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

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

Abstract

Mortality following hip arthroplasty is affected by a large number of confounding variables each of which must be considered to enable valid interpretation.

The aim of this study was to establish whether it is possible to determine a true cause-and-effect relationship between the risk of mortality and data that are routinely collected by the NJR and to establish the degree to which variation in the mortality rate could be explained by each variable.

Relevant variables available from the 2011 NJR data setwere included in a Cox model.

We carried out two analyses:

Firstly, we conducted an analysis of data collected from the NJR data set used in preparation of the NJR's 8th Annual Report (2011) looking for an association between the variables collected and the risk of mortality.

Secondly, as social deprivation is also known to influence mortalityrates but is not routinely collected as part of the NJR data set, a further analysis was performed which included social deprivation data derived from partial postcodes.

Mortality rates in hip arthroplasty patients were lower than in the age matched population across all hip types. Age at surgery, ASA grade, diagnosis, gender, provider type, hip type and lead surgeon grade all had a significant effect on mortality. Schemper's statistic showed that only 18.98% of the variation in mortality was explained by the variables available in the NJR data set.

It is inappropriate to use Registry data to study an outcome affected by a multitude of confounding variables when these cannot be adequately accounted for in the available data set.

Background

Current analysis of unicondylar knee replacements (UKR) by national registries is based on the pooled results of medial and lateral implants. Using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) we aimed to determine the proportion of lateral UKR implanted, their survival and reason for failure in comparison to medial UKR.

This study utilised NJR primary hip data from the 6^th Annual Report to determine the rate and indication for revision between cemented, uncemented, hybrid and resurfacing prosthetic groups. Regression analysis was performed to identify the influence of gender and ASA grade on these revision rates. Validity of the data was interrogated by exploring for episodes of misclassification.

Background

The most appropriate form of chemical thromboprophylaxis following knee replacement is a contentious issue. Most national guidelines recommend the use of low molecular weight Heparin (LMWH) whilst opposing the use of aspirin. We compared thromboembolic events, major haemorrhage and death after knee replacement in patients receiving either aspirin or LMWH.

Background

A commonly held belief amongst surgeons and patients is that progression of disease (arthritis) to other compartments is a major cause of early failure of UKRs.

Introduction

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend the use of total hip replacement (THR) for displaced intracapsular fractured neck of femur (NOF) in cognitively intact patients who were independently mobile prior to the injury. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) has collected data on THRs performed since 2003. This retrospective cohort study explores risk factors independently associated with implant failure and perioperative mortality.

In order to emulate normal knee kinematics more closely and thereby potentially improve wear characteristics and implant longevity the Medial Pivot type knee replacement geometry was designed. In the current study the clinical and radiographic results of 50 consecutive knee replacements using a Medial Pivot type knee replacement are reported; results are compared to the Australian Orthopaedic Associations National Joint Replacement Registry. The patients' data were crossed checked against the registry to see if they had been revised elsewhere. After a mean follow-up of 9.96 years results show that the Medial Pivot Knee replacement provides good pain relief and functional improvement according to KSS and Womac scores and on subjective patient questionnaires. There was one minor revision; insertion of a patella button at 6.64 years FU. There were no major revisions; all implants appeared to be well fixed on standard radiographic examination. While the revision rate for the Medial Pivot knee according to the Australia Joint Registry results is higher compared to all other types of knee replacements in the registry, and to what is reported in the literature on the medial pivot knee, it is not in the current series. Revision rate was similar to what is reported on in the literature, but after a longer follow-up period. However, long term follow-up is required to draw definitive conclusions on the longevity of this type of implant.

Introduction

Following in-depth analysis of the market leading brand combinations in which we identified implant influences on risk of revision, we compared revision in patients implanted with different categories of hip replacement in order to find implant with the lowest revision risk, once known flawed options were removed.

Abstract. Background. Although tantalum is a well recognised implant material used for revision arthroplasty, little is known regarding the use of the same in primary total hip arthroplasty. Methods. A literature search was performed to find all relevant clinical studies until March 2020, which then underwent a further selection criteria. The inclusion criteria was set as follows: Reporting on human patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty; Direct comparison between tantalum acetabular cups with conventional acetabular cups. for use in primary total hip arthroplasty; Radiological evaluation (cup migration, osteointegration); Clinical (functional scores, need for subsequent revision, patient-reported outcomes; Post-operative complications; Reporting findings in the English Language. After a thorough search a total of six studies were included in the review. The primary outcome. measures were clinical outcomes, implant migration, change in bone mineral density and rate of revision and infection. Results. Tantalum was found superior to titanium with regards to fewer radiolucencies, survivorship, osteointegration, decreased osteolysis and mechanical loosening. No significant difference in radioisometric analysis, bone mineral density or Harris Hip Score was found. Revision and infection rates were found to be significantly lower in tantalum group at 10 years from pooled data of national joint registry. Conclusion. The use of tantalum can be reserved for cases of high risk of failure or mechanical loosening, where failure of a contralateral joint occurred as it carries lower risk of failure and infection. Further studies with longer follow-up would be useful in drawing further conclusions

Introduction. A key outcome measured by national joint registries are revision events. This informs best practice and identifies poor-performing surgical devices. Although registry data often record reasons for revision arthroplasty, interpretation is limited by lack of standardised definitions of revision reasons and objective assessment of radiologic and laboratory parameters. Our study aim was to compare reasons for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision reported to the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) with reasons identified by independent clinical review. Methods. A total of 2,272 patients undergoing primary medial and lateral UKA at four large tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2017 were included. A total of 158 patients underwent subsequent revision with mean follow-up of 8 years. A systematic review of clinical findings, radiographs and operative data was performed to identify revision cases and to determine the reasons for revision using a standardised protocol. These were compared to reasons reported to the NZJR using Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests. Results. Osteoarthritis progression was the most common reason for revision on systematic clinical review (30%), however this was underreported to the registry (4%, p<0.001). A larger proportion of revisions reported to the registry were for ‘unexplained pain’ (30% of cases vs. 4% on clinical review, p<0.001). A reason for revision was not reported to the registry for 24 (15%) of cases. Discussion and Conclusion. We found significant inaccuracies in registry-reported reasons for revision following UKA. These included over-reporting of ‘unexplained pain’, under-reporting of osteoarthritis progression, and failure to identify a reason for revision. Efforts to improve registry capture of revision reasons for UKA should focus on increasing accuracy in these three areas. This could be addressed through standardised recording methods and tailored revision reason options for UKA for surgeons to select when recording the reasons

Failure of cephalomedullary fixation for proximal femur fractures is an uncommon event associated with significant morbidity to the patient and cost to the healthcare system. This institution changed nailing system from the PFNA (DePuy Synthes) to InterTan (Smith and Nephew) in February 2020. To assess for non-inferiority, a retrospective review was performed on 247 patients treated for unstable proximal femur fractures (AO 31 A2; A3). Patients were identified through manual review of fluoroscopic images. Stable fracture patterns were excluded (AO 31 A1). Pre/post operative imaging, demographic data, operative time and ASA scores assessed. Internal/external imaging and national joint registry data were reviewed for follow up. No significant difference was found in overall failure rate of PFNA vs InterTan (4.84% vs 3.23%; p = 0.748). Overall, short nails were more likely to fail by cut-out than long nails (7.5% vs 1.2%; p = 0.015). Nails which failed by varus cut-out had a higher tip/apex distance (TAD) (26.2mm vs 17.0mm; p < 0.001). Of concern, varus cut-out occurred in two InterTan nails with TAD of <25mm. The PFNA enjoyed a shorter operative time for both the short (59.1 vs 71.8 mins; p = 0.022) and long nails (98.8 vs 114.3 mins; p = 0.016) with no difference in 120-day survival rate. Overall failure rates of the PFNA and InterTan nailing systems were comparable. However, the failure rate of short nails in this study is concerning. Using long nails with a lag screw design for unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures may reduce failure rates. Cumulative frequency analysis suggests stringent tip-apex distances of less than 21mm may reduce failure rates in lag-screw design cephulomedullary nails. This dataset suggests that unstable intertrochanteric fractures may be more reliably managed with a long cephalomedullary device

Aim. Aim was to compare revision rates when using single versus dual antibiotic loaded cement (ABLC) in hip fracture arthroplasty and aseptic revision hip or knee arthroplasty using data from the Dutch national joint registry (LROI). Methods. All primary cemented (hemi-)arthroplasties for acute hip fractures and cemented aseptic hip or knee revision arthroplasties, were incorporated in 3 datasets. All registered implants between 2007 and 2018 were included (minimum 2 years follow-up). Primary end-point was subsequent revision rates for infection and for any reason in the single and dual ABLC groups. Cumulative crude incidence of revision was calculated using competing risk analysis. Results. A total of 22,308 hip fracture arthroplasties, 2,529 hip revision and 7,124 knee revision arthroplasties were registered and analyzed in the study period. The majority of hip fracture patients (97.1%) was treated with single ABLC. For hip and knee revision arthroplasties dual ABLC was used in 33.8% and 25.7%. The revision rate for infection in the fracture arthroplasty group was not different between groups (0.5% versus 0.8%, p=0.27). The re-revision rate following hip or knee revision based on single versus dual ABLC was not different between groups (3.2% versus 2.8%, p=0.82 for hip revision and 1.8% versus 2.5%, p=0.36 for knee revision). In addition, the re-revision rate for any reason was not different in all three datasets. The crude cumulative revision and re-revision rates for any reason based on single ABLC versus dual ABLC showed no differences in all three datasets. The crude cumulative 7-year re-revision rate for any reason following revision THA with Gentamicin ABLC use was 11.8%, with Gentamicin + Clindamycin ABLC use 13.1% and with Erythromycin + Colistin ABLC use 14.8% (ns). The crude cumulative 9-year re-revision rate for any reason following revision TKA with Gentamicin ABLC use was 17.7% and with Gentamicin + Clindamycin ABLC use 16.5% (ns). Conclusions. In conclusion, we could not show a difference in revision rate for hip fracture arthroplasty or re-revision rates for revision hip- or knee arthroplasty with the use of dual ABLC compared to single ABLC bone cement, with 7and 9 year follow up. The low percentage of dual ABLC in hip fracture arthroplasties in our registry do not enable us to make a reliable estimation of the added value in this patient category. The results of this study do not confirm the potential benefit of dual ABLC use in revision cases

Aims. The primary aim is to estimate the current and potential number of patients on NHS England orthopaedic elective waiting lists by November 2020. The secondary aims are to model recovery strategies; review the deficit of hip and knee arthroplasty from National Joint Registry (NJR) data; and assess the cost of returning to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers. Methods. A model of referral, waiting list, and eventual surgery was created and calibrated using historical data from NHS England (April 2017 to March 2020) and was used to investigate the possible consequences of unmet demand resulting from fewer patients entering the treatment pathway and recovery strategies. NJR data were used to estimate the deficit of hip and knee arthroplasty by August 2020 and NHS tariff costs were used to calculate the financial burden. Results. By November 2020, the elective waiting list in England is predicted to be between 885,286 and 1,028,733. If reduced hospital capacity is factored into the model, returning to full capacity by November, the waiting list could be as large as 1.4 million. With a 30% increase in productivity, it would take 20 months if there was no hidden burden of unreferred patients, and 48 months if there was a hidden burden, to return to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers. By August 2020, the estimated deficits of hip and knee arthroplasties from NJR data were 18,298 (44.8%) and 16,567 (38.6%), respectively, compared to the same time period in 2019. The cost to clear this black log would be £198,811,335. Conclusion. There will be up to 1.4 million patients on elective orthopaedic waiting lists in England by November 2020, approximate three-times the pre-COVID-19 average. There are various strategies for recovery to return to pre-COVID-19 waiting list numbers reliant on increasing capacity, but these have substantial cost implications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(2):103–110

Introduction. Patellar resurfacing is performed in more than 90% of primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in the United States, yet far fewer patellae are resurfaced internationally. Multiple randomized controlled trials have shown decreased revision rates in patients with resurfaced patellas (RP) vs. non-resurfaced (NR). However, most of these studies showed no difference in patient satisfaction, anterior knee pain, or knee society scores. (Figure 1) Given uncertain benefits, the purpose of this study was to determine if the rates of patellar resurfacing have changed over the past 10 years worldwide. Methods. Data was obtained via direct correspondence with registry administrators or abstracted from the annual reports of six national joint registries: Australia, Denmark, England, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. Rates of patellar resurfacing between 2003 and 2013 were collected. Where data was available, subgroup analysis was performed to examine revision rates among RP and NR TKAs. Results. The average rates of patellar resurfacing from 2003 to 2013 ranged from 5% (Norway) to 71% (Denmark). Three countries showed a decreased rate of patellar resurfacing over this time period while two demonstrated an increase. The largest decrease in resurfacing rates was in Sweden (15% to 2%), while the biggest increase was in Australia (44% to 53%). (Figure 2) In 2010, 48,367 of 137,813 (35%) primary TKAs from all six countries were resurfaced. (Figure 3) Among RP and NR TKAs, Australia documented a 10-year cumulative revision rate (CRR) of 4.9% and 6.0%, respectively. Sweden showed a 10-year CRR of 4% in both groups. Conclusion. While not all national joint registries report rates of patellar resurfacing, it is clear that most countries outside of the US continue to resurface a much smaller proportion of patellas in primary TKA. Worldwide, the rates of patellar resurfacing have changed little in the past decade

Critics of Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) highlight poor survivorship in national joint registries and argue that revision to Total Knee Replacement (TKR) is technically difficult with inferior function and survivorship compared to primary TKR. We prospectively reviewed outcomes of UKRs in our institution undergoing early revision to a TKR, comparing conventional revisions to those performed using computer navigation. 20 cases were identified, 7 conventional and 13 navigated. 13 were male and 7 female, mean age at primary UKR was 63.6 years (range: 47–81). Mean follow up time after revision was 5.2 years (2–9.5). Mean surgical time was 152 mins in conventional revisions and 163 mins for navigated. 43% of conventional cases required revision stems or augments, compared to 15% of conventional cases. Mean Oxford Knee Scores for revised knees were 32.8 in the conventional group and 34.64 in the navigated group, compared to 30.02 in the national joint registry. This compares to a mean Oxford score of 37.16 for primary TKRs in the registry. One of the conventional revisions required a further revision of the tibial component for loosening. This equates to a 95% suvivorship at mean 5 year follow up, or 1.10 revisions per 100 component years. Joint registry data had 1.97 revisions per 100 component years for UKR to TKR revisions, and 0.48 for primary TKRs. Our results are significantly improved compared to other published series of UKR revisions to TKRs. Only one other series has reported outcomes of these revisions using navigation. Despite small numbers, our results suggest that navigation makes revisions of UKRs more straightforward with similar surgical times. Fewer revision components were required with navigation and functional scores were marginally improved

Metal-on-metal bearings (MoM), in both a total hip and resurfacing application, saw an increase in global utilization in the last decade. This peaked in 2008 in the US, with approximately 35% of bearings being hard-on-hard (metal-on-metal or ceramic-on-ceramic). Beginning in 2008, reports in the orthopaedic literature began to surface regrading local soft tissue reactions and hypersensitivity to metal-on-metal bearings. A major implant manufacturer recalled a resurfacing device in 2010 after national joint registries demonstrated higher than expected revision rates. Patients with painful metal-on-metal bearings presenting to the orthopaedic surgeon are a difficult diagnostic challenge. The surgeon must go back to basic principles, perform a complete history and physical exam, obtain serial radiographs and basic bloodwork (ESR, CRP) to rule out common causes of pain and determine if the pain is, or is not, related to the bearing. The Asymptomatic MoM Arthroplasty: Patients will present for either routine followup, or because of concerns regarding their bearing. It is important to emphasise that at this point the vast majority of patients with a MoM bearing are indeed asymptomatic and their bearings are performing well. The surgeon must take into account: a) which specific implant are they dealing with and what is its track record; b) what is the cup position; c) when to perform metal ion testing; d) when to perform further soft tissue imaging (MARS MRI, Ultrasound); e) when to discuss possible surgery. A simple algorithm for both painless and painful MoM Arthroplasties has been developed and will be presented

In the United Kingdom's National Joint Registry 2018 Annual Report, the combination of a POLARSTEM hip stem and R3 acetabular component has the lowest revision rate of any total hip arthroplasty (THA) construct combination at 7 years. Although revision rates remain a crucial measure of an implant combination's performance, there is increasingly more attention being given to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which often reflect the endpoints that patients’ themselves consider of paramount importance in choosing to undergo THA. Therefore, the current analysis was undertaken to better understand the PROMs-based performance of this combination. Bespoke implant reports were requested for the POLARSTEM/R3 combination with OXINIUM™ heads and highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) bearing. Reports used data from the National Health Service PROMs programme, which collected the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EQ-5D and EQ-VAS. Health gain scores, calculated as differences between preoperative and 6-month post-operative scores, were adjusted to account for any differences in patient demographics between comparative groups. The mean OHS adjusted health gain score for the construct combination was 22.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 22.4 – 23.1; n = 1799 patients) compared to 21.2 (95% CI: 21.2 – 21.3; n = 111,055). For EQ-5D, the scores were 0.462 (95% CI: 0.451 – 0.473; n = 1685) for the construct and 0.434 (95% CI: 0.433 – 0.436; n = 102,448) for the class average. For EQ-VAS, the construct had adjusted scores of 14.2 (95% CI: 13.4 – 14.9; n = 1605) compared to the class average of 11.4 (95% CI: 11.3 – 11.5; n = 98,610). There were also more patients who rated their satisfaction as ‘excellent’ in the specific construct group. Comparisons were statistically significant in all cases (p < 0.001). In conclusion, in addition to excellent mid-term survivorship, the POLARSTEM/R3 construct combination has demonstrated superior PROMs that may improve patient outcomes