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

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 mobile-bearing (MB) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) design was introduced with the aim of reducing polyethylene wear and component loosening seen in the fixed-bearing (FB) design. A recent joint registry study has revealed increased risk for all-cause revision, but not revision for infection, in MB-TKA. We used the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) to compare all-cause revision rates, and revision rates for aseptic loosening of MB-TKA compared with fixed bearing (FB) TKA. Methods. All patients who underwent a primary TKA registered in the NZJR between the 1st January 1999 to 31st December 2021 were identified. Analysis compared MB to FB designs, with sub analysis of implants from a single company. We identified 135,707 primary TKAs, with 104,074 (76.7%) FB-TKAs and 31,633 (23.3%) MB-TKAs recorded. We examined all-cause revision rates, reasons for revision and performed survival analyses. Results. For all-comers, MB-TKA had an all-cause revision rate of 0.43/100-component-years (OCY) compared with 0.42/OCY for FB-TKA (p=0.09). The all-cause revision rate was higher for those age < 65 years (MB TKA 0.60/OCY vs. FB-TKA 0.59/OCY) compared to those > 65 years at time of primary TKA (MB-TKA 0.29/OCY vs. FB-TKA 0.32/OCY), however there was no statistically significant difference between implant design in either age group (p=0.16 and p=0.64; respectively). Similarly, there was no difference in revision rates for aseptic loosening between implant designs. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrates no statistically significant difference in revision-free survival of implants, with both MB-TKA and FB-TKA demonstrating ∼93% revision free survival at 23 years. Conclusions. Both FB- and MB-TKA demonstrated excellent survivorship, with no significant difference in all-cause revision rates or revision for aseptic loosening between implant designs

This study aimed to examine the changing trends in the reasons for total hip replacement (THR) revision surgery, in one country over a twenty-one year period, in order to assess whether changes in arthroplasty practices have impacted revision patterns and whether an awareness of these changes can be used to guide clinical practice and reduce future revision rates. The reason for revision THR performed between January 1999 and December 2019 was extracted from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). The results were then grouped into seven 3-year periods to allow for clearer visualization of trends. The reasons were compared across the seven time periods and trends in prosthesis use, patient age, gender, BMI and ASA grade were also reviewed. We compared the reasons for early revision, within one year, with the overall revision rates. There were 20,740 revision THR registered of which 7665 were revisions of hips with the index procedure registered during the 21 year period. There has been a statistically significant increase in both femoral fracture (4.1 – 14.9%, p<0.001) and pain (8.1 – 14.9%, p<0.001) as a reason for hip revision. While dislocation has significantly decreased from 57.6% to 17.1% (p<0.001). Deep infection decreased over the first 15 years but has subsequently seen further increases over the last 6 years. Conversely both femoral and acetabular loosening increased over the first 12 years but have subsequently decreased over the last 9 years. The rate of early revisions rose from 0.86% to 1.30% of all revision procedures, with a significant rise in revision for deep infection (13-33% of all causes, p<0.001) and femoral fracture (4-18%, p<0.001), whereas revision for dislocation decreased (59-30%, p<0.001). Adjusting for age and gender femoral fracture and deep infection rates remained significant for both (p<0.05). Adjusting for age, gender and ASA was only significant for infection. The most troubling finding was the increased rate of deep infection in revision THR, with no obvious linked pattern, whereas, the reduction in revision for dislocation, aseptic femoral and acetabular loosening can be linked to the changing patterns of the use of larger femoral heads and improved bearing surfaces

Multiple joint registries have reported better implant survival for patients aged >75 years undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) with cemented implant combinations when compared to hybrid or uncemented implant combinations. However, there is considerable variation within these broad implant categories, and it has therefore been suggested that specific implant combinations should be compared. We analysed the most common contemporary uncemented (Corail/Pinnacle), hybrid (Exeter V40/Trident) and cemented (Exeter V40/Exeter X3) implant combinations in the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) for patients aged >75 years. All THAs performed using the selected implants in the NZJR for patients aged >75 years between 1999 and 2018 were included. Demographic data, implant type, and outcome data including implant survival, reason for revision, and post-operative Oxford Hip Scores were obtained from the NZJR, and detailed survival analyses were performed. Primary outcome was revision for any reason. Reason for revision, including femoral or acetabular failure, and time to revision were recorded. 5427 THAs were included. There were 1105 implantations in the uncemented implant combination group, 3040 in the hybrid implant combination group and 1282 in the cemented implant combination group. Patient reported outcomes were comparable across all groups. Revision rates were comparable between the cemented implant combination (0.31 revisions/100 component years) and the hybrid implant combination (0.40 revisions/100 component years) but were statistically significantly higher in the uncemented implant combination (0.80/100 component years). Femoral-sided revisions were significantly greater in the uncemented implant combination group. The cemented implant and hybrid implant combinations provide equivalent survival and functional outcomes in patients aged over 75 years. Caution is advised if considering use of the uncemented implant combination in this age group, predominantly due to a higher risk of femoral sided revisions. The authors recommend comparison of individual implants rather than broad categories of implants

Introduction. The purpose of this study was to compare implant survivorship and functional outcomes in patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) for acute proximal humeral fracture (PHF) with those undergoing elective RTSA in a population-based cohort study. Methods. Prospectively collected data from the New Zealand Joint Registry from 1999 to 2021 and identified 7,277 patients who underwent RTSA. Patients were categorized by pre-operative indication, including acute PHF (10.1%), rotator cuff arthropathy (RCA) (41.9%), osteoarthritis (OA) (32.2%), rheumatoid arthritis (RA) (5.2%) and old traumatic sequelae (4.9%). The PHF group was compared with elective indications based on patient, implant, and operative characteristics, as well as post-operative outcomes (Oxford Shoulder Score [OSS], and revision rate) at 6 months, 5 and 10 years after surgery. Survival and functional outcome analyses were adjusted by age, sex, ASA class and surgeon experience. Results. Implant survivorship at 10 years for RTSA for PHF was 97.3%, compared to 96.1%, 93.7%, 92.8% and 91.3% for OA, RCA, RA and traumatic sequelae, respectively. When compared with RTSA for PHF, the adjusted risk of revision was higher for traumatic sequelae (hazard ratio = 2.29; 95% CI:1.12–4.68, p=0.02) but not for other elective indications. At 6 months post-surgery, OSS were significantly lower for the PHF group compared to RCA, OA and RA groups (31.1±0.5 vs. 35.6±0.22, 37.7±0.25, 36.5±0.6, respectively, p<0.01), but not traumatic sequelae (31.7±0.7, p=0.43). At 5 years, OSS were only significantly lower for PHF compared to OA (37.4±0.9 vs 41.0±0.5, p<0.01), and at 10 years, there were no differences between groups. Discussion and Conclusion. RTSA for PHF demonstrated reliable long-term survivorship and functional outcomes compared to other elective indications. Despite lower functional outcomes in the early post-operative period for the acute PHF group, implant survivorship rates were similar to patients undergoing elective RTSA

Abstract

Background. The New Zealand Joint Registry was started in 1999. An audit in 2009 showed 98% compliance. Ten year results were published in 2009. For Total Hip Replacement it showed that dislocation was the most common cause for revision (35%). Methods. We reviewed the rate of revision for dislocation in the two most common diagnostic groups, Osteoarthritis (86%) and Acute Fracture NOF (3.6%) relative to the two most common surgical approaches, posterior and lateral. We also sought to analyse whether larger femoral head sizes decreased the dislocation rate. Results. In Osteoarthritis there was a highly significant increase (p< 0.001) in revision for dislocation for the posterior (307 of 27,219 or 1.1%) over the lateral approach (56 of 12,599 or 0.4%). The revision rate per 100 component years decreased with increasing head size in both surgical approaches. This was significant only in the posterior approach for 36mm over 22mm and 28mm heads (p< 0.05). In Acute Fracture NOF the revision rates are higher than for osteoarthritis (1.6% posterior and 1.1% lateral) but there is no statistical difference between the two approaches (p = 0.37). The NOF group shows a non-significant increase in dislocation for 32mm heads over 28mm in both approaches, but no dislocations for the small number of 36mm heads. Conclusion. This review confirms that the posterior approach has a significantly higher revision rate for dislocation over the lateral approach in osteoarthritis. The posterior approach shows a significant advantage for the 36mm head over 22 and 28mm, but the rate for the 36mm head posterior was virtually the same as for a 28mm head via the lateral approach. Larger diameter heads could lead to later revision from greater volumetric wear, increased frictional torque and thinner poyethylene liners and should be used with caution. To reduce dislocation in osteoarthritis the lateral approach should be considered

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

Introduction. Reducing infection in total joint replacement by using ultra clean air and protective enclosed suits (space suits) has become the standard in many operating theatres without good supporting evidence. This study examined the impact of laminar flow and space suits on the rate of revision for early infection following total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacement. Method. We used the 10-year results of the New Zealand Joint Registry to compare the rates of revision for early infection between laminar flow and conventional theatres both with and without the use of space suits. We separated hospitals and surgeons who had worked with and without space suits in both environments to exclude other confounding variables. Results. There were 51,485 THR and 36,826 TKR registered with laminar flow theatres used for 50% of the procedures and space suits used in 44% of cases. In THR there was a significant increase in revision for early infection in those procedures performed with the use of a space suit (p< 0.0001), for those performed in a laminar flow theatre (p< 0.003) and those procedures performed in a laminar flow theatre with a space suit (p< 0.001). The results were similar in TKR with the use of a space suit (p< 0.001), in laminar flow theatres (p< 0.019) and when laminar flow and space suits were used (p< 0.001). The results were unchanged when the surgeons and hospitals were analysed individually. Conclusion. The rate of revision for early infection has not been reduced by using laminar flow and space suits. The results of this study question the rationale for the increasing use and cost to the health system of these modalities in routine joint replacement

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

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

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

We carried out two analyses:

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

Background

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

Background

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

Introduction

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

Purpose

To identify the incidence and reasons for revision of the Oxford prosthesis (OXF) in New Zealand.

Introduction

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

Bone and joint infections are not only common but their management can be technically complex. They carry significant healthcare costs and are a daunting experience for patients [1]. Frequently, multiple operations are required in order to treat the infection. Each surgical intervention usually results in greater bone loss, worsening skin and soft tissue scarring and increasingly diverse and resistant micro- organisms [2].

Specialist bone infection units involving highly integrated orthopaedic and plastic surgery, as well as infection physicians, may improve patient outcomes [3–4]. However, it is difficult to determine the hierarchy of factors contributing to outcome of treatment. This problem is confounded by a lack of structured, prospective data collection in many units around the world.

In 2014, we designed a modular database which allows collection of patients’ details, components of the disease, the treatment, microbiology, histology, clinical outcome and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS). The registry was implemented in November 2014 and has already demonstrated its function as a Hospital-wide service evaluation tool.

Over 200 patients have been referred to the unit and their baseline demographic information registered. Their progress through the bone infection unit patient pathway is prospectively monitored with use of the registry and data collection ongoing. We aim to present the preliminary clinical outcomes of these 200 patients including surgical procedures performed, key microbiology results, antibiotic treatment regimens and patient reported outcomes.

Our goal is to demonstrate that a bone infection registry is an integral part of infection management clinical practice. It can be used for designing service provision, assist in allocating healthcare resources and expand the evidence base for specialist bone infection units in managing complex orthopaedic infections.

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