This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip replacement for aseptic loosening. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip replacements (RHR) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Among 12,676 RHR there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant's first RHR (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1·58 (95%CI 1·16 to 2·15)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 26 cases (HR 1·26 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·28 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1·81 (95%CI 1·02 to 3·21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHR performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 168 RHR were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·70 (95% CI 1·12 to 2·60)), and those having undertaken fewer than 309 RHR were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3·06 (95% CI 1·19 to 7·86)). This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHR for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralisation of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons

The 22 year survivorship of metal on metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (RSA) is reported to be 94.3% with expert surgeons, in males with head sizes greater than 48mm. The 2023 National Joint Registry (NJR) report estimates survivorship of all RSA at 19 years to be 85%. This estimate includes all designs, head sizes and females. Our aim was to estimate the survivorship of RSA currently available for implantation (males only, head size >48mm, MatOrtho Adept or Smith and Nephew Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR)) in those under 55 years, performed by all surgeons, compared to conventional THR. We performed a retrospective analysis of the NJR. We included all males under 55 years who had undergone BHR or Adept RSA with head size greater than 48mm. Propensity score matching was used to produce two comparable groups of patients for RSA or conventional THR. We matched in a 3:1 ratio (THR:RSA) using sex, ASA, BMI group, age at primary procedure, surgeon volume, diagnosis and surgeon grade as covariates. The primary analysis was survivorship at 18 years. Time-to-revision was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves. Cox's proportional hazard models were used to investigate between group differences. 4839 RSA were available for analysis. After matching the RSA and THR groups were well balanced in terms of covariates. Survivorship at 18 years was 93.7% (95% CI 89.9,96.2) in the RSA group and 93.9% (90.5,96.0) in the THR group. Despite these similar estimates the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.40 (95% CI 1.18, 1.67 p<0.001) in favour of THR. Survivorship of the currently available RSA in males under 55 was 93.7% at 18 years, however THR survivorship was superior to RSA. These results, generalisable to UK practice, should be set against perceived benefits in functional status offered in RSA when counselling patients

This study utilized data from the NJR dataset on all Corail/Pinnacle total hip replacements (THR) to determine (a) the level of unit variation of the Corail/Pinnacle 36mm Metal On Metal THR within England and Wales; (b) patient, implant and surgeon factors that may be associated with higher revision rates; (c) Account for the influence of the MHRA announcement in 2010. The national Revision Rate (RR) for the Corail / Pinnacle MOM THR was 10.77% (OR:1.46; CI:1.17–1.81). This was significantly greater than other articulation combinations (MOP 1.72%, COP 1.36%, COC 2.19%). The 2010 MHRA announcement did not increase rate of revision (X. 2. =1649.63, df=13, p<.001). Patient factors associated with significantly increased revision rates included, female gender (OR 1.38 (CI 1.17–1.63, p<.001) and younger age OR 0.99 (CI 0.98–0.99), p<.001). Implant factor analysis demonstrated an inverse relationship between cup size and revision. As head length increased RR increased – highest risk of revision +12.5 (OR 1.69 (CI 1.12–2.55), p=0.13). Coxa vara, high offset stems had a higher risk of revision compared to standard offset stems (OR:1.41 (CI 1.15–1.74; p<.001). As stem size increased risk of revision decreased (OR 0.89 (CI 0.85–0.93); p<.001). Surgeon grade did not influence RR. There was significant variation in RR between hospitals with 7 units (7/61 excluding low volume centres, <50 implants) identified as having significant higher rates of revision. However, for each of these units there was a greater proportion of higher risk patients (female, cup size 50–54, stem type). This study has provided insight into unit variation, risk factors and the long term outcome of the Corail/Pinnacle 36mm MOMTHR. Future aims are to use these results to develop a risk stratified algorithm for the long term follow of these patients to minimize patient inconvenience and excess use of limited NHS resources

Modular femoral stems offer surgeons great flexibility in biomechanical configuration during total hip replacement (THR) however introduce a taper-trunnion articulation known to be a source of additional wear debris through crevice, fretting and galvanic corrosion with mixed material combinations. This study aimed to investigate the influence of the trunnion bearing surface combination on the revision rate following primary total hip replacement (THR).

All patients who underwent THR using an Exeter V40 cemented stainless steel stem and monobloc cemented polyethylene acetabular component (uncemented cups excluded to standardise the acetabular bearing surface and fixation) between January 2003 and December 2019 were extracted from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man. The primary exposure was the head substrate used corresponding to the trunnion bearing.

Time-to-event was determined by duration of implantation from primary surgery to revision with cases censored at death or end of available follow-up. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify predictors of all cause revision, adjusted for age, sex, American Association of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, body mass index, surgical indication (osteoarthritis or other), and femoral head size.

229,870 THR were identified (66% female, mean age 73.4 years (SD 9.1) with the majority (91%) performed for osteoarthritis of which 4,598 were revised. Mean time from primary to revision or censoring was 6.8 years (SD 4.0).

Multivariable modelling showed CoCr/SS trunnions were associated with a significantly higher risk of revision (hazard ratio (HR) 1.31 (95%CI 1.15 to 1.48, p<0.0001) as compared to SS/SS (reference). Both Alumina/SS (HR 0.74 (0.65 to 0.84), p<0.0001) and Zirconia/SS (HR 0.61 (0.49 to 0.74), p<0.0001) were associated with a significantly lower risk of revision

Ceramic heads on an Exeter stem were associated with significantly improved survivorship compared to metal heads in primary THR. CoCr/SS trunnion articulations had the poorest survivorship which may be contributed to by trunnionosis.

With the increasing demand for hip and knee replacement, and the increasing pressure to move towards routine seven-day services within the National Health Service, the trend towards weekend operating is set to increase. We aimed to determine whether planned, elective total hip and total knee replacement performed at the weekend is associated with a different 30-day mortality versus those performed between Monday and Friday.

We used National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man (NJR) linked to Office for National Statistics (ONS) data. The study dataset comprised 118,096 joint replacement episodes performed at the weekend and 1,233,882 episodes done on a weekday. The main outcome measure was 30-day all-causes mortality. We applied a survivorship analysis using a Kaplan-Meier framework to examine the 30-day cumulative mortality rate for all elective hip and knee replacements performed in England and Wales between 1st April 2003 and 31st December 2014, with Cox proportional-hazards regression models to assess for time-dependent variation and adjust for identified risk factors for mortality.

For hip replacement the cumulative 30-day mortality was 0.15% (95%CI: 0.12–0.19) for patients operated on at the weekend versus 0.20% (0.19–0.21) for patients undergoing surgery during the normal working week. For knee replacement the cumulative 30-day mortality was 0.14% (0.11–0.17) for patients operated on at the weekend versus 0.18% (0.17–0.19) for patients undergoing surgery during the normal working week. The lower mortality associated with weekend operating was most apparent in the later years of the audit (2009 to 2014) and remained after adjustment for any differences in patient age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologist grade, surgeon seniority, surgical and anaesthetic practices, and thrombo-prophylaxis choice in weekend versus weekday operated patients.

Hip and knee replacements are routinely performed on Saturdays, and to a lesser extent on Sundays, in England and Wales and are not associated with an increased risk of post-operative mortality.

There is a North Atlantic divide, with cementless femoral stems being used more frequently in the USA and cemented stems being used more frequently in many countries in Europe. This is primarily because different cemented stems have been used on different sides of the Atlantic and the results of the cemented stems in the US have often been poor, whereas the results of the stems used in Europe have been good. In the National registers in Europe, cemented stems have tended to achieve better results than cementless.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:51–2.

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

Aims. The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). In 2004, the 44/00/125 stem was released for use in ‘cement-in-cement’ revision cases. It has, however, been used ‘off-label’ as a primary stem when patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44 mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this implant in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR. Methods. We analyzed 328,737 primary THAs using the Exeter V40 stem, comprising 34.3% of the 958,869 from the start of the NJR to December 2018. Our exposure was the stem, and the outcome was all-cause construct revision. We stratified analyses into four groups: constructs using the 44/00/125 stem, those using the 44/0/150 stem, those including a 35.5/125 stem, and constructs using any other Exeter V40 stem. Results. In all 328,737 THAs using an Exeter V40 stem, the revision estimate was 2.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7 to 2.8). The 44/00/125 stem was implanted in 2,158 primary THAs, and the ten-year revision estimate was 4.9% (95% CI 3.6 to 6.8). Controlling for age, sex, year of operation, indication, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade demonstrated an increased overall hazard of revision for constructs using the 44/00/125 stem compared to constructs using other Exeter V40 femoral stems (hazard ratio 1.8 (95% CI 1.4 to 2.3)). Conclusion. Although the revision estimate is within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence ten-year benchmark, survivorship of constructs using the 44/00/125 stem appears to be lower than the rest of the range. Adjusted analyses will not take into account ‘confounding by indication’, e.g. patients with complex anatomy who may have a higher risk of revision. Surgeons and patients should be reassured but be aware of the observed increased revision estimate, and only use this stem when other implants are not suitable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):504–510

Ceramic bearing fractures are rare events, but mandate revision and implantation of new bearings. Revisions using metal heads have been reported to lead to gross volumetric head wear (due to abrasive retained ceramic micro-debris), cobalt toxicity, multi-organ failure and death. Such complications are widely published (50+ reports), yet we know that patients continue to be put at risk. Using data from the NJR and AOANJRR, this study seeks to compare the risk of re-revision and death by revision bearing combination following a ceramic bearing fracture. Data were extracted from the NJR and AOANJRR, identifying revisions for ceramic bearing fracture. Subsequent outcomes of survival, re-revision and death were compared between revision bearing combinations (ceramic-on-ceramic, ceramic-on-polyethylene, and metal-on-polyethylene). 366 cases were available for analysis from the NJR dataset (MoP=34, CoP=112, CoC=221) and 174 from the AOANJRR dataset (MoP=17, CoP=44, CoC=113). The overall incidence rate of adverse outcome (revision or death) was 0.65 for metal heads and 0.23 for ceramic head articulations (p=0.0012) across the whole time period (NJR). Kaplan-Meir survival estimates demonstrate an increased risk of both re-revision and death where a metal head has been used vs a ceramic head following revision for ceramic fracture. There are few decisions in arthroplasty surgery that can lead to serious harm or death for our patients, but revision using a metal head following ceramic bearing fracture is one of them. This study enhances the signal of what is already known but previously only reported as inherently low-level evidence (case reports and small series) due to event rarity. Use of a metal head in revision for ceramic fracture represents an avoidable patient safety issue, which revision guidelines should seek to address

Dual mobility (DM) is most often used by surgeons to reduce instability in high risk patients. NJR data on DM has not demonstrated a reduction in all cause revision and has reported an increase in revision for peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF). The aim of our study was:. Report outcome of DM used in high-risk patients including non-revision re-operations (dislocation & PPF). Comparison with conventional bearing THA (cTHA) with local, national and NJR benchmarking data. Retrospective cohort assessment of falls risk for patients receiving DM. Prospective F/U of a DM implant since 2016 and enrolled into Beyond Compliance (BC). Primary outcome measure all-cause revision with secondary outcome including any re-operation and Oxford Hip Score (OHS). All patients were risk stratified and considered high risk for instability. Complications were identified via hospital records, clinical coding linkage, NJR and BC. Benchmarking data for comparison was obtained from same data sources we also considered all B type PPF that occurred with cemented polished taper stem (PTS). 159 implants in 154 patients with a mean age 74.0 years and a maximum F/U of 6.7 years. Survivorship for all-cause revision 99.4% (95% CI 96.2–99.8). One femoral only revision. Mean gain in OHS 27.4. Dislocation rate 0.6% with a single event. Patients with a PTS rate of Type B PPF 2.1% requiring revision/fixation. Compared to cTHA this cohort was significantly older (74.0 vs 68.3 years), more co-morbidity (ASA 3 46.5% vs 14.4%) and more non-OA indications (32.4% vs 8.5%). Relative risks for dislocation 0.57 (95%CI 0.08–4.1) and PPF 1.75 (95%CI 0.54–5.72). Every patient had at least one risk factor for falling and >50% of cohort had 4 or more risk factors using NICE tool. The selective use of DM in high-risk patients can reduce the burden of instability. These individuals are very different to the “average” THA patient. A “perfect storm” is created using a high-risk implant combination (DM & PTS) in high-risk falls risk population. This re-enforces the need to consider all patient and implant factors when deciding bearing selection

The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the NJR for primary THA. In 2004, the 44/00/125 stem was released for use in “cement-in-cement” revision cases. It has however been used ‘off-label’ as a primary stem when, for example, patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this stem in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR. Analyses were performed using a dataset based on that used for the 2020 NJR annual report. Our exposure was the stem; the outcome was all-cause construct revision. Crude analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier and adjusted using Cox models. The 44/00/125 stem was directly compared to other stems in the Exeter range. We analysed 330,732 primary THAs using the Exeter V40 stem comprising 34.5% of the 958,869 THAs with complete information from the start of the NJR to 31 December 2018. The 44/00/125 stem was implanted in 2,158 primary THAs with 67.5% in female patients and a mean age of 67.8. The 10-year revision estimate for the 44/00/125 stem was 4.9% (95%CI 3.6, 6.8) and in constructs using an Exeter V40 stem was 2.8% (95%CI 2.7, 2.8). Controlling for age, sex and ASA demonstrated an increased overall hazard of revision for constructs using the 44/00/125 stem compared to constructs using other Exeter V40 femoral stems (HR 1.8 (95%CI 1.4, 2.3)). Although the revision estimate is within the NICE 10-year benchmark, survivorship of constructs using the 44/00/125 stem appears to be lower than the rest of the Exeter V40 range. Attempts to control for age, sex and ASA will not take into account confounding by indication i.e. patients with more complex anatomy who may have a higher risk of revision. Surgeons and patients should be reassured by this but should be aware of the observed increased revision estimate and use the stem according to its indications

Aims. The National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) has extended its scope to report on hospital, surgeon and implant performance. Data linkage of the NJR to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC) has previously evaluated data quality for hip primary procedures, but did not assess revision records. . Methods. We analysed metal-on-metal hip revision procedures performed between 2003 and 2013. A total of 69 929 revision procedures from the NJR and 929 revised pairs of components from the LIRC were included. Results. We were able to link 716 (77.1%) revision procedures on the NJR to the LIRC. This meant that 213 (22.9%) revision procedures at the LIRC could not be identified on the NJR. We found that 349 (37.6%) explants at the LIRC completed the full linkage process to both NJR primary and revision databases. Data completion was excellent (> 99.9%) for revision procedures reported to the NJR. Discussion. This study has shown that only approximately one third of retrieved components at the LIRC, contributed to survival curves on the NJR. We recommend prospective registry-retrieval linkage as a tool to feedback missing and erroneous data to the NJR and improve data quality. Take home message: Prospective Registry – retrieval linkage is a simple tool to evaluate and improve data quality on the NJR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:33–9

Arthroplasty registries are important for the surveillance of joint replacements and the evaluation of outcome. Independent validation of registry data ensures high quality. The ability for orthopaedic implant retrieval centres to validate registry data is not known. We analysed data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) for primary metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 2003 and 2013. Records were linked to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (RC) for validation. A total of 67 045 procedures on the NJR and 782 revised pairs of components from the RC were included. We were able to link 476 procedures (60.9%) recorded with the RC to the NJR successfully. 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 as follows: 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%). . Registry-retrieval linkage provided a novel means for the validation of data, particularly for component fields. This study suggests that NJR reports may underestimate rates of revision for many types of metal-on-metal hip replacement. This is topical given the increasing scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous independent evaluation of the quality and validity of NJR data. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:10–18

Aims. This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. Methods. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip arthroplasties (RHAs) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Results. Among 12,961 RHAs there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant’s first RHA (hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.12)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 24 cases (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHAs performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 167 RHAs were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.59)), and those having undertaken fewer than 307 RHAs were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3.05 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.82)). Conclusion. This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHA for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralization of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1050–1058

Whilst total hip replacement (THR) is generally safe and effective, pre-existing medical conditions, particularly those requiring inpatient admission, may increase the risk of post-operative mortality. Delaying elective surgery may reduce the risk, but it is unclear how long a delay is sufficient. We analysed 958,145 primary THRs performed for solely osteoarthritis April 2003-December 2018, in the NJR linked to Hospital Episodes Statistics to identify inpatient admissions prior to elective THR for 17 conditions making up the Charlson index including myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease and diabetes. Crude analyses used Kaplan-Meier and adjusted analyses used Cox modelling. Patients were categorised for each co-morbidity into one of four groups: not recorded in previous five-years, recorded between five-years and six-months before THR, recorded six-months to three-months before THR, and recorded between three-months and day before surgery. 90-day mortality was 0.34% (95%CI: 0.33–0.35). In the 432 patients who had an acute MI in the three months before THR, this figure increased to 18.1% (95%CI 14.8, 22.0). Cox models observed 63 times increased hazard of death within 90-days if patients had an acute MI in the 3-months before their THR, compared to patients who had not had an MI in the five years before their THR (HR 63.6 (95%CI 50.8, 79.7)) This association reduced as the time between acute MI and THR increased. For congestive cardiac failure, the hazard in the same scenario was 18-times higher with a similar protective effect of delaying surgery. Linked NJR and HES data demonstrate an association between inpatient admission for acute medical co-morbidities and death within 90-days of THR. This association is greatest in MI, congestive cardiac failure and cerebrovascular disease with smaller associations observed in several other conditions including diabetes. The hazard reduces when longer delays are seen between the admission for acute medical conditions and THR in all diagnoses. This information will help patients with previous medical admissions and surgeons to determine optimal timing for surgery

Aims. Total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are performed by surgeons at various stages in training with varying levels of supervision, but we do not know if this is safe practice with comparable outcomes to consultant-performed THA. Our aim was to examine the association between surgeon grade, the senior supervision of trainees, and the risk of revision following THA. Methods. We performed an observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data. We included adult patients who underwent primary THA for osteoarthritis, recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2016. Exposures were operating surgeon grade (consultant or trainee) and whether or not trainees were directly supervised by a scrubbed consultant. Outcomes were all-cause revision and the indication for revision up to ten years. We used methods of survival analysis, adjusted for patient, operation, and healthcare setting factors. Results. We included 603,474 THAs, of which 58,137 (9.6%) procedures were performed by a trainee. There was no association between surgeon grade and all-cause revision up to ten years (crude hazard ratio (HR) 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.07); p = 0.966), a finding which persisted with adjusted analysis. Fully adjusted analysis demonstrated an association between trainees operating without scrubbed consultant supervision and an increased risk of all-cause revision (HR 1.10 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.21); p = 0.045). There was an association between trainee-performed THA and revision for instability (HR 1.14 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.30); p = 0.039). However, this was not observed in adjusted models, or when trainees were supervised by a scrubbed consultant. Conclusion. Within the current training system in England and Wales, appropriately supervised trainees achieve comparable THA survival to consultants. Trainees who are supervised by a scrubbed consultant achieve superior outcomes compared to trainees who are not supervised by a scrubbed consultant, particularly in terms of revision for instability. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):341–351

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe temporal trends and survivorship of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in very young patients, aged ≤ 20 years. Patients and Methods. A descriptive observational study was undertaken using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man between April 2003 and March 2017. All patients aged ≤ 20 years at the time of THA were included and the primary outcome was revision surgery. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data and Kaplan–Meier estimates calculated for the cumulative implant survival. Results. A total of 769 THAs were performed in 703 patients. The median follow-up was 5.1 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.6 to 7.8). Eight patients died and 35 THAs were revised. The use of metal-on-metal (MoM) bearings and resurfacing procedures declined after 2008. The most frequently recorded indications for revision were loosening (20%) and infection (20%), although the absolute risk of these events occurring was low (0.9%). Factors associated with lower implant survival were MoM and metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) bearings and resurfacing arthroplasty (vs ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings, p = 0.002), and operations performed by surgeons who undertook few THAs in this age group as recorded in the NJR (vs those with five or more recorded operations, p = 0.030). Kaplan–Meier estimates showed 96% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94% to 98%) survivorship of implants at five years. Conclusion. Within the NJR, the overall survival for very young patients undergoing THA exceeded 96% during the first five postoperative years. In the absence of studies that can better account for differences in the characteristics of the patients, surgeons should consider the association between early revision and the type of implant, the number of THAs performed in these patients, and the bearing surface when performing THA in very young patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:1320–9

Total hip replacements (THRs) provide pain relief and improved function to thousands of patients suffering from end-stage osteoarthritis, every year. Over 800 different THR constructs were implanted in the UK in 2017. To ensure reliable implants are used, a NICE revision benchmark of 5% after 10 years exists. Given the 10-year cumulative mortality of patients under 55 years of age receiving THRs is only 5% and that a recent study suggests 25-year THR survival of 58%, we aim to produce revision estimates out to 30 years that may guide future long-term benchmarks. The local database of the Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre (PEOC), Exeter, holds data on over 20,000 patients with nearly 30-years follow-up with contemporary prostheses. A previous study suggests that the results of this centre are generalisable if comparisons restricted to the same prostheses. Via flexible parametric survival analysis, we created an algorithm using this database, for revision of any part of the construct for any reason, controlling for age and gender. This algorithm was applied to 664,761 patients in the NJR who have undergone THR, producing a revision prediction for patients with the same prostheses as those used at this centre. Using our algorithm, the 10-year predicted revision rate of THRs in the NJR was 2.2% (95% CI 1.8, 2.7) based on a 68-year-old female patient; well below the current NICE benchmark. Our predictions were validated by comparison to the maximum observed survival in the NJR (14.2 years) using restricted mean survival time (P=0.32). Our predicted cumulative revision estimate after 30 years is 6.5% (95% CI 4.5, 9.4). The low observed and predicted revision rate with the prosthesis combinations studied, suggest current benchmarks may be lowered and new ones introduced at 15 and 20 years to encourage the use of prostheses with high survival

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

Successful estimation of postoperative PROMs prior to a joint replacement surgery is important in deciding the best treatment option for a patient. However, estimation of the outcome is associated with substantial noise around individual prediction. Here, we test whether a classifier neural network can be used to simultaneously estimate postoperative PROMs and uncertainty better than current methods. We perform Oxford hip score (OHS) estimation using data collected by the NJR from 249,634 hip replacement surgeries performed from 2009 to 2018. The root mean square error (RMSE) of the various methods are compared to the standard deviation of outcome change distribution to measure the proportion of the total outcome variability that the model can capture. The area under the curve (AUC) for the probability of the change score being above a certain threshold was also plotted. The proposed classifier NN had a better or equivalent RMSE than all other currently used models. The threshold AUC shows similar results for all methods close to a change score of 20 but demonstrates better accuracy of the classifier neural network close to 0 change and greater than 30 change, showing that the full probability distribution performed by the classifier neural network resulted in a significant improvement in estimating the upper and lower quantiles of the change score probability distribution. Consequently, probabilistic estimation as performed by the classifier NN is the most adequate approach to this problem, since the final score has an important component of uncertainty. This study shows the importance of uncertainty estimation to accompany postoperative PROMs prediction and presents a clinically-meaningful method for personalised outcome that includes such uncertainty estimation