Aim. National Joint Replacement Registries, which are important sources for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) data, report an average PJI incidence ranging from 0.5 to 2.0%. Unfortunately, national registries including the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), are not specifically designed to register PJI. In the Netherlands, the LROI is a nationwide population-based registry with an overall completeness of more than 95%. 3. To ensure usability and reliability of PJI data from the LROI, it is important to evaluate the quality and completeness of these data. From 2013 onwards, eight hospitals in the South-East of the Netherlands, collected their PJI data in a detailed regional infection cohort (RIC), specifically designed for this purpose. This study aimed to determine the accuracy and completeness of PJI registration (hip and knee arthroplasty) in the LROI, by comparing the LROI with the RIC. Method. All patients registered with an acute PJI in the RIC between 2014–2018 were selected for the study and were matched with the LROI. According to the Workgroup of American Musculoskeletal Infections Society (MSIS), an acute PJI was defined as at least two phenotypically identical pathogens, isolated in cultures from at least two separate tissues, obtained from the affected peri-prosthetic tissue during the DAIR treatment (debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention). Only PJI occurring within 90 days after primary hip or knee arthroplasty were included. The LROI data and completeness was based on the entered procedures and documented reason for revision infection, which was not specially based on the MSIS criteria. After checks on missing and incorrectly data, the completeness of registration in the LROI was calculated by comparing the number of registrations in the LROI with data from the RIC (gold standard). Results. Of the 639 primary total hip and knee arthroplasty with a suspected PJI registered in the RIC between 2014–2018, 352 cases met the definition of acute PJI. The overall incidence was 1%. When compared with the LROI, 164 of these cases were also registered in the LROI as PJI revision, resulting in a 53% underestimation of PJI for the LROI. Conclusions. LROI data on acute PJI shows a significant underestimation, which is comparable to scarce other literature sources. To ensure reliability and usability of national PJI data, a specifically part of the LROI has to be designed for registering PJI similar to the regional cohort

Over the past 15 years metal on metal hip resurfacing (MOMHR) has seen a spectacular resurgence in utilization followed by near abandonment of the procedure. A select group of surgeons still offer the procedure to a select group of patients suggesting that there are benefits of MOMHR over total hip arthroplasty (THA). This is problematic for the following reasons:. 1). MOMHR does not lead to increased survivorship. The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the England and Wales National Joint Registry, from countries with high rates of utilization of MOMHR, both report significantly worse survivorship with MOMHR compared to all types of conventional THA. Risk factors for revision of resurfacing were older patients, females, smaller femoral head size, patients with developmental dysplasia, and certain implant designs. 2). MOMHR is associated with the generation of metal ions that can have devastating effects in some patients. Cobalt and chromium ions generated from MOMHR can result in adverse local tissues reactions around the hip, sometimes with catastrophic consequences, as well as neurological deficits, skin rashes, and cardiomyopathy. It is unclear as to which patients are at risk for the generation of high ion levels and less clear with respect to the host response to these ions. The discriminative and predictive values of ion testing are still being determined. MOMHR subsequently require careful follow-up with limited tools to assess risk and pending problems. 3). MOMHR is not less invasive. In order to deliver the femoral head for safe preparation and to access the acetabulum with the femoral head and neck in situ, significant dissection and retraction are required. The exposure issue is compounded as the procedure is most often performed in younger, larger males. Difficulty with exposure has been associated with an insult to the femoral head's blood supply that may lead to fracture and/or neck narrowing. 4). Preservation of the femoral canal with MOMHR does not improve outcomes of revision. The perceived advantage of preserved femoral head and neck implies that a conversion of a MOMHR to total hip should convey survivorship similar to primary THA. However, this is not the case as confirmed by data from the AOANJRR demonstrating worse survivorship of revised resurfacings when compared to a primary total hip arthroplasty. 5). MOMHR does not result in superior functional outcomes. Advocates for MOMHR often claim that the large femoral head and intact femoral neck in resurfacing results in a better functional outcome and therefore, a better quality of life and satisfaction when compared to a conventional THA. This, however, was not the case when gait speed, postural balance evaluations and functional tests were used in a randomised study of 48 patients, which failed to show an advantage of MOMHR over THA. In conclusion, it is relatively straightforward to oppose and argue against the use of hip resurfacings as they have worse outcomes in all National Joint Registries, produce metal ions with significant clinical consequences, are more invasive, are difficult to revise with subsequent inferior outcomes when compared to a conventional primary THA, and do not provide better function. These adverse features come with a premium price when compared to a conventional THA