“Get It Right First Time” (GIRFT) and NHS England’s Best Practice Tariff (BPT) have published directives advising that patients over the ages of 65 (GIRFT) and 69 years (BPT) receiving total hip arthroplasty (THA) should receive cemented implants and have brought in financial penalties if this policy is not observed. Despite this, worldwide, uncemented component use has increased, a situation described as a ‘paradox’. GIRFT and BPT do, however, acknowledge more data are required to support this edict with current policies based on the National Joint Registry survivorship and implant costs. This study compares THA outcomes for over 1,000 uncemented Corail/Pinnacle constructs used in all age groups/patient frailty, under one surgeon, with identical pre- and postoperative pathways over a nine-year period with mean follow-up of five years and two months (range: nine months to nine years and nine months). Implant information, survivorship, and regular postoperative Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) were collected and two comparisons undertaken: a comparison of those aged over 65 years with those 65 and under and a second comparison of those aged 70 years and over with those aged under 70.Aims
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:
High failure rates of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty implants have highlighted the need for more careful introduction and monitoring of new implants and for the evaluation of the safety of medical devices. The National Joint Registry and other regulatory services are unable to detect failing implants at an early enough stage. We aimed to identify validated surrogate markers of long-term outcome in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating surrogate markers for predicting long-term outcome in primary THA. Long-term outcome was defined as revision rate of an implant at ten years according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines. We conducted a search of Medline and Embase (OVID) databases. Separate search strategies were devised for the Cochrane database and Google Scholar. Each search was performed to include articles from the date of their inception to June 8, 2015.Objectives
Methods
