Aims. We estimated the prevalence of people living with at least one hip, knee, or shoulder arthroplasty in the Netherlands. Methods. We included the first hip (n = 416,333), knee (n = 314,569), or shoulder (n = 23,751) arthroplasty of each patient aged ≥ 40 years between 2007 and 2022 (hip/knee) or 2014 and 2022 (shoulder) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Data on the size of the Dutch population were obtained from Statistics Netherlands. Annual incidences and deaths from hip and knee arthroplasty since 2010, and shoulder arthroplasty since 2015, were observed from the LROI. Annual incidences and deaths before those years were estimated using Poisson regression analyses and parametric survival models based on a Gompertz distribution. Non-parametric percentile bootstrapping with resampling was used to estimate 95% CIs. Results. Annual incidences per 100,000 Dutch inhabitants aged ≥ 40 years increased for hip arthroplasties from 221 (95% CI 214 to 229) in 1990 to 360 in 2022, for knee arthroplasties from 181 (95% CI 174 to 188) to 272, and for shoulder arthroplasties from 11 (95% CI 8.0 to 16) to 34. In 2022, 791,000 (95% CI 787,000 to 794,000) people in the Netherlands were living with at least one joint replacement, representing 8.4% (95% CI 8.4 to 8.5) of the Dutch population aged ≥ 40 years. For hip, knee, and shoulder arthroplasties, these were 436,000 (95% CI 433,000 to 438,000), 383,000 (95% CI 380,000 to 386,000), and 34,000 (95% CI 33,000 to 36,000) people, corresponding to 4.7% (95% CI 4.6 to 4.7), 4.1% (95% CI 4.1 to 4.1), and 0.4% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.4) of the Dutch population, respectively. The most common age group living with at least one joint replacement was the ≥ 80-year age group, representing 38% (95% CI 37 to 38) of the Dutch population aged ≥ 80 years. Conclusion. Approximately 800,000 people in the Netherlands were living with at least one hip, knee, or shoulder replacement in 2022, representing one in 12 Dutch inhabitants aged ≥ 40 years. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(1):74–81

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

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