Orthopaedic practice is increasingly guided by conclusions drawn from analysis of Joint Registry Data. Analysis of the England and Wales National Joint Registry (NJR) led Sibanda et al to conclude that UKR should be reserved for more elderly patients due to higher revision rates in younger patients. To determine our UKR revision rates at the Great Western Hospital we requested knee arthroplasty data from the NJR, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data submitted by our centre to the Primary Care Trust, and interrogated our internal theatre implant database. This revealed significant discrepancies between different data sources. We collected data from each source for 2005, 2006, and 2007. Operations were classified as TKR, UKR, Other or Unspecified. Results are illustrated in the attached table:. Key findings:. Our theatre implant database appears most accurate and includes a greater number of joint replacement operations than NJR or HES data and fewer ‘unspecified’ procedures. On average 15% NJR, 0% HES and 0.3% theatre data procedures were ‘unspecified’. NJR data comprises an average 17 fewer, and HES data an average 36 fewer procedures each year compared with our theatre data. Up to 80% UKRs performed are recorded as TKR in HES data. In summary there is significant inaccuracy in our NJR data which may affect the validity of conclusions drawn from NJR data analysis. HES data is even less accurate with implications for hospital funding. We strongly advise other centres to continue to maintain accurate implant data and to perform a similar audit to calculate error rates for NJR and HES data. Further analysis is required to identify at which stage of data collection inaccuracies occur so that solutions can be devised. We are currently analysing data from 2008 and 2009

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

This was a retrospective study of registry data from a National Orthopaedic Hospital for all THRs with 10-year follow-up data. Inclusion criteria were all THRs with a minimum of 10-year follow-up data. All metal-on-metal (MoM) THRs and MoM resurfacings were excluded from the analysis due to the high rate of revision associated with these bearings. Univariate and multivariate analyses controlling for confounding variables were performed to compare outcomes. A total of 1,697 THRs were performed in 1,553 patients. The four significant predictors for revision were fixation type (p<0.01), surface bearing type (p<0.01), age (P<0.05) and head size (p<0.05). Gender, BMI and approach had no effect on revision rates. The lowest 10-year all-cause revision rates were seen in cemented THRs at 1.7%. Ceramic-on-poly bearings had the lowest revision rate at only 1.2%. Metal-on-poly bearings had a 1.7% revision rate. Ceramic on ceramic bearings had a 7.1% revision rate with 1 revision for squeak and 1 revision for ceramic head fracture. The causes for revision in order of decreasing frequency were as follows: Infection (n=13, 0.7%), dislocation (n=7, 0.4%), periprosthetic fracture (n=3, 0.2%) and aseptic loosening (n=2, 0.1%). There were 2 re-revisions at 10 years in total. The smaller 22.225mm head sizes had a significantly lower revision rate than other head sizes (p<0.05). Ceramic-on-poly bearings, cemented fixation and smaller head sizes perform better in the experience of this registry. However, with multivariate analysis, these differences were shown to be insignificant

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

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.

Osteoarthritis of the hip is common and the mainstay of surgical treatment for end-stage disease is total hip replacement. There are few RCTs comparing long-term outcomes between prostheses; therefore, surgeons and patients are reliant on single-centre case-series and recently, analysis of joint registries, when making evidence-based implant choices. We conducted a systematic review, conforming to PRISMA, of Medline and Embase in September 2017. Single-centre case-series and papers analysing registries were included. Series looking at disease-specific cohorts (other than OA), under 15 years follow-up or lacking survival analyses were excluded. Resurfacings, revisions and complex-primaries were also excluded. 2750 abstracts were screened, resulting in 299 full-text articles. Following full review 124 articles were excluded and 21 series added from references, resulting in 150 analyses of individual prostheses/constructs and 12 papers from registries. We also analysed annual reports of registries. Registry data indicated cemented prostheses tended to better outcomes at late follow-ups, whereas case-series showed cementless prostheses tended to have better survival past 15 years with revision for any reason (of stem, cup or either component) as the end-point. The discrepancy between results from registry data and single-centre case series is stark, and whilst the reasons for these differences may be multifactorial, single-centre case-series included in this review often lacked sufficient power to provide precise estimates of survival. This is contrasted to data from registries, which tended to have far greater numbers from multiple centres, allowing results to be generalised to the population. The difference between these two modes of analysis suggests bias exists in selection and outcomes from single-centre series. The varied quality of reporting in case-series make it difficult for a reader to adequately assess bias, and accurately inform contemporary decision making. Surgeons and patients should be cautious when interpreting single-centre case series and systems relying on data generated from them

Studies and meta-analyses worldwide show an increased use of one-stage revisions for treating periprosthetic hip infections, often yielding comparable or better outcomes than two-stage revisions. However, it remains unclear if these successful results can be consistently achieved nationwide besides large centers.

This observational cohort study used data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) to compare the mortality and re-revision rates between one-stage (n=8183) and two-stage (n=657) first-time revision total hip arthroplasty (RTHA). Kaplan-Meier estimates were applied to evaluate the re-revision rate and cumulative mortality for RTHA.

There was a significant difference in mortality between one-stage and two-stage RTHA (p=0.02). One-year post-surgery, the mortality rate was 9.4% for one-stage revisions and 5.5% for two-stage revisions. At the five-year follow-up, the mortality rate for one-stage revisions was 25.5%, compared to 20.0% for two-stage revisions. No significant differences (p=0.30) were found in re-revision rates between one-stage and two-stage revisions after one year (one-stage 16.5% vs. two-stage 13.5%) or five years (one-stage 21.6% vs. two-stage 20.8%). For multiple revisions, the mortality differences were even larger (p<0.001), with a one-year mortality rate of 12.8% for one-stage RTHA and 5.7% for two-stage RTHA.

Despite the excellent results of one-stage RTHA in the literature from individual large centers, it shows a significantly higher mortality rate with equal re-revision rate compared to two-stage revision in the nationwide care besides large centers. Significant differences can already be seen within the first year, indicating an increased perioperative mortality for one-stage revision, which might be explained by longer surgery duration, blood-loss and patient selection or maybe a lack of experience concerning proper surgical debridement for one-stage revision. This illustrates the need to establish centers for joint-revision surgery that provide interdisciplinary care and high case numbers to improve perioperative outcomes.

Joint Registries are a valuable resource for defining the survivorship of prostheses and procedures undertaken for the treatment of joint disease. However, the use of this data as a basis for advocating specific implant designs is controversial because of the confounding effects of variations in patient selection, the training, skill and experience of surgeons, and the priorities of individual patients. Despite these challenges, the Australian Joint Registry has utilized its early survivorship data to identify specific designs that are expected to exhibit lower than average durability in the long term. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of this practice in identifying implants providing inferior long-term performance. Over the period 2004–8, the Australian Registry identified 48 prosthetic components used in primary THA, HRA, TKA or UKA which exhibited a statistically significant increase in the early revision rate. For each of these components, we compared the rate of revisions per 100 “component-years” when it was first identified by the Registry, to its ultimate fiveyear cumulative survival in 2008. These survival parameters were also compared to average values based on procedure (eg.THR) and fixation method (i.e. cemented, cementless, hybrid). Regression analysis was performed to determine the accuracy of initial relative revisions per 100 OCY as a predictive measure of eventual component revision rate. Five year survival data was available on 30 of the 48 implants identified by the registry. There was a strong correlation (R2=0.9614) between initial revisions per 100 component-years and the 5-yr survival of the identified designs. 29 of 30 designs (97%) exhibited lower than average survivorship at 5 years. Six designs (20%) had failure rates within 2% of average values, and 7 (23%) had a 5–year failure rate less than 50% above average values. Although, when identified by the Registry, 80% of identified components exceeded the average rate of revision by 100%, only 60% displayed more than twice the cumulative revision rate at 5 years post-op. These results demonstrate that early data collected by Joint Registries can form the basis of accurate identification of designs which ultimately prove to be clinically unsuccessful. Predictions made by the Australian Registry concerning inferior designs have an accuracy of approximately 80%. Further work is recommended to enhance the valuable potential of Registry data in predicting the outcome of both implants and procedures

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).

Aims

The optimal choice of management for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) has been increasingly discussed in the literature, and this work aimed to answer the following questions: 1) what are the incidence rates of PHF in the geriatric population in the USA; 2) what is the mortality rate after PHF in the elderly population, specifically for distinct treatment procedures; and 3) what factors influence the mortality rate?

Aim. Debridement Antibiotics and Implant Retention(DAIR) is a procedure to treat a periprosthetic joint infection(PJI) after Total Hip Arthroplasty(THA) or Total Knee Arthroplasty(TKA). The timing between the primary procedure and the DAIR is likely a determinant for its successful outcome. There are few retrospective studies correlating timing of a DAIR with success (1,2). However, the optimal timing of a DAIR and the chance of success still remains unclear. We aimed to assess the risk of re-revision within one year after a DAIR procedure and to evaluate the timing of the DAIR in primary THA and TKA. An estimation of the chance of a successful DAIR will help clinicians and patients in their decision-making process in case of an acute postoperative PJI. Method. We used data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register(LROI) and selected all primary THA and TKA in the period 2007–2016 who underwent a DAIR within 12 weeks after primary procedure. A DAIR was defined as a revision for infection in which only modular parts were exchanged. A DAIR was successful if not followed by a re-revision within 1 year after DAIR. The analyses were separated for THA and TKA procedures. Results. 207 DAIRs were performed <4 weeks after THA of which 41(20%) received a re-revision within 1 year; 87 DAIRs were performed between 4–8 weeks of which 15(17%) were re-revised and 11 DAIRs were performed >8 weeks and 2(18%) received a re-revision. 126 DAIRs were performed <4 weeks after TKA of which 27(21%) received a re-revision within 1 year; 68 DAIRs were performed between 4–8 weeks of which 14(21%) were re-revised and 15 DAIRs were performed >8 weeks and 3(20%) received a re-revision. Conclusions. There was no difference in 1-year re-revision rate after a DAIR procedure by timing of DAIR procedure for total hip and knee arthroplasty based on Dutch registry data

Background and aim

Since the market withdrawal of the ASR hip resurfacing in August 2010 because of a higher than expected revision rate as reported in the Australian Joint Replacement Registry (AOAJRR), metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MoMHRA) has become a controversial procedure for hip replacement. Failures related to destructive adverse local tissue reactions to metal wear debris have further discredited MoMHRA. Longer term series from experienced resurfacing specialists however, demonstrated good outcomes with excellent 10-to-15-year survivorship in young and active men. These results have recently been confirmed for some MoMHRA designs in the AOAJRR. Besides, all hip replacement registries report significantly worse survivorship of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients under 50 compared to older ages. The aim of this study was to review MoMHRA survivorship from the national registries reporting on hip resurfacing and determine the risk factors for revision in the different registries.

Patients need to know the benefits, risks and alternatives to any proposed treatment. Surgeons discussing the risk of a revision procedure becoming necessary, after a hip replacement can draw upon the orthopaedic literature and arthroplasty registries for long-term implant survival. However, early revision is required in a minority of cases. We have investigated the probability for revision hip replacement patients in terms of time-point and indication for revision.

Of the 9,411 Primary Total Hip Replacements (THR), undertaken by 22 surgeons, over an eleven-year period, between January 2004 and March 2015, 1.70% (160) were subsequently reported to the National Joint Registry (NJR) as revised. Each revision case was reviewed under the supervision of senior hip specialist consultants. The modes of failure of were identified through clinical, laboratory and imaging (x-rays, CT, MRI and Isotope scans) studies.

The revision rate for THRs was 0.58% in the first year. This was statistically higher than all subsequent years, P-Value <0.001. There was no statistical difference between any pair of subsequent years. Thereafter, the average revision rate was 0.30% per annum. The odds ratio for revision during the first post–operative year against the subsequent year average was 1.67.

The indications for the early hip revisions in the first three years were infection, dislocation and peri-prosthetic fracture. The data from this study can help better inform patients of the revision rates after a primary THR and allow surgeons to develop implant surveillance strategies among high-risk patients.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Introduction

The American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) is the largest registry of total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) procedures performed in the U.S. The National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) is a public database containing demographic estimates based on more than seven million hospitalizations annually. The purpose of this study was to analyze whether AJRR data is representative of the national experience with TJA as represented in NIS

The extent and depth of routine health care data are growing at an ever-increasing rate, forming huge repositories of information. These repositories can answer a vast array of questions. However, an understanding of the purpose of the dataset used and the quality of the data collected are paramount to determine the reliability of the result obtained.

This Editorial describes the importance of adherence to sound methodological principles in the reporting and publication of research using ‘big’ data, with a suggested reporting framework for future Bone & Joint Journal submissions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1575–7.