Introduction. Both mobile bearing and fixed bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) have demonstrated clinical success. However, much debate persists about the superiority of a single design. Currently most clinical data is based on high volume centers data, however to reduce bias, we undertook a through review of retrospective national joint registries. In this study, we aim to investigate UKA implant utilization and survivorship between 2000 and 2018. Methods. Ten annual joint registry reports of various nations were reviewed. Due to the variable statistical methods of reporting implant use and survivorship we focused on three registries: Australia (AOANJRR), New Zealand (NZJR), United Kingdom (NJR) for uniformity. We evaluated UKA usage, survivorship, utilization and revision rates for each implant. Implant survivorship was reported in the registries and was compared within nations due to variation in statistical reporting. Results. UKAs accounted for 7.24–10.3% of all primary knee surgeries. The most popular implants were, in order of popularity, the Oxford (ZimmerBiomet, Warsaw IN), ZUK (Smith & Nephew, Memphis TN / LimaCorporate, Udine, Italy), Sigma HP (DePuy, Warsaw IN), Miller-Galante (ZimmerBiomet Warsaw IN), and Preservation (DePuy, Warsaw IN) models. UKA revision rates varied by nation and ranged from 8.22%–12.8%. The Sigma HP and ZUK designs had the lowest total percent revised in the registries-Australian (3.6% and 5.1%, respectively) and New Zealand (2.5% and 1.96%, respectively)-and demonstrated among the highest 10-year survivorship in the United Kingdom registry. The United Kingdom registry reports a greater number of mobile versus fixed bearing UKA undergoing revision for dislocation and/or subluxation and instability. Conclusion. Preference for implant design as well as survivorship rates varied significantly by nation. The fixed bearing ZUK and Sigma HP implants were among the highest performing implants across the three registries

Aims. The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with revision of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using data from the Dutch national registry. Methods. All TEAs recorded in the Dutch national registry between 2014 and 2020 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, and a logistic regression model was used to assess the factors associated with revision. Results. A total of 514 TEAs were included, of which 35 were revised. The five-year implant survival was 91%. Male sex, a higher BMI, and previous surgery to the same elbow showed a statistically significant association with revision (p < 0.036). Of the 35 revised implants, ten (29%) underwent a second revision. Conclusion. This study reports a five-year implant survival of TEA of 91%. Patient factors associated with revision are defined and can be used to optimize informed consent and shared decision-making. There was a high rate of secondary revisions. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):110–119

Ceramic-on-ceramic bearings are considered in several European and Asian countries a reliable alternative to metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, or metal-on-metal (with small diameter heads) for total hip arthroplasty (THA) management. Reduced joint wear and limited peri-prosthetic osteolytic changes are the main reasons supporting the use of ceramic. So far, the available observational data show a low rate of revision following the use of Ceramic-on-Ceramic bearings, but concern remains regarding the risk of fracture and the prevalence of squeaking noises from the joint.

The objective of this study was to use a national arthroplasty registry to assess whether the choice of bearings – metal-on-polyethylene (MoP), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), or metal-on-metal (MoM) – is associated with differences in the risk of revision.

Data from primary THAs were extracted from the New Zealand Joint Registry over a 15-year period. 97,889 hips were available for analysis. The mean age of patients was 68 years (SD +/− 11 years), and 52% were women. The median followup period in this patient population was 9 years (range, 1 to 15 years).

The primary endpoint was revision for any reason. Inclusion criteria were degenerative joint disease (84,894), exclusion criteria were previous surgery, trauma, and any other diagnosis (12,566). We also excluded patients operated on with a Ceramic-on-Metal THA, because of the small recorded number (429).

There were 54,409 (64.1%) MoP, 16,503 (19.4%) CoP, 9,051 (10.7%) CoC and 4,931 (5.8%) MoM hip arthroplasties. 3,555 hips were revised during the 15-year observation period. A multivariate assessment was carried out including the following risks factors available for analysis: age, gender, surgeon experience, use of cement.

Analysis of bearing surface type and revision showed a statistically significant lower risk for CoC hips (265 THAs, p≤0.01) when compared with CoP (537 THAs, HR 1.07, CI 0,92–1,26), MoP (2186 THAs, HR 1.39, CI 1.19–1,62), and MoM (576 THAs, HR 2.15, CI 1.84–2.51). The 15-year follow-up Kaplan-Meier survival analysis shows a 92% revision-free rate for CoC THAs (Figure 1). In particular, CoC THAs showed the lowest rates of revision for dislocation and for deep infection, when compared with the other bearings.

This registry study showed that the bearing surface is associated with the risk of revision. MoM bearing surfaces showed a high rate of revisions, while CoC THAs showed the lowest rate of revision compared to other bearing surfaces. Low wear and less osteolysis are the possible reasons for reduced risk of revision for aseptic loosening. We postulate that the healthy, fibrotic synovial-like pseudocapsule found in CoC THAs preserves the long-term stability of the joint and reduces the bio-burden for late deep infection. Future studies with larger data sets and longer follow-up should continue to investigate this query.

For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.

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

Aims. The aim of this audit was to assess and improve the completeness and accuracy of the National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset for arthroplasty of the elbow. Methods. It was performed in two phases. In Phase 1, the completeness was assessed by comparing the NJR elbow dataset with the NHS England Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data between April 2012 and April 2020. In order to assess the accuracy of the data, the components of each arthroplasty recorded in the NJR were compared to the type of arthroplasty which was recorded. In Phase 2, a national collaborative audit was undertaken to evaluate the reasons for unmatched data, add missing arthroplasties, and evaluate the reasons for the recording of inaccurate arthroplasties and correct them. Results. Phase 1 identified 5,539 arthroplasties in HES which did not match an arthroplasty on the NJR, and 448 inaccurate arthroplasties from 254 hospitals. Most mismatched procedures (3,960 procedures; 71%) were radial head arthroplasties (RHAs). In Phase 2, 142 NHS hospitals with 3,640 (66%) mismatched and 314 (69%) inaccurate arthroplasties volunteered to assess their records. A large proportion of the unmatched data (3,000 arthroplasties; 82%) were confirmed as being missing from the NJR. The overall rate of completeness of the NJR elbow dataset improved from 63% to 83% following phase 2, and the completeness of total elbow arthroplasty data improved to 93%. Missing RHAs had the biggest impact on the overall completeness, but through the audit the number of RHAs in the NJR nearly doubled and completeness increased from 35% to 70%. The accuracy of data was 94% and improved to 98% after correcting 212 of the 448 inaccurately recorded arthroplasties. Conclusion. The rate of completeness of the NJR total elbow arthroplasty dataset is currently 93% and the accuracy is 98%. This audit identified challenges of data capture with regard to RHAs. Collaboration with a trauma and orthopaedic trainees through the British Orthopaedic Trainee Association improved the completeness and accuracy of the NJR elbow dataset, which will improve the validity of the reports and of the associated research. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1461–1468

Background

National hip fracture programmes are becoming widespread, but this practice is nascent and varied. The Scottish Hip Fracture Audit (SHFA) was an early adopter of this strategy and is credited with substantial systemic improvements in quality and outcomes.

Aims. National joint registries under-report revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to validate PJI reporting to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) and the factors associated with its accuracy. We then applied these data to refine estimates of the total national burden of PJI. Methods. A total of 561 Australian cases of confirmed PJI were captured by a large, prospective observational study, and matched to data available for the same patients through the AOANJRR. Results. In all, 501 (89.3%) cases of PJI recruited to the prospective observational study were successfully matched with the AOANJRR database. Of these, 376 (75.0%) were captured by the registry, while 125 (25.0%) did not have a revision or reoperation for PJI recorded. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, early (within 30 days of implantation) PJIs were less likely to be reported (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.93; p = 0.020), while two-stage revision procedures were more likely to be reported as a PJI to the registry (OR 5.3 (95% CI 2.37 to 14.0); p ≤ 0.001) than debridement and implant retention or other surgical procedures. Based on this data, the true estimate of the incidence of PJI in Australia is up to 3,900 cases per year. Conclusion. In Australia, infection was not recorded as the indication for revision or reoperation in one-quarter of those with confirmed PJI. This is better than in other registries, but suggests that registry-captured estimates of the total national burden of PJI are underestimated by at least one-third. Inconsistent PJI reporting is multifactorial but could be improved by developing a nested PJI registry embedded within the national arthroplasty registry. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):367–373

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective treatment for symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA). While computer-navigation technologies in total knee arthroplasty show survivorship advantages and are widely used, comparable applications within THA show far lower utilisation. Using national registry data, this study compared patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients who underwent THA with and without computer navigation. Data from Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) PROMs program included all primary THA procedures performed for OA up to 31 December 2020. Procedures using the Intellijoint HIP® navigation system were identified and compared to procedures using other computer navigation systems or conventional instrumentation only. Changes in PROM scores between pre-operative and 6-month post-operative time points were analysed using multiple regression model, adjusting for pre-operative score, patient age, gender, ASA score, BMI, surgical approach, and hospital type. There were 65 primary THA procedures that used the Intellijoint HIP® system, 90 procedures used other types of computer navigation, and the remaining 5,284 primary THA procedures used conventional instrumentation. The estimated mean changes in the EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) score and Oxford Hip score did not differ significantly when Intellijoint® was compared to conventional instruments (estimated differences of 2.4, 95% CI [-1.7, 6.5], p = 0.245, and −0.5, 95% CI [-2.5, 1.4], p = 0.592, respectively). The proportion of patients who were satisfied with their procedure was also similar when Intellijoint® was compared to conventional instruments (rate ratio 1.06, 95% CI [0.97, 1.16], p = 0.227). The preliminary data demonstrate no significant difference in PROMs when comparing the Intellijoint HIP® THA navigation system with both other navigation systems and conventional instrumentation for primary THAs performed for OA. Level of evidence: III (National registry analysis)

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

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

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

For all the research into arthroplasty, provision of total knee arthroplasty (TKR) services based on gender in the Australian context is yet to be explored. International literature points toward a heavily gender biased provision of TKA services, skewed away from female patients. This research has aimed to assess the current experience of Australian female patients and to explore better assessment techniques that could provide more equitable services. A retrospective cohort analysis has been conducted using pre-op PROMs data, where available, from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), between 7 August 2018 and 31 December 2021, including: EQ VAS Health; Oxford Knee Score; joint pain; and KOOS-12. Data was adjusted for age, ASA score, BMI, primary diagnosis, public vs private hospital, surgeon gender and years of practice (as estimated from years of registry data available). Of 1,001,231 procedures performed, 27,431 were able to be analysed (12,300 male and 15,131 female). Gender-based bias against female patients reached statistical significance across all PROM scores, according to the Kruskal-Wallis test of difference (p-value <0.0001). Males were more likely to undergo TKR than females, with odds ratios remaining statistically significant when adjusted for age, ASA score, BMI, primary diagnosis, and hospital type. Numbers were further analysed for surgeon years of recorded practice and surgeon gender with mixed results. This study found that women were less likely to undergo TKR despite worse scores on every pre-op PROM available, thus we demonstrate a statistically significant gender-based bias against female patients. More effort needs to be made to identify the base of this bias and find new ways to assess patients that can provide more equitable provision of healthcare

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

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 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

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

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

Aims. To determine the trajectories of patient reported pain and functional disability over five years following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. A prospective, longitudinal cohort sub-study within the National Joint Registry (NJR) was undertaken. In all, 20,089 patients who underwent primary THA and 22,489 who underwent primary TKA between 2009 and 2010 were sent Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) questionnaires at six months, and one, three, and five years postoperatively. OHS and OKS were disaggregated into pain and function subscales. A k-means clustering procedure assigned each patient to a longitudinal trajectory group for pain and function. Ordinal regression was used to predict trajectory group membership using baseline OHS and OKS score, age, BMI, index of multiple deprivation, sex, ethnicity, geographical location, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Results. Data described two discrete trajectories for pain and function: ‘level 1’ responders (around 70% of cases) in whom a high level of improvement is sustained over five years, and ‘level 2’ responders who had sustained improvement, but at a lower level. Baseline patient variables were only weak predictors of pain trajectory and modest predictors of function trajectory. Those with worse baseline pain and function tended to show a greater likelihood of following a ‘level 2’ trajectory. Six-month patient-reported outcome measures data reliably predicted the class of five-year outcome trajectory for both pain and function. Conclusion. The available preoperative patient variables were not reliable predictors of postoperative pain and function after THA and TKA. Reviewing patient outcomes at six months postoperatively is a reliable indicator of outcome at five years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1111–1118

While clinically important improvements in Oxford Shoulder Scores have been defined for patients with general shoulder problems or those undergoing subacromial decompression, no threshold has been reported for classifying improvement after shoulder replacement surgery. This study aimed to establish the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) for the Oxford Shoulder Score in patients undergoing primary total shoulder replacement (TSR). Patient-reported outcomes data were sourced from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Program. These included pre- and 6-month post-operative Oxford Shoulder Scores and a rating of patient-perceived change after surgery (5-point scale ranging from ‘much worse’ to ‘much better’). Two anchor-based methods (using patient-perceived improvement as the anchor) were used to calculate the MCIC: 1) mean change method; and 2) predictive modelling, with and without adjustment for the proportion of improved patients. The analysis included 612 patients undergoing primary TSR who provided pre- and post-operative data (58% female; mean (SD) age 70 (8) years). Most patients (93%) reported improvement after surgery. The MCIC derived from the mean change method was 6.8 points (95%CI 4.7 to 8.9). Predictive modelling produced an MCIC estimate of 11.6 points (95%CI 8.9 to 15.6), which reduced to 8.7 points (95%CI 6.0 to 12.7) after adjustment for the proportion of improved patients. For patient-reported outcome measures to provide valuable information that can support clinical care, we need to understand the magnitude of change that matters to patients. Using contemporary psychometric methods, this analysis has generated MCIC estimates for the Oxford Shoulder Score. These estimates can be used by clinicians and researchers to interpret important changes in pain and function after TSR from the patient's perspective. We conclude that an increase in Oxford Shoulder Scores of at least 9 points can be considered a meaningful improvement in shoulder-related pain and function after TSR

While clinically important improvements in Oxford Shoulder Scores have been defined for patients with general shoulder problems or those undergoing subacromial decompression, no threshold has been reported for classifying improvement after shoulder replacement surgery. This study aimed to establish the minimal clinically important change (MCIC) for the Oxford Shoulder Score in patients undergoing primary total shoulder replacement (TSR). Patient-reported outcomes data were sourced from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Program. These included pre- and 6-month post-operative Oxford Shoulder Scores and a rating of patient-perceived change after surgery (5-point scale ranging from ‘much worse’ to ‘much better’). Two anchor-based methods (using patient-perceived improvement as the anchor) were used to calculate the MCIC: 1) mean change method; and 2) predictive modelling, with and without adjustment for the proportion of improved patients. The analysis included 612 patients undergoing primary TSR who provided pre- and post-operative data (58% female; mean (SD) age 70 (8) years). Most patients (93%) reported improvement after surgery. The MCIC derived from the mean change method was 6.8 points (95%CI 4.7 to 8.9). Predictive modelling produced an MCIC estimate of 11.6 points (95%CI 8.9 to 15.6), which reduced to 8.7 points (95%CI 6.0 to 12.7) after adjustment for the proportion of improved patients. For patient-reported outcome measures to provide valuable information that can support clinical care, we need to understand the magnitude of change that matters to patients. Using contemporary psychometric methods, this analysis has generated MCIC estimates for the Oxford Shoulder Score. These estimates can be used by clinicians and researchers to interpret important changes in pain and function after TSR from the patient's perspective. We conclude that an increase in Oxford Shoulder Scores of at least 9 points can be considered a meaningful improvement in shoulder-related pain and function after TSR