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.

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.

Aims. This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data. Methods. This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA. Results. The re-revision rate within one year after septic rTHA was 30%, and after seven years was 34%. The cumulative mortality within the first year after septic rTHA was 14%, and within seven years was 40%. After multiple previous hip revisions, the re-revision rate rose to over 40% in septic rTHA. The first six months were identified as the most critical period for the re-revision for septic rTHA. Conclusion. The risk re-revision and reinfection after septic rTHA was almost four times higher, as recorded in the ERPD, when compared to previous meta-analysis. We conclude that it is currently not possible to assume the data from single studies and meta-analysis reflects the outcomes in the ‘real world’. Data presented in meta-analyses and from specialist single-centre studies do not reflect the generality of outcomes as recorded in the ERPD. The highest re-revision rates and mortality are seen in the first six months postoperatively. The optimization of perioperative care through the development of a network of high-volume specialist hospitals is likely to lead to improved outcomes for patients undergoing rTHA, especially if associated with infection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(6):565–572

Aims. Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) are a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and are becoming an increasingly common indication for revision arthroplasty with the ageing population. This study aimed to identify potential risk factors for PPF based on an analysis of registry data. Methods. Cases recorded with PPF as the primary indication for revision arthroplasty in the German Arthroplasty Registry (Endoprothesenregister Deutschland (EPRD)), as well as those classified as having a PPF according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes in patients’ insurance records were identified from the complete datasets of 249,639 registered primary hip arthroplasties in the EPRD and included in the analysis. Results. The incidence of PPFs was higher (24.6%; 1,483) than reported in EPRD annual reports listing PPF as the main reason for revision (10.9%; 654). The majority of fractures occurred intraoperatively and were directly related to the implantation process. Patients who were elderly, female, or had comorbidities were at higher risk of PPFs (p < 0.001). German hospitals with a surgical volume of < 300 primary procedures per year had a higher rate of PPFs (p < 0.001). The use of cemented and collared prostheses had a lower fracture risk PPF compared to uncemented and collarless components, respectively (both p < 0.001). Collared prostheses reduced the risk of PPF irrespective of the fixation method and hospital’s surgical volume. Conclusion. The high proportion of intraoperative fractures emphasises the need to improve surgeon training and surgical technique. Registry data should be interpreted with caution because of potential differences in coding standards between institutions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):650–658

Aims. Achieving accurate implant positioning and restoring native hip biomechanics are key surgeon-controlled technical objectives in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The primary objective of this study was to compare the reproducibility of the planned preoperative centre of hip rotation (COR) in patients undergoing robotic arm-assisted THA versus conventional THA. Methods. This prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) included 60 patients with symptomatic hip osteoarthritis undergoing conventional THA (CO THA) versus robotic arm-assisted THA (RO THA). Patients in both arms underwent pre- and postoperative CT scans, and a patient-specific plan was created using the robotic software. The COR, combined offset, acetabular orientation, and leg length discrepancy were measured on the pre- and postoperative CT scanogram at six weeks following surgery. Results. There were no significant differences for any of the baseline characteristics including spinopelvic mobility. The absolute error for achieving the planned horizontal COR was median 1.4 mm (interquartile range (IQR) 0.87 to 3.42) in RO THA versus 4.3 mm (IQR 3 to 6.8; p < 0.001); vertical COR mean 0.91 mm (SD 0.73) in RO THA versus 2.3 mm (SD 1.3; p < 0.001); and combined offset median 2 mm (IQR 0.97 to 5.45) in RO THA versus 3.9 mm (IQR 2 to 7.9; p = 0.019). Improved accuracy was observed with RO THA in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning (root mean square error for anteversion and inclination was 2.6 and 1.3 vs 8.9 and 5.3, repectively) and leg length (mean 0.6 mm vs 1.4 mm; p < 0.001). Patient-reported outcome measures were comparable between the two groups at baseline and one year. Participants in the RO THA group needed fewer physiotherapy sessions postoperatively (median six (IQR 4.5 to 8) vs eight (IQR 6 to 11; p = 0.005). Conclusion. This RCT suggested that robotic-arm assistance in THA was associated with improved accuracy in restoring the native COR, better preservation of the combined offset, leg length correction, and superior accuracy in achieving the desired acetabular component positioning. Further evaluation through long-term and registry data is necessary to assess whether these findings translate into improved implant survival and functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):324–335

Periprosthetic joint infection is a serious complication of primary total hip replacement (THR) with significant associated morbidity. In acute infection, Debridement, Antibiotics and Implant Retention (DAIR) may be considered. Current national guidelines recommend a DAIR should be performed by “an experienced arthroplasty surgeon┕ but do not specify the need for this to be a revision arthroplasty surgeon. We investigated outcomes in our NHS Trust of DAIR procedures performed by revision and non-revision arthroplasty surgeons. Infection registry data and patient records were analysed for all DAIR procedures of infected primary THRs between 2017 and 2021. Data collected included details of the primary surgery, the presentation with infection, the DAIR procedure and any subsequent complications including return to theatre at any time point. Routinely collected pre- and post-operative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reviewed. 54 periprosthetic joint infections of primary THRs received a DAIR procedure. 41 DAIRs were performed by a revision surgeon and 13 by non-revision surgeons. There was no significant difference in time from primary THR to presentation with infection, time from presentation to DAIR or pre-operative C-reactive protein between the two groups. In 21 (38.9%) patients the DAIR procedure was classed as a treatment failure; 17 patients (31.5%) returned to theatre for further revision surgery, one (2.4%) died related to infection and three (5.6%) had persistent infection but did not receive further surgery. Treatment failure was significantly higher in the non-revision surgeon group (9/13 (69.2%)) than in the revision surgeon group (12/41 (29.3%)) (p = 0.02). Overall, improvement in PROMs after DAIR was seen at both six and 12 months. The overall success rate of DAIR was 61.1% and there was a sustained improvement in PROMs after surgery. However, there was a significant difference in failure rates between revision surgeons and non-revision surgeons

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in the presence of femoral defects can be technically challenging. Reconstruction with long stems is widely accepted as the standard. However long stems can be difficult to insert and can compromise distal bone stock for future revisions. The aims of this study were to identify whether there was a difference in survival and outcomes following rTHA using a long versus standard or short femoral stem. A comprehensive systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines using the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Chochrane Library and Web of Science databases. Inclusion criteria were (i) adult patients >18 years; (ii) randomised controlled trials, joint registry, or cohort studies; (iii) single or staged rTHA for Paprosky 1–3B femoral defects. Exclusion criteria were (i) mixed reporting without subgroup analysis for revision stem length; (ii) ex-vivo studies. Screening for eligibility and assessment of studies was performed by the authors. Out of 341 records, 9 studies met criteria for analysis (including 1 study utilising joint registry data and 1 randomised controlled trial). Across studies there were 3102 rTHAs performed in 2982 patients with a mean age of 67.4 years and a male: female ratio of 0.93. Revision prostheses were long-stemmed in 1727 cases and short or standard in 1375 cases with a mean follow up of 5 years (range, 0-15 years). On subgroup analysis the use of a long cemented stem compared to a long cementless prosthesis was associated with fewer complications and periprosthetic fracture in older patients. Survivorship was 95% with short stems compared to 84% with long stems at 5 years. Moderate quality evidence suggests that in rTHA with Paprosky type 1-3B femoral defects, the use of a short or standard stem can achieve comparable outcomes to long stems with fewer significant complications and revisions. Using a shorter stem may yield a more straightforward surgical technique and can preserve distal bone stock for future revision

Aims. The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty has been used as a surgical treatment of coxarthrosis since 1997. We present 20-year results of 234 consecutive BHRs performed in our unit. Methods. Between 1999 and 2001, there were 217 patients: 142 males (65.4%), mean age 52 years (18 to 68) who had 234 implants (17 bilateral). They had patient-reported outcome measures collected, imaging (radiograph and ultrasound), and serum metal ion assessment. Survivorship analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Revision for any cause was considered as an endpoint for the analysis. Results. Mean follow-up was 20.9 years (19.3 to 22.4). Registry data revealed that 19 hips (8.1%) had been revised and 26 patients (12%) had died from causes unrelated to the BHR. Among the remaining 189 hips, 61% were available for clinical follow-up at 20 years (n = 115) and 70% of patients had biochemical follow-up (n = 132). The cumulative implant survival rate at 20 years for male patients was 96.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93.5 to 99.6), and for female patients 87% (95% CI 79.7 to 94.9). The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.029). The mean Oxford Hip Score, Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Forgotten Joint Score were 45 (29 to 48), 89 (43 to 100), and 84 (19 to 100), respectively. The mean scores for each of the five domains of the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire were 1.2, 1.0, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.1, and mean overall score 82.6 (50 to 100). Ultrasound showed no pseudotumour. Mean cobalt and chromium levels were 32.1 nmol/l (1 to 374) and 45.5 nmol/l (9 to 408), respectively. Conclusion. This study shows that BHRs provide excellent survivorship and functional outcomes in young male patients. At 20 years, soft-tissue imaging and serum metal ion studies suggest that a metal-on-metal resurfacing implant can be well tolerated in a group of young patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):946–952

A: - determine the incidence of intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF). B: - determine the incidence of, and the reoperation rate for postoperative PFF. When using either CC or PTS femoral components. Retrospective review of a consecutive series of 11,018 THAs over a ten-year period. All PFFs were identified using regional radiograph archiving and electronic care systems. Of the 11,018 THAs 4,952 were CC and 6,066 were PTS. Between groups, age, sex, and BMI did not differ. A: - 55 (0.5%) had an intraoperative PFF. 44 CC and 11 PTS (p<0.001). 3 patients in each group had a femoral shaft fracture, remaining fractures were either the calcar (20 CC and 2 group) or the greater trochanter (11 CC and 6 PTS). B: - 91(0.8%) sustained a postoperative PFF. Of those 15 were managed conservatively, 15 were revised and 61 (80.3%) had an ORIF. The CC group had both a lower overall rate of postoperative PFFs (0.7% (36/4,952) vs 0.9% (55/6,066); p = 0.341), and a lower rate of return to theatre (0.4% (22/4,952) vs 0.9% (54/6,066); p = 0.005). 1.3% of male PTS (36/2,674) had a reoperation compared to 0.3% of male CC (7/2,121) (p<0.001). With regard to stem fracture there were none in the Corail group and 5 in the Exeter group. Of these 2 were sub trunnion and 3 were basal neck. A: - There were significantly more intraoperative PFFs with CC 44 (0.8%) than PTS 11 (0.2%). However, the majority of fractures were either of the calcar or greater trochanter with no impact on early recovery or one year Oxford scores. B: - Male PTS were five times more likely to have a reoperation for postoperative PFF. Females had the same incidence of reoperation with either component type. There were 5 stem fractures in the Exeter group and none in the Corail. These results represent robust estimates, which are likely to be more accurate than revision only studies typically generated from registry data

Aims. This study uses prospective registry data to compare early patient outcomes following arthroscopic repair or debridement of the acetabular labrum. Methods. Data on adult patients who underwent arthroscopic labral debridement or repair between 1 January 2012 and 31 July 2019 were extracted from the UK Non-Arthroplasty Hip Registry. Patients who underwent microfracture, osteophyte excision, or a concurrent extra-articular procedure were excluded. The EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) and International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) questionnaires were collected preoperatively and at six and 12 months post-operatively. Due to concerns over differential questionnaire non-response between the two groups, a combination of random sampling, propensity score matching, and pooled multivariable linear regression models were employed to compare iHOT-12 improvement. Results. A total of 2,025 labral debridements (55%) and 1,659 labral repairs (45%) were identified. Both groups saw significant (p < 0.001) EQ-5D and iHOT-12 gain compared to preoperative scores at 12 months (iHOT-12 improvement: labral repair = +28.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.4 to 30.9), labral debridement = +24.7 (95% CI 22.5 to 27.0)), however there was no significant difference between procedures after multivariable modelling. Overall, 66% of cases achieved the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and 48% achieved substantial clinical benefit at 12 months. Conclusion. Both labral procedures were successful in significantly improving early functional outcome following hip arthroscopy, regardless of age or sex. Labral repair was associated with superior outcomes in univariable analysis, however there was no significant superiority demonstrated in the multivariable model. Level of evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):291–301

The 10 year survivorship of THR is generally over 95%. However, the incidence of revision is usually higher in year one. The most common reason being dislocation which at least in part is driven by inadequate range of motion (ROM) leading to impingement, subluxation and ultimately dislocation which is more frequently posterior. ROM is affected by patient activity, bone and component geometry, and component placement. To reduce the incidence of dislocation, supported by registry data, there has been an increase in the use of so-called ‘lipped’ liners. Whilst this increases joint stability, the theoretical ROM is reduced. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of lip placement on impingement. A rigid body geometric model was incorporated into a CT scan hemi-pelvis and femur, with a clinically available THR virtually implanted. Kinematic activity data associated with dislocation was applied, comprising of five posterior and two anterior dislocation risk activities, resulting from anterior and posterior impingement respectively. Cup inclination and anteversion was varied (30°-70°, 0°-50° respectively) to simulate extremes of clinical outcomes. The apex position of a ‘lipped’ liner was rotated from the superior position, anteriorly and posteriorly in steps of 45°. Incidence and location of implant and bone impingement was recorded in 5346 cases generated. A liner with the lip placed superior increased the occurrence of implant-implant impingement compared with a neutral liner. Rotation of the lip from superior reduced this incidence. This effect was more marked with posterior rotation which after 90° reduced anterior impingement to levels similar to a neutral liner. Complete inversion of the lipped liner reduced impingement, but this and anterior rotation both negate its function – additional stability. This study comprises one bone geometry and component design and one set of activity profiles. Nevertheless, it indicates that appropriate lip placement can minimise the likelihood of impingement for a range of daily activities whilst still providing additional joint stability

Waiting times for arthroplasty surgery in Northern Ireland are among the longest in the National Health Service, which have been further lengthened by the onset of the SARS-CoV-19 global pandemic in March 2020. The Department of Health (DoH) in Northern Ireland has announced a new Elective Care Framework (ECF), with the framework proposing that by March 2026 no patient will wait more than 52 weeks for inpatient/day case treatment. We aimed to assess the feasibility of achieving this with reference to Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). Waiting list information was obtained via a Freedom of Information request to the DoH (May 2021) and National Joint Registry data was used to determine baseline operative numbers. Mathematical modelling was undertaken to calculate the time taken to meet the ECF target and also to determine the time to clear the waiting lists for THA using the number of patients currently on the waiting list and percentage operating capacity relative to pre-Covid-19 capacity to determine future projections. As of May 2021, there were 3,757 patients awaiting primary THA in Northern Ireland. Prior to April 2020, there were a mean 2,346 patients/annum added to the waiting list for primary THA and there were a mean 1,624 primary THAs performed per annum. The ECF targets for THA will only be achieved in 2026 if operating capacity is 200% of pre COVID-19 pandemic capacity and will be achieved in 2030 if capacity is 170%. Surgical capacity must exceed pre-Covid capacity by at least 30% to meet ongoing demand. THA capacity was significantly reduced following resumption of elective orthopaedics post-COVID-19 (22% of pre-COVID-19 capacity – 355 THAs/annum post-COVID-19 versus 1,624/annum pre-COVID-19). This modelling demonstrates that, in the absence of major funding and reorganisation of elective orthopaedic care, the targets set out in the ECF will not be achieved with regards to hip arthroplasty. Waiting times for THA surgery in the NHS in Northern Ireland are likely to remain greater than 52 weeks for most of this decade

Aims. Some patients presenting with hip pain and instability and underlying acetabular dysplasia (AD) do not experience resolution of symptoms after surgical management. Hip-spine syndrome is a possible underlying cause. We hypothesized that there is a higher frequency of radiological spine anomalies in patients with AD. We also assessed the relationship between radiological severity of AD and frequency of spine anomalies. Methods. In a retrospective analysis of registry data, 122 hips in 122 patients who presented with hip pain and and a final diagnosis of AD were studied. Two observers analyzed hip and spine variables using standard radiographs to assess AD. The frequency of lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV), along with associated Castellvi grade, pars interarticularis defect, and spinal morphological measurements were recorded and correlated with radiological severity of AD. Results. Out of 122 patients, 110 (90.2%) were female and 12 (9.8%) were male. We analyzed the radiographs of 122 hips (59 (48.4%) symptomatic left hips, and 63 (51.6%) symptomatic right hips). Average age at time of presentation was 34.2 years (SD 11.2). Frequency of LSTV was high (39% to 43%), compared to historic records from the general population, with Castellvi type 3b being the most common (60% to 63%). Patients with AD have increased L4 and L5 interpedicular distance compared to published values. Frequency of pars interarticularis defect was 4%. Intraclass correlation coefficient for hip and spine variables assessed ranged from good (0.60 to 0.75) to excellent (0.75 to 1.00). Severity of AD did not demonstrate significant correlation with frequency of radiological spine anomalies. Conclusion. Patients with AD have increased frequency of spinal anomalies seen on standard hip radiographs. However, there exists no correlation between radiological severity of AD and frequency of spine anomalies. In managing AD patients, clinicians should also assess spinal anomalies that are easily found on standard hip radiographs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1351–1357

Post-operative periprosthetic fracture of the femur (POPFF) is a growing problem associated with increased mortality. Most registry derived estimates of mortality only record patients who undergo revision and cohort studies are generally limited to a single center, which makes comparison for the purposes of service improvement difficult. The aim of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies reporting mortality following POPFF in the last decade. Study methodology was peer-reviewed (PROSPERO: CRD42020170819). Literature search was conducted using Medline and EMBASE. Primary exposure was the diagnosis of POPFF, and the primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality: whilst an inpatient, within 30-days, within 90-days and within one year of POPFF. Proportion of patients dying (95% CI [confidence interval]) was estimated using metaregression. Results were compared to mortality following neck of femur fracture (NOF) from international NOF registry data. 4841 patients from 35 cohort studies were included. Study quality was generally low with a majority limited to a single centre. Weighted mean follow-up was 2.3 years and the most common POPFF was UCS B. Pooled proportion dying as an inpatient was 2.4% (95% CI 1.6% to 3.4%). Pooled proportion dying within 30 days was 3.3% (95% CI 2.0% to 5.0%). Pooled proportion dying within 90 days was 4.8% (95% CI 3.6% to 6.1%). Pooled proportion dying within one year was 13.4% (95% CI 11.9% to 14.8%). Mortality following POPFF was similar to that of NOF up to 30 days, but better at one year. 3.3% of patients die following POPFF within 30 days of injury. Mortality is similar to that experienced by patients following NOF up to 30 days, but better at one year, which may represent the lower underlying risk of death in the POPFF cohort. These results may form the basis for evaluation of services treating POPFF in the future

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

Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common and cost-effective elective surgical procedures. In the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales a myriad of implants for THR are offered at a variety of locally negotiated prices. This study aims to estimate the total burden of elective THR to the NHS, expenditure on implants, and different scenarios of cost changes if implant selection changed for different patient groups. Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data and NHS reference costs, we estimated the number and expenditure of NHS funded primary and revision THR in the 10-year period 2008–2017 and forecasted the number and expenditure on THR over the next decade. Using NJR average NHS Trust prices for the different implant combinations we estimated the average cost of implants used in THRs and estimated the budget impact on NHS providers from switching to alternative implants. The NHS spent over £4.76 billion performing 702,381 THRs between 2008–2017. The average cost of implants was £1,260 per surgery, almost a fifth of the cost of primary THR. Providing cemented implant combinations in primary elective THRs may potentially save up to £281 million over the next 10 years, whilst keeping 10-year revision risks low. The NHS is likely to spend over £5.6 billion providing primary elective THR over the next decade. There are efficiency savings to realise in the NHS by switching to more cost-effective implant combinations available for patients undergoing primary elective THR surgery, but these will need to be balanced against the risks inherent to a change in selection of implants and surgical practice. The HIPPY programme will be conducting practice surveys, discrete choice experiments and a large randomised controlled trial of cemented, uncemented and hybrid fixation in THR for patients under 70 to answer uncertainties

This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip replacement for aseptic loosening. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip replacements (RHR) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Among 12,676 RHR there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant's first RHR (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1·58 (95%CI 1·16 to 2·15)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 26 cases (HR 1·26 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·28 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1·81 (95%CI 1·02 to 3·21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHR performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 168 RHR were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·70 (95% CI 1·12 to 2·60)), and those having undertaken fewer than 309 RHR were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3·06 (95% CI 1·19 to 7·86)). This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHR for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralisation of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons

Aims. This study describes the variation in the annual volumes of revision hip arthroplasty (RHA) undertaken by consultant surgeons nationally, and the rate of accrual of RHA and corresponding primary hip arthroplasty (PHA) volume for new consultants entering practice. Methods. National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man were received for 84,816 RHAs and 818,979 PHAs recorded between April 2011 and December 2019. RHA data comprised all revision procedures, including first-time revisions of PHA and any subsequent re-revisions recorded in public and private healthcare organizations. Annual procedure volumes undertaken by the responsible consultant surgeon in the 12 months prior to every index procedure were determined. We identified a cohort of ‘new’ HA consultants who commenced practice from 2012 and describe their rate of accrual of PHA and RHA experience. Results. The median annual consultant RHA volume, averaged across all cases, was 21 (interquartile range (IQR) 11 to 34; range 0 to 181). Of 1,695 consultants submitting RHA cases within the study period, the top 20% of surgeons by annual volume performed 74.2% of total RHA case volume. More than half of all consultants who had ever undertaken a RHA maintained an annual volume of just one or fewer RHA, however, collectively contributed less than 3% of the total RHA case volume. Consultant PHA and RHA volumes were positively correlated. Lower-volume surgeons were more likely to undertake RHA for urgent indications (such as infection) as a proportion of their practice, and to do so on weekends and public holidays. Conclusion. The majority of RHAs were undertaken by higher-volume surgeons. There was considerable variation in RHA volumes by indication, day of the week, and between consultants nationally. The rate of accrual of RHA experience by new consultants is low, and has important implications for establishing an experienced RHA consultant workforce. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1060–1069