The aim of this study was to compare the design of the generic
OptiStem XTR femoral stem with the established Exeter femoral stem. We obtained five boxed, as manufactured, implants of both designs
at random (ten in total). Two examiners were blinded to the implant
design and independently measured the mass, volume, trunnion surface
topography, trunnion roughness, trunnion cone angle, Caput-Collum-Diaphyseal
(CCD) angle, femoral offset, stem length, neck length, and the width
and roughness of the polished stem shaft using peer-reviewed methods.
We then compared the stems using these parameters.Aims
Materials and Methods
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:
