Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 1 | Pages 20 - 27
1 Jan 2018
Sabah SA Moon JC Jenkins-Jones S Morgan CL Currie CJ Wilkinson JM Porter M Captur G Henckel J Chaturvedi N Kay P Skinner JA Hart AH Manisty C

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasties of the hip have an increased risk of cardiac failure compared with those with alternative types of arthroplasties (non-MoM).

Patients and Methods

A linkage study between the National Joint Registry, Hospital Episodes Statistics and records of the Office for National Statistics on deaths was undertaken. Patients who underwent elective total hip arthroplasty between January 2003 and December 2014 with no past history of cardiac failure were included and stratified as having either a MoM (n = 53 529) or a non-MoM (n = 482 247) arthroplasty. The primary outcome measure was the time to an admission to hospital for cardiac failure or death. Analysis was carried out using data from all patients and from those matched by propensity score.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 5 | Pages 592 - 600
1 May 2017
Matharu GS Nandra RS Berryman F Judge A Pynsent PB Dunlop DJ

Aims

To determine ten-year failure rates following 36 mm metal-on-metal (MoM) Pinnacle total hip arthroplasty (THA), and identify predictors of failure.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively assessed a single-centre cohort of 569 primary 36 mm MoM Pinnacle THAs (all Corail stems) followed up since 2012 according to Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulation Agency recommendations. All-cause failure rates (all-cause revision, and non-revised cross-sectional imaging failures) were calculated, with predictors for failure identified using multivariable Cox regression.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 1 | Pages 10 - 18
1 Jan 2015
Sabah SA Henckel J Cook E Whittaker R Hothi H Pappas Y Blunn G Skinner JA Hart AJ

Arthroplasty registries are important for the surveillance of joint replacements and the evaluation of outcome. Independent validation of registry data ensures high quality. The ability for orthopaedic implant retrieval centres to validate registry data is not known. We analysed data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) for primary metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 2003 and 2013. Records were linked to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (RC) for validation. A total of 67 045 procedures on the NJR and 782 revised pairs of components from the RC were included. We were able to link 476 procedures (60.9%) recorded with the RC to the NJR successfully. However, 306 procedures (39.1%) could not be linked. The outcome recorded by the NJR (as either revised, unrevised or death) for a primary procedure was incorrect in 79 linked cases (16.6%). The rate of registry-retrieval linkage and correct assignment of outcome code improved over time. The rates of error for component reference numbers on the NJR were as follows: femoral head category number 14/229 (5.0%); femoral head batch number 13/232 (5.3%); acetabular component category number 2/293 (0.7%) and acetabular component batch number 24/347 (6.5%).

Registry-retrieval linkage provided a novel means for the validation of data, particularly for component fields. This study suggests that NJR reports may underestimate rates of revision for many types of metal-on-metal hip replacement. This is topical given the increasing scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous independent evaluation of the quality and validity of NJR data.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:10–18.