Reverse total shoulder replacement versus anatomical total shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis: population based cohort study using data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England.

OBJECTIVES: To answer a national research priority by comparing the risk-benefit and costs associated with reverse total shoulder replacement (RTSR) and anatomical total shoulder replacement (TSR) in patients having elective primary shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Population based cohort study using data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England. SETTING: Public hospitals and publicly funded procedures at private hospitals in England, 2012-20. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 60 years or older who underwent RTSR or TSR for osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff tendons. Patients were identified from the National Joint Registry and linked to NHS Hospital Episode Statistics and civil registration mortality data. Propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to balance the study groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was revision surgery. Secondary outcome measures included serious adverse events within 90 days, reoperations within 12 months, prolonged hospital stay (more than three nights), change in Oxford Shoulder Score (preoperative to six month postoperative), and lifetime costs to the healthcare service. RESULTS: The propensity score matched population comprised 7124 RTSR or TSR procedures (126 were revised), and the inverse probability of treatment weighted population comprised 12 968 procedures (294 were revised) with a maximum follow-up of 8.75 years. RTSR had a reduced hazard ratio of revision in the first three years (hazard ratio local minimum 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.59) with no clinically important difference in revision-free restricted mean survival time, and a reduced relative risk of reoperations at 12 months (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.83) with an absolute risk difference of -0.51% (95% confidence interval -0.89 to -0.13). Serious adverse events and prolonged hospital stay risks, change in Oxford Shoulder Score, and modelled mean lifetime costs were similar. Outcomes remained consistent after weighting. CONCLUSIONS: This study's findings provide reassurance that RTSR is an acceptable alternative to TSR for patients aged 60 years or older with osteoarthritis and intact rotator cuff tendons. Despite a significant difference in the risk profiles of revision surgery over time, no statistically significant and clinically important differences between RTSR and TSR were found in terms of long term revision surgery, serious adverse events, reoperations, prolonged hospital stay, or lifetime healthcare costs.

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.

Association between surgeon volume and patient outcomes after elective shoulder replacement surgery using data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between surgeon volume and patient outcomes after elective shoulder replacement surgery to improve patient outcomes and inform future resource planning for joint replacement surgery. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Public and private hospitals in the United Kingdom, 2012-20. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older who had shoulder replacement surgery, identified in the National Joint Registry, with linkage of participants in England to Hospital Episode Statistics data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was revision surgery. Secondary outcome measures were reoperation within 12 months, serious adverse events, and prolonged hospital stay (>3 nights) after shoulder replacement surgery. RESULTS: 39 281 shoulder replacement procedures undertaken by 638 consultant surgeons at 416 surgical units met the inclusion criteria and were available for analysis. Multilevel mixed effects models and restricted cubic splines were fit to examine the association between a surgeon's mean annual volume and risk of adverse patient outcomes, with a minimum volume threshold of 10.4 procedures yearly identified. Below this threshold the risk of revision surgery was significantly increased, as much as twice that of surgeons with the lowest risk (hazard ratio 1.94, 95% confidence interval 1.27 to 2.97). A greater mean annual surgical volume was also associated with a significantly lower risk of reoperations, fewer serious adverse events, and shorter hospital stay, with no thresholds identified. Annual variation in surgeon volume was not associated with any of the outcomes assessed. CONCLUSIONS: In the healthcare system represented by these registry data, an association was found between surgeons who averaged more than 10.4 shoulder replacements yearly and lower rates of revision surgery and reoperation, lower risk of serious adverse events, and shorter hospital stays. These findings should inform resource planning for surgical services and joint replacement surgery waiting lists and improve patient outcomes after shoulder replacement surgery.

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.

Survival of the Exeter V40 short revision (44/00/125) stem when used in primary total hip arthroplasty.

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

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 long do revised and multiply revised hip replacements last? A retrospective observational study of the National Joint Registry.

Background: Hip replacements are common and effective operations but patients that undergo this intervention are at risk of the replacements failing, requiring costly and often complex revision surgery with poorer outcomes than primary surgery. There is paucity of reliable data examining the treatment pathway for hip replacements over the life of the patient in terms of risk of revision and re-revisions. We aim to provide detailed information on the longevity of hip revision surgery. Methods: We did a retrospective observational registry-based study of the National Joint Registry, using data on hip replacements from all participating hospitals in England and Wales, UK. We included data on all first revisions, with an identifiable primary procedure, with osteoarthritis as the sole indication for the original primary procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the cumulative probability of revision and subsequent re-revision after primary hip replacement. Analyses were stratified by age and gender, and the influence of time from first to second revision on the risk of further revision was explored. Findings: Between April 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2019, there were 29 010 revision hip replacements with a linked primary episode. Revision rates of revision hip replacements were higher in patients younger than 55 years than in older age groups. After revision of primary total hip replacement, 21·3% (95% CI 18·6-24·4) of first revisions were revised again within 15 years, 22·3% (20·3-24·4) of second revisions were revised again within 7 years, and 22·3% (18·3-27·0) of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. After revision of hip resurfacing, 23·7% (95% CI 19·6-28·5) of these revisions were revised again within 15 years, 21·0% (17·0-25·8) of second revisions were revised again within 7 years, and 19·3% (11·9-30·4) of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. A shorter time between revision episodes was associated with earlier subsequent revision. Interpretation: Younger patients are at an increased risk of multiple revisions. Patients who undergo a revision have a steadily increasing risk of further revision the more procedures they undergo, and each subsequent revision lasts for approximately half the time of the previous one. Although hip replacements are effective for improving pain and function and usually last a remarkably long time, if they are revised, successive revisions are progressively and markedly less successful. Funding: NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership; and the National Joint Registry.

Temporal trends in comorbidity in adult elective hip and knee arthroplasty patients in England : a national population-based cohort study from the National Joint Registry.

AIMS: Our main aim was to describe the trend in the comorbidities of patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and knee arthroplasties (KAs) between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2018 in England. METHODS: We combined data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) on primary elective hip and knee arthroplasties performed between 2005 and 2018 with pre-existing conditions recorded at the time of their primary operation from Hospital Episodes Statistics. We described the temporal trend in the number of comorbidities identified using the Charlson Comorbidity Index, and how this varied by age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, index of multiple deprivation, and type of KA. RESULTS: We included 696,504 and 833,745 elective primary THAs and KAs respectively, performed for any indication. Between 2005 and 2018, the proportion of elective THA and KA patients with one or more comorbidity at the time of their operation increased substantially (THA: 20% to 38%, KA: 22% to 41%). This was driven by increases in four conditions: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (2018: ~17%), diabetes without complications (2018: THA 10%, KA 14%), myocardial infarction (2018: 4%), and renal disease (2018: ~8%). Notably, renal disease prevalence increased from < 1% in 2005 to ~8% in 2018. CONCLUSION: Between 2005 and 2018 there were significant changes in the number of comorbidities recorded in patients having elective primary THAs and KAs. Renal disease is now one of the most prevalent comorbidities in this patient population. Future research should explore whether this comorbidity trend has increased the burden on other medical specialities to optimize these patients before surgery and to provide additional postoperative care.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1052-1059.

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.

The risk of all-cause mortality, heart outcomes, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders with cobalt-chrome-containing total hip arthroplasty implants : an analysis of the National Joint Registry.

AIMS: A recent report from France suggested an association between the use of cobalt-chrome (CoCr) femoral heads in total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and an increased risk of dilated cardiomyopathy and heart failure. CoCr is a commonly used material in orthopaedic implants. If the reported association is causal, the consequences would be significant given the millions of joint arthroplasties and other orthopaedic procedures in which CoCr is used annually. We examined whether CoCr-containing THAs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, heart outcomes, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders in a large national database. METHODS: Data from the National Joint Registry was linked to NHS English hospital inpatient episodes for 374,359 primary THAs with up to 14.5 years' follow-up. We excluded any patients with bilateral THAs, knee arthroplasties, indications other than osteoarthritis, aged under 55 years, and diagnosis of one or more outcome of interest before THA. Implants were grouped as either containing CoCr or not containing CoCr. The association between implant construct and the risk of all-cause mortality and incident heart failure, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders was examined. RESULTS: There were 158,677 individuals (42.4%) with an implant containing CoCr. There were 47,963 deaths, 27,332 heart outcomes, 35,720 cancers, and 22,025 neurodegenerative disorders. There was no evidence of an association between patients with CoCr implants and higher rates of any of the outcomes. CONCLUSION: CoCr-containing THAs did not have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, or clinically meaningful heart outcomes, cancer, or neurodegenerative disorders into the second decade post-implantation. Our findings will help reassure clinicians and the increasing number of patients receiving primary THA worldwide that the use of CoCr-containing implants is not associated with significant adverse systemic effects. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(3):359-367.

The association between surgeon grade and risk of revision following total hip arthroplasty : an analysis of National Joint Registry data.

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

The risk of all-cause mortality, heart outcomes, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders with cobalt-chrome-containing total hip arthroplasty implants : an analysis of the National Joint Registry.

AIMS: A recent report from France suggested an association between the use of cobalt-chrome femoral heads in total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and an increased risk of dilated cardiomyopathy and heart failure. Cobalt-chrome is a commonly used material in orthopaedic implants. If the reported association is causal, the consequences would be significant given the millions of joint replacements and other orthopaedic procedures in which cobalt-chrome is used annually. We examined whether cobalt-chrome-containing THAs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, heart outcomes, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders in a large national database. METHODS: Data from the National Joint Registry was linked to NHS English hospital inpatient episodes for 374,359 primary THAs with up to 14.5 years follow-up. We excluded any patients with bilateral THAs, knee replacements, indications other than osteoarthritis, aged under 55 years, and diagnosis of one or more outcome of interest before THA. Implants were grouped as either containing cobalt-chrome or not containing cobalt-chrome. The association between implant construct and the risk of all-cause mortality and incident heart failure, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders was examined. RESULTS: There were 158,677 individuals (42.4%) with an implant containing cobalt-chrome. There were 47,963 deaths, 27,332 heart outcomes, 35,720 cancers, and 22,025 neurodegenerative disorders. There was no evidence of an association that patients with cobalt-chrome implants had higher rates of any of the outcomes. CONCLUSION: Cobalt-chrome-containing THAs did not have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, or clinically meaningful heart outcomes, cancer or neurodegenerative disorders into the second decade post-implantation. Our findings will help reassure clinicians and the increasing number of patients receiving primary THA worldwide that the use of cobalt-chrome containing implants is not associated with significant adverse systemic effects.

Association between surgeon grade and implant survival following hip and knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between surgeon grade (trainee vs consultant) and implant survival following primary hip and knee replacement. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and Embase from inception to 6 October 2021. SETTING: Units performing primary hip and/or knee replacements since 1990. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients undergoing either a primary hip or knee replacement, predominantly for osteoarthritis. INTERVENTION: Whether the surgeon recorded as performing the procedure was a trainee or not. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was net implant survival reported as a Kaplan-Meier survival estimate. The secondary outcome was crude revision rate. Both outcomes were reported according to surgeon grade. RESULTS: Nine cohort studies capturing 4066 total hip replacements (THRs), 936 total knee replacements (TKRs) and 1357 unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) were included (5 THR studies, 2 TKR studies and 2 UKR studies). The pooled net implant survival estimates for THRs at 5 years were 97.9% (95% CI 96.6% to 99.2%) for trainees and 98.1% (95% CI 97.1% to 99.2%) for consultants. The relative risk of revision of THRs at 5 and 10 years was 0.88 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.70) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.26), respectively. For TKRs, the net implant survival estimates at 10 years were 96.2% (95% CI 94.0% to 98.4%) for trainees and 95.1% (95% CI 93.0% to 97.2%) for consultants. We report a narrative summary of UKR outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is no strong evidence in the existing literature that trainee surgeons have worse outcomes compared with consultants, in terms of the net survival or crude revision rate of hip and knee replacements at 5-10 years follow-up. These findings are limited by the quality of the existing published data and are applicable to countries with established orthopaedic training programmes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019150494.

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.

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.

The association between surgical fixation of hip fractures within 24 hours and mortality : a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of time to surgical intervention from admission on mortality and morbidity for patients with hip fractures. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched from inception to June 2020. Reference lists were manually assessed to identify additional papers. Primary comparative research studies that recruited patients aged over 60 years, with non-pathological primary proximal femoral fractures that were treated surgically, were included. Studies that did not include a group operated on within 24 hours or which reported time to surgery in calendar days were excluded. Two investigators extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. The pre-defined primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality at other time points. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were aggregated and were grouped by study-level characteristics. RESULTS: This review included 46 studies (January 1991 to June 2020), comprising 521,857 hip fractures with 64,047 postoperative deaths. No randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion. In a pooled analysis of 15 studies, RR of mortality at 30 days comparing time to surgery < 24 hours with > 24 hours was 0.86 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.91; I 2 = 69%; 95% CI 50% to 81%; p-value for heterogeneity < 0.001). The association was stronger in observational studies that did not adjust for confounders than in those that adjusted for multiple covariates. In a pooled analysis of six studies, the RR of mortality at 30 days comparing time to surgery < 24 hours with 24 to 36 hours was 0.87 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.93; I 2 = 65%; 95% CI 16% to 85%; p-value for heterogeneity = 0.014). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates reduced mortality for patients operated within 24 hours compared with those operated on beyond 24 hours or within 24 to 36 hours. Where resources allow and there is no specific reversible contraindication to early surgery, we recommend that hip fractures should be surgically treated within 24 hours. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1176-1186.

Prediction of 90-day mortality after total hip arthroplasty.

AIMS: To develop and externally validate a parsimonious statistical prediction model of 90-day mortality after elective total hip arthroplasty (THA), and to provide a web calculator for clinical usage. METHODS: We included 53,099 patients with cemented THA due to osteoarthritis from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Registry for model derivation and internal validation, as well as 125,428 patients from England and Wales recorded in the National Joint Register for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the States of Guernsey (NJR) for external model validation. A model was developed using a bootstrap ranking procedure with a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression model combined with piecewise linear regression. Discriminative ability was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration belt plots were used to assess model calibration. RESULTS: A main effects model combining age, sex, American Society for Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, the presence of cancer, diseases of the central nervous system, kidney disease, and diagnosed obesity had good discrimination, both internally (AUC = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 0.81) and externally (AUC = 0.75, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.76). This model was superior to traditional models based on the Charlson (AUC = 0.66, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.70) and Elixhauser (AUC = 0.64, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.68) comorbidity indices. The model was well calibrated for predicted probabilities up to 5%. CONCLUSION: We developed a parsimonious model that may facilitate individualized risk assessment prior to one of the most common surgical interventions. We have published a web calculator to aid clinical decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):469-478.

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.

How long do revised and multiply revised knee replacements last? An analysis of the National Joint Registry.

BACKGROUND: Knee replacements are common and effective operations but patients that undergo this intervention are at risk of needing subsequent costly and often complex revision surgery with poorer outcomes than primary surgery. The treatment pathway over the life of the patient in terms of risk of revision and re-revision(s) is poorly described. We aim to provide detailed information on the longevity of revision surgery. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational registry-based study of the National Joint Registry. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the cumulative probability of revision and subsequent re-revision(s) following primary knee replacement. Analyses were stratified by age and gender and the influence of time from first to second revision on the risk of further revision was explored. FINDINGS: There were 33,292 revision knee replacements with a linked primary episode. Revision rates of revision knee replacements were higher in males and younger patients. 19·9% of revisions were revised again within 13 years, 20·7% of second revisions were revised again within 5 years and 20·7% of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. A shorter time between revision episodes was associated with earlier subsequent revision. INTERPRETATION: Males and younger patients are at higher risk of multiple revisions. Patients who undergo a revision have steadily increasing risk of further revision the more procedures they undergo, and each subsequent revision lasts for approximately half the time of the previous one. FUNDING: This study was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston National Health Service Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. This study was also supported by funding from Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership and the National Joint Registry. Posts of authors of this work are part funded by a grant from the National Joint Registry to conduct statistical analysis for the National Joint Registry. AS was funded by a Medical Research Council Strategic Skills Fellowship MR/L01226X/1.

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.