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.

Rehabilitation for revision total knee replacement: survey of current service provision and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Revision total knee replacement (TKR) is a major operation with a long recovery period and many patients report suboptimal outcomes. Rehabilitation has the potential to improve outcomes. The aim of this study was to understand current provision of rehabilitation for revision TKR in England and evaluate the existing evidence. METHODS: Phase 1: An online national survey of education and rehabilitation provision for patients receiving revision TKR was completed by physiotherapy staff at 22 hospitals across England that were high volume for revision TKR (response rate of 34%). Phase 2: Systematic review to identify studies evaluating rehabilitation programmes for revision joint replacement. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases from inception to 15th June 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated post-operative rehabilitation for adults undergoing revision joint replacement were included. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment was undertaken by two reviewers. RESULTS: Phase 1: Pre-operative education which aimed to prepare patients for surgery and recovery was provided in most hospitals, predominately involving a single session delivered by a multidisciplinary team. Inpatient physiotherapy commonly commenced on post-operative day 1 and was provided twice daily, with most hospitals also providing occupational therapy. Rehabilitation was often provided in the first four weeks after hospital discharge, either in an outpatient, community or home setting. In most hospitals, the education and rehabilitation provided to patients receiving revision TKR was the same as that provided to patients undergoing primary TKR. Phase 2: Of the 1,445 articles identified, three retrospective cohort studies based on hospital records review were included. The studies evaluated intensive inpatient rehabilitation programmes, consisting of 2-3 h of daily group or individual physiotherapy, with additional occupational therapy in one study. All three studies reported improvement in functional outcomes for patients undergoing rehabilitation after revision TKR. All studies were limited by their retrospective design, short duration of follow-up and lack of sample size calculation. No RCTs evaluating effectiveness of rehabilitation for revision TKR were identified. CONCLUSION: This study identified the need for future research to develop and evaluate tailored rehabilitation to optimise patient outcomes following revision TKR.

A Meta-Analysis of the Incidence and Temporal Trends of Postoperative Dislocation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Utilizing Constrained Acetabular Components or Dual Mobility Implants.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is reported to be up to 25% and remains a common source of failure. Constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants are two implant classes being utilized to alleviate this burden in patients who have recurrent instability or major intraoperative instability. This meta-analysis evaluated the incidence and temporal trends of dislocation after implantation with constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants in rTHA. METHODS: Longitudinal studies reporting dislocation after the use of constrained acetabular components or dual mobility implants in rTHA were sought from Medline and Embase to October 2022. Secondary outcomes included re-revision surgery for dislocation and all causes. A total of 75 relevant citations were identified comprising 36 datasets of 3,784 constrained acetabular components and 47 datasets of 10,216 dual mobility implants. RESULTS: For constrained acetabular components, the pooled incidence of dislocation was 9% (95% confidence interval: 7.2, 11.7) (range 0.0%-35.3%) over a weighted mean follow-up of 6 years, in contrast to 3% (95% confidence interval: 2.2, 4.4) (range 0.0%-21.4%) over 5 years for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for dislocation after using constrained acetabular components were around 9%, in contrast to 2% for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for all causes after using constrained acetabular components were around 19%, in contrast to 8% for dual mobility implants. CONCLUSION: Dual mobility implants in the context of rTHA demonstrate lower incidences of dislocation (3% versus 9%), re-revision for dislocation (2% versus 9%), and rer-evision for any cause (8% versus 19%) in contrast to constrained acetabular components. This must be considered by surgeons when implanting such devices, often selected to treat instability.

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).

The influence of mode of anaesthesia on perioperative outcomes in people with hip fracture: a prospective cohort study from the National Hip Fracture Database for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common after hip fracture surgery, affecting up to 50% of patients. The incidence of delirium may be influenced by mode and conduct of anaesthesia. We examined the effect of spinal anaesthesia (with and without sedation) compared with general anaesthesia on early outcomes following hip fracture surgery, including delirium. METHODS: We used prospective data on 107,028 patients (2018 to 2019) from the National Hip Fracture Database, which records all hip fractures in patients aged 60 years and over in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients were grouped by anaesthesia: general (58,727; 55%), spinal without sedation (31,484; 29%), and spinal with sedation (16,817; 16%). Outcomes (4AT score on post-operative delirium screening; mobilisation day one post-operatively; length of hospital stay; discharge destination; 30-day mortality) were compared between anaesthetic groups using multivariable logistic and linear regression models. RESULTS: Compared with general anaesthesia, spinal anaesthesia without sedation (but not spinal with sedation) was associated with a significantly reduced risk of delirium (odds ratio (OR)=0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.92-0.98), increased likelihood of day one mobilisation (OR=1.06, CI=1.02-1.10) and return to original residence (OR=1.04, CI=1.00-1.07). Spinal without sedation (p<0.001) and spinal with sedation (p=0.001) were both associated with shorter hospital stays compared with general anaesthesia. No differences in mortality were observed between anaesthetic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal and general anaesthesia achieve similar outcomes for patients with hip fracture. However, this equivalence appears to reflect improved perioperative outcomes (including a reduced risk of delirium, increased likelihood of mobilisation day one post-operatively, shorter length of hospital stay and improved likelihood of returning to previous residence on discharge) among the sub-set of patients who received spinal anaesthesia without sedation. The role and effect of sedation should be studied in future trials of hip fracture patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of spinal anaesthesia compared with general anaesthesia in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient-and public-informed outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of contemporary RCTs to determine the clinical effectiveness of spinal vs general anaesthesia (SA vs GA) in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery using a consensus-based core outcome set, and outcomes defined as important by patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives. METHODS: RCTs comparing any of the core outcomes (mortality, time from injury to surgery, acute coronary syndrome, hypotension, acute kidney injury, delirium, pneumonia, orthogeriatric input, being out of bed at day 1 postoperatively, and pain) or PPI-defined outcomes (return to preoperative residence, quality of life, and mobility status) between SA and GA were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (2000 to February 2022). Pooled relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the risk of delirium comparing SA vs GA (RR=1.07; 95% CI, 0.90-1.29). Comparing SA vs GA, the RR for mortality was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.22-1.44) in-hospital, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.52-2.23) at 30 days, and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.55-2.12) at 90 days. Spinal anaesthesia reduced the risk of acute kidney injury compared with GA: RR=0.59 (95% CI, 0.39-0.89). There were no significant differences in the risk of other outcomes. Few studies reported PPI-defined outcomes, with most studies reporting on one to three core outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Except for acute kidney injury, there were no differences between SA and GA in hip fracture surgery when using a consensus-based core outcome set and patient and public involvement-defined outcomes. Most studies reported limited outcomes from the core outcome set, and few reported outcomes important to patients, which should be considered when designing future RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021275206.

Trauma care in older people: charting a path from outlier to excellence.

Trauma in older people leads to substantial morbidity and mortality. The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) has driven improved practice with units compared to identify outliers. In 2013, our unit was an outlier for mortality post hip fracture (30-day mortality 12.2% vs. 8.3% nationally). This triggered external review. In 2019 the unit was highlighted as an exemplar in the UK. We describe the process that moved us from outlier to outstanding. After the initial review process, we made changes to our healthcare system, with regular reassessment of progress and care quality. Examples include a dedicated hip fracture unit, strong leadership (Nursing, Orthopaedic, Geriatrician, Anaesthetic), consultant-led in-depth monthly mortality reviews, changes to admission pathways and delirium prevention. Improvements were seen in all aspects of hip fracture care in 2019 compared with 2012. Thirty-day case-mixed adjusted mortality halved (12.2-6.1%), with substantial reductions in reoperations and pressure sores. Length of stay reduced by 5.9 days. In 2019 our unit's performance was significantly above the national average for all six indicators assessed by NHFD: prompt orthogeriatric review (97% vs. 91% national average), prompt surgery (85% vs. 68%); NICE compliant surgery (85% vs. 74%); prompt mobilisation (93% vs. 81%); not delirious postoperatively (77% vs. 69%); return to original residence (78% vs. 71%). The NHFD highlighted our Unit as one of nine (from 175 total) highly performing UK trusts. We summarise our service development and improvement work undertaken to achieve 'outstanding' status, which provides a valuable template to units managing trauma in older people.

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.

Clinical effectiveness of patellar resurfacing, no resurfacing and selective resurfacing in primary total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional and observational evidence.

BACKGROUND: Patellar resurfacing is optional during total knee replacement (TKR). Some surgeons always resurface the patella, some never resurface, and others selectively resurface. Which resurfacing strategy provides optimal outcomes is unclear. We assessed the effectiveness of patellar resurfacing, no resurfacing, and selective resurfacing in primary TKR. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and bibliographies were searched to November 2021 for randomised-control trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes for two or more resurfacing strategies (resurfacing, no resurfacing, or selective resurfacing) in primary TKR. Observational studies were included if limited or no RCTs existed for resurfacing comparisons. Outcomes assessed were patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, and further surgery. Study-specific relative risks [RR] were aggregated using random-effects models. Quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We identified 33 RCTs involving 5,540 TKRs (2,727 = resurfacing, 2,772 = no resurfacing, 41 = selective resurfacing). One trial reported on selective resurfacing. Patellar resurfacing reduced anterior knee pain compared with no resurfacing (RR = 0.65 (95% CI = 0.44-0.96)); there were no significant differences in PROMs. Resurfacing reduced the risk of revision surgery (RR = 0.63, CI = 0.42-0.94) and other complications (RR = 0.54, CI = 0.39-0.74) compared with no resurfacing. Quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. Limited observational evidence (5 studies, TKRs = 215,419) suggested selective resurfacing increased the revision risk (RR = 1.14, CI = 1.05-1.22) compared with resurfacing. Compared with no resurfacing, selective resurfacing had a higher risk of pain (RR = 1.25, CI = 1.04-1.50) and lower risk of revision (RR = 0.92, CI = 0.85-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Level 1 evidence supports TKR with patellar resurfacing over no resurfacing. Resurfacing has a reduced risk of anterior knee pain, revision surgery, and complications, despite PROMs being comparable. High-quality RCTs involving selective resurfacing, the most common strategy in the UK and other countries, are needed given the limited observational data suggests selective resurfacing may not be effective over other strategies.

The Incidence and Temporal Trends of Dislocation After the Use of Constrained Acetabular Components and Dual Mobility Implants in Primary Total Hip Replacements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation after a primary total hip replacement (pTHR) remains a common cause of treatment failure. Constrained acetabular components (CACs) and dual mobility implants (DMIs) may mitigate this in patients at high risk of dislocation or with significant intraoperative instability. This meta-analysis evaluated the incidence and temporal trends of dislocation after implantation with CACs and DMIs in pTHR. METHODS: Longitudinal studies reporting dislocation after the use of CACs or DMIs in pTHR were sought from Medline and Embase to September 2020. Secondary outcomes included revision surgery for dislocation and for all causes. RESULTS: A total of 46 studies (3 CAC and 43 DMI) comprising 582 CACs and 18,748 DMIs were included. The pooled incidence of dislocation was 1.08% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.00-3.72; range 0.27%-2.60%) over a weighted mean follow-up of 4.1 years for CACs, compared with 0.25% (95% CI: 0.08-0.46; range 0.00%-4.72%) over 6.2 years for DMIs. For DMIs, there was a temporal decline in dislocations from the 1980s onward, and dislocation rates remained low (<1%) until 15 years postoperatively. There were insufficient data for similar analysis of CACs. All studies were at high risk of bias. The incidence of revision for dislocation after CACs was 0.3% vs 0.1% for DMIs, and the incidence of revision for all causes after CACs was 4.8% vs 2.7% for DMIs. CONCLUSION: DMIs demonstrated a lower incidence of dislocation compared with CACs; however, there was a relative absence of CACs used in the context of pTHR in the literature. Temporal trends in dislocation have improved over time for DMIs.

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.

The influence of patellofemoral stabilisation surgery on joint congruity: an MRI surface mapping study.

BACKGROUND: In the unstable patellofemoral joint (PFJ), the patella will articulate in an abnormal manner, producing an uneven distribution of forces. It is hypothesised that incongruency of the PFJ, even without clinical instability, may lead to degenerative changes. The aim of this study was to record the change in joint contact area of the PFJ after stabilisation surgery using an established and validated MRI mapping technique. METHODS: A prospective MRI imaging study of patients with a history of PFJ instability was performed. The patellofemoral joints were imaged with the use of an MRI scan during active movement from 0° through to 40° of flexion. The congruency through measurement of the contact surface area was mapped in 5-mm intervals on axial slices. Post-stabilisation surgery contact area was compared to the pre-surgery contact area. RESULTS: In all, 26 patients were studied. The cohort included 12 male and 14 female patients with a mean age of 26 (15-43). The greatest mean differences in congruency between pre- and post-stabilised PFJs were observed at 0-10 degrees of flexion (0.54 cm2 versus 1.18 cm2, p = 0.04) and between 11° and 20° flexion (1.80 cm2 versus 3.45 cm2; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: PFJ stabilisation procedures increase joint congruency. If a single axial series is to be obtained on MRI scan to compare the pre- and post-surgery joint congruity, the authors recommend 11° to 20° of tibiofemoral flexion as this was shown to have the greatest difference in contact surface area between pre- and post-operative congruency.

MMP13 and TIMP1 are functional markers for two different potential modes of action by mesenchymal stem/stromal cells when treating osteoarthritis.

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) have been investigated as a potential injectable therapy for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, with some evidence of success in preliminary human trials. However, optimization and scale-up of this therapeutic approach depends on the identification of functional markers that are linked to their mechanism of action. One possible mechanism is through their chondrogenic differentiation and direct role in neo-cartilage synthesis. Alternatively, they could remain undifferentiated and act through the release of trophic factors that stimulate endogenous repair processes within the joint. Here, we show that extensive in vitro aging of bone marrow-derived human MSCs leads to loss of chondrogenesis but no reduction in trophic repair, thereby separating out the two modes of action. By integrating transcriptomic and proteomic data using Ingenuity Pathway Analysis, we found that reduced chondrogenesis with passage is linked to downregulation of the FOXM1 signaling pathway while maintenance of trophic repair is linked to CXCL12. In an attempt at developing functional markers of MSC potency, we identified loss of mRNA expression for MMP13 as correlating with loss of chondrogenic potential of MSCs and continued secretion of high levels of TIMP1 protein as correlating with the maintenance of trophic repair capacity. Since an allogeneic injectable osteoar therapy would require extensive cell expansion in vitro, we conclude that early passage MMP13+ , TIMP1-secretinghigh MSCs should be used for autologous OA therapies designed to act through engraftment and chondrogenesis, while later passage MMP13- , TIMP1-secretinghigh MSCs could be exploited for allogeneic OA therapies designed to act through trophic repair.

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.

Patients Receiving a Primary Unicompartmental Knee Replacement Have a Higher Risk of Revision but a Lower Risk of Mortality Than Predicted Had They Received a Total Knee Replacement: Data From the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: To determine unicompartmental (UKR) and total knee replacement (TKR) revision rates, compare UKR revision rates with what they would have been had they received TKR instead, and assess subsequent re-revision and 90-day mortality rates. METHODS: Using National Joint Registry data, we estimated UKR and TKR revision and mortality rates. Flexible parametric survival modeling (FPM) was used to model failure in TKR and make estimates for UKR. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to compare cumulative re-revision for revised UKRs and TKRs. RESULTS: Ten-year UKR revision rates were 2.5 times higher than expected from TKR, equivalent to 70 excess revisions/1000 cases within 10 years (5861 excess revisions in this cohort). Revision rates were 2.5 times higher for the highest quartile volume UKR surgeons compared to the same quartile for TKR and 3.9 times higher for the lowest quartiles respectively. Re-revision rates of revised TKRs (10 years = 17.5%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 16.4-18.7) were similar to revised UKRs (15.2%, 95% CI 13.4-17.1) and higher than revision rates following primary TKR (3.3%, 95% CI 3.1-3.5). Ninety-day mortality rates were lower after UKR compared with TKR (0.08% vs 0.33%) and lower than predicted had UKR patients received a TKR (0.18%), equivalent to 1 fewer death per 1000 cases. CONCLUSION: UKR revision rates were substantially higher than TKR even when demographics and caseload differences were accounted for; however, fewer deaths occur after UKR. This should be considered when forming treatment guidelines and commissioning services. Re-revision rates were similar between revised UKRs and TKRs, but considerably higher than for primary TKR, therefore UKR cannot be considered an intermediate procedure.

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 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.

The effect of surgical approach in total hip replacement on outcomes: an analysis of 723,904 elective operations from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: Total hip replacement (THR) is clinically and cost-effective. The surgical approach employed influences the outcome; however, there is little generalisable and robust evidence to guide practice. METHODS: A total of 723,904 primary THRs captured in the National Joint Registry, linked to hospital inpatient, mortality and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data with up to 13.75 years follow-up, were analysed. There were seven surgical approach groups: conventional posterior, lateral, anterior and trans-trochanteric groups and minimally invasive posterior, lateral and anterior. Survival methods were used to compare revision rates and 90-day mortality. Groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards and Flexible Parametric Survival Modelling (FPM). Confounders included age at surgery, sex, risk group (indications additional to osteoarthritis), American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, THR fixation, thromboprophylaxis, anaesthetic, body mass index (BMI) and deprivation. PROMs were analysed with regression modelling or non-parametric methods. RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis showed a higher revision risk than the referent conventional posterior for the conventional lateral, minimally invasive lateral, minimally invasive anterior and trans-trochanteric groups. This persisted with all adjusted FPM and adjusted Cox models, except in the Cox model including BMI where the higher revision rate only persisted for the conventional lateral approach (hazard rate ratio (HRR) 1.12 [95% CI 1.06,1.17] P < 0·001) and trans-trochanteric approaches (HRR 1.48 [95% CI 1.14,1.91] P = 0.003). PROMs demonstrated statistically, but not clinically, significant differences. Self-reported complications were more frequent with the conventional lateral approach, and the risk of 90-day mortality was higher (HRR 1.15 [95%CI 1.01-1.30] P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Lateral approaches for THR are associated with worse outcomes, including more deaths and revisions, than the posterior approach. We recommend the posterior approach should be considered the current standard approach for THR. Large well-designed studies are needed to assess any potential benefits from using minimally invasive posterior approaches and the conventional anterior approach.

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.