Aims

The primary aim of this study is to assess the survival of the uncemented hydroxyapatite (HA) coated Trident II acetabular component as part of a hybrid total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a cemented Exeter stem. The secondary aims are to assess the complications, joint-specific function, health-related quality of life, and radiological signs of loosening of the acetabular component.

Aims

Several different designs of hemiarthroplasty are used to treat intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur, with large variations in costs. No clinical benefit of modular over monoblock designs has been reported in the literature. Long-term data are lacking. The aim of this study was to report the ten-year implant survival of commonly used designs of hemiarthroplasty.

Aims

The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). In 2004, the 44/00/125 stem was released for use in ‘cement-in-cement’ revision cases. It has, however, been used ‘off-label’ as a primary stem when patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44 mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this implant in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR.

The importance of registries has been brought into focus by recent UK national reports focusing on implant (Cumberlege) and surgeon (Paterson) performance. National arthroplasty registries provide real-time, real-world information about implant, hospital, and surgeon performance and allow case identification in the event of product recall or adverse surgical outcomes. They are a valuable resource for research and service improvement given the volume of data recorded and the longitunidal nature of data collection. This review discusses the current value of registry data as it relates to both clinical practice and research.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):356–360.

Aims. To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. Results. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to ten years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Conclusion. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):72–78

Aims

Despite multiple trials and case series on hip hemiarthroplasty designs, guidance is still lacking on which implant to use. One particularly deficient area is long-term outcomes. We present over 1,000 consecutive cemented Thompson’s hemiarthroplasties over a ten-year period, recording all accessible patient and implant outcomes.

Abstract

Aims

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common and safe orthopaedic procedure. Zimmer Biomet's NexGen is the second most popular brand of implant used in the UK. The primary cause of revision after the first year is aseptic loosening. We present our experience of using this implant, with significant concerns around its performance with regards early aseptic loosening of the tibial component.

Aims

Total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are performed by surgeons at various stages in training with varying levels of supervision, but we do not know if this is safe practice with comparable outcomes to consultant-performed THA. Our aim was to examine the association between surgeon grade, the senior supervision of trainees, and the risk of revision following THA.

Aims

The use and variety of stemless humeral components in anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) have proliferated since their advent in 2004. Early outcomes are reassuring but independent mid-term results are scarce. This independent study reports a consecutive series of 143 Eclipse stemless shoulder prostheses with a minimum five-year (5 to 10) follow-up.

Aim of this work is to critically analyze the current mandatory trend to adapt femoral cementless implant shape as to allow their use through mini-invasive anterior hip approach (MIS-AA). During decades, designers of cementless stems tried to adapt implant shapes to patient anatomy, that led to various classification systems (straight, curved, anatomic, etc …). Another way to classify cementless stems is according to their longevity, outcome quality and long-term results. This is the goal of the Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) that provided in 2017 an approved list of prostheses that meet at least the NICE 10y revision rate standard. In the last available ODEP 2020 issue, the best rating (13y experience “13”, with strong evidence “A” and < 6.5% rev rate “∗”) was achieved by only 10 cementless implant: Mallory-Head®, Taperloc®, Bimetric®, Accolade®, SL-Alloclassic®, Corail®, CLS Spotorno®, Furlong®, Synergy® & Versys Fibermetal®. All 10 are Ti straight tapers with large metaphyseal morphology in particular in Gruen Zone I. All these 10 ODEP 13A∗ cementless stems can universally be implanted through postero-lateral (PL), MIS-PL, lateral & conventional anterior approaches, but not safely through MIS-AA. Conversely, only new short and curved stems can be inserted safely through MIS-AA. Indeed, surgeons who promote MIS-AA cannot routinely use those successful femoral implants classified ODEP 13A∗. Obviously, surgical approach determines the choice of femoral component. Surgeons who promote MIAA can only bet/hope that these new short curved implants with currently very few clinical evidence will reach the same success and longevity that ODEP 13A∗ conventional straight tapers. Only future long-term studies will address that concern

Aims

Knee arthroplasty surgery is a highly effective treatment for arthritis and disorders of the knee. There are a wide variety of implant brands and types of knee arthroplasty available to surgeons. As a result of a number of highly publicized failures, arthroplasty surgery is highly regulated in the UK and many other countries through national registries, introduced to monitor implant performance, surgeons, and hospitals. With time, the options available within many brand portfolios have grown, with alternative tibial or femoral components, tibial insert materials, or shapes and patella resurfacings. In this study we have investigated the effect of the expansion of implant brand portfolios and where there may be a lack of transparency around a brand name. We also aimed to establish the potential numbers of compatible implant construct combinations.

Aims

“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.

Aims

The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate the early migration of the TriFit cementless proximally coated tapered femoral stem using radiostereometric analysis (RSA).

Follow-up of arthroplasty varies widely across the UK. The aim of this NIHR-funded study was to employ a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations. It has been supported by BHS, BASK, BOA, ODEP and NJR. Four interconnected work packages have recently been completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from four national data sets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery; (2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery; (3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models and (4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document to guide appropriate follow-up care after primary hip and knee arthroplasty. We will present the following Recommendations:. For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from 1 to 10 years post non-complex hip and knee replacement provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, periodic follow-up post hip and knee replacement may be required from 1 to 10 years. At 10 years post hip and knee replacement, we recommend clinical, which may be virtual, and radiographic evaluation. After 10 years post hip and knee replacement, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the 10-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Overarching statements. These recommendations apply to post primary hip and knee replacement follow-up. The 10-year time point in these recommendations is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term complex cases refer to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for replacement failure

Over 800 total hip replacement (THR) constructs were implanted in the UK in 2017. To ensure reliable implants are used, a NICE revision benchmark of 5% after 10 years exists. Surgeons are guided in choice by organisations such as the Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP). Currently, ODEP publishes ratings for stem and cup separately and not for constructs. We used NJR data to investigate whether revision estimates of an individual stem (with all cups) is an accurate indicator of survival of all constructs using that stem. The dataset comprised 234,289 THRs using the most frequently implanted stem between 2004 and 2017. Crude ten-year revision estimates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier for all THRs and for the five most implanted constructs. Adjusted comparisons between individual constructs and the overall stem revision estimate were made using flexible parametric survival analysis. The 10-year crude, revision estimate for all THRs was 2.3% (95% CI 2.2, 2.4). Only four of the most frequently used constructs had long enough follow-up to analyse. 10-year estimates for these constructs ranged from 1.8% (95% CI 1.5, 2.1) to 3.7% (95% CI 3.2, 4.1), a log-rank test revealed strong evidence against the null hypothesis that revision estimates were the same for all constructs (p<0.001). Adjusted for age, sex and ASA, three of the four constructs showed a difference in 10-year revision estimates compared to this stem with all cups (P=0.03, P<0.001, P<0.001). This study suggests 10-year revision estimates for all THRs using the most implanted stem in the NJR are not representative of all constructs involving that stem in crude or adjusted analyses. Current benchmarking systems report survival for the stem in combination with all cups and not for constructs. We suggest that benchmarking ratings basing on revision estimates for THR constructs would provide more accurate information, enabling informed construct decisions

Introduction. The alternative kinematic alignment (KA) technique for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims at restoring the native joint line orientation and laxity of the knee. The goal is to generate a more physiological prosthetic knee enabling higher functional performance and satisfaction for the patient. KA TKA have only been reported so far with cruciate retaining and posterior-stabilised designs. Similarly, medial pivot design for TKA has been recently developed to enable more natural knee kinematics and antero-posterior stability. The superiority of KA technique and medial pivot implant design is still controversial when compared to current practice. Our study aims to assess the value of KA TKA when performed with medial pivot implants. Methods. We conducted a retrospectively matched case-control study. Clinical data was prospectively collected on patients as part of an ongoing ODEP study. Thirty-three non-selected consecutive KA TKAs performed by the lead author were matched to a control group of 33 measured resection with mechanically aligned (MA) TKAs performed by other consultant surgeons. Patients were matched for sex, age, BMI and pre-operative Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Pre-operative median OKS was 21 points (max 48), mean age was 69, mean BMI 31, and there were 21 female patients in both arms. The medial pivot GMK Sphere implant (Medacta, Switzerland) was used in all cases. OKS and EQ-5D scores were measured pre-operatively and at 1-year post-op. Patient outcome satisfaction scores were assessed at 1-year follow-up using a visual analogic scale (VAS). Pre- and post-operative knee radiographs were analysed using TraumaCad software. Results. No reoperation or revision was recorded in either group. KA patients were found to have higher OKS (median 44 Vs 42, p=0.78), satisfaction (median 99/100 Vs 90/100, p=0.28), and EQ-5D improvement (mean 0.34 Vs 0.28, p=0.21) compared to MA patients; however, none of the differences discovered were statistically significant. In addition, KA patients had a femoral component that was on average, 3.5° more valgus orientated (aLDFA 84° Vs 80°, p<0.05) and 2.1° more flexed (4.4° Vs 2.3°, p=NS), and a tibial component with 3.6° (aMPTA 86° Vs 89.6°, p<0.05) and 3.9° (5.5° Vs 1.6°, p<0.05) increased varus orientation and posterior slope, respectively. Conclusion/Discussion. KA TKA performed with medial pivot implant design has shown good safety and efficacy at early-term. The physiological implantation provided by the KA technique seems to be clinically beneficial compared to MA implantation, although, the measured differences did not show statistical significance. Having a low study power and high ceiling effect of outcome measure tools may partly explain our results. Early results for KA TKA are encouraging and longer follow-up is warranted to assess longevity of results. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Aims

It is not known whether change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) over time can be predicted by factors present at surgery, or early follow-up. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with changes in PROM status between two-year evaluation and medium-term follow-up.