linkage study combined National Joint Registry Data and NHS Digital data. The primary outcome of failure is defined as the removal or exchange of any components of the implanted device inserted during ankle replacement surgery. Life tables and Kaplan Meier survival charts demonstrated survivorship. Cox proportional hazards regression models with the Breslow method used for ties were fitted to compare failure rates. Results. 5,562 primary ankle replacement were recorded on the NJR. The 1-year survivorship was 98.8% (95% CI 98.4%–99.0%), 5-year survival in 2725 patients was 90.2% (95% CI 89.2%–91.1%), and 10-year survival in 199 patients was 86.2% (95% CI 84.6%–87.6%). When using a Cox regression model for all implants with over 100 implantations using the Infinity as the reference, only the Star (Hazard ratio 1.60 95% CI 0.87–2.96) and Inbone (HR 0.38 95% CI 0.05–2.84) did not produce significantly worse survivorship. Conclusion. Ankle replacements have increased in numbers over the past decade, and the currently used implants have lower failure rates than older prosthesis. It is expected that in the future the outcomes of ankle replacements will continue to improve

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have benefits for hospitals and uptake in the UK is increasing. The National Joint Registry (NJR) monitors implant and surgeon performance and relies on accuracy of data. NJR data are used for identification of potential outliers for both mortality and revision; analyses are adjusted for age, sex, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists score (ASA) and cases with some indications are excluded from analyses. In October 2020, the Royal Devon University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust “went live” on an EHR, almost eradicating paper from the Trust. This included stopping use of paper NJR forms by creating a bespoke electronic template. We sought to identify discrepancies between operation notes and data input to the NJR in variables that may influence potential outlier analyses. Data input to the NJR from 15/10/2020 to 18/10/2022 for hip procedures were provided by NEC Software Solutions. NJR data were compared to those recorded on operation notes. There were 1067 hip procedures recorded in the NJR (946 primary THRs). Of the primary THRs, discrepancies in indication between NJR and operation note were identified in 139 (15%) cases. Common discrepancies included cases being recorded as osteoarthritis where the true indication was acute trauma (n=63), avascular necrosis (n=14), metastatic cancer/malignancy (n=6) and 21 cases with no recorded indication. We identified 88 cases where the ASA recorded in the NJR differed from the anaesthetic chart. Other inaccuracies were identified including 23 cases missing type of procedure (e.g., primary or revision) and one where revision surgery had been recorded as primary. We identified at least 83 cases that should have been excluded from NJR mortality analyses but were not. Given the low incidence of mortality following primary THR, these cases (with increased risk of death) have the potential to incorrectly identify the hospital as a potential outlier. Discrepancies in ASA may also impact on both revision and mortality outlier calculations. We urge caution to hospitals in the implementation of EHRs and advise regular audit of data sent to the NJR

Introduction. The revision rate of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) in national joint registries is much higher than that of total knee replacements and that of UKR in cohort studies from multiple high-volume centres. The reasons for this are unclear but may be due to incorrect patient selection, inadequate surgical technique, and inappropriate indications for revision. Meniscal bearing UKR has well defined evidence based indications based on preoperative radiographs, the surgical technique can be assessed from post-operative radiographs and the reason for revision from pre-revision radiographs. However, for an accurate assessment aligned radiographs are required. The aim of the study was to determine why the revision rate of UKR in registries is so high by undertaking a radiographic review of revised UKR identified by the United Kingdom's (UK) National Joint Registry (NJR). Methods. A novel cross-sectional study was designed. Revised medial meniscal bearing UKR with primary operation registered with the NJR between 2006 and 2010 were identified. Participating centres from all over the country provided blinded pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-revision radiographs. Two observers reviewed the radiographs. Results. Radiographs were provided for 107 revised UKR from multiple centres. The recommended indications were not satisfied in 30%. The most common reason was the absence of bone-on-bone arthritis, and in 16 (19%) the medial joint space was normal or nearly normal. Post-operative films were mal-aligned in 50%. Significant surgical errors were seen in 50%, with most errors attributable to tibial component placement and orientation. No definite reason for revision was identified in 67%. Reasons for revision included disease progression (10%), tibial component loosening (7%), dislocation of the bearing (7%), infection (6%) femoral component loosening (3%), and peri-prosthetic fracture (2% - one femur, one tibia). Discussion and Conclusion. This study found that improper patient selection, inadequate surgical technique, inappropriate revisions and poorly taken radiographs all contributed to the high revision rate. There is a misconception that UKR should be used for early OA. Bone-on-bone arthritis is a requirement and was definitely not present in about 20%. There were many surgical errors, particularly related to the tibial cut: The new instrumentation should reduce this. There was a high prevalence of mal-aligned radiographs. Revisions should be avoided unless there is a definite problem, as the outcome of revision is usually poor in this situation. 80% of UKR revisions could potentially be avoided if surgeons adhered to the recommended indications for primary and revision surgery, and used the recommended surgical techniques. This study therefore suggests that if UKR was used appropriately the revision rate would be substantially lower and probably similar to that of TKR

Ceramic on ceramic (CoC) bearings in total hip arthroplasty (THA) are commonly used but concerns exist regarding ceramic fracture. This study aims to report the risk of revision for fracture of modern CoC bearings and identify factors that might influence this risk, using data from the National Joint Registry. We analysed data on 111,681 primary CoC THA's and 182 linked revisions for bearing fracture recorded in the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR). We used implant codes to identify ceramic bearing composition and generated Kaplan-Meier estimates for implant survivorship. Logistic regression analyses were performed for implant size and patient specific variables to determine any associated risks for revision. 99.8% of bearings were CeramTec Biolox® products. Revisions for fracture were linked to 7 of 79,442 (0.009%) Biolox® Delta heads, 38 of 31,982 (0.119%) Biolox® Forte heads, 101 of 80,170 (0.126%) Biolox® Delta liners and 35 of 31,258 (0.112%) Biolox® Forte liners. Regression analysis of implant size revealed smaller heads had significantly higher odds of fracture (χ2=68.0, p<0.0001). The highest fracture risk were observed in the 28mm Biolox® Forte subgroup (0.382%). There were no fractures in the 40mm head group for either ceramic type. Liner thickness was not predictive of fracture (p=0.67). BMI was independently associated with revision for both head fractures (OR 1.09 per unit increase, p=0.031) and liner fractures (OR 1.06 per unit increase, p=0.006). We report the largest registry study of CoC bearing fractures to date. Modern CoC bearing fractures are rare events. Fourth generation ceramic heads are around 10 times less likely to fracture than third generation heads, but liner fracture risk remains similar between these generations

There is paucity of reliable data examining the treatment pathway for hip replacements over the life of the patient in terms of risk of revision and re-revisions. We did a retrospective observational registry-based study of the National Joint Registry, using data on hip replacements from all participating hospitals in England and Wales, UK. We included data on all first revisions, with an identifiable primary procedure, with osteoarthritis as the sole indication for the original primary procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the cumulative probability of revision and subsequent re-revision after primary hip replacement. Analyses were stratified by age and gender, and the influence of time from first to second revision on the risk of further revision was explored. Between 2003, and 2019, there were 29 010 revision hip replacements with a linked primary episode. Revision rates of revision hip replacements were higher in patients younger than 55 years than in older age groups. After revision of primary total hip replacement, 21·3% (95% CI 18·6–24·4) of first revisions were revised again within 15 years, 22·3% (20·3–24·4) of second revisions were revised again within 7 years, and 22·3% (18·3–27·0) of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. After revision of hip resurfacing, 23·7% (95% CI 19·6–28·5) of these revisions were revised again within 15 years, 21·0% (17·0–25·8) of second revisions were revised again within 7 years, and 19·3% (11·9–30·4) of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. A shorter time between revision episodes was associated with earlier subsequent revision. Younger patients are at an increased risk of multiple revisions. Patients who undergo a revision have a steadily increasing risk of further revision the more procedures they undergo, and each subsequent revision lasts for approximately half the time of the previous one

Orthopaedic practice is increasingly guided by conclusions drawn from analysis of Joint Registry Data. Analysis of the England and Wales National Joint Registry (NJR) led Sibanda et al to conclude that UKR should be reserved for more elderly patients due to higher revision rates in younger patients. To determine our UKR revision rates at the Great Western Hospital we requested knee arthroplasty data from the NJR, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data submitted by our centre to the Primary Care Trust, and interrogated our internal theatre implant database. This revealed significant discrepancies between different data sources. We collected data from each source for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Operations were classified as TKR, UKR, Other or Unspecified. Results are illustrated in the attached table:. Key findings:. Our theatre implant database appears most accurate and includes a greater number of joint replacement operations than NJR or HES data and fewer ‘unspecified’ procedures. On average 15% NJR, 0% HES and 0.3% theatre data procedures were ‘unspecified’. NJR data comprises an average 17 fewer, and HES data an average 36 fewer procedures each year compared with our theatre data. Up to 80% UKRs performed are recorded as TKR in HES data. In summary there is significant inaccuracy in our NJR data which may affect the validity of conclusions drawn from NJR data analysis. HES data is even less accurate with implications for hospital funding. We strongly advise other centres to continue to maintain accurate implant data and to perform a similar audit to calculate error rates for NJR and HES data. Further analysis is required to identify at which stage of data collection inaccuracies occur so that solutions can be devised. We are currently analysing data from 2008 and 2009

Hip bearing surfaces materials are typically broadly reported in national registry (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic etc). We investigated the revision rates of primary total hip replacement (THR) reported in the National Joint Registry (NJR) by detailed types of bearing surfaces used. We analysed THR procedures across all orthopaedic units in England and Wales. Our analyses estimated all-cause and cause-specific revision rates. We identified primary THRs with heads and monobloc cups or modular acetabular component THRs with detailed head and shell/liner bearing material combinations. We used flexible parametric survival models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR). A total of 1,026,481 primary THRs performed between 2003–2019 were included in the primary analysis (Monobloc cups: n=378,979 and Modular cups: n=647,502) with 20,869 (2%) of these primary THRs subsequently undergoing a revision episode (Monobloc: n=7,381 and Modular: n=13,488). Compared to implants with a cobalt chrome head and highly crosslinked polyethylene (HCLPE) cup, the overall risk of revision for monobloc acetabular implant was higher for patients with cobalt chrome or stainless steel head and non-HCLPE cup. The risk of revision was lower for patients with a delta ceramic head and HCLPE cup implant, at any post-operative period. Compared to patients with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner primary THR, the overall risk of revision for modular acetabular implant varied non-constantly. THRs with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and HCLPE liner had a lower risk of revision throughout the entire post-operative period. The overall and indication-specific risk of prosthesis revision, at different time points following the initial implantation, is reduced for implants with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and a HCLPE liner/cup in reference to THRs with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner/cup

We investigated the revision rates of primary total hip replacement (THR) reported in the National Joint Registry (NJR) by types of bearing surfaces used. We analysed THR procedures across all orthopaedic units in England and Wales. Our analyses estimated all-cause and cause-specific revision rates. We identified primary THRs with heads and monobloc cups or modular acetabular component THRs with head and shell/liner combinations. We used flexible parametric survival models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR). A total of 1,026,481 primary THRs performed between 2003–2019 are included in the primary analysis (Monobloc: n=378,979 and Modular: n=647,502) with 20,869 (2%) of these primary THRs subsequently undergoing a revision episode (Monobloc: n=7,381 and Modular: n=13,488). Compared to implants with a cobalt chrome head and highly crosslinked polyethylene (HCLPE) cup, the all-cause risk of revision for monobloc acetabular implant was higher for patients with cobalt chrome or stainless steel head and non-HCLPE cup. The risk of revision was lower for patients with a delta ceramic head and HCLPE cup implant, at any post-operative period. Compared to patients with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner primary THR, the all-cause risk of revision for modular acetabular implant varied non-constantly. THRs with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and HCLPE liner had a lower risk of revision throughout the entire post-operative period. The all-cause and indication-specific risk of prosthesis revision, at different time points following the initial implantation, is lower for implants with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and a HCLPE liner/cup than commonly used alternatives such as cobalt chrome heads and HCLPE liner/cup

A recent French report suggested that cobalt metal ions released from total hip replacements (THRs) were associated with an increased risk of dilated cardiomyopathy and heart failure. If the association is causal the consequences would be significant given the millions of Orthopaedic procedures in which cobalt-chrome is used annually. We examined whether cobalt-chrome containing THRs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders. Data from the National Joint Registry was linked to NHS English hospital inpatient episodes for 375,067 primary THRs with up to 14·5 years follow-up. Implants were grouped as either containing cobalt-chrome or not containing cobalt-chrome. The association between implant construct and the risk of all-cause mortality and incident heart failure, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders was examined. There were 132,119 individuals (35·2%) with an implant containing cobalt-chrome. There were 48,106 deaths, 27,406 heart outcomes, 35,823 cancers, and 22,097 neurodegenerative disorders. There was no evidence of an association that patients with cobalt-chrome implants had higher rates of any of the outcomes. For all-cause mortality there was a very small survival advantage for patients having a cobalt-chrome implant (restricted mean survival time 13·8=days, 95% CI=6·8-20·9). Cobalt-chrome containing THRs did not have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders into the second decade post-implantation. Our findings will reassure clinicians and patients that primary THR is not associated with systemic implant effects

Background. Method of fixation in THA is a contentious issue, with proponents of either technique citing improved implant survival and outcomes. Current comparisons rely on insufficiently powered studies with short-term follow up or larger poorly controlled registry studies. Patient factors are considered a key variable contributing to the risk of implant failure. One way to overcome this confounder is to compare the survival of cementless and cemented THAs patients who have undergone bilateral THAs with cemented hip on one side and cementless hip on the other. We compared stem survival of patients who have bilateral THA with one cemented stem in one hip and a cementless stem in the contralateral hip in the National Joint Registry. Methods. UK National Joint Registry is the largest registry of its kind in the world. This study included 2934 patients with 5868 THAs who underwent bilateral THAs s between 2003 and 2016. These patients had undergone bilateral sequential THAs within 3 years of each other: cemented THA on one side and cementless on the other, Patients had identical pre-operative American Society of Anaesthesiologists group for both THAs and same indication for surgery. Implant survival was compared using Cox regression with an endpoint of stem revision. Results. Ten-year all-cause survival of cementless stems was lower than for cemented stems (p<0.001), as was survival to aseptic loosening revision (p<0.001). Similar trends were seen across all age groups including young and old patients. There was a non-significant trend towards superiority of cemented stems in survival until periprosthetic fracture, dislocation and infection. Conclusion. Comparison of cementless with cemented stems within patients is a novel method to compare the outcomes of orthopaedic implants. Survival was better for cemented stems including for younger patients and aseptic loosening

Patients need to know the benefits, risks and alternatives to any proposed treatment. Surgeons discussing the risk of a revision procedure becoming necessary, after a hip replacement can draw upon the orthopaedic literature and arthroplasty registries for long-term implant survival. However, early revision is required in a minority of cases. We have investigated the probability for revision hip replacement patients in terms of time-point and indication for revision. Of the 9,411 Primary Total Hip Replacements (THR), undertaken by 22 surgeons, over an eleven-year period, between January 2004 and March 2015, 1.70% (160) were subsequently reported to the National Joint Registry (NJR) as revised. Each revision case was reviewed under the supervision of senior hip specialist consultants. The modes of failure of were identified through clinical, laboratory and imaging (x-rays, CT, MRI and Isotope scans) studies. The revision rate for THRs was 0.58% in the first year. This was statistically higher than all subsequent years, P-Value <0.001. There was no statistical difference between any pair of subsequent years. Thereafter, the average revision rate was 0.30% per annum. The odds ratio for revision during the first post–operative year against the subsequent year average was 1.67. The indications for the early hip revisions in the first three years were infection, dislocation and peri-prosthetic fracture. The data from this study can help better inform patients of the revision rates after a primary THR and allow surgeons to develop implant surveillance strategies among high-risk patients

Abstract. Introduction. Component mal-positioning in total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) can increase the risk of revision for various reasons. Compared to conventional surgery, relatively improved accuracy of implant positioning can be achieved using computer assisted technologies including navigation, patient-specific jigs, and robotic systems. However, it is not known whether application of these technologies has improved prosthesis survival in the real-world. This study aimed to compare risk of revision for all-causes following primary THR and TKR, and revision for dislocation following primary THR performed using computer assisted technologies compared to conventional technique. Methods. We performed an observational study using National Joint Registry data. All adult patients undergoing primary THR and TKR for osteoarthritis between 01/04/2003 to 31/12/2020 were eligible. Patients who received metal-on-metal bearing THR were excluded. We generated propensity score weights, using Sturmer weight trimming, based on: age, gender, ASA grade, side, operation funding, year of surgery, approach, and fixation. Specific additional variables included position and bearing for THR and patellar resurfacing for TKR. For THR, effective sample sizes and duration of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided and robotic-assisted analyses were 9,379 and 10,600 procedures, and approximately 18 and 4 years, respectively. For TKR, effective sample sizes and durations of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided, patient-specific jigs, and robotic-assisted groups were 92,579 procedures over 18 years, 11,665 procedures over 8 years, and 644 procedures over 3 years, respectively. Outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and expressed using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results. For THR, analysis comparing computer-guided versus conventional technique demonstrated HR of 0.771 (95%CI 0.573–1.036) p=0.085, and 0.594 (95%CI 0.297–1.190) p=0.142, for revision for all-causes and dislocation, respectively. When comparing robotic-assisted versus conventional technique, HR for revision for all-causes was 0.480 (95%CI 0.067 –3.452) p=0.466. For TKR, compared to conventional surgery, HR for all-cause revision for procedures performed using computer guidance and patient-specific jigs were 0.967 (95% CI 0.888–1.052) p=0.430, and 0.937 (95% CI 0.708–1.241) p=0.65, respectively. HR for analysis comparing robotic-assisted versus conventional technique was 2.0940 (0.2423, 18.0995) p = 0.50. Conclusions. This is the largest study investigating this topic utilising propensity score analysis methods. We did not find a statistically significant difference in revision for all-causes and dislocation although these analyses are underpowered to detect smaller differences in effect size between groups. Additional comparison for revision for dislocation between robotic-assisted versus conventionally performed THR was not performed as this is a subset of revision for all-causes and wide confidence intervals were already observed for that analysis. It is also important to mention this NJR analysis study is of an observational study design which has inherent limitations. Nonetheless, this is the most feasible study design to answer this research question requiring use of a large data set due to revision being a rare outcome. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

Introduction. The National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland contributes important information on the performance of implants and surgeons. However, the quality of this data is not known. This study aimed to perform an independent validation of primary metal-on-metal hip procedures recorded on the NJR through linkage to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC). Patients/Materials & Methods. Primary, metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 1st April 2003 and 5th November 2013 were recruited from the NJR (n=67045). Retrieved, metal-on-metal components were recruited from the LIRC (n=782). Data linkage and validation checks were performed. Results. 476 procedures (60.9%) on the LIRC were successfully linked to the NJR. However, 306 procedures (39.1%) could not be linked. The outcome recorded by the NJR (as either revised, unrevised or death) for a primary procedure was incorrect in 79 linked cases (16.6%). The rate of registry-retrieval linkage and correct assignment of outcome code improved over time. The rates of error for component reference numbers on the NJR were: femoral head category number 14/229 (5.0%); femoral head batch number 13/232 (5.3%); acetabular component category number 2/293 (0.7%) and acetabular component batch number 24/347 (6.5%). Discussion. Registry-Retrieval linkage provided a novel means for data validation, particularly for component fields. This study suggests that NJR reports may underestimate revision rates for many types of metal-on-metal hip. This is topical given the increasing scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous, independent evaluation of NJR data quality and validity

Current advice regarding implant choice is based on estimates of cost-benefit derived from implant survival to an endpoint of revision. Current estimates do not account for many implant failures which are treated with non-revision surgery and may not be accurate. The aim of this study was to estimate survival of major stem implant design groups to an endpoint of reoperation. Primary total hip replacement and linked revision form the National Joint Registry (NJR) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data linked by unique identifier were used. Survival of femoral implant groups (cemented stainless steel polished taper [PTSS], cemented cobalt chrome polished taper [PTCC], cemented composite beam [CB], collarless cementless [NCOL] and collared cementless [COL]) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. 809,832 patients with valid NJR and HES data from England, were included. Cumulative failure at ten years for PTSS increased overall from 2.9% (95%CI 2.8–2.9) to 3.6% (95%CI 3.6–3.7) after inclusion of reoperations. Cumulative failure at ten years for PTSS increased from 2.5% (95%CI 2.5–2.6) to 3.3% (95%CI 3.2–3.4), for PTCC increased from 3.8% (95%CI 3.5–4.0) to 5.4% (95%CI 5.1–5.6), for CB increased from 3.1% (95%CI 2.9–3.3) to 4.1% (95%CI 3.8–4.3), for NCOL increased from 3.4% (95%CI 3.3–3.5) to 3.9% (95%CI 3.8–4.0), and for COL increased from 2.5% (95%CI 2.4–2.6) to 3.1% (95%CI 2.9–3.2), after inclusion of reoperations. Re-operation for internal fixation is as significant life event for the patient as revision. When a more inclusive metric is used, the patient and clinician's perspective on what constitutes a GIRFT implant may not be the same. Further work is required to update implant selection guidance in view of the change in implant performance

The National Joint Registry (NJR) was established in 2003, and was extended to include ankle arthroplasty on 1. st. April 2010, and shoulder and elbow arthroplasty in April 2012. The aim of this study was to evaluate the uptake of the NJR for ankle arthroplasty over its first 3 years. This is compared to the first 3 years of hip and knee data, and the first year of shoulder and elbow data. The methods of measuring compliance are also evaluated. NJR compliance is measured by comparing the number of procedures submitted to the NJR, against the number of levies raised through implant sales. This applies to all of the UK, and both independent and NHS providers. However, compliance can also be measured by comparing NJR submissions with data submitted to the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database. This only relates to NHS institutions in England. The NJR ankle data was compared to implant data, and adjusted to compare to HES data, to evaluate the different methods of measuring compliance. We also compared these figures with the first 3 years for hip and knee arthroplasties and the first year for shoulder and elbow arthroplasties. Results:. In 2011 there were 493 arthroplasties and the compliance was 64% against industry data. In 2012 there were 590 procedures with compliance improved to 77% against industry data. When adjusting NJR to compare with HES data, the compliance was 87% in 2012., with 507 ankle arthroplasties registered with the NJR and 582 on HES data. The reasons for this discrepancy are discussed. The specific difficulties of capturing ankle revisions are discussed, as some get revised to arthrodeses. The uptake is significantly higher than the first year for all other joints (shoulders 52%, hips 57%, knees 57%, and elbows 60%)

At the end of 2018, the NZ Joint Registry introduced a “Surgeon Outlier” policy, whereby each year, if an individual surgeons’ lower 95% confidence interval of their revision rate, measured in revision/100 component years(r/ocys), was above the NZ mean (0.71 r/ocys), that surgeon was required to audit their results with a nominated peer. This study investigates whether outlier surgeons also have high early (1 month and 1 year) revision rates.

In 2018, 236 surgeons performed 9,186 total hip arthroplasties in NZ. At the end of 2018, 11 surgeons received notification they were outliers. Results from all surgeons for years 2016, 2017 and 2018 were combined to form the first (pre-notification) time interval, and results from years 2019, 2020 and 2021 were combined to form the second time interval (post-notification). Outlier surgeons performed 2001 total hip replacements in the first time interval and 1947 hips in the second. Early revision rates (1 month and 1 year) of both outlier and nonoutlier surgeons for both time intervals were analysed.

Non-outlier surgeons had a consistent mean early revision rate of 0.75% at one month and 1.6% at one year for both time intervals. The 11 outlier surgeons had a higher earlier revision rate of 1.35% at one month and 2.45% at one year for the pre-notification time interval. These values reduced for the post-notification time interval to a revision rate of 1.23% for one month and 2.36% for one year.

Poor joint registry results of individual surgeons are often attributed to a poor choice of prosthesis. This study shows early revision rates of outlier surgeons, where prosthesis selection has minimal influence, are also high.

A slight improvement in early revision rates of outlier surgeons since introduction of the policy shows it is working.

Introduction. Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) offers advantages over total knee replacement but has higher revision rates particularly for aseptic loosening. Cementless UKR was introduced in an attempt to address this. We used National Joint Registry (NJR) data to compare the 10-year results of cemented and cementless mobile bearing UKR whilst matching for important patient, implant and surgical factors. We also explored the influence of caseload on outcome. Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study using NJR data on 30,814 cemented and 9,708 cementless mobile bearing UKR implanted between 2004 and 2016. Logistic regression was utilised to calculate propensity scores allowing for matching of cemented and cementless groups for various patient, implant and surgical confounders, including surgeon's caseload, using a one to one ratio. 14,814 UKRs (7407 cemented and 7407 cementless) were propensity score matched. Outcomes studied were revision, defined as removal, addition or exchange of a component, and reasons for revision. Implant survival was compared using Cox regression models and groups were stratified according to surgeon caseload. Results. Based on raw unmatched data the 10 year survival for cementless and cemented UKR were 89% (95% CI 88%–90%) and 93% (CI 90%–96%), with cementless having a lower revision rate (Hazard ratio (HR)=0.59 (CI 0.52–0.68, p<0.001). However, there were differences between the cohorts in many potential confounding factors particularly surgeons caseload: Surgeons using cementless had a higher caseloads than those using cemented and for both cohorts the revision rate decreased with increasing caseload. Following matching, all potential confounders were well balanced and the 10-year survival for cementless and cemented were 90% (CI 88%–92%) and 93% (95% CI 90–96%) with cementless having a lower revision rate (HR 0.76; CI 0.64–0.91; p=0.003). This was due to rate of revision for aseptic loosening more than halving (p<0.001) in the cementless (n=31, 0.4%) compared to cemented (n=74, 1.0%) and the rate of revision for pain decreasing (p=0.03) in the cementless (n=34, 0.5%) compared to the cemented (n=55, 0.7%). However, the rate of peri-prosthetic fracture increased significantly (p=0.01) in the cementless (n=19, 0.3%) compared to the cemented (n=7, 0.1%). Following matching the decrease in revision rate with the cementless was similar for low (<10 cases/year; HR 0.74), medium (10–30 cases/year; HR 0.79) and high (>10 cases/year; HR 0.79) caseload surgeons. The 10- year survival for cementless and cemented were for low caseload 87% & 82%, medium caseload 94% & 92% and high caseload 98% & 94% respectively. Conclusions. This is the first study to compare the 10-year survival of the cementless and cemented mobile bearing UKR. We have demonstrated that the cementless device has a 24% reduced risk of revision and that this was independent of surgeon caseload and other important patient, surgical and implant confounders. This improvement was due to the rate of revision for aseptic loosening and pain halving. However, there was a small increase in rate of periprosthetic fracture. The results of both cemented and cementless UKR improved with increasing surgeon caseload. Low volume surgeons have poor results with both cemented and cementless UKR so should consider either stopping doing UKR or doing more. Medium and high volume surgeons should consider using the cementless. High volume surgeons using the cementless had particularly good results with a 10-year survival of 98%. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Purpose. To establish the reliability of reporting and recording revision hip and knee arthroplasties by comparing data in the National Joint Registry (NJR), Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and our local theatre records. Methods. The paper theatre registers for all orthopaedic theatres in the Royal Derby Hospitals NHS Trust were examined for details of revision hip and knee replacements carried out in 2007 and 2008. This was then cross-checked and merged with the local electronic theatre data to obtain a definitive local record of all revision hip and knee arthroplasties. Data for the same period was requested from the NJR and HES and these data were checked against our definitive local record for discrepancies. The HES codes used were the same codes used to compile the recent NJR annual reports. Results. The theatre registers and ORMIS identified 271 revision hip and knee arthroplasties in the study period. The NJR had corresponding data for 176 (65%) of these, and HES had 250 (92%). 10 cases (4%) were not recorded by either NJR or HES: 8 secondary resurfacings of patellae and 2 posterior lip augmentations in hips. Of those operations “missed” by HES, most had been assigned a correct “W” code, but had a “Y” or “Z” OPCS code not used in the NJR annual reports. Conclusion. When HES and the NJR data are combined, they are an accurate representation of real practice. More robust methods of reporting revision arthroplasty to the NJR are required. The OPCS codes used to indicate a revision need to be reviewed