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

Abstract. Objectives. Conventional approaches (including Tobit) do not accurately account for ceiling effects in PROMs nor give uncertainty estimates. Here, a classifier neural network was used to estimate postoperative PROMs prior to surgery and compared with conventional methods. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) were estimated with separate models. Methods. English NJR data from 2009 to 2018 was used, with 278.655 knee and 249.634 hip replacements. For both OKS and OHS estimations, the input variables included age, BMI, surgery date, sex, ASA, thromboprophylaxis, anaesthetic and preoperative PROMs responses. Bearing, fixation, head size and approach were also included for OHS and knee type for OKS estimation. A classifier neural network (NN) was compared with linear or Tobit regression, XGB and regression NN. The performance metrics were the root mean square error (RMSE), maximum absolute error (MAE) and area under curve (AUC). 95% confidence intervals were computed using 5-fold cross-validation. Results. The classifier NN and regression NN had the best RMSE, both with the same scores of 8.59±0.04 for knee and 7.88±0.04 for hip. The classifier NN had the best MAE, with 6.73±0.03 for knee and 5.73±0.03 for hip. The Tobit model was second, with 6.86±0.03 for knee and 6.00±0.01 for hip. The classifier NN had the best AUC, with (68.7±0.4)% for knee and (73.9±0.3)% for hip. The regression NN was second, with (67.1±0.3)% for knee and (71.1±0.4)% for hip. The Tobit model had the best AUC among conventional approaches, with (66.8±0.3)% for knee and (71.0±0.4)% for hip. Conclusions. The proposed model resulted in an improvement from the current state-of-the-art. Additionally, it estimates the full probability distribution of the postoperative PROMs, making it possible to know not only the estimated value but also its uncertainty

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common orthopaedic procedure with over 1,500 done in 2016 in Ireland alone. 96% of all TKAs are due to pain in the knee associated with osteoarthritis. According to the UK National Joint Registry (NJR), there is a 0.47%, 1.81%, 2.63% and 4.34% probability risk of undergoing a revision TKA within one, three, five and ten years respectively post-index surgery. A variety of reasons for failure of TKA have been described in the literature including infection, aseptic loosening, pain, instability, implant wear, mal-alignment, osteolysis, dislocation, peri-prosthetic fracture and implant fracture. The NexGen Posterior Stabilised Fixed has NJR revision rates of 0.44%, 1.61% and 2.54% at years one, three and five respectively. A retrospective review was carried out of 350 NexGen TKAs that were performed directly by, or under the supervision of, a fellowship trained arthroplasty surgeon in a dedicated orthopaedic hospital between April 2013 and December 2015. 26 (7.4%) of these were revised as of 31 December 2017. Three were for septic arthritis with the remaining 23 (6.6%) for aseptic loosening. Patients typically started to experience symptoms of medial tibial pain with supra-patellar swelling from a combination of effusion and synovial thickening at 12–24 months. Inflammatory markers were normal in all cases. Radiographs of symptomatic knee replacements showed bone loss on the medial tibia with a tilt of the tibial component into a varus alignment. The high number of revisions of this particular prosthetic has led to its use being discontinued at this centre

SUMMARY. We report a prospective study of clinical data collected pre, intra and post operation to remove both cup and head components of 118 failed, current generation metal on metal (MOM) hips. Whilst component position was important, the majority were unexplained failures and of these the majority (63%) had cup inclination angles of less than 55 degrees. Poor biocompatibility of the wear debris may explain many of the failures. BACKGROUND. Morlock et al reported a retrospective analysis of 267 MOM hips but only 34 head and cup couples (ie most were femoral neck fractures) and without data necessary to define cause of failure. The commonest cause of failure in the National Joint Registry (NJR) is unexplained. METHODS. We categorised the cause of failure, as defined by the NJR, of all MOM hips received over an 18 month period that had a full set of pre, intra and post op data. A group of 40 patients with unilateral well functioning MOM hips was used for comparison. RESULTS. In the retrieval group, the median age was 61 years (25 to 87) and there were 80 females and 38 males. The median time between primary and revision operation was 35 months (4 to 121). Femoral head size was <50mm in 89 and >=50mm in 29. The causes of failure were: unexplained in 75; aseptic loosening (acetabular) in 12; aseptic loosening (femoral) in 7; dislocation/subluxation in 1; infection in 11; periprosthetic femoral fracture in 2; malalignment in 6; size mismatch in 3; other in 1. 47 (63%) of unexplained failures had cup inclination angles of less than 55 degrees. The unexplained failures had increased blood metal ions (p <0.0001) and cup inclination angle (p <0.005) but a decreased femoral head size (p <0.0001) when compared to well functioning MOM hip patients. CONCLUSION. The commonest cause of failed MOM hips was unexplained. Comparison to well functioning hips revealed that the mechanism may involve high blood metal ions but high cup inclination angle was not found in the majority of cases. Further biological and mechanical investigation into the underlying mechanism of failure is required

INTRODUCTION. There is increasing worldwide interest in the assessment of wear in explanted hip components. This is due is part to high profile failures of orthopaedic components in the US, whilst in the UK hip resurfacings have been experiencing a higher than expected failure rate. The reasons for these failures are not well understood, with data from the NJR suggesting the 43% of MoM resurfacing failures are unexplained. Wear analysis is a vital tool in determining failure mechanisms and ultimately improving the longevity of joint replacements through improved design and manufacturing control. There are currently no relevant measurement standards for the evaluation of retrieved orthopaedic components. This paper will assess two of the most commonly used techniques namely roundness measurement and co-ordinate measurement. The advantages and disadvantages of both techniques are considered in this paper. ROUNDNESS MACHINE. The Talyrond 365 is a stylus based roundness machine. The component is located on a rotating table and the stylus measures the deviation from a perfect circle as the component is slowly rotated. The Talyrond measures a single profile to an accuracy of 30 nm and up to 72,000 data points per revolution. The air spindle has a radial accuracy of <0.02 μm and the Talymin gauge a minimum resolution of 12 nm. Individual roundness profiles can be stitched together to build up 3D cylinder maps, allowing 3D pictures of sections of explanted hip components to be generated. COORDINATE MEASURING MACHINE. Co-ordinate measuring machines (CMMs) have been widely used in manufacturing quality and research departments for a number of years and the CMM is recognised as a powerful and important tool capable of ascertaining geometric data from a component. The CMM used in this study was a Zeiss Prismo CMM (Carl Zeiss Ltd., Rugby, UK) with a probing error of 0.7 μm. Components are securely held in a chuck fixture arrangement and the dimensions of the component in the portion of the bearing that is unworn is ascertained through measurement. The initial measurements are used to produce a reverse engineered 3D CAD surface which represents the component ‘pre-wear’ surface. The surface of the component is then scanned and the deviation from this pre-wear surface is mapped. The maximum linear wear and wear volume are then calculated directly. DISCUSSION. The main advantage of CMM and Talyrond is that they are available in most metrology and measurement rooms. The CMM is a particularly versatile machine and can be used to measure any orthopaedic components. There is a need to develop a suitable Standard for both machines detailing a protocol to measure explanted hip and quantify the wear. A study is underway to measure a set of explanted hip components to allow a detailed comparison between of measurements between the Talyrond and CMM. The result of this study will be included in the paper. CONCLUSIONS. The CMM and Talyrond are both instruments suited to measuring wear of explanted hips. A full evaluation of the systems and the development of robust measurement protocol and standard would be advantageous to the orthopaedic industry