Risk of serious adverse events after primary shoulder replacement: development and external validation of a prediction model using linked national data from England and Denmark.

BACKGROUND: Despite a rising rate of serious medical complications after shoulder replacement surgery, there are no prediction models in widespread use to guide surgeons in identifying patients at high risk and to provide patients with personalised risk estimates to support shared decision making. Our aim was to develop and externally validate a prediction model for serious adverse events within 90 days of primary shoulder replacement surgery. METHODS: Linked data from the National Joint Registry, National Health Service Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care of England, and Civil Registration Mortality databases and Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry and National Patient Register were used for our modelling study. Patients aged 18-100 years who had a primary shoulder replacement between April 1, 2012, and Oct 2, 2020, in England, and April 1, 2012, and Oct 2, 2018, in Denmark, were included. We developed a multivariable logistic regression model using the English dataset to predict the risk of 90-day serious adverse events, which were defined as medical complications requiring admission to hospital and all-cause death. We undertook internal validation using bootstrapping, and internal-external cross-validation across different geographical regions of England. The English model was externally validated on the Danish dataset. FINDINGS: Data for 40 631 patients undergoing primary shoulder replacement (mean age 72·5 years [SD 9·9]; 28 709 [70·7%] women and 11 922 [29·3%] men) were used for model development, of whom 2270 (5·6%) had a 90-day serious adverse event. On internal validation, the model had a C-statistic of 0·717 (95% CI 0·707-0·728) and was well calibrated. Internal-external cross-validation showed consistent model performance across all regions in England. Upon external validation on the Danish dataset (n=6653; mean age 70·5 years [SD 10·3]; 4503 [67·7%] women and 2150 [32·3%] men), the model had a C-statistic of 0·750 (95% CI 0·723-0·776). Decision curve analysis showed clinical utility, with net benefit across all risk thresholds. INTERPRETATION: This externally validated prediction model uses commonly available clinical variables to accurately predict the risk of serious medical complications after primary shoulder replacement surgery. The model is generalisable and applicable to most patients in need of a shoulder replacement. Its use offers support to clinicians and could inform and empower patients in the shared decision-making process. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Denmark.

An analysis of the effect of the COVID-19-induced joint replacement deficit in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland suggests recovery will be protracted.

Aims: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the provision of arthroplasty services in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This study aimed to quantify the backlog, analyze national trends, and predict time to recovery. Methods: We performed an analysis of the mandatory prospective national registry of all independent and publicly funded hip, knee, shoulder, elbow, and ankle replacements in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between January 2019 and December 2022 inclusive, totalling 729,642 operations. The deficit was calculated per year compared to a continuation of 2019 volume. Total deficit of cases between 2020 to 2022 was expressed as a percentage of 2019 volume. Sub-analyses were performed based on procedure type, country, and unit sector. Results: Between January 2020 and December 2022, there was a deficit of 158,994 joint replacements. This is equivalent to over two-thirds of a year of normal expected operating activity (71.6%). There were 104,724 (-47.1%) fewer performed in 2020, 41,928 (-18.9%) fewer performed in 2021, and 12,342 (-5.6%) fewer performed in 2022, respectively, than in 2019. Independent-sector procedures increased to make it the predominant arthroplasty provider (53% in 2022). NHS activity was 73.2% of 2019 levels, while independent activity increased to 126.8%. Wales (-136.3%) and Northern Ireland (-121.3%) recorded deficits of more than a year's worth of procedures, substantially more than England (-66.7%). It would take until 2031 to eliminate this deficit with an immediate expansion of capacity over 2019 levels by 10%. Conclusion: The arthroplasty deficit following the COVID-19 pandemic is now equivalent to over two-thirds of a year of normal operating activity, and continues to increase. Patients awaiting different types of arthroplasty, in each country, have been affected disproportionately. A rapid and significant expansion in services is required to address the deficit, and will still take many years to rectify.

A Meta-Analysis to Evaluate Implant Survival and Benefits of the Use of Dual Mobility Constructs in Total Hip Replacement Following Hip Fracture.

Total hip replacement (THR) is commonly performed to treat hip fractures. Dual-mobility constructs (DMCs) are increasingly used for this indication. The aim of this study was to use evidence synthesis techniques to estimate net all-cause construct survival for THR with DMC performed for hip fracture. Additionally, we aimed to investigate and describe differences in all-cause construct survival (if present) between THRs performed with DMC (DMC-THR) or with a conventional bearing construct following hip fracture. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies (including joint registries), including DMC-THR for hip fracture which provided Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival estimates. The primary outcome was all-cause construct survival over time. The study was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020173117). A total of 557 papers and 17 registry reports were identified. Six studies (four registry reports, one matched-pair cohort study utilising joint registry data, and one single-institution case series) met the inclusion criteria, including 17,370 DMC THRs and 167,377 conventional THRs. Five-year KM survival estimates (95% confidence intervals) were similar at 95.4% (94.9 to 95.8%) for DMC-THR and 96.2% (96.0 to 96.4%) for conventional THR. The relative risk of revision for DMC-THR at five years was 1.21 (1.05 to 1.41). These results suggest that DMC-THR has a lower all-cause survival than conventional THR following hip fracture. This analysis does not support the routine use of DMC-THR over conventional bearing THR.

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.

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

BACKGROUND: Shoulder replacement is an increasingly common treatment for end-stage degenerative shoulder conditions. Some shoulder replacements are unsuccessful and additional operations might be required. It is important for patients and clinicians to know how long shoulder replacements last and how effectively they reduce pain and improve function. This study aims to determine the longevity and long-term efficacy of shoulder replacements. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from their inception to Sept 24, 2019, for case series and registry data reporting 10-year or longer survival of total shoulder replacements, humeral hemiarthroplasties, and reverse total shoulder replacements of a specific brand of implant. Survival, implant, and patient-reported outcome measures data were extracted. The primary outcome was implant survival. We reviewed and analysed national joint replacement registries separately. We weighted each series by SE and calculated a pooled survival estimate at years 10, 15, and 20. For patient-reported outcome measures we pooled the standardised mean difference at 10 years. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140221. FINDINGS: 927 non-duplicate articles were identified by our search, nine articles (reporting ten series) were eligible for analysis of survival and six articles were eligible for analysis of patient reported outcomes. The ten series reported all-cause survival of 529 total shoulder replacements and 364 humeral hemiarthroplasties; no series for reverse total shoulder replacement met the inclusion criteria. The estimated 10-year survival for total shoulder replacement was 94·6% (95% CI 93·6-97·6) and humeral hemiarthroplasties was 90·4% (87·0-94·0). A single registry contributed 7651 total shoulder replacements, 1395 humeral hemiarthroplasties, and 7953 reverse total shoulder replacements. The pooled registry 10-year survival was 92·0% (95% CI 91·0-93·0) for total shoulder replacement, 85·5% (83·3-87·7) for humeral hemiarthroplasties, and 94·4% (93·4-95·7) for patients with osteoarthritis who had reverse total shoulder replacement and 93·6% (91·1-95·8) for patients with rotator cuff arthropathy who had reverse total shoulder replacement. Pooled 10-year patient-reported outcome measures showed a substantial improvement from baseline scores, with a standardised mean difference of 2·13 (95% CI 1·93-2·34). INTERPRETATION: Our data show that approximately 90% of shoulder replacements last for longer than 10 years and patient-reported benefits are sustained. Our findings will be of use to surgeons and patients in the informed consent process and to health-care providers for resource planning. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research, the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Isle of Man, and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.