The value of joint registries is to (1) provide large scale longitudinal follow-up of classes of implants and individual implants—thereby providing potential for improved performance—and (2) serve as a tripwire for unexpected problem implants which is well appreciated. The purpose of this talk is not to reiterate the value of joint arthroplasty registries, but rather to look at several key findings from joint registries around the world and discuss what these mean for orthopaedic surgery today. Observation #1: Registries can tell us where the biggest problems are so we can act on them: Example: Early failures—those occurring in the first two years—account for about half of all failures by ten years. Early failures consist of mainly technically related problems and infections. If we can reduce these problems, we can reduce the number of patients having a second surgery after joint replacement by almost half. For one type of early failure (infection), the registry data show rate of infection after THA and TKA has not declined substantially in the last 20 years. We need major innovation in this area to solve this problem. On the other hand, registry data show early failures in older patients after THA are often due to periprosthetic femur fracture: we can solve this problem now with choice of stem fixation or prophylactic wires in high risk patients. Observation #2: Innovation can and does work! It is not correct to suggest that no new implants have led to improved results. Example: Registry data demonstrate that cross-linked polyethylene bearings have reduced the risk of revision after THA dramatically, especially in younger patients. Observation #3: Gathering more detailed information, such as patient reported outcomes, at least on limited samples of patients, can provide further insights. Example: Registry data demonstrate much greater variability in clinical outcomes of TKA in younger patients compared to older patients. Observation #4: Having national registries from different countries provides synergistic information. Example: Combining data from several national registries provides information on performance of femoral heads of different diameter and material that are not available from just one source. Observation #5: Registries may provide unexpected information that opens unexpected avenues for study. Example: Several registries demonstrate men have a 1.5–2 times higher risk of infection after TKA. We did not know this before. Why is this? Can we reduce it?

The most recent Australian registry has a database of 547,407 knee arthroplasties, having added over 52,000 in 2016. Total knee arthroplasties (TKA) comprise 83.8%, revisions (RevTKA) 8.1% and “partials of all types” 8.1%. Since 2003, the percent of TKA has increased from 76.7%, RevTKA has stayed stable and partial replacements have declined from 14.5%. In the last year, however, TKA declined slightly.

There is a slightly higher percentage of women (56.1%) undergoing TKA and this has remained very stable since 2003. Revision rates are slightly higher for men. Percentages of the youngest (<55) and oldest (>85) are small and stable. The 75–84 year olds have declined as 55–74 year olds have increased. This represents a gradual shift to earlier TKA surgery. More patella are resurfaced and this is a gradual trend with a cross over in 2010 when half were resurfaced. Computer navigation is progressively more popular and now accounts for almost 30% of cases. Cement fixation is also increasing and accounts for about 65% of cases. Crosslinked polyethylene is gradually replacing non crosslinked and in 2014 was used in 50% of cases.

Revisions are performed most commonly for loosening and infection. Revision rates correlate directly with age. Loosening is the most common indication for revision in both genders, but males have a distinctly higher revision rate due to infection. Revision rates are slightly higher in all forms of mobile bearing than fixed bearing.

Minimally constrained (cruciate retaining) devices are used in the majority of TKAs. Posterior stabilised implants are in slight decline, having peaked in about 2008–2010. Minimally constrained implants are in slight decline as medial pivot/medial congruent devices have been used more frequently. Revision rates are similar amongst all three implant types: PS implants are revised at a slightly higher rate. When an early Medial Pivot (MP) implant is excluded the newer version has better results. The reasons for revision are similar amongst all 3 groups with slightly higher loosening rates for PS designs. (Could this represent backside wear with older locking mechanisms, surface finish and non crosslinked poly?) The MP designs had slightly higher revision rates for “pain”, which is not recognised as a reasonable indication for revision.

Revision rates are steadily higher for TKAs without patella resurfacing over 16 years, but the questions as to whether: i. the surgeries were secondary resurfacings or full revisions or ii. if secondary resurfacings eliminated pain are unknown. The combinations at greatest risk of revision were a posterior stabilised or medial pivot arthroplasty without patellar resurfacing. Cementless fixation leads to a higher revision rate.

If age and computer navigation are evaluated in terms of revision rates, young patients with and without computer navigated arthroplasties failed at the highest rates, distinct from patients >65. However, if failure rates due only to loosening are evaluated, then computer navigation leads to a lower revision rate in the <65 group. This has been interpreted as the protective effect of better component position that only shows up in patients who use the arthroplasty more aggressively.

Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) or Individual Designed Instrumentation (IDI) were revised at marginally higher rates than conventional instrumentation. Crosslinked polyethylene appears to be superior at 12 years (CRR= 4%) versus non crosslinked polyethylene (CRR>7%). This is the result of fewer failures due to loosening with crosslinked poly. The superiority of crosslinked poly was greater in the younger, more active patient.

Background

Since the development of modern total hip replacement (THR) more than 50 years ago, thousands of devices have been developed in attempt to improve patient outcomes and prolong implant survival. Modern THR devices are often broadly classified according to their method of fixation; cemented, uncemented or hybrid (typically an uncemented acetabular component with a cemented stem). Due to early failures of THR in young active patients, the concept of hip resurfacing was revisited in the 1990's and numerous prostheses were developed to serve this patient cohort, some with excellent clinical results. Experience with metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing related issues particularly involving the ASR (DePuy Synthes, Warsaw, Indiana) precipitated a fall in the use of hip resurfacing (HR) prostheses in Australia from a peak of 30.2% in 2004 to 4.3% in 2015. The effects of poorly performing prostheses and what is now recognised as suboptimal patient selection are reflected in the AOANJRR cumulative percent revision (CPR) data which demonstrates 13.2% revision at 15 years for all resurfacing hip replacements combined; with 11 different types of hip resurfacing prostheses recorded for patients less than 55 years of age and a primary diagnosis of OA. When this data is restricted to only those prostheses currently used in Australia (BHR; Smith and Nephew, Birmingham, UK & ADEPT; MatOrtho Ltd, Surrey, UK) there is a CPR of 9.5% at 15 years for all patients. Despite these CPR results, recognition is emerging of the important distinction between MoM THR and resurfacing.

Furthermore, in light of current consensus for patient selection and the surgical indications for resurfacing, a gender analysis demonstrates a CPR for females of 14.5% at 10 years compared to 3.7% for males. Similar difference for head size >50mm with 6% CPR at 10 years compared to 17.6% for head size <50mm (HR=2.15; 1.76, 2.63; p<0.001). Leading to renewed interest in resurfacing particularly in the young, active male. In addition to registry based CPR data, several studies have concluded that a true difference in mortality rates between HR and other forms of THR exists independent of age, sex or other confounding factors. We hypothesised that a difference in adjusted mortality rates between HR and other forms of THR may also be present in the Australian population.

We undertook an ad hoc data report request to the AOANJRR. The data set provided was deidentified for patient, surgeon and institution and included all HR and conventional THR procedures performed for the diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis recorded in the Registry since inception in 1999. We requested mortality and yearly cumulative percent survival (CPS) of patients for primary HR and THR with sub-group analysis by the mode of fixation.

There were 12,910 hip resurfacings (79% male) compared to 234,484 conventional THR (46.8% male) over the study period. When adjusted for age and gender over the 15 years of available data, there was a statistically significant difference in cumulative percent survival (CPS) between conventional THR and hip resurfacing (HR 1.66 (1.52, 1.82; p<0.001)) and between cemented THR and hip resurfacing (HR 1.96 (1.78, 2.43; p<0.001)); between uncemented THR and hip resurfacing (HR 1.58 (1.45, 1.73; p<0.001)); and between hybrid THR and hip resurfacing (HR 1.82 (1.66, 1.99; p<0.001)). When adjusted for age, gender and ASA over the 3 years data available, there was no statistically significant difference in CPS between hip resurfacing and any individual fixation type of THR.

Implant registries are set up to register implants. They therefore collect information about both primary and revision joint replacements. If a revision is linked to a primary it is then possible to determine the revision rate of the primary. This information is, however, of limited value as detailed information that affects the revision rate such as indications for the primary and the revision, and surgical technique used are not recorded. As a result comparisons of different implant designs and implant types are not reliable. For example implants that are commonly used in young or active patients are likely to have higher revision rates than those used in elderly sedate patients even though they may be better. Similarly, implants that are easy to revise will have higher revision rates than those more difficult to revise even if they provide better functional results. Finally, implants that are commonly used by more experienced surgeons will tend to have lower revision rates than those used by less experienced surgeons. Data from registries are therefore useful for identifying hypotheses that can formally be tested in other ways.

Over the past 40 years information from large institutional total joint registries have aided in patient clinical care and follow-up efforts, have helped drive improvements in clinical practice, and have been a powerful tool for generating research studies on large well documented populations of patients. Still, these efforts are limited in that they are expensive, usually reflect a single institutional experience, and results can be biased by the larger volumes or experience at the typically large academic centers which have such registries in place.

National registry efforts in other countries including Scandinavia, Australia, and the UK have resulted in improved outcomes and a decreased number of revision procedures by a combination of early identification and withdrawal of poorly performing implants, altered surgical techniques, implant choices and behaviors by surgeons, changes in practices by hospitals, and modification in requirements and incentives by payors and regulatory agencies.

The American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) is a collaborative multi-stakeholder, independent, not-for-profit 501 c3 organisation established in 2009 for data collection and quality improvement initiatives relating to total hip and knee arthroplasty. AJRR is a national registry effort with the goal of enrolling more than 90% of the over 5,000 hospitals performing nearly 1 million hip and knee arthroplasties each year in the US. AJRR is supported by contributions from the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS), the Hip Society, the Knee Society, Health Insurers, Medical Device Manufacturers, and individual orthopaedic surgeons via designated contributions through the Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF).

The overarching goal of AJRR is to improve arthroplasty care for patients through the collection and sharing of data on all primary and revision total joint replacement procedures in the U.S. The mission of the registry is to enhance patient safety, and improve the value of arthroplasty care. This will be accomplished by providing national benchmarks for implant, surgeon and hospital performance which serves to modify behaviors thereby decreasing the revision burden, improving outcomes and reducing costs.

From the time of incorporation in 2009 up to October 2013 the AJRR has secured the participation of 218 hospitals in 47 different states in the formal enrollment process, and have level one data submission from more than 100 institutions on over 63,000 hip and knee procedures.

In addition to publicly available annual reports, confidential specific individual reports for hospitals, surgeons and manufacturers will be available by subscription with an option for future confidential online direct data queries by an individual or entity regarding their own individual performance compared to national benchmark values.

In summary, registry studies have provided a rich source of information for improving arthroplasty care over the past four decades, with the emergence and increasing interaction of national registries a major factor in current efforts to increase both the quality and value of the health care of entire populations. The development, support and continued expansion of a national registry in the US must remain a central focus if we wish to improve as much as possible the arthroplasty care provided to all patients in our country.

Background:

The use of registry data to detect and eliminate inferior devices is based on the assumption that the results of the first cases performed with a new device are indicative of how the same implant would perform with widespread usage. However, existing registry data clearly proves that the performance of individual implants is very surgeon dependent. In this study we utilized a computer simulation of a large implant registry to address the question: How does the pairing of different surgeons with different implants affect the ability of registries to correctly identify inferior devices?

BACKGROUND

The use of registry data to detect and eliminate inferior devices is based on the assumption that the results of the first cases performed with a new device are indicative of how the same implant would perform with widespread usage. However, existing registry data clearly proves that the performance of individual implants is very surgeon dependent. In this study we utilized a computer simulation of a large implant registry to address the question: How does the pairing of different surgeons with different implants affect the ability of registries to correctly identify inferior devices?

Increased collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in registries enables international comparison of patient-centered outcomes after knee and hip replacement. We aimed to investigate 1) variations in PROM improvement, 2) the possible confounding factor of BMI, and 3) differences in comorbidity distributions between registries. Registries affiliated with the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) or OECD membership countries were invited to report aggregate EQ-5D, OKS, OHS, HOOS-PS and KOOS-PS values. Eligible patients underwent primary total, unilateral knee or hip replacement for osteoarthritis within three years and had completed PROMs preoperatively and either 6 or 12 months postoperatively, excluding patients with subsequent revisions. For each PROM cohort, Chi-square tests were performed for BMI distributions across registries and 12 predefined PROM strata (male/female, age 20-64/65-74/>75, high or low preoperative PROM scores). Comorbidity distributions were reported for available comorbidity indexes. Thirteen registries from 9 countries contributed data, n~130000 knee (range 140 to 79848) and n~113000 hip (range 137 to 85281). Mean EQ-5D index values (10 registries) ranged from 0.53 to 0.71 (knee) and 0.50 to 0.70 (hips) preoperatively and 0.78 to 0.85 (knee) and 0.83 to 0.87 (hip) postoperatively. Mean OKS (6 registries) ranged from 19.3 to 23.6 preoperatively and 36.2 to 41.2 postoperatively. Mean OHS (7 registries) ranged from 18.0 to 23.2 preoperatively and 39.8 to 44.2 postoperatively. Four registries reported KOOS-PS and three reported HOOS-PS. Proportions of patients with BMI >30 ranged from 35 to 62% (10 knee registries) and 16 to 43% (11 hip registries). For both knee and hip registries, distributions of patients across six BMI categories differed significantly among registries (p30 were for patients in the youngest age groups (20 to 64 and 65 to 74 years) with the lowest baseline scores. Additionally, females with lowest preoperative PROM scores had highest BMI. These findings were echoed for the OHS and OKS cohorts. Proportions of patients with ASA scores ≥3 ranged from 7 to 42% (9 knee registries) and 6 to 35% (8 hip registries). PROM-score improvement varies between international registries, which may be partially explained by differences in age, sex and preoperative scores. BMI and comorbidity may be relevant to adjust for

To date, the literature has not yet revealed superiority of Minimally Invasive (MI) approaches over conventional techniques. We performed a systematic review to determine whether minimally invasive approaches are superior to conventional approaches in total hip arthroplasty for (1) clinical and (2) functional outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of level 1 evidence to determine whether (3) minimally invasive approaches are superior to conventional approaches for clinical outcomes. All studies comparing MI approaches to conventional approaches were eligible for analysis. The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to throughout this study. Registries were searched using the following MeSH terms: ‘minimally invasive’, ‘muscle-sparing’, ‘THA’, ‘THR’, ‘hip arthroplasty’ and ‘hip replacement’. Locations searched included PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU clinical trials register and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (World Health Organisation). Twenty studies were identified. There were 1,282 MI THAs and 1,351 conventional THAs performed. (1). There was no difference between MI and conventional approaches for all clinical outcomes of relevance including all-cause revision (p=0.959), aseptic revision (p=0.894), instability (p=0.894), infection (p=0.669) and periprosthetic fracture (p=0.940). (2). There was also no difference in functional outcome at early or intermediate follow-up between the two groups (p=0.38). (3). In level I studies exclusively, random-effects meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in the rate of aseptic revision (p=0.461) between both groups. Intermuscular MI approaches are equivalent to conventional THA approaches when considering all-cause revision, aseptic revision, infection, dislocation, fracture rates and functional outcomes. Meta-analysis of level 1 evidence supports this claim

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

This Outcome Studies Software suite has been designed and carried out by Surgeons for Surgeons in order to provide the Orthopaedic Community with a valuable tool devoted to the computerized clinical follow-up of Joint Arthroplasty, named OrthoWave(tm). The development of the OrthoWave(tm) suite, since 1996, has got involved clinical studies coordinators, software engineers, orthopaedic surgeons, and statisticians. One underlying theme regarding Health Care has and always will be constant: the need to understand if our treatments actually work. Providing answers makes not only scientific sense but pragmatic and economic sense as well. In such a way, Evaluation in Joint Arthroplasty has become a master word in the realm of Orthopaedic Surgery, which thus gets many actors involved, be they Surgeons, Scientific Societies, Health Department Authorities, Journal Editors, and Orthopaedic Devices Manufacturer. While bearing in mind that more than a million of Hip and Knee replacements are worldly performed annually and there are thousands of devices and device combinations in use to achieve arthroplasties, these replacement procedures have to be properly evaluated as a very challenging procedure. An outcomes study software needs to allow for easy and user friendly collection of clinical data and related images, while preserving privacy of patients and their personal data. This software must then provide consistent statistical and survivorship analyzes in the very long run. The OrthoWave(tm) software has been widely used worldly, and currently features the on-line Version 6, now available as a web-based secured “cloud computing” computer system. The so called “regular databases” can be linked to additional “scientific databases” and “monitored databases” able to set up together a very consistent and efficient global system. Roughly speaking, OrthoWave addresses (1) data collection of Surgeons themselves, able to self evaluate their surgeries while owning their own data, (2) Local Registries, involving groups of Surgeons, to analyze, report and publish clinical series in the Literature, (3) Brand Registries, for tracking upon large multicenter studies at an early stage any problem that might occur with any given implant, (4) Clinical Affairs Departments in Industry, (5) and finally enables potential automatic links to National and International Joint Registries. This OrthoWave software has thus permitted a “fine tuning” of clinical results, radiographic findings, survival rates and real assessment of quality of life, helping to determine in large databases studies if implant composition or joint replacement features can be associated with decreased need for repeat surgery, and to outline best methodological approaches to the assessment of failures in arthroplasty, in terms of functioning, quality of life and long-term disability. All along these 14 years of continuous use of this OrthoWave software suite, we have tried to help it to be more and more efficient and user friendly. The current on-line web-based version now meets our expectation, and is flexible enough to adapt itself to future needs and better treatments for patients

The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have partnered to advance international patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collection and reporting standards for hip and knee arthroplasty. This project is part of the OECD's Patient-Reported Indicator Survey (PaRIS) initiative, which aims to address the need for internationally comparable patient-reported outcome and experience measures in order to better monitor health system performance and drive continuous improvement. PROMs are in varying stages of implementation across OECD health systems, with differences in collection and reporting practices across existing programs. CIHI and the OECD are leading an international working group for PROMs in hip and knee replacement surgery in order to build consensus on PROMs data collection standards and develop indicators for international reporting. Working group members include patient representatives, clinicians, national arthroplasty registries, the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR), experts in PROMs measurement, and government representatives of several OECD member countries. Activities of the working group focus on two main priorities: 1) Use existing PROMs programs to maximize pilot comparable reporting in OECD's Health at a Glance 2019 report, and 2) Advance new PROMs standards and data collection to maximize comparable reporting beyond Health at a Glance 2019. An environmental scan of PROMs in hip and knee arthroplasty found that a number of countries are collecting this data, however, there are variations in survey instruments as well as administration and reporting methods within and across countries. As part of priority 1, the working group has achieved consensus on a number of aspects around pilot reporting. The project is compiling data from existing PROMs programs in order to report results in the Health at a Glance 2019 publication. For priority 2, the most notable challenge is establishing an agreement across countries on common survey tools, as well as a minimum data set that works for all, given the disparities of existing collection across countries. Many international programs lack the flexibility to change PROMs tools or collections methods, and have concerns regarding the break in trend for PROMs data within their own countries if they were to change methods. The project is exploring the use of crosswalks and other opportunities for comparable reporting, such as the use of single-item anchor questions. To date, the working group continues to develop consensus on international standards for PROMs collection and reporting. Results of the international consensus building and work to date will be shared. PROMs incorporate the patient's perspective into the delivery of treatments and care – such as hip and knee arthroplasty – that aim to improve a patient's quality of life. Alignment of standards in PROMs collection across countries will make comparable data available for reporting, in order to inform quality improvement initiatives within health systems to provide better care for patients. CIHI and the OECD will continue to work with member countries to develop international data collection and reporting standards for PROMs, and encourage the adoption of common approaches across countries

Revision is a key negative outcome of joint replacements. The purpose of this abstract is to present revision risk curves for hip and knee replacements based on the most recently available national data sources. Having a better understanding of determinants of revision risk can help inform clinical and health care system improvements. We explored revision risk of primary joint replacement stratified by key clinical, prosthesis, and surgeon-level factors using data from three databases managed by CIHI: the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR), the Discharge Abstract Database, and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System. To investigate early revisions, we used Kaplan-Meier analysis stratified by demographic factors to determine the risk of revision within up to five years of primary surgery. This analysis identified the primary cohort from the CJRR from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2017 and was limited to mandatory reporting provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario) to ensure maximal coverage of prosthesis information. Bearing surface was obtained from the International Prosthesis Library maintained by the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries (ICOR) and the International Society of Arthroplasty Registers (ISAR). The total revision risk cohort contained 283,620 primary surgeries, of which 5,765 (2%) had at least one revision. For total hip arthroplasties, revision risk at the end of the follow-up period did not differ by age, by sex or across bearing surface (metal on cross-linked polyethylene [XLPE], ceramic on XLPE, ceramic on ceramic, metal on non-cross-linked polyethylene). For hemiarthroplasties in hip fracture patients, cement fixation was significantly associated with decreased revision risk. Surgeon volume had a positive effect on survivorship with cementless fixation (2.7% at one year [95% CI 2.3%, 3.1%] for high-volume vs 3.2% [2.7%, 3.7%] for low-volume). However, surgeon volume did not have an effect on survivorship with cemented fixation (2% at one year [95% CI 1.3%, 2.6%] for high-volume vs. 2% [1.4%, 2.6%] for low-volume). For total knee replacements, revision risk increased with decreasing age and male sex. For patients aged 75 and older, four-year revision risks were 1.5% (95% CI 1.3%, 1.7%) for women and 2.0% (1.7%, 2.3%) for men, but for patients under 55 years old, they were 4.3% (3.7%, 5%) for women and 5.9% (4.9%, 6.9%) for men. Additional results from the upcoming 2019 CJRR annual report, including data up to March 31, 2018, will be presented. Revisions represent a key failure of the primary replacement, they are costly to the health care system and negatively affect patients' quality of life. CJRR's coverage is currently 72%, increased coverage and follow-up time will allow increasingly comprehensive reporting on hip and knee prostheses in Canada. Future work in this area involves exploring additional prosthesis attributes for stratification of revision risk curves and calculation of hazards ratios adjusted by age and sex

Cementless fixation has become dominant for THR throughout the world, but are all stem geometries equivalent in results? Registries are the best source for studying this question because they are absent of personal bias. Results at 5 years allow separation of implants so this time frame was used. Comparing the same articulations (ceramic or metal-on- polyethylene), cementless stems with proximal enhancement (elliptical shape), or a tapered stem with rectangular cross section, have performed better than stems with a slim (blade) AP geometry. Almost all cementless stems reported to registries today are broached only tapered in design

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

The evidence to help the surgeon decide on the merits of which type of replacement to offer their patients is steadily mounting and comes from large datasets such as joint registries. There are many advantages of UKR vs TKR such as satisfaction, function, recovery, morbidity, mortality and cost but there is one major disadvantage. All registries show a higher failure rate with UKRs. Registries show that there are more excellent and fewer poor Patient Reported Outcome Measure Scores (PROMS) with UKR compared to TKR and the higher revision rate is in major part due to the threshold of revision. For instance, 60% of UKR are revised vs 10% of TKR with an Oxford score that is worse post-operation than pre-operation. Ease of revision with UKR is a major determinant of the higher revision rate. The real issue with UKR relates to usage. Most surgeons perform very few UKR on young patients with early arthritis viewing the procedure as a pre-TKR. Low surgeon volume equates to high revision rate in the national registries. Surgeons should either abandon UKR or do an adequate number to ensure success. Surgeons can improve their results by increasing their usage of UKR. The Unicompartmental Knee National Joint Registry (UKNJR) data shows that the optimal usage of the mobile UKR is between 20 and 50% of replacements. Fixed bearing usage is optimal at 20% but not higher. The other major advantage concerns the lower mortality rate with UKR. At 90 days it is less than half that of TKR and even at 8 years it is 10% less. For every 10 UKRs performed rather than TKR then one life is saved at 8 years. There is very little evidence suggesting that bi-UKR is necessary certainly with the mobile UKR. There is evidence, however that patellofemoral joint problems are a problem with fixed bearing UKR in the second decade

Background and aim. Since the market withdrawal of the ASR hip resurfacing in August 2010 because of a higher than expected revision rate as reported in the Australian Joint Replacement Registry (AOAJRR), metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MoMHRA) has become a controversial procedure for hip replacement. Failures related to destructive adverse local tissue reactions to metal wear debris have further discredited MoMHRA. Longer term series from experienced resurfacing specialists however, demonstrated good outcomes with excellent 10-to-15-year survivorship in young and active men. These results have recently been confirmed for some MoMHRA designs in the AOAJRR. Besides, all hip replacement registries report significantly worse survivorship of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients under 50 compared to older ages. The aim of this study was to review MoMHRA survivorship from the national registries reporting on hip resurfacing and determine the risk factors for revision in the different registries. Methods. The latest annual reports from the AOAJRR, the National Joint Registry of England and Wales (NJR), the Swedish Hip Registry (SHR), the Finnish Arthroplasty Registry, the New Zealand Joint Registry and the Arthroplasty Registry of the Emilia-Romagna Region in Italy (RIPO) were reviewed for 10-year survivorship of MoMHRA in general and specific designs in particular. Other registries did not have enough hip resurfacing data or long term data yet. The survivorship data were compared to conventional THA in comparable age groups and determinants for success/failure such as gender, age, diagnosis, implant design and size and surgical experience were reviewed. Results. All registries showed a significant decline of the use of MoMHRA. The AOAJRR reported a cumulative revision rate of 9.5% (95%CI: 8.9–10.1%) at 10 years for all hip resurfacings. Female gender, developmental dysplasia and femoral head sizes <49mm were significant risk factors with revision rates twice as high for head sizes <49mm compared to >55mm. In males, cumulative revision rate for all MoMHRA was 6.6% at 10 years and 7.8% at 13years with no difference in the age groups. ASR had significantly higher revision rates (23.9% at 7 years) compared to other designs. The Adept and the Mitch had the lowest revision rates at 7 years (3.6%). Cumulative revision rates for 10,750 BHR (males and females pooled) were 5.0% at 7 years, 6.9% at 10years and 8.4% at 13 years. Cumulative revision rates of THA in patients <55 years was 6.0% at 10 years and 9.4% at 13 years. Similar survivorship results were found in the Finnish, Swedish, New Zealand and RIPO registry. In the SHR, 10-year survivorship of THA in patients <50 was only around 87%. In the NJR, cumulative revision rates for all MoMHRA pooled were much less favourable (13% at 10 years – 22% in patients<50) but the revision probability of ASR was 30.4% compared to 9.0% for BHR. Surgical experience was also identified as an important determinant of success/failure. Discussion. Registries are now confirming good 10-year survivorship of certain MoMHRA designs with excellent results in males. Risk factors for revision are female gender, small head size, dysplasia and certain implant designs

The surgical treatment of young adults with end-stage hip disease has been a challenge. Inferior THA survival in the young, perceived advantages of hip resurfacing versus THA and advancements in tribology, led to the introduction of 3rd generation Metal-on-Metal-Hip-Resurfacing-Arthroplasty (MoMHRA). To-date, thousands of such prostheses have been implanted worldwide in younger patients, yet little is known regarding long-term outcome. The only studies reporting greater than 10 year outcome come from designer centres with survivorship varying between 88.5–96% at 12 years. Arthroplasty Registries (AR) have reported less favourable survivorships with female gender and size having a negative effect on survival. In our independent hip resurfacing centre in Ghent, Belgium, a single surgeon has implanted more than 3500 HRA over more than 12 years. A cohort of 149 patients who received a Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) at a mean age of 50 years at surgery have now reached a minimum 10 years follow-up. The overall 12-year survival in these young adults is 93.1% (95% CI: 88.3–98.0), 99% in males and 87.3% in females. These survivorship data are superior to registry reported figures of THA amongst young patients and correspond well with previous reports from designer centres. The long-term survivorship and clinical outcome of the BHR are excellent in men, uninfluenced by preoperative diagnosis or age. However, survivorship in women is inferior and usually related to increased wear and reactions to metal debris. Malpositioning of components with associated wear-induced soft tissue fluid collections is the most frequent factor leading to failure of a HRA. In our experience, mid-term outcome following revision is good and complication and re-revision rates can be low. Surgical experience, early intervention in cases of mal-positioned implants, clinical use of ion levels, implantation of larger ceramic-on-ceramic THA femoral heads and patient education are factors in improving outcome and reducing complication and re-revisions following HRA revision

Introduction. Hip resurfacing (HRA) designer centres have reported survivorships between 88.5–96% at 12 years. Arthroplasty Registries (AR) reported less favourable results especially in females gender and small sizes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the minimum 10-year survival and outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) from an independent specialist centre. Methods. Since 1998, 1967 BHRs have been implanted in our centre by a single hip resurfacing specialist. The first 249 BHR, implanted between 1999 and 2001 in 232 patients (17 bilateral) were included in this study. The majority of the patients were male (163; 69%). The mean age at surgery was 50.6 years (range: 17–76), with primary OA as most common indication (201; 81%), followed by avascular necrosis (23; 9.2%) and hip dysplasia (11; 4.4%). Mean follow up was 10.2 years (range: 0.1 (revision) to 13.1). Implant survival was established with revision as the end point. Harris Hip Scores (HHS), radiographs and metal ion levels were assessed in all patients. Sub-analysis was performed by gender, diagnosis and femoral component size (Small: <50 mm; Large: ≥50 mm). Results. Of the 232 patients, 15 were deceased (4 bilateral BHR), 16 lost to follow-up and 9 revised. 205 BHR were evaluated at minimum 10 years postoperatively. Failure modes included 2 component malpositioning, 2 loose femoral heads, 1 fracture, 1 metal sensitivity, 2 impingement and 1 with high metal ions. The overall survival was 95.1% (95% CI: 93.6–96.6) at 12.8 years. The mean HHS was 97.8 (range: 65–100). Survivorship in men was 98.6% (95%CI: 97.4–99.8%) at 13 years. Survivorship in women was inferior to men (log rank = 0.003): 87.9% (95%CI: 84.3–91.5%) at 12 years. There was no difference in HHS between genders in the non-revised cases (p = 0.46). There was no difference in survivorship with different pre-operative diagnosis (log-rank = 0.83) but a significant difference in 12-year survivorship between Small (90.1%) and Large components (97.2%) (log rank = 0.01). After adjusting for head size, the difference in survival between males and females was no longer significant (log-rank = 0.125). The median ion levels were Cr:2.0μg/l; Co:1.0μg/l. In 24 patients the ion levels were undetectable. Four patients (1.9%) had ions above the upper acceptable limits of Cr:4.6μg/l;Co:4.0μg/l for unilateral or Cr:7.4μg/l;Co:5.0μg/l for bilateral HRA. In 67 patients with consecutive ion measurements, levels decreased significantly with time with a mean decrease of 0.97μg/l for Cr and 0.60μg/l for Co. Discussion. This study reports the more than 10-year survival of BHR and reflects an experienced specialist's practice, including his learning curve of the procedure. The overall 12.8-year survival was superior to registry reported figures of THA amongst young patients and corresponded well with reports from designer centres. Survivorship and clinical outcome were excellent in men. In women survivorship was significantly inferior and related to smaller component sizes, but the >10-year clinical outcome in non-revised cases was excellent. In well-functioning BHR, the metal ions decrease significantly with time. The results of this study support the use of HRA with a good design

Aims

The STRYDE nail is an evolution of the PRECICE Intramedullary Limb Lengthening System, with unique features regarding its composition. It is designed for load bearing throughout treatment in order to improve patient experience and outcomes and allow for simultaneous bilateral lower limb lengthening. The literature published to date is limited regarding outcomes and potential problems. We report on our early experience and raise awareness for the potential of adverse effects from this device.