Aims. Our primary aim was to establish the proportion of female orthopaedic consultants who perform arthroplasty via cases submitted to the National Joint Registry (NJR), which covers England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and Guernsey. Secondary aims included comparing time since specialist registration, private practice participation, and number of hospitals worked in between male and female surgeons. Methods. Publicly available data from the NJR was extracted on the types of arthroplasty performed by each surgeon, and the number of procedures of each type undertaken. Each surgeon was cross-referenced with the General Medical Council (GMC) website, using GMC number to extract surgeon demographic data. These included sex, region of practice, and dates of full and specialist registration. Results. Of 2,895 surgeons contributing to the NJR in 2023, 102 (4%) were female. The highest proportions of female surgeons were among those who performed elbow (n = 25; 5%), shoulder (n = 24; 4%), and ankle (n = 8; 4%) arthroplasty. Hip (n = 66; 3%) and knee arthroplasty (n = 39; 2%) had the lowest female representation. Female surgeons had been practising for a median of 10.4 years since specialist registration compared to 13.7 years for males (p < 0.001). Northern Ireland was the region with the highest proportion of female arthroplasty surgeons (8%). A greater proportion of male surgeons worked in private practice (63% vs 24%; p < 0.001) and in multiple hospitals (74% vs 40%; p < 0.001). Conclusion. Only 4% of surgeons currently contributing cases to the NJR are female, with the highest proportion performing elbow arthroplasty (5%). Female orthopaedic surgeons in the NJR are earlier in their careers than male surgeons, and are less involved in private practice. There is a wide geographical variation in the proportion of female arthroplasty surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(8):637–643

At the end of 2018, the NZ Joint Registry introduced a “Surgeon Outlier” policy, whereby each year, if an individual surgeons’ lower 95% confidence interval of their revision rate, measured in revision/100 component years(r/ocys), was above the NZ mean (0.71 r/ocys), that surgeon was required to audit their results with a nominated peer. This study investigates whether outlier surgeons also have high early (1 month and 1 year) revision rates. In 2018, 236 surgeons performed 9,186 total hip arthroplasties in NZ. At the end of 2018, 11 surgeons received notification they were outliers. Results from all surgeons for years 2016, 2017 and 2018 were combined to form the first (pre-notification) time interval, and results from years 2019, 2020 and 2021 were combined to form the second time interval (post-notification). Outlier surgeons performed 2001 total hip replacements in the first time interval and 1947 hips in the second. Early revision rates (1 month and 1 year) of both outlier and nonoutlier surgeons for both time intervals were analysed. Non-outlier surgeons had a consistent mean early revision rate of 0.75% at one month and 1.6% at one year for both time intervals. The 11 outlier surgeons had a higher earlier revision rate of 1.35% at one month and 2.45% at one year for the pre-notification time interval. These values reduced for the post-notification time interval to a revision rate of 1.23% for one month and 2.36% for one year. Poor joint registry results of individual surgeons are often attributed to a poor choice of prosthesis. This study shows early revision rates of outlier surgeons, where prosthesis selection has minimal influence, are also high. A slight improvement in early revision rates of outlier surgeons since introduction of the policy shows it is working

The National Joint Registry (NJR) was set up by the Department of Health to collect information on all joint replacements. The NJR data is externally validated against nationally collated Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). Errors associated with the use of HES data have been widely documented. We sought to explore the accuracy of the NJR data, for a single surgeon, against a prospectively collected personal logbook. The NJR and logbook were compared over a 3-year period (01/07/2009 to 30/06/2012). Total procedure recorded in the personal logbook was 684 and in the NJR was 681. TKR in personal log book was 304 and in NJR 316, revision knee's in personal logbook 45 and in NJR 36, THR 274 in personal logbook and 271 in NJR, revision hip procedures in personal logbook 64 and 58 in NJR. Whilst the total number of procedures captured correlates closely (681 vs 684) there is more variation with the different individual procedures. This may be due to the addition of 11% of HES data used for this time period by the NJR as it is known to be inaccurate. This therefore demonstrates the importance of maintaining your own accurate records

Introduction. The mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) design was introduced with the aim of reducing polyethylene wear and component loosening seen in the fixed-bearing (FB) design. A recent joint registry study has revealed increased risk for all-cause revision, but not revision for infection, in MB-TKA. We used the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) to compare all-cause revision rates, and revision rates for aseptic loosening of MB-TKA compared with fixed bearing (FB) TKA. Methods. All patients who underwent a primary TKA registered in the NZJR between the 1st January 1999 to 31st December 2021 were identified. Analysis compared MB to FB designs, with sub analysis of implants from a single company. We identified 135,707 primary TKAs, with 104,074 (76.7%) FB-TKAs and 31,633 (23.3%) MB-TKAs recorded. We examined all-cause revision rates, reasons for revision and performed survival analyses. Results. For all-comers, MB-TKA had an all-cause revision rate of 0.43/100-component-years (OCY) compared with 0.42/OCY for FB-TKA (p=0.09). The all-cause revision rate was higher for those age < 65 years (MB TKA 0.60/OCY vs. FB-TKA 0.59/OCY) compared to those > 65 years at time of primary TKA (MB-TKA 0.29/OCY vs. FB-TKA 0.32/OCY), however there was no statistically significant difference between implant design in either age group (p=0.16 and p=0.64; respectively). Similarly, there was no difference in revision rates for aseptic loosening between implant designs. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrates no statistically significant difference in revision-free survival of implants, with both MB-TKA and FB-TKA demonstrating ∼93% revision free survival at 23 years. Conclusions. Both FB- and MB-TKA demonstrated excellent survivorship, with no significant difference in all-cause revision rates or revision for aseptic loosening between implant designs

This study aimed to examine the changing trends in the reasons for total hip replacement (THR) revision surgery, in one country over a twenty-one year period, in order to assess whether changes in arthroplasty practices have impacted revision patterns and whether an awareness of these changes can be used to guide clinical practice and reduce future revision rates. The reason for revision THR performed between January 1999 and December 2019 was extracted from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). The results were then grouped into seven 3-year periods to allow for clearer visualization of trends. The reasons were compared across the seven time periods and trends in prosthesis use, patient age, gender, BMI and ASA grade were also reviewed. We compared the reasons for early revision, within one year, with the overall revision rates. There were 20,740 revision THR registered of which 7665 were revisions of hips with the index procedure registered during the 21 year period. There has been a statistically significant increase in both femoral fracture (4.1 – 14.9%, p<0.001) and pain (8.1 – 14.9%, p<0.001) as a reason for hip revision. While dislocation has significantly decreased from 57.6% to 17.1% (p<0.001). Deep infection decreased over the first 15 years but has subsequently seen further increases over the last 6 years. Conversely both femoral and acetabular loosening increased over the first 12 years but have subsequently decreased over the last 9 years. The rate of early revisions rose from 0.86% to 1.30% of all revision procedures, with a significant rise in revision for deep infection (13-33% of all causes, p<0.001) and femoral fracture (4-18%, p<0.001), whereas revision for dislocation decreased (59-30%, p<0.001). Adjusting for age and gender femoral fracture and deep infection rates remained significant for both (p<0.05). Adjusting for age, gender and ASA was only significant for infection. The most troubling finding was the increased rate of deep infection in revision THR, with no obvious linked pattern, whereas, the reduction in revision for dislocation, aseptic femoral and acetabular loosening can be linked to the changing patterns of the use of larger femoral heads and improved bearing surfaces

Introduction. Despite the increasing numbers of ankle replacements that are being performed there are still limited studies on the survival of ankle replacements and comparisons between different implants. The primary aim of this study is to link NJR data with NHS digital data to determine the true failure rates of ankle replacements. Secondary outcomes include analysis risk factors for failure, patient demographics and outcomes of individual prosthesis. Methods. A data linkage study combined National Joint Registry Data and NHS Digital data. The primary outcome of failure is defined as the removal or exchange of any components of the implanted device inserted during ankle replacement surgery. Life tables and Kaplan Meier survival charts demonstrated survivorship. Cox proportional hazards regression models with the Breslow method used for ties were fitted to compare failure rates. Results. 5,562 primary ankle replacement were recorded on the NJR. The 1-year survivorship was 98.8% (95% CI 98.4%–99.0%), 5-year survival in 2725 patients was 90.2% (95% CI 89.2%–91.1%), and 10-year survival in 199 patients was 86.2% (95% CI 84.6%–87.6%). When using a Cox regression model for all implants with over 100 implantations using the Infinity as the reference, only the Star (Hazard ratio 1.60 95% CI 0.87–2.96) and Inbone (HR 0.38 95% CI 0.05–2.84) did not produce significantly worse survivorship. Conclusion. Ankle replacements have increased in numbers over the past decade, and the currently used implants have lower failure rates than older prosthesis. It is expected that in the future the outcomes of ankle replacements will continue to improve

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have benefits for hospitals and uptake in the UK is increasing. The National Joint Registry (NJR) monitors implant and surgeon performance and relies on accuracy of data. NJR data are used for identification of potential outliers for both mortality and revision; analyses are adjusted for age, sex, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists score (ASA) and cases with some indications are excluded from analyses. In October 2020, the Royal Devon University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust “went live” on an EHR, almost eradicating paper from the Trust. This included stopping use of paper NJR forms by creating a bespoke electronic template. We sought to identify discrepancies between operation notes and data input to the NJR in variables that may influence potential outlier analyses. Data input to the NJR from 15/10/2020 to 18/10/2022 for hip procedures were provided by NEC Software Solutions. NJR data were compared to those recorded on operation notes. There were 1067 hip procedures recorded in the NJR (946 primary THRs). Of the primary THRs, discrepancies in indication between NJR and operation note were identified in 139 (15%) cases. Common discrepancies included cases being recorded as osteoarthritis where the true indication was acute trauma (n=63), avascular necrosis (n=14), metastatic cancer/malignancy (n=6) and 21 cases with no recorded indication. We identified 88 cases where the ASA recorded in the NJR differed from the anaesthetic chart. Other inaccuracies were identified including 23 cases missing type of procedure (e.g., primary or revision) and one where revision surgery had been recorded as primary. We identified at least 83 cases that should have been excluded from NJR mortality analyses but were not. Given the low incidence of mortality following primary THR, these cases (with increased risk of death) have the potential to incorrectly identify the hospital as a potential outlier. Discrepancies in ASA may also impact on both revision and mortality outlier calculations. We urge caution to hospitals in the implementation of EHRs and advise regular audit of data sent to the NJR

Multiple joint registries have reported better implant survival for patients aged >75 years undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) with cemented implant combinations when compared to hybrid or uncemented implant combinations. However, there is considerable variation within these broad implant categories, and it has therefore been suggested that specific implant combinations should be compared. We analysed the most common contemporary uncemented (Corail/Pinnacle), hybrid (Exeter V40/Trident) and cemented (Exeter V40/Exeter X3) implant combinations in the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) for patients aged >75 years. All THAs performed using the selected implants in the NZJR for patients aged >75 years between 1999 and 2018 were included. Demographic data, implant type, and outcome data including implant survival, reason for revision, and post-operative Oxford Hip Scores were obtained from the NZJR, and detailed survival analyses were performed. Primary outcome was revision for any reason. Reason for revision, including femoral or acetabular failure, and time to revision were recorded. 5427 THAs were included. There were 1105 implantations in the uncemented implant combination group, 3040 in the hybrid implant combination group and 1282 in the cemented implant combination group. Patient reported outcomes were comparable across all groups. Revision rates were comparable between the cemented implant combination (0.31 revisions/100 component years) and the hybrid implant combination (0.40 revisions/100 component years) but were statistically significantly higher in the uncemented implant combination (0.80/100 component years). Femoral-sided revisions were significantly greater in the uncemented implant combination group. The cemented implant and hybrid implant combinations provide equivalent survival and functional outcomes in patients aged over 75 years. Caution is advised if considering use of the uncemented implant combination in this age group, predominantly due to a higher risk of femoral sided revisions. The authors recommend comparison of individual implants rather than broad categories of implants

There is paucity of reliable data examining the treatment pathway for hip replacements over the life of the patient in terms of risk of revision and re-revisions. We did a retrospective observational registry-based study of the National Joint Registry, using data on hip replacements from all participating hospitals in England and Wales, UK. We included data on all first revisions, with an identifiable primary procedure, with osteoarthritis as the sole indication for the original primary procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the cumulative probability of revision and subsequent re-revision after primary hip replacement. Analyses were stratified by age and gender, and the influence of time from first to second revision on the risk of further revision was explored. Between 2003, and 2019, there were 29 010 revision hip replacements with a linked primary episode. Revision rates of revision hip replacements were higher in patients younger than 55 years than in older age groups. After revision of primary total hip replacement, 21·3% (95% CI 18·6–24·4) of first revisions were revised again within 15 years, 22·3% (20·3–24·4) of second revisions were revised again within 7 years, and 22·3% (18·3–27·0) of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. After revision of hip resurfacing, 23·7% (95% CI 19·6–28·5) of these revisions were revised again within 15 years, 21·0% (17·0–25·8) of second revisions were revised again within 7 years, and 19·3% (11·9–30·4) of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. A shorter time between revision episodes was associated with earlier subsequent revision. Younger patients are at an increased risk of multiple revisions. Patients who undergo a revision have a steadily increasing risk of further revision the more procedures they undergo, and each subsequent revision lasts for approximately half the time of the previous one

Introduction. The purpose of this study was to compare implant survivorship and functional outcomes in patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for acute proximal humeral fracture (PHF) with those undergoing elective RTSA in a population-based cohort study. Methods. Prospectively collected data from the New Zealand Joint Registry from 1999 to 2021 and identified 7,277 patients who underwent RTSA. Patients were categorized by pre-operative indication, including acute PHF (10.1%), rotator cuff arthropathy (RCA) (41.9%), osteoarthritis (OA) (32.2%), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (5.2%) and old traumatic sequelae (4.9%). The PHF group was compared with elective indications based on patient, implant, and operative characteristics, as well as post-operative outcomes (Oxford Shoulder Score [OSS], and revision rate) at 6 months, 5 and 10 years after surgery. Survival and functional outcome analyses were adjusted by age, sex, ASA class and surgeon experience. Results. Implant survivorship at 10 years for RTSA for PHF was 97.3%, compared to 96.1%, 93.7%, 92.8% and 91.3% for OA, RCA, RA and traumatic sequelae, respectively. When compared with RTSA for PHF, the adjusted risk of revision was higher for traumatic sequelae (hazard ratio = 2.29; 95% CI:1.12–4.68, p=0.02) but not for other elective indications. At 6 months post-surgery, OSS were significantly lower for the PHF group compared to RCA, OA and RA groups (31.1±0.5 vs. 35.6±0.22, 37.7±0.25, 36.5±0.6, respectively, p<0.01), but not traumatic sequelae (31.7±0.7, p=0.43). At 5 years, OSS were only significantly lower for PHF compared to OA (37.4±0.9 vs 41.0±0.5, p<0.01), and at 10 years, there were no differences between groups. Discussion and Conclusion. RTSA for PHF demonstrated reliable long-term survivorship and functional outcomes compared to other elective indications. Despite lower functional outcomes in the early post-operative period for the acute PHF group, implant survivorship rates were similar to patients undergoing elective RTSA

Orthopaedic practice is increasingly guided by conclusions drawn from analysis of Joint Registry Data. Analysis of the England and Wales National Joint Registry (NJR) led Sibanda et al to conclude that UKR should be reserved for more elderly patients due to higher revision rates in younger patients. To determine our UKR revision rates at the Great Western Hospital we requested knee arthroplasty data from the NJR, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data submitted by our centre to the Primary Care Trust, and interrogated our internal theatre implant database. This revealed significant discrepancies between different data sources. We collected data from each source for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Operations were classified as TKR, UKR, Other or Unspecified. Results are illustrated in the attached table:. Key findings:. Our theatre implant database appears most accurate and includes a greater number of joint replacement operations than NJR or HES data and fewer ‘unspecified’ procedures. On average 15% NJR, 0% HES and 0.3% theatre data procedures were ‘unspecified’. NJR data comprises an average 17 fewer, and HES data an average 36 fewer procedures each year compared with our theatre data. Up to 80% UKRs performed are recorded as TKR in HES data. In summary there is significant inaccuracy in our NJR data which may affect the validity of conclusions drawn from NJR data analysis. HES data is even less accurate with implications for hospital funding. We strongly advise other centres to continue to maintain accurate implant data and to perform a similar audit to calculate error rates for NJR and HES data. Further analysis is required to identify at which stage of data collection inaccuracies occur so that solutions can be devised. We are currently analysing data from 2008 and 2009

Introduction. The revision rate of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) in national joint registries is much higher than that of total knee replacements and that of UKR in cohort studies from multiple high-volume centres. The reasons for this are unclear but may be due to incorrect patient selection, inadequate surgical technique, and inappropriate indications for revision. Meniscal bearing UKR has well defined evidence based indications based on preoperative radiographs, the surgical technique can be assessed from post-operative radiographs and the reason for revision from pre-revision radiographs. However, for an accurate assessment aligned radiographs are required. The aim of the study was to determine why the revision rate of UKR in registries is so high by undertaking a radiographic review of revised UKR identified by the United Kingdom's (UK) National Joint Registry (NJR). Methods. A novel cross-sectional study was designed. Revised medial meniscal bearing UKR with primary operation registered with the NJR between 2006 and 2010 were identified. Participating centres from all over the country provided blinded pre-operative, post-operative, and pre-revision radiographs. Two observers reviewed the radiographs. Results. Radiographs were provided for 107 revised UKR from multiple centres. The recommended indications were not satisfied in 30%. The most common reason was the absence of bone-on-bone arthritis, and in 16 (19%) the medial joint space was normal or nearly normal. Post-operative films were mal-aligned in 50%. Significant surgical errors were seen in 50%, with most errors attributable to tibial component placement and orientation. No definite reason for revision was identified in 67%. Reasons for revision included disease progression (10%), tibial component loosening (7%), dislocation of the bearing (7%), infection (6%) femoral component loosening (3%), and peri-prosthetic fracture (2% - one femur, one tibia). Discussion and Conclusion. This study found that improper patient selection, inadequate surgical technique, inappropriate revisions and poorly taken radiographs all contributed to the high revision rate. There is a misconception that UKR should be used for early OA. Bone-on-bone arthritis is a requirement and was definitely not present in about 20%. There were many surgical errors, particularly related to the tibial cut: The new instrumentation should reduce this. There was a high prevalence of mal-aligned radiographs. Revisions should be avoided unless there is a definite problem, as the outcome of revision is usually poor in this situation. 80% of UKR revisions could potentially be avoided if surgeons adhered to the recommended indications for primary and revision surgery, and used the recommended surgical techniques. This study therefore suggests that if UKR was used appropriately the revision rate would be substantially lower and probably similar to that of TKR

Hip bearing surfaces materials are typically broadly reported in national registry (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic etc). We investigated the revision rates of primary total hip replacement (THR) reported in the National Joint Registry (NJR) by detailed types of bearing surfaces used. We analysed THR procedures across all orthopaedic units in England and Wales. Our analyses estimated all-cause and cause-specific revision rates. We identified primary THRs with heads and monobloc cups or modular acetabular component THRs with detailed head and shell/liner bearing material combinations. We used flexible parametric survival models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR). A total of 1,026,481 primary THRs performed between 2003–2019 were included in the primary analysis (Monobloc cups: n=378,979 and Modular cups: n=647,502) with 20,869 (2%) of these primary THRs subsequently undergoing a revision episode (Monobloc: n=7,381 and Modular: n=13,488). Compared to implants with a cobalt chrome head and highly crosslinked polyethylene (HCLPE) cup, the overall risk of revision for monobloc acetabular implant was higher for patients with cobalt chrome or stainless steel head and non-HCLPE cup. The risk of revision was lower for patients with a delta ceramic head and HCLPE cup implant, at any post-operative period. Compared to patients with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner primary THR, the overall risk of revision for modular acetabular implant varied non-constantly. THRs with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and HCLPE liner had a lower risk of revision throughout the entire post-operative period. The overall and indication-specific risk of prosthesis revision, at different time points following the initial implantation, is reduced for implants with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and a HCLPE liner/cup in reference to THRs with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner/cup

We investigated the revision rates of primary total hip replacement (THR) reported in the National Joint Registry (NJR) by types of bearing surfaces used. We analysed THR procedures across all orthopaedic units in England and Wales. Our analyses estimated all-cause and cause-specific revision rates. We identified primary THRs with heads and monobloc cups or modular acetabular component THRs with head and shell/liner combinations. We used flexible parametric survival models to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR). A total of 1,026,481 primary THRs performed between 2003–2019 are included in the primary analysis (Monobloc: n=378,979 and Modular: n=647,502) with 20,869 (2%) of these primary THRs subsequently undergoing a revision episode (Monobloc: n=7,381 and Modular: n=13,488). Compared to implants with a cobalt chrome head and highly crosslinked polyethylene (HCLPE) cup, the all-cause risk of revision for monobloc acetabular implant was higher for patients with cobalt chrome or stainless steel head and non-HCLPE cup. The risk of revision was lower for patients with a delta ceramic head and HCLPE cup implant, at any post-operative period. Compared to patients with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner primary THR, the all-cause risk of revision for modular acetabular implant varied non-constantly. THRs with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and HCLPE liner had a lower risk of revision throughout the entire post-operative period. The all-cause and indication-specific risk of prosthesis revision, at different time points following the initial implantation, is lower for implants with a delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and a HCLPE liner/cup than commonly used alternatives such as cobalt chrome heads and HCLPE liner/cup

Ceramic on ceramic (CoC) bearings in total hip arthroplasty (THA) are commonly used but concerns exist regarding ceramic fracture. This study aims to report the risk of revision for fracture of modern CoC bearings and identify factors that might influence this risk, using data from the National Joint Registry. We analysed data on 111,681 primary CoC THA's and 182 linked revisions for bearing fracture recorded in the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR). We used implant codes to identify ceramic bearing composition and generated Kaplan-Meier estimates for implant survivorship. Logistic regression analyses were performed for implant size and patient specific variables to determine any associated risks for revision. 99.8% of bearings were CeramTec Biolox® products. Revisions for fracture were linked to 7 of 79,442 (0.009%) Biolox® Delta heads, 38 of 31,982 (0.119%) Biolox® Forte heads, 101 of 80,170 (0.126%) Biolox® Delta liners and 35 of 31,258 (0.112%) Biolox® Forte liners. Regression analysis of implant size revealed smaller heads had significantly higher odds of fracture (χ2=68.0, p<0.0001). The highest fracture risk were observed in the 28mm Biolox® Forte subgroup (0.382%). There were no fractures in the 40mm head group for either ceramic type. Liner thickness was not predictive of fracture (p=0.67). BMI was independently associated with revision for both head fractures (OR 1.09 per unit increase, p=0.031) and liner fractures (OR 1.06 per unit increase, p=0.006). We report the largest registry study of CoC bearing fractures to date. Modern CoC bearing fractures are rare events. Fourth generation ceramic heads are around 10 times less likely to fracture than third generation heads, but liner fracture risk remains similar between these generations

Abstract. Introduction. Component mal-positioning in total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) can increase the risk of revision for various reasons. Compared to conventional surgery, relatively improved accuracy of implant positioning can be achieved using computer assisted technologies including navigation, patient-specific jigs, and robotic systems. However, it is not known whether application of these technologies has improved prosthesis survival in the real-world. This study aimed to compare risk of revision for all-causes following primary THR and TKR, and revision for dislocation following primary THR performed using computer assisted technologies compared to conventional technique. Methods. We performed an observational study using National Joint Registry data. All adult patients undergoing primary THR and TKR for osteoarthritis between 01/04/2003 to 31/12/2020 were eligible. Patients who received metal-on-metal bearing THR were excluded. We generated propensity score weights, using Sturmer weight trimming, based on: age, gender, ASA grade, side, operation funding, year of surgery, approach, and fixation. Specific additional variables included position and bearing for THR and patellar resurfacing for TKR. For THR, effective sample sizes and duration of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided and robotic-assisted analyses were 9,379 and 10,600 procedures, and approximately 18 and 4 years, respectively. For TKR, effective sample sizes and durations of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided, patient-specific jigs, and robotic-assisted groups were 92,579 procedures over 18 years, 11,665 procedures over 8 years, and 644 procedures over 3 years, respectively. Outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and expressed using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results. For THR, analysis comparing computer-guided versus conventional technique demonstrated HR of 0.771 (95%CI 0.573–1.036) p=0.085, and 0.594 (95%CI 0.297–1.190) p=0.142, for revision for all-causes and dislocation, respectively. When comparing robotic-assisted versus conventional technique, HR for revision for all-causes was 0.480 (95%CI 0.067 –3.452) p=0.466. For TKR, compared to conventional surgery, HR for all-cause revision for procedures performed using computer guidance and patient-specific jigs were 0.967 (95% CI 0.888–1.052) p=0.430, and 0.937 (95% CI 0.708–1.241) p=0.65, respectively. HR for analysis comparing robotic-assisted versus conventional technique was 2.0940 (0.2423, 18.0995) p = 0.50. Conclusions. This is the largest study investigating this topic utilising propensity score analysis methods. We did not find a statistically significant difference in revision for all-causes and dislocation although these analyses are underpowered to detect smaller differences in effect size between groups. Additional comparison for revision for dislocation between robotic-assisted versus conventionally performed THR was not performed as this is a subset of revision for all-causes and wide confidence intervals were already observed for that analysis. It is also important to mention this NJR analysis study is of an observational study design which has inherent limitations. Nonetheless, this is the most feasible study design to answer this research question requiring use of a large data set due to revision being a rare outcome. Declaration of Interest. (b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project

A recent French report suggested that cobalt metal ions released from total hip replacements (THRs) were associated with an increased risk of dilated cardiomyopathy and heart failure. If the association is causal the consequences would be significant given the millions of Orthopaedic procedures in which cobalt-chrome is used annually. We examined whether cobalt-chrome containing THRs were associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders. Data from the National Joint Registry was linked to NHS English hospital inpatient episodes for 375,067 primary THRs with up to 14·5 years follow-up. Implants were grouped as either containing cobalt-chrome or not containing cobalt-chrome. The association between implant construct and the risk of all-cause mortality and incident heart failure, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders was examined. There were 132,119 individuals (35·2%) with an implant containing cobalt-chrome. There were 48,106 deaths, 27,406 heart outcomes, 35,823 cancers, and 22,097 neurodegenerative disorders. There was no evidence of an association that patients with cobalt-chrome implants had higher rates of any of the outcomes. For all-cause mortality there was a very small survival advantage for patients having a cobalt-chrome implant (restricted mean survival time 13·8=days, 95% CI=6·8-20·9). Cobalt-chrome containing THRs did not have an increased risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure, cancer, and neurodegenerative disorders into the second decade post-implantation. Our findings will reassure clinicians and patients that primary THR is not associated with systemic implant effects

Introduction: With the advent of harder wearing metal alloys such as cobalt chrome the technique of hip surface replacement has been resurrected. It is becoming an increasingly popular especially with the younger patient with end-stage hip arthritis. In this study we seek to demonstrate this procedure’s short term success rate for Cappagh and to demonstrate the new Joint Registry in action which has been collating data for the last 2 years. Methods: The Bluespiers online database was used to identify 200 consecutive primary hip resurfacing performed in Cappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital between January 1st 2006 and January 31st 2008. Patients completed a WOMAC 3.1 Osteoarthritis assessment and SF-36 General Health survey before their operation and at their 1st Joint Registry Clinic Review, typically between five and 9 months post-operatively. Findings: 200 hip resurfacing procedures by 7 surgeons were identified between January 1st 2006 and January 31st 2008. The mean patient age was 55 years(range, 23 to 81 years). 48 (32%) were female and 152 (68%) were male. Two post-operative femoral neck fractures were recorded which were converted to THR. We used the SF-36 score as a surrogate marker of overall subjective health and quality of life. The average preoperative SF-36 score was 50.93 (5 to 94.4). The average SF-36 score at 1st Joint Review Clinic visit was 77.55 (23.77–100). This demonstrates an average improvement of 24.44 (−17.69 to 59.75). As a measure of arthritis severity we will use the WOMAC 3.0 score as a surrogate. The average preoperative WOMAC score was 52.95 (4–92) and the average WOMAC score at 1st Joint Registry Review was 16.11 (0–75). This demonstrates an average decrease in WOMAC score of 34.46 (−29 to 83). Discussion: Hip surface replacement in Cappagh as recorded by the Joint registry has good success in treating hip arthritis with good improvement of quality of life. We would hope to demonstrate with the joint registry continuing long-term success of this treatment

Recent analysis of the Australian Joint Replacement Registry revealed the rate of revision of primary total hip arthroplasty was greater with cement-less fixation than with cemented fixation. The seven-year results of the New Zealand Joint Registry have also shown an increased revision rate with cement-less hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to review the revision rate of cemented and cement-less total hip arthroplasty from those joint replacements registered with the New Zealand Joint Registry and to determine the cause for revision. All 42 1000 primary total hip arthroplasties recorded in the New Zealand National Joint Registry since its establishment in 1999, until December 2006, were included in the study. The rate of revision of cemented and cement-less femoral and acetabular components was calculated for the study period, and for the first 90 days after the operation. The reasons for revision were evaluated and compared for different methods of fixation. Survival curves were constructed for each combination of femoral and acetabular component fixation. Two hundred and eighty three cement-less (2.46%), 294 cemented (1.91%), and 321 cemented femoral with cement-less acetabular fixation (2.19%) primary total hip arthroplasties have been revised. The difference in revision rate between each group was statistically significant. There were only 573 primary total hip arthroplasties performed with cement-less femoral and cemented acetabular component, with 11 revised. The rate of revision was highest in the cement-less group (0.74% revised per year), and lowest in the cemented group (0.47%). The predominant reason for revision in all three major groups was dislocation. Revision for loosening of the acetabulum was more common with cemented fixation. Revision for fractured femur was more common with cement-less fixation, and revision for deep infection was most common in the cemented group. These differences were all shown to be statistically significant. Revision for loosening of the femoral component and pain was more common in the cement-less group, but was not shown to be statistically significant. In the first 90 days, there were a large number of revisions in the cement-less group (0.77%), compared to the cemented group (0.32%), and cemented femur with cement-less acetabulum group (0.57%). Dislocation was again the most common reason for revision. Revision for fractured femur was high in the cement-less group (0.19%) in the first 90 days. Excluding these early revisions, the number of revisions in the cemented and cement-less groups maintained a similar rate for the remainder of the study period. This study confirmed that the revision rate for uncemented THA was higher than for cemented THA. The major difference was the early revision rate within 90 days. Addressing these problems would improve the overall early outcome

Introduction: The ten-year survivorship of Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty (OUKA) has ranged from 98% in the hands of the developers to only 82–90% in reports from independent centers and national registries. This study was performed to investigate the effects of surgeon training and correct patient selection on the expected outcome of this procedure. Methods: We created a computer-simulated joint registry consisting of 20 surgeons who performed OUKA on 1,000 patients. Mathematical models of the patient and surgeon populations and corresponding hazard functions were formulated using data from the Swedish and Australian joint registries. The long-term survivorship of UKA was assumed to average 94% at 10 years and was modeled as the product of hazard functions quantifying risk factors under the surgeon’s control, risk factors presented by the patient, and the inherent revision risk of the procedure. We performed four simulations looking at the effect of surgeon training by pairing surgeons and patients based on surgeon experience and patient risk factors. Results: When experienced surgeons (> 40 cases) performed OUKA on low risk patients (bottom quintile), the revision rate dropped from 6.0% to 4.5%. The same surgeons had a revision rate of 7.5% when assigned to the highest risk patient group (top quintile). Conversely, when the least experienced surgeons (< 10 cases) selected the least fit patients, the revision rate increased from 6% to 8.25%. However, when these surgeons were assigned to the lowest risk group, only 5.25% of patients were revised. Taken simultaneously, these results indicate that the overall revision rate of this procedure can vary between 4.5% to 8.25%, depending upon the experience of the surgeon and the patients selected. Conclusions:. Mathematical models of patients and surgeons can be built using joint registry data. These models can then be used in a computer simulation yielding results comparable to what has been reported in the literature. The outcome of Oxford UKA is primarily determined by the skill of the surgeon in selecting suitable patients rather than operative experience. Attempts to expand indications for new procedures should be moderated by concerns that the favorable results from pioneering centers may be due to the judgment and experience of the developers as much as their technical skill in performing the procedure