Association between surgeon training grade and the risk of revision following unicompartmental knee replacement: An analysis of National Joint Registry data.

BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) are performed by surgeons at various stages in training with varying levels of supervision, but we do not know if this is a safe practice with comparable outcomes to consultant-performed UKR. The aim of this study was to use registry data for England and Wales to investigate the association between surgeon grade (consultant, or trainee), the senior supervision of trainees (supervised by a scrubbed consultant, or not), and the risk of revision surgery following UKR. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an observational study using prospectively collected data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR). We included adult patients who underwent primary UKR for osteoarthritis (n = 106,206), recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2019. Exposures were the grade of the operating surgeon (consultant, or trainee) and whether or not trainees were directly supervised by a consultant during the procedure (referred to as "supervised by a scrubbed consultant"). The primary outcome was all-cause revision surgery. The secondary outcome was the number of procedures revised for the following specific indications: aseptic loosening/lysis, infection, progression of osteoarthritis, unexplained pain, and instability. Flexible parametric survival models were adjusted for patient, operation, and healthcare setting factors. We included 106,206 UKRs in 91,626 patients, of which 4,382 (4.1%) procedures were performed by a trainee. The unadjusted cumulative probability of failure at 15 years was 17.13% (95% CI [16.44, 17.85]) for consultants, 16.42% (95% CI [14.09, 19.08]) for trainees overall, 15.98% (95% CI [13.36, 19.07]) for trainees supervised by a scrubbed consultant, and 17.32% (95% CI [13.24, 22.50]) for trainees not supervised by a scrubbed consultant. There was no association between surgeon grade and all-cause revision in either crude or adjusted models (adjusted HR = 1.01, 95% CI [0.90, 1.13]; p = 0.88). Trainees achieved comparable all-cause survival to consultants, regardless of the level of scrubbed consultant supervision (supervised: adjusted HR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.87, 1.14]; p = 0.94; unsupervised: adjusted HR = 1.03, 95% CI [0.87, 1.22]; p = 0.74). Limitations of this study relate to its observational design and include: the potential for nonrandom allocation of cases by consultants to trainees; residual confounding; and the use of the binary variable "surgeon grade," which does not capture variations in the level of experience between trainees. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide study of UKRs with over 16 years' follow up demonstrates that trainees within the current training system in England and Wales achieve comparable all-cause implant survival to consultants. These findings support the current methods by which surgeons in England and Wales are trained to perform UKR.

Inequalities in provision of hip and knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis by age, sex, and social deprivation in England between 2007-2017: A population-based cohort study of the National Joint Registry.

BACKGROUND: While the United Kingdom National Health Service aimed to reduce social inequalities in the provision of joint replacement, it is unclear whether these gaps have reduced. We describe secular trends in the provision of primary hip and knee replacement surgery between social deprivation groups. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used the National Joint Registry to identify all hip and knee replacements performed for osteoarthritis from 2007 to 2017 in England. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015 was used to identify the relative level of deprivation of the patient living area. Multilevel negative binomial regression models were used to model the differences in rates of joint replacement. Choropleth maps of hip and knee replacement provision were produced to identify the geographical variation in provision by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). A total of 675,342 primary hip and 834,146 primary knee replacements were studied. The mean age was 70 years old (standard deviation: 9) with 60% and 56% of women undergoing hip and knee replacements, respectively. The overall rate of hip replacement increased from 27 to 36 per 10,000 person-years and knee replacement from 33 to 46. Inequalities of provision between the most (reference) and least affluent areas have remained constant for both joints (hip: rate ratio (RR) = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [0.56, 0.60] in 2007, RR = 0.59 [0.58, 0.61] in 2017; knee: RR = 0.82 [0.80, 0.85] in 2007, RR = 0.81 [0.80, 0.83] in 2017). For hip replacement, CCGs with the highest concentration of deprived areas had lower overall provision rates, and CCGs with very few deprived areas had higher provision rates. There was no clear pattern of provision inequalities between CCGs and deprivation concentration for knee replacement. Study limitations include the lack of publicly available information to explore these inequalities beyond age, sex, and geographical area. Information on clinical need for surgery or patient willingness to access care were unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that there were inequalities, which remained constant over time, especially in the provision of hip replacement, by degree of social deprivation. Providers of healthcare need to take action to reduce this unwarranted variation in provision of surgery.

Shoulder replacement surgery's rising demand, inequality of provision, and variation in outcomes: cohort study using Hospital Episode Statistics for England.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to forecast future patient demand for shoulder replacement surgery in England and investigate any geographic and socioeconomic inequalities in service provision and patient outcomes. METHODS: For this cohort study, all elective shoulder replacements carried out by NHS hospitals and NHS-funded care in England from 1999 to 2020 were identified using Hospital Episode Statistics data. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older. Shoulder replacements for malignancy or acute trauma were excluded. Population estimates and projections were obtained from the Office for National Statistics. Standardised incidence rates and the risks of serious adverse events (SAEs) and revision surgery were calculated and stratified by geographical region, socioeconomic deprivation, sex, and age band. Hospital costs for each admission were calculated using Healthcare Resource Group codes and NHS Reference Costs based on the National Reimbursement System. Projected rates and hospital costs were predicted until the year 2050 for two scenarios of future growth. RESULTS: A total of 77,613 elective primary and 5847 revision shoulder replacements were available for analysis. Between 1999 and 2020, the standardised incidence of primary shoulder replacements in England quadrupled from 2.6 to 10.4 per 100,000 population, increasing predominantly in patients aged over 65 years. As many as 1 in 6 patients needed to travel to a different region for their surgery indicating inequality of service provision. A temporal increase in SAEs was observed: the 30-day risk increased from 1.3 to 4.8% and the 90-day risk increased from 2.4 to 6.0%. Patients from the more deprived socioeconomic groups appeared to have a higher risk of SAEs and revision surgery. Shoulder replacements are forecast to increase by up to 234% by 2050 in England, reaching 20,912 procedures per year with an associated annual cost to hospitals of £235 million. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports a rising incidence of shoulder replacements, regional disparities in service provision, and an overall increasing risk of SAEs, especially in more deprived socioeconomic groups. These findings highlight the need for better healthcare planning to match local population demand, while more research is needed to understand and prevent the increase observed in SAEs.

Survivorship of the dual-mobility construct in elective primary total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis including registry data.

INTRODUCTION: Dislocation is a common complication associated with total hip replacement (THR). Dual-mobility constructs (DMC-THR) may be used in high-risk patients and have design features that may reduce the risk of dislocation. We aimed to report overall pooled estimates of all-cause construct survival for elective primary DMC-THR. Secondary outcomes included unadjusted dislocation rate, revision for instability, infection and fracture. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and National Joint Registry reports were systematically searched (CRD42020189664). Studies reporting revision (all-cause) survival estimates and confidence intervals by brand and construct including DMC bearings were included. A meta-analysis was performed weighting series by the standard error. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies reporting 39 case series were identified; nine (10,494 DMC-THR) were included. Fourteen series (23,020 DMC-THR) from five national registries were included. Pooled case series data for all-cause construct survival was 99.7% (95% CI 99.5-100) at 5 years, 95.7% (95% CI 94.9-96.5) at 10 years, 96.1% (95% CI 91.8-100) at 15 years and 77% (95% CI 74.4-82.0) at 20 years. Pooled joint registry data showed an all-cause construct survivorship of 97.8% (95% CI 97.3-98.4) at 5 years and 96.3% (95% CI 95.6-96.9) at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Survivorship of DMC-THR in primary THR is acceptable according to the national revision benchmark published by National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE).

How do Patient-reported Outcome Scores in International Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Registries Compare?

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the only systematic approach through which the patient's perspective can be considered by surgeons (in determining a procedure's efficacy or appropriateness) or healthcare systems (in the context of value-based healthcare). PROMs in registries enable international comparison of patient-centered outcomes after total joint arthroplasty, but the extent to which those scores may vary between different registry populations has not been clearly defined. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) To what degree do mean change in general and joint-specific PROM scores vary across arthroplasty registries, and to what degree is the proportion of missing PROM scores in an individual registry associated with differences in the mean reported change scores? (2) Do PROM scores vary with patient BMI across registries? (3) Are comorbidity levels comparable across registries, and are they associated with differences in PROM scores? METHODS: Thirteen national, regional, or institutional registries from nine countries reported aggregate PROM scores for patients who had completed PROMs preoperatively and 6 and/or 12 months postoperatively. The requested aggregate PROM scores were the EuroQol-5 Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D) index values, on which score 1 reflects "full health" and 0 reflects "as bad as death." Joint-specific PROMs were the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), with total scores ranging from 0 to 48 (worst-best), and the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function shortform (HOOS-PS) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function shortform (KOOS-PS) values, scored 0 to 100 (worst-best). Eligible patients underwent primary unilateral THA or TKA for osteoarthritis between 2016 and 2019. Registries were asked to exclude patients with subsequent revisions within their PROM collection period. Raw aggregated PROM scores and scores adjusted for age, gender, and baseline values were inspected descriptively. Across all registries and PROMs, the reported percentage of missing PROM data varied from 9% (119 of 1354) to 97% (5305 of 5445). We therefore graphically explored whether PROM scores were associated with the level of data completeness. For each PROM cohort, chi-square tests were performed for BMI distributions across registries and 12 predefined PROM strata (men versus women; age 20 to 64 years, 65 to 74 years, and older than 75 years; and high or low preoperative PROM scores). Comorbidity distributions were evaluated descriptively by comparing proportions with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of 3 or higher across registries for each PROM cohort. RESULTS: The mean improvement in EQ-5D index values (10 registries) ranged from 0.16 to 0.33 for hip registries and 0.12 to 0.25 for knee registries. The mean improvement in the OHS (seven registries) ranged from 18 to 24, and for the HOOS-PS (three registries) it ranged from 29 to 35. The mean improvement in the OKS (six registries) ranged from 15 to 20, and for the KOOS-PS (four registries) it ranged from 19 to 23. For all PROMs, variation was smaller when adjusting the scores for differences in age, gender, and baseline values. After we compared the registries, there did not seem to be any association between the level of missing PROM data and the mean change in PROM scores. The proportions of patients with BMI 30 kg/m 2 or higher ranged from 16% to 43% (11 hip registries) and from 35% to 62% (10 knee registries). Distributions of patients across six BMI categories differed across hip and knee registries. Further, for all PROMs, distributions also differed across 12 predefined PROM strata. For the EQ-5D, patients in the younger age groups (20 to 64 years and 65 to 74 years) had higher proportions of BMI measurements greater than 30 kg/m 2 than older patients, and patients with the lowest baseline scores had higher proportions of BMI measurements more than 30 kg/m 2 compared with patients with higher baseline scores. These associations were similar for the OHS and OKS cohorts. The proportions of patients with ASA Class at least 3 ranged across registries from 6% to 35% (eight hip registries) and from 9% to 42% (nine knee registries). CONCLUSION: Improvements in PROM scores varied among international registries, which may be partially explained by differences in age, gender, and preoperative scores. Higher BMI tended to be associated with lower preoperative PROM scores across registries. Large variation in BMI and comorbidity distributions across registries suggest that future international studies should consider the effect of adjusting for these factors. Although we were not able to evaluate its effect specifically, missing PROM data is a recurring challenge for registries. Demonstrating generalizability of results and evaluating the degree of response bias is crucial in using registry-based PROMs data to evaluate differences in outcome. Comparability between registries in terms of specific PROMs collection, postoperative timepoints, and demographic factors to enable confounder adjustment is necessary to use comparison between registries to inform and improve arthroplasty care internationally. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Do Dual-mobility Cups Reduce Revision Risk in Femoral Neck Fractures Compared With Conventional THA Designs? An International Meta-analysis of Arthroplasty Registries.

BACKGROUND: Dual-mobility cups in THA were designed to reduce prosthesis instability and the subsequent risk of revision surgery in high-risk patients, such as those with hip fractures. However, there are limited data from clinical studies reporting a revision benefit of dual-mobility over conventional THA. Collaboration between anthroplasty registries provides an opportunity to describe international practice variation and compare between-country, all-cause revision rates for dual-mobility and conventional THA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We summarized observational data from multiple arthroplasty registries for patients receiving either a dual-mobility or conventional THA to ask: (1) Is dual-mobility use associated with a difference in risk of all-cause revision surgery compared with conventional THA? (2) Are there specific patient characteristics associated with dual-mobility use in the hip fracture population? (3) Has the use of dual-mobility constructs changed over time in patients receiving a THA for hip fracture? METHODS: Six member registries of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (from Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States) provided custom aggregate data reports stratified by acetabular cup type (dual-mobility or conventional THA) in primary THA for hip fracture between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2019; surgical approach; and patient demographic data (sex, mean age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and BMI). The cumulative percent revision and mortality were calculated for each registry. To determine a global hazard ratio of all-cause revision for dual-mobility compared with conventional THA designs, we used a pseudoindividual patient data approach to pool Kaplan-Meier prosthesis revision data from each registry and perform a meta-analysis. The pseudoindividual patient data approach is a validated technique for meta-analysis of aggregate time-to-event survival data, such as revision surgery, from multiple sources. Data were available for 15,024 dual-mobility THAs and 97,200 conventional THAs performed for hip fractures during the study period. RESULTS: After pooling of complete Kaplan-Meier survival data from all six registries, the cumulative percent revision for conventional THA was 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2% to 4.5%) and 4.7% (95% CI 4.3% to 5.3%) for dual-mobility THA at 5 years. We did not demonstrate a lower risk of all-cause revision for patients receiving dual-mobility over conventional THA designs for hip fracture in the meta-analysis once between-registry differences were adjusted for (HR 0.96 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.06]). A lower proportion of dual-mobility procedures were revised for dislocation than conventional THAs (0.9% versus 1.4%) but a higher proportion were revised for infection (1.2% versus 0.8%). In most registries, a greater proportion of dual-mobility THA patients were older, had more comorbidities, and underwent a posterior approach compared with conventional THA (p < 0.001). The proportion of dual-mobility THA used to treat hip fractures increased in each registry over time and constituted 21% (2438 of 11,874) of all THA procedures in 2019. CONCLUSION: The proportion of dual-mobility THAs in patients with hip fractures increased over time, but there was large variation in use across countries represented here. Dual-mobility cups were not associated with a reduction in the overall risk of revision surgery in patients with hip fractures. A randomized controlled trial powered to detect the incidence of dislocation and subsequent revision surgery is required to clarify the efficacy of dual-mobility cups to treat hip fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

How long does an elbow replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-series and national registry reports with more than 10 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aims to determine, for the first time, generalizable data on the longevity and long-term function of elbow replacements. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for articles reporting 10-year or greater survival of total elbow replacements (TERs) and distal humeral hemiarthroplasty. Implant survival and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) data were extracted. National joint replacement registries were also analyzed. We weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate at 10, 15, and 20 years. For PROMs we pooled the standardized mean difference (SMD) at 10 years. FINDINGS: Despite its widespread use, we identified only 9 series reporting all-cause survival of 628 linked TERs and 610 unlinked TERs and no series for distal humeral hemiarthroplasty. The studied population was treated for rheumatoid arthritis in over 90% of cases. The estimated 10-year survival for linked TERs was 92% (95% CI 90-95) and unlinked TERs 84% (CI 81-88). 2 independent registries contributed 32 linked TERs and 530 unlinked TERs. The pooled registry 10-year survival for unlinked TERs was 86% (CI 83-89). Pooled 10-year PROMs from 164 TERs (33 linked and 131 unlinked), revealed a substantial improvement from baseline scores (SMD 2.7 [CI 1.6-3.8]). INTERPRETATION: Over 80% of all elbow replacements and over 90% of linked elbow replacements can last more than 10 years with sustained patient-reported benefits. This information is long overdue and will be particularly useful to patients as well as healthcare providers.

Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries: Multinational Survey and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated questionnaires that are completed by patients. Arthroplasty registries vary in PROM collection and use. Current information about registry collection and use of PROMs is important to help improve methods of PROM data analysis, reporting, comparison, and use toward improving clinical practice. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To characterize PROM collection and use by registries, we asked: (1) What is the current practice of PROM collection by arthroplasty registries that are current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries, and are there sufficient similarities in PROM collection between registries to enable useful international comparisons that could inform the improvement of arthroplasty care? (2) How do registries differ in PROM administration and demographic, clinical, and comorbidity index variables collected for case-mix adjustment in data analysis and reporting? (3) What quality assurance methods are used for PROMs, and how are PROM results reported and used by registries? (4) What recommendations to arthroplasty registries may improve PROM reporting and facilitate international comparisons? METHODS: An electronic survey was developed with questions about registry structure and collection, analysis, reporting, and use of PROM data and distributed to directors or senior administrators of 39 arthroplasty registries that were current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. In all, 64% (25 of 39) of registries responded and completed the survey. Missing responses from incomplete surveys were captured by contacting the registries, and up to three reminder emails were sent to nonresponding registries. Recommendations about PROM collection were drafted, revised, and approved by the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group members. RESULTS: Of the 25 registries that completed the survey, 15 collected generic PROMs, most frequently the EuroQol-5 Dimension survey; 16 collected joint-specific PROMs, most frequently the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; and 11 registries collected a satisfaction item. Most registries administered PROM questionnaires within 3 months before and 1 year after surgery. All 16 registries that collected PROM data collected patient age, sex or gender, BMI, indication for the primary arthroplasty, reason for revision arthroplasty, and a comorbidity index, most often the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. All 16 registries performed regular auditing and reporting of data quality, and most registries reported PROM results to hospitals and linked PROM data to other data sets such as hospital, medication, billing, and emergency care databases. Recommendations for transparent reporting of PROMs were grouped into four categories: demographic and clinical, survey administration, data analysis, and results. CONCLUSION: Although registries differed in PROM collection and use, there were sufficient similarities that may enable useful data comparisons. The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group recommendations identify issues that may be important to most registries such as the need to make decisions about survey times and collection methods, as well as how to select generic and joint-specific surveys, handle missing data and attrition, report data, and ensure representativeness of the sample. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: By collecting PROMs, registries can provide patient-centered data to surgeons, hospitals, and national entities to improve arthroplasty care.

Benchmarking total hip replacement constructs using noninferiority analysis: the New Zealand joint registry study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the relative performance of total hip replacement constructs and discern if there is substantial variability in performance in currently commonly used prostheses in the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) using a noninferiority analysis. METHODS: All patients who underwent a primary total hip replacement (THR) registered in the NZJR between 1st January 1999 to June 2020 were identified. Using a noninferiority analysis, the performance of hip prostheses were compared with the best performing contemporary construct. Construct failure was estimated using the 1-Kaplan Meier survival function method to estimate net failure. The difference in failure between the contemporary benchmark and other constructs was examined. RESULTS: In total 135,432 THR were recorded comprising 1035 different THR constructs. Notably 328 constructs were used just once. Forty-eight constructs (62,251 THR) had > 500 procedures at risk at 3 years post-primary of which 28 were inferior by at least 20% relative risk of which, 10 were inferior by at least 100% relative risk. Sixteen constructs were identified with > 500 procedures at risk at 10 years with 9 inferior by at least 20%, of which one was inferior by > 100% relative risk. There were fewer constructs noninferior to the best practice benchmark when we performed analysis by gender. In females at 10 years, from 5 constructs with > 500 constructs at risk, 2 were inferior at the 20% margin. In males at 10 years, there were only 2 eligible constructs of which one was inferior at the 20% margin. CONCLUSIONS: We discerned that there is substantial variability in construct performance and at most time points, just over half of constructs are inferior to the best performing construct by at least 20%. These results can facilitate informed decision-making when considering THR surgery.

A Comparison of the Surgical Practice of Potential Revision Outlier Joint Replacement Surgeons With Non-outliers: A Case Control Study From the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) has monitored the performance of consultant surgeons performing primary total hip (THR) or knee replacements (KR) since 2007. The aims of this study were: 1) To describe the surgical practice of consultant hip and knee replacement surgeons in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR), stratified by potential outlier status for revisions. 2) To compare the practice of revision outlier and non-outlier surgeons. METHODS: We combined NJR primary THR and KR data from 2008-2017 separately with relevant anonymised NJR outlier notification records. We described the surgical practice of outliers and non-outliers by surgical workload, implant choice, and patients' clinical and demographic characteristics. We explored associations between surgeon-level factors and outlier status with conditional logistic regression models. RESULTS: We included 764,888 primary THRs by 3213 surgeons and 889,954 primary KRs by 3084 surgeons performed between 2008-2017. One hundred and eleven (3.5%) THR and 114 (3.7%) KR consultant surgeons were potential revision outliers. Surgeons who used more types of implant had increased odds of being an outlier (KR: OR/additional implant = 1.35, 95%CI 1.17-1.55; THR: OR = 1.12, 95%CI 1.06-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: The use of more types of implant is associated with increased risk of being a potential revision outlier. Further research is required to understand why surgeons use many different implants and to what extent this is responsible for the effects observed here.

The EQ-5D-3L administered by text message compared to the paper version for hard-to-reach populations in a rural South African trauma setting: a measurement equivalence study.

INTRODUCTION: Administering patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by text message may improve response rate in hard-to-reach populations. This study explored cultural acceptability of PROMs and compared measurement equivalence of the EQ-5D-3L administered on paper and by text message in a rural South African setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants with upper or lower limb orthopaedic pathology were recruited. The EQ-5D was administered first on paper and then by text message after 24 h and 7 days. Differences in mean scores for paper and text message versions of the EQ-5D were evaluated. Test-retest reliability between text message versions was evaluated using Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: 147 participants completed a paper EQ-5D. Response rates were 67% at 24 h and 58% at 7 days. There were no differences in means between paper and text message responses for the EQ-5D Index (p = 0.95) or EQ-5D VAS (p = 0.26). There was acceptable agreement between the paper and 24-h text message EQ-5D Index (0.84; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.78-0.89) and EQ-5D VAS (0.73; 95% CI 0.64-0.82) and acceptable agreement between the 24-h and 7-day text message EQ-Index (0.72; CI 0.62-0.82) and EQ-VAS (0.72; CI 0.62-0.82). Non-responder traits were increasing age, Xhosa as first language and lower educational levels. CONCLUSIONS: Text messaging is equivalent to paper-based measurement of EQ-5D in this setting and is thus a viable tool for responders. Non-responders had similar socioeconomic characteristics and attrition rates to traditional modes of administration. The EQ-5D by text message offers potential clinical and research uses in hard-to-reach populations.

Factors associated with implant survival following total hip replacement surgery: A registry study of data from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 100,000 people underwent total hip replacement (THR) in the United Kingdom in 2018, and most can expect it to last at least 25 years. However, some THRs fail and require revision surgery, which results in worse outcomes for the patient and is costly to the health service. Variation in the survival of THR implants has been observed between units and reducing this unwarranted variation is one focus of the "Getting it Right First Time" (GIRFT) program in the UK. We aimed to investigate whether the statistically improved implant survival of THRs in a high-performing unit is associated with the implants used or other factors at that unit, such as surgical skill. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analyzed a national, mandatory, prospective, cohort study (National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man [NJR]) of all THRs performed in England and Wales. We included the 664,761 patients with records in the NJR who have received a stemmed primary THR between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2017 in one of 461 hospitals, with osteoarthritis as the only indication. The exposure was the unit (hospital) in which the THR was implanted. We compared survival of THRs implanted in the "exemplar" unit with THRs implanted anywhere else in the registry. The outcome was revision surgery of any part of the THR construct for any reason. Net failure was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and adjusted analyses employed flexible parametric survival analysis. The mean age of patients contributing to our analyses was 69.9 years (SD 10.1), and 61.1% were female. Crude analyses including all THRs demonstrated better implant survival at the exemplar unit with an all-cause construct failure of 1.7% (95% CI 1.3-2.3) compared with 2.9% (95% CI 2.8-3.0) in the rest of the country after 13.9 years (log-rank test P < 0.001). The same was seen in analyses adjusted for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (difference in restricted mean survival time 0.12 years [95% CI 0.07-0.16; P < 0.001]). Adjusted analyses restricted to the same implants as the exemplar unit show no demonstrable difference in restricted mean survival time between groups after 13.9 years (P = 0.34). A limitation is that this study is observational and conclusions regarding causality cannot be inferred. Our outcome is revision surgery, and although important, we recognize it is not the only marker of success of a THR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the "better than expected" implant survival results of this exemplar center are associated with implant choice. The survival results may be replicated by adopting key treatment decisions, such as implant selection. These decisions are easier to replicate than technical skills or system factors.

How long does a hip replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Total hip replacement is a common and highly effective operation. All hip replacements would eventually fail if in situ long enough and it is important that patients understand when this might happen. We aimed to answer the question: how long does a hip replacement last? METHODS: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis with a search of MEDLINE and Embase from the start of records to Sept 12, 2017. We included articles reporting 15-year survival of primary, conventional total hip replacement constructs in patients with osteoarthritis. We extracted survival and implant data and used all-cause construct survival as the primary outcome. We also reviewed reports of national joint replacement registries, and extracted data for a separate analysis. In the meta-analyses, we weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate for each source of data. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018085642). FINDINGS: We identified 140 eligible articles reporting 150 series, and included 44 of these series (13 212 total hip placements). National joint replacement registries from Australia and Finland provided data for 92 series (215 676 total hip replacements). The 25-year pooled survival of hip replacements from case series was 77·6% (95% CI 76·0-79·2) and from joint replacement registries was 57·9% (95% CI 57·1-58·7). INTERPRETATION: Assuming that estimates from national registries are less likely to be biased, patients and surgeons can expect a hip replacement to last 25 years in around 58% of patients. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man, and The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Knee replacements are the mainstay of treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis and are effective. Given time, all knee replacements will fail and knowing when this failure might happen is important. We aimed to establish how long a knee replacement lasts. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for case series and cohort studies published from database inception until July 21, 2018. Articles reporting 15 year or greater survival of primary total knee replacement (TKR), unicondylar knee replacement (UKR), and patellofemoral replacements in patients with osteoarthritis were included. Articles that reviewed specifically complex primary surgeries or revisions were excluded. Survival and implant data were extracted, with all-cause survival of the knee replacement construct being the primary outcome. We also reviewed national joint replacement registry reports and extracted the data to be analysed separately. In the meta-analysis, we weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate for each data source at 15 years, 20 years, and 25 years, using a fixed-effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018105188. FINDINGS: From 4363 references found by our initial search, we identified 33 case series in 30 eligible articles, which reported all-cause survival for 6490 TKRs (26 case series) and 742 UKRs (seven case series). No case series reporting on patellofemoral replacements met our inclusion criteria, and no case series reported 25 year survival for TKR. The estimated 25 year survival for UKR (based on one case series) was 72·0% (95% CI 58·0-95·0). Registries contributed 299 291 TKRs (47 series) and 7714 UKRs (five series). The pooled registry 25 year survival of TKRs (14 registries) was 82·3% (95% CI 81·3-83·2) and of UKRs (four registries) was 69·8% (67·6-72·1). INTERPRETATION: Our pooled registry data, which we believe to be more accurate than the case series data, shows that approximately 82% of TKRs last 25 years and 70% of UKRs last 25 years. These findings will be of use to patients and health-care providers; further information is required to predict exactly how long specific knee replacements will last. FUNDING: The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Isle of Man and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

What are the inpatient and day case costs following primary total hip replacement of patients treated for prosthetic joint infection: a matched cohort study using linked data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip replacement (THR) surgery is a serious complication that negatively impacts patients' lives and is financially burdensome for healthcare providers. As the number of THRs increases, so does this financial burden. This research estimates the economic burden with respect to inpatient and day case hospital admissions for patients receiving revision surgery for PJI following primary THR. METHODS: In this matched cohort study, the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) was used to identify patients. Patients revised for PJI with a one- or two-stage revision following THR and patients not revised for PJI were matched on several characteristics using exact and radius matching. Hospital inpatient and day case healthcare records from the English Hospital Episode Statistics database were obtained for 5 years following the identified patient's primary THR. UK national unit costs were applied to hospital admissions and the 5-year total cost was estimated. A two-part model (Probit and generalised linear model) was employed to estimate the incremental difference in costs between those revised and not revised for PJI. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2009, 1914 revisions for PJI were identified in the NJR. The matching resulted in 422 patients revised for PJI and 1923 matches not revised for PJI who were included in the analysis. The average cost of inpatient and day case admissions in the 5 years following primary THR was approximately £42,000 for patients revised for PJI and £8000 for patients not revised for PJI. The difference in costs over the 5 years was £33,452 (95% CI £30,828 to £36,077; p < 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: In the 5 years following primary THR, patients who develop PJI and have revision surgery cost approximately £33,000 (over 5-fold) more than patients not revised for PJI based on their hospital inpatient and day case admissions alone. The total burden of PJI is likely to be much higher when also considering outpatient, primary and community care costs. This highlights the need to find both ways to reduce the incidence of PJI following THR and cost-effective treatment strategies if PJI occurs.

Perceived occurrence of an adverse event affects patient-reported outcomes after total hip replacement.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation, periprosthetic fracture and infection are serious complications of total hip replacement (THR) and which negatively impact on patients' outcomes including satisfaction, quality of life, mental health and function. The accuracy with which patients report adverse events (AEs) after surgery varies. The impact of patient self-reporting of AEs on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after THR is yet to be investigated. Our aim was to determine the effect of confirmed and perceived AEs on PROMs after primary THR. METHODS: A prospective single-centre cohort study of patients undergoing primary THR, with one-year follow-up, was performed. Participants completed forms pre-operatively and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-operatively, including Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), EuroQol-5D-3 L (EQ5D), Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction (SAPS) and AE reporting questionnaires. Results were reported in three groups: No AE, reported but not confirmed AE and confirmed AE. A generalised linear model was used to compare among groups using robust standard errors (SE). RESULTS: Forty-one AEs were reported in a cohort of 417 patients (234 females), with 30 AEs reported by 3 months. Eleven (27 reported) infections, two (six reported) periprosthetic fractures and two (eight reported) dislocations were confirmed. Those in the no AE group reported significantly better outcomes that the reported AE group as measured by WOMAC Co-Eff 14.27 (p = 0.01), EQ5D - 0.128 (p = 0.02) and SAPS - 9.926 (p = 0.036) and the combined reported and confirmed AE groups as measured by WOMAC Co-Eff 13.72 (p = 0.002), EQ5D - 0.129 (p = 0.036) and SAPS - 11.512 (p = 0.004). No significant differences were seen in WPAI among groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who report AEs have worse outcomes than those who do not, regardless of whether the AEs can be confirmed by standard medical record review methods. The observed negative trends suggest that patient perception of AEs may influence patient outcome in a similar way to those with confirmed AEs.

Estimating an Individual's Probability of Revision Surgery After Knee Replacement: A Comparison of Modeling Approaches Using a National Data Set.

Tools that provide personalized risk prediction of outcomes after surgical procedures help patients make preference-based decisions among the available treatment options. However, it is unclear which modeling approach provides the most accurate risk estimation. We constructed and compared several parametric and nonparametric models for predicting prosthesis survivorship after knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis. We used 430,455 patient-procedure episodes between April 2003 and September 2015 from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man. The flexible parametric survival and random survival forest models most accurately captured the observed probability of remaining event-free. The concordance index for the flexible parametric model was the highest (0.705, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.702, 0.707) for total knee replacement and was 0.639 (95% CI: 0.634, 0.643) for unicondylar knee replacement and 0.589 (95% CI: 0.586, 0.592) for patellofemoral replacement. The observed-to-predicted ratios for both the flexible parametric and the random survival forest approaches indicated that models tended to underestimate the risks for most risk groups. Our results show that the flexible parametric model has a better overall performance compared with other tested parametric methods and has better discrimination compared with the random survival forest approach.

Are competing risks models appropriate to describe implant failure?

Background and purpose - The use of competing risks models is widely advocated in the arthroplasty literature due to a perceived bias in comparison of simple Kaplan-Meier estimates. Proponents of competing risk models in the arthroplasty literature appear to be unaware of the subtle but important differences in interpretation of net and crude failure estimated by competing risk and Kaplan-Meier methods respectively. Methods - Using a simple simulation we illustrate the differences between competing risks and Kaplan-Meier methods. Results - Competing risk and Kaplan-Meier methods estimate different survival quantities, i.e., crude and net failure respectively. Estimates of crude failure estimated using competing risk methods will be less than net failure as estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Interpretation - Kaplan-Meier methods are appropriate for describing implant failure, whereas crude survival estimated using competing risk methods estimates the risk of surgical revision as it depends on both implant failure and mortality. Both competing risk models and Kaplan-Meier methods are useful in arthroplasty, and both provide unbiased estimates of crude and net failure in the absence of any confounding or selection respectively. Surgeons and researchers should carefully consider whether the use of competing risks is always justified. Lower estimates of failure from competing risk models may be misleading to surgeons who are attempting to select the best implants with the lowest failure rates for their patients.

The association between cement type and the subsequent risk of revision surgery in primary total hip replacement.

Background and purpose - To further improve the success of joint replacement surgery, attention needs to be paid to variations associated with improved or worsened outcomes. We investigated the association between the type of bone cement used and the risk of revision surgery after primary total hip replacement. Methods - We conducted a prospective study of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales between April 1, 2003 and December 31, 2013. 199,205 primary total hip replacements performed for osteoarthritis where bone cement was used were included. A multilevel over-dispersed piecewise Poisson model was used to estimate differences in the rate of revision by bone cement type adjusted for implant type, head size, age, sex, ASA grade, and surgical approach. Results - The rate of revision was higher in DePuy CMW3 medium viscosity with gentamicin (IRR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.7) and DePuy SmartSet high viscosity plain (IRR 2.7, 95% CI 1.1-5.5), and lower in DePuy CMW1 high viscosity plain (IRR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19-0.89) bone cements compared with Heraeus Palacos high viscosity with gentamicin. Revision rates were similar between plain and antibiotic-loaded bone cement. Interpretation - The majority of bone cements performed similarly well, excluding DePuy SmartSet high viscosity and CMW3 high viscosity with gentamicin, which both had higher revision rates. We found no clear differences by viscosity or antibiotic content.

Validated repeatability of patient-reported outcome measures following primary total hip replacement: a mode of delivery comparison study with randomized sequencing.

Background and purpose - Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to understand better the outcomes after total hip replacement (THR). These are administered in different settings using a variety of methods. We investigated whether the mode of delivery of commonly used PROMs affects the reported scores, 1 year after THR. Patients and methods - A prospective test-retest mode comparison study with randomized sequence was done in 66 patients who had undergone primary THR. PROMs were administered by 4 modes: self-administration, face-to-face interview, telephone interview, and postal questionnaire. PROMs included: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EQ5D-3L (EQ5D), and Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction Scale (SAPS). Linear regression was used to estimate relationships between the mean scores for PROMs by mode. Individual paired differences by mode were calculated, relationships between modes were identified, and results adjusted by time delay and participant age. Results - There was no statistically significant difference between the mean PROM scores recorded for each mode of delivery for each score. Statistically significant differences in the individual paired differences were detected between modes for the WOMAC stiffness subscale, OHS, EQ5D, and SAPS. OHS difference in individual paired means between face-to-face and telephone interview exceeded the minimal clinically important difference. Interpretation - PROMs mode of administration can affect the recorded results. Modes should not be mixed and may not be comparable between studies. It should not be assumed that different modes will obtain the same results and where not already established this should be checked by researchers before use.