The ODEP (Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel) rating system should offer a surgeon and patient extra information when making a choice on which implant to use. However, in the current economic environment, ratings may also influence implant choice by contracting bodies. Our aim was to determine the performance of commonly used Acetabular and femoral components in our unit and compare these to their published ODEP ratings (or absence of rating). We analysed all of the following primary THR components (12,792) for revision for any reason, using same date ranges as ODEP where more than 100 implantations had occurred. Hip components: Trinity (3A in 2013), Trilogy (10A* in 2016), Atlas (10A in 2013), Trilogy TMT (10A 2010) Durom (not rated), BHR (10A, 2010), ACCIS (not rated); Femoral components: Taperfit (10A in 2013), Taperloc (10A* in 2016), Metafix (3A in 2013), CPT (10A in 2012), Ecofit (not Rated), ESOP (not rated), Minihip (3A 2013), Durom (not rated), BHR (10A 2010), ACCIS (not rated). Analysis of Kaplan Meier survival curves was undertaken for all components. The rated components and non-rated components were compared using HR and logrank tests for all time groups when ratings were introduced. No statistical difference was observed in any group except for the Trinity cup which had a 98.2% (1344 cups) survival at 6 years. Component survival in our unit was better than ODEP suggested failure for A category of not more than 1% per year, for all components. Whilst we applaud the intention to improve data available for prostheses, the present ODEP system does not distinguish between performances of different implants in our unit. We therefore recommend care when relying upon ODEP ratings to make clinical or contracting decisions

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

Introduction. THR is one of the most frequently performed operations nationally. A large number of prostheses are available, and the procedure is therefore associated with variation in practice and outcomes. NICE guidelines aim to standardise best practice, and are informed by separate, independent bodies, such as the NJR and ODEP, which monitor data about the implants used and their performance. This study aims to determine whether clinical practice and component use has changed since the publication of NJR data. Methods. NJR reports from 2006–2014 were analysed, with record made of the different prostheses used in THR, noting ODEP ratings of components used. Analysis was also performed by component type (i.e. cemented and cementless stems and cups), and combinations of components, according to their frequency of use in a given year. The Kruksal-Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. Results. Analysis revealed that the number of components used with an A ODEP rating has increased from 2006–2014. However, there was no significant change (p=0.37) in the use of these components when expressed as a percentage of total procedures performed. Use of ODEP B, C and unclassified prostheses does not appear to have declined. During the period of study there has been a 9% rise in the number of implant combinations used, and a 37.9% rise in the number of implant combinations used fewer than 10 times annually, though these procedures now account for a lower percentage of the total performed annually. Discussion. Our analysis demonstrates that there has been limited change in practice since the publication of NJR data. A large variety of implants and products persist without evidence of long-term success. Furthermore, many components are used infrequently, raising concerns that surgeons may be less familiar with their nuances. There is a significant risk of higher costs due to increased primary expenditure and complications leading to avoidable, early revision. Conclusion. We conclude that NJR data publication does not directly influence clinical practice

Aims. The aim of this retrospective audit was to determine the route of referral or presentation of patients requiring revision following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients and Methods. A total of 4802 patients were implanted with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* cementless implant (Corail/Pinnacle) between 2005 and 2015; 80 patients with a mean age of 67.8 years (. sd. 10.8) underwent a subsequent revision. The primary outcome measure was route of referral for revision. Results. Of the 80 revisions, 31 (38.8%) took place within the first year and 69 (86.3%) took place within six years. Only two of the 80 patients were picked up at a routine review clinic, one for infection and the other for liner dissociation. A total of 36 revised patients (45.0%) were reviewed following self-referral. Of the remaining 44 revised patients (55.0%), 15 (18.8%) were General Practitioner referrals, 13 (16.3%) were other hospital referrals, six (7.5%) were inpatients, six (7.5%) were Emergency Department referrals, and two (2.5%) were readmitted from their homes. No revisions were carried out on asymptomatic patients. Conclusion. Our experience suggests that if there is a robust system in place for self-referral, patients with an ODEP 10A* hip implant can, if asymptomatic, be safely discharged at the time of their first postoperative review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:536–539

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

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.

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

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 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).

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

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.

Arthroplasty registries are important for the surveillance of joint replacements and the evaluation of outcome. Independent validation of registry data ensures high quality. The ability for orthopaedic implant retrieval centres to validate registry data is not known. We analysed data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) for primary metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 2003 and 2013. Records were linked to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (RC) for validation. A total of 67 045 procedures on the NJR and 782 revised pairs of components from the RC were included. We were able to link 476 procedures (60.9%) recorded with the RC to the NJR successfully. However, 306 procedures (39.1%) could not be linked. The outcome recorded by the NJR (as either revised, unrevised or death) for a primary procedure was incorrect in 79 linked cases (16.6%). The rate of registry-retrieval linkage and correct assignment of outcome code improved over time. The rates of error for component reference numbers on the NJR were as follows: femoral head category number 14/229 (5.0%); femoral head batch number 13/232 (5.3%); acetabular component category number 2/293 (0.7%) and acetabular component batch number 24/347 (6.5%).

Registry-retrieval linkage provided a novel means for the validation of data, particularly for component fields. This study suggests that NJR reports may underestimate rates of revision for many types of metal-on-metal hip replacement. This is topical given the increasing scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous independent evaluation of the quality and validity of NJR data.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:10–18.

Objectives

High failure rates of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty implants have highlighted the need for more careful introduction and monitoring of new implants and for the evaluation of the safety of medical devices. The National Joint Registry and other regulatory services are unable to detect failing implants at an early enough stage. We aimed to identify validated surrogate markers of long-term outcome in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Recent guidance recommends the use of a well-proven cemented femoral stem for hemiarthroplasty in the management of fractures of the femoral neck, and the Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS) has been suggested as an example of such an implant. The design of this stem was based on the well-proven Exeter Total Hip Replacement stem (ETHRS). This study assessed the surface finish of the ETS in comparison with the ETHRS. Two ETSs and two ETHRSs were examined using a profilometer with a precision of 1 nm and compared with an explanted Exeter Matt stem. The mean roughness average (RA) of the ETSs was approximately ten times higher than that of the ETHRSs (0.235 μm (0.095 to 0.452) versus 0.025 μm (0.011 to 0.059); p < 0.001). The historical Exeter Matt stem roughness measured a mean RA of 0.973 μm (0.658 to 1.159). The change of the polished Exeter stem to a matt surface finish in 1976 resulted in a high stem failure rate. We do not yet know whether the surface differences between ETS and ETHRS will be clinically significant. We propose the inclusion of hemiarthroplasty stems in national joint registries.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:173–6.

In this paper, we will consider the current role of metal-on-metal bearings by looking at three subtypes of MoM hip arthroplasty separately: Hip resurfacing, large head (> 36 mm) MoM THA and MoM THA with traditional femoral head sizes.

The debate whether to use cemented or uncemented components in primary total hip replacement (THR) has not yet been considered with reference to the cost implications to the National Health Service.

We obtained the number of cemented and uncemented components implanted in 2009 from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. The cost of each component was established. The initial financial saving if all were cemented was then calculated. Subsequently the five-year rates of revision for each type of component were reviewed and the predicted number of revisions at five years for the actual components used was compared with the predicted number of revisions for a cemented THR. This was then multiplied by the mean cost of revision surgery to provide an indication of the savings over the first five years if all primary THRs were cemented.

The saving at primary THR was calculated to be £10 million with an additional saving during the first five years of between £5 million and £8.5 million. The use of cemented components in routine primary THR in the NHS as a whole can be justified on a financial level but we recognise individual patient factors must be considered when deciding which components to use.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published the guidelines on the selection of prostheses for primary hip replacement in 2000. They supported the use of cemented hip prostheses to the exclusion of uncemented and hybrid implants. The information from the Trent (and Wales) Regional Arthroplasty Study has been examined to identify retrospectively the types of hip prostheses used between 1990 and 2005, and to assess the impact that the guidelines have had on orthopaedic practice.

The results show that the publication of the NICE guidelines has had little impact on clinical practice, with the use of uncemented prostheses increasing from 6.7% (137) in 2001 to 19.2% (632) in 2005. The use of hybrid prostheses has more than doubled from 8.8% (181) to 22% (722) of all hips implanted in the same period. The recommendations made by NICE are not being followed, which calls into question their value.