In metal-on-metal (MoM) hip replacements or resurfacings, mechanical induced corrosion can lead to a local inflammatory response, pseudo tumours and elevated serum metal ions, requiring revision surgery.

The size and diametral clearance of Anatomic (ADM) and Modular (MDM) Dual Mobility bearings matches that of certain MOM components. Presenting the opportunity for revision with exchange of the metal head for ADM/MDM bearings without removal of the acetabular component if it is well-fixed and appropriately positioned.

Between 2012 and 2020, across two centres, 94 patients underwent revision of a MoM hip replacement or resurfacing. The mean age was 65.5 (33–87) years. In 53 patients (56.4%), the acetabular component was retained, and dual mobility bearings were used (DM); in 41 (43.6%) the acetabulum was revised (AR). DM was only considered where the acetabular component was satisfactorily positioned and well-integrated into bone, with no surface damage. Patients underwent clinical and radiographic follow-up to at least one-year (mean 42.4 (12–96) months).

One (1.1%) patient died before one-year, for reasons unrelated to the surgery. In the DM group, two (3.8%) patients underwent further surgery; one (1.9%) for dislocation and one (1.9%) for infection. In the AR group, four (12.2%) underwent further procedures; two (4.9%) for loosening of the acetabular component and two (4.9%) following dislocations. There were no other dislocations in either group. In the DM group, operative time (68.4 v 101.5 mins, p<0.001), postoperative drop in haemoglobin (16.6 v 27.8 g/L, p<0.001), and length of stay (1.8 v 2.4 days, p<0.001) were significantly lower. There was a significant reduction in serum metal ions postoperatively in both groups (p<0.001 both Cobalt and Chromium) although there was no difference between groups for this reduction (p=0.674 Cobalt; p=0.186 Chromium).

In selected patients with MoM hip arthroplasty, where the acetabular component is well-fixed, in a satisfactory position and there is no surface damage, the metal head can be exchanged for ADM/MDM bearings with retention of the acetabular prosthesis. Presenting significant benefits through a less invasive procedure, and a low risk of complications, including dislocation.

Electronic Health Records (EHRs) have benefits for hospitals and uptake in the UK is increasing. The National Joint Registry (NJR) monitors implant and surgeon performance and relies on accuracy of data. NJR data are used for identification of potential outliers for both mortality and revision; analyses are adjusted for age, sex, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists score (ASA) and cases with some indications are excluded from analyses. In October 2020, the Royal Devon University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust “went live” on an EHR, almost eradicating paper from the Trust. This included stopping use of paper NJR forms by creating a bespoke electronic template. We sought to identify discrepancies between operation notes and data input to the NJR in variables that may influence potential outlier analyses.

Data input to the NJR from 15/10/2020 to 18/10/2022 for hip procedures were provided by NEC Software Solutions. NJR data were compared to those recorded on operation notes.

There were 1067 hip procedures recorded in the NJR (946 primary THRs). Of the primary THRs, discrepancies in indication between NJR and operation note were identified in 139 (15%) cases. Common discrepancies included cases being recorded as osteoarthritis where the true indication was acute trauma (n=63), avascular necrosis (n=14), metastatic cancer/malignancy (n=6) and 21 cases with no recorded indication. We identified 88 cases where the ASA recorded in the NJR differed from the anaesthetic chart. Other inaccuracies were identified including 23 cases missing type of procedure (e.g., primary or revision) and one where revision surgery had been recorded as primary.

We identified at least 83 cases that should have been excluded from NJR mortality analyses but were not. Given the low incidence of mortality following primary THR, these cases (with increased risk of death) have the potential to incorrectly identify the hospital as a potential outlier. Discrepancies in ASA may also impact on both revision and mortality outlier calculations. We urge caution to hospitals in the implementation of EHRs and advise regular audit of data sent to the NJR.

The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) started collecting data on peri-prosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF) in December 2019. We reviewed the data from the first year of data collection to describe the patients being admitted with PPFF and the care they received according to established Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used in hip fracture surgery.

We performed a retrospective review of the NHFD between 1 January and 31 December 2020. Analyses consisted of the summary statistics used to generate the NHFD annual report. Of the KPIs used in hip fracture, data were available for PPFF on time to assessment by a geriatrician (KPI 1), time to theatre (if applicable) (KPI 2), and mobilisation the day after surgery (if applicable) (KPI 4).

There were 2,411 PPFF fractures around a hip or knee replacement reported out of a total of 2,606 PPFF. Of the 171 hospitals reporting data to the NHFD, 135 reported at least one. The median number of fractures per hospital was 14 (IQR 8, 25, range 1 to 110). The median age of patients was 84 (range 60 to 104) and 1,604 (67%) patients were female. Of the 1,850 occasions a time to geriatrician review was documented, review within 72 hours was achieved on 89.2% of occasions. Of the 1,973 patients who underwent operative interventions, 546 patients went to theatre before the 36-hour target (28.4%). Of patients who had surgery 1,323 (67.4%) were mobilised the following day.

In the first year collecting data on PPFF we can give the first idea of the incidence of these life changing injuries. Whilst geriatrician review with 72 hours was achieved in a high proportion of cases nationally, our data suggest fewer patients are mobilised the day after surgery. Notably, only 28.4% of patients who were managed operatively went to theatre within 36 hours of admission. We provide the first insight into the incidence and management of these injuries.

Dual-mobility constructs (DMCs) are increasingly used for total hip replacement (THR) following hip fracture.

The aims of this study were to identify whether there was a difference in all-cause construct survival following THR with a DMC (DMC-THR) or with a conventional construct following hip fracture, and to identify the expected net all-cause construct survival for DMC-THR performed for hip fracture.

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies (including joint registries) including DMC-THR for hip fracture which provided Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival estimates. The primary outcome was all-cause construct survival over time.

318 papers and 17 registry reports were identified. Three studies (two registry reports and one cohort study utilising joint registry data) met the inclusion criteria, including 8,834 DMC-THRs and 63,865 conventional THRs. Upon meta-analysis, DMC-THRs had lower all-cause construct survival. Five-year KM estimates (95% confidence intervals) were 95.3% (94.6–95.9%) for DMC-THR and 96.1% (95.9–96.3%) for conventional THR.

These results suggest there is a small absolute but not clinically significant all-cause implant survival difference between THR with DMC and conventional implants following hip fracture. Given the higher comparative cost of DMC, this analysis does not support its routine use.

Whilst total hip replacement (THR) is generally safe and effective, pre-existing medical conditions, particularly those requiring inpatient admission, may increase the risk of post-operative mortality. Delaying elective surgery may reduce the risk, but it is unclear how long a delay is sufficient.

We analysed 958,145 primary THRs performed for solely osteoarthritis April 2003-December 2018, in the NJR linked to Hospital Episodes Statistics to identify inpatient admissions prior to elective THR for 17 conditions making up the Charlson index including myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease and diabetes. Crude analyses used Kaplan-Meier and adjusted analyses used Cox modelling. Patients were categorised for each co-morbidity into one of four groups: not recorded in previous five-years, recorded between five-years and six-months before THR, recorded six-months to three-months before THR, and recorded between three-months and day before surgery.

90-day mortality was 0.34% (95%CI: 0.33–0.35). In the 432 patients who had an acute MI in the three months before THR, this figure increased to 18.1% (95%CI 14.8, 22.0). Cox models observed 63 times increased hazard of death within 90-days if patients had an acute MI in the 3-months before their THR, compared to patients who had not had an MI in the five years before their THR (HR 63.6 (95%CI 50.8, 79.7)) This association reduced as the time between acute MI and THR increased. For congestive cardiac failure, the hazard in the same scenario was 18-times higher with a similar protective effect of delaying surgery.

Linked NJR and HES data demonstrate an association between inpatient admission for acute medical co-morbidities and death within 90-days of THR. This association is greatest in MI, congestive cardiac failure and cerebrovascular disease with smaller associations observed in several other conditions including diabetes. The hazard reduces when longer delays are seen between the admission for acute medical conditions and THR in all diagnoses. This information will help patients with previous medical admissions and surgeons to determine optimal timing for surgery.

The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the NJR for primary 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, for example, patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this stem in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR.

Analyses were performed using a dataset based on that used for the 2020 NJR annual report. Our exposure was the stem; the outcome was all-cause construct revision. Crude analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier and adjusted using Cox models. The 44/00/125 stem was directly compared to other stems in the Exeter range.

We analysed 330,732 primary THAs using the Exeter V40 stem comprising 34.5% of the 958,869 THAs with complete information from the start of the NJR to 31 December 2018. The 44/00/125 stem was implanted in 2,158 primary THAs with 67.5% in female patients and a mean age of 67.8. The 10-year revision estimate for the 44/00/125 stem was 4.9% (95%CI 3.6, 6.8) and in constructs using an Exeter V40 stem was 2.8% (95%CI 2.7, 2.8). Controlling for age, sex and ASA demonstrated an increased overall hazard of revision for constructs using the 44/00/125 stem compared to constructs using other Exeter V40 femoral stems (HR 1.8 (95%CI 1.4, 2.3)).

Although the revision estimate is within the NICE 10-year benchmark, survivorship of constructs using the 44/00/125 stem appears to be lower than the rest of the Exeter V40 range. Attempts to control for age, sex and ASA will not take into account confounding by indication i.e. patients with more complex anatomy who may have a higher risk of revision. Surgeons and patients should be reassured by this but should be aware of the observed increased revision estimate and use the stem according to its indications.

Total hip replacements (THRs) provide pain relief and improved function to thousands of patients suffering from end-stage osteoarthritis, every year. Over 800 different 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. Given the 10-year cumulative mortality of patients under 55 years of age receiving THRs is only 5% and that a recent study suggests 25-year THR survival of 58%, we aim to produce revision estimates out to 30 years that may guide future long-term benchmarks.

The local database of the Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre (PEOC), Exeter, holds data on over 20,000 patients with nearly 30-years follow-up with contemporary prostheses. A previous study suggests that the results of this centre are generalisable if comparisons restricted to the same prostheses. Via flexible parametric survival analysis, we created an algorithm using this database, for revision of any part of the construct for any reason, controlling for age and gender. This algorithm was applied to 664,761 patients in the NJR who have undergone THR, producing a revision prediction for patients with the same prostheses as those used at this centre.

Using our algorithm, the 10-year predicted revision rate of THRs in the NJR was 2.2% (95% CI 1.8, 2.7) based on a 68-year-old female patient; well below the current NICE benchmark. Our predictions were validated by comparison to the maximum observed survival in the NJR (14.2 years) using restricted mean survival time (P=0.32). Our predicted cumulative revision estimate after 30 years is 6.5% (95% CI 4.5, 9.4). The low observed and predicted revision rate with the prosthesis combinations studied, suggest current benchmarks may be lowered and new ones introduced at 15 and 20 years to encourage the use of prostheses with high survival.

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.

Introduction

Analysis of registry data shows that few units achieve results better than 99·98% control limits. Implant selection is considered a predictor of outcome variation in joint replacement. We analysed the outcomes of a unit with statistically “better than expected” results and compared to all other units within the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man (NJR). We sought to determine whether improved implant survival following primary total hip replacement (THR) is a centre effect or mediated by implant selection.

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.

When Radiolucent lines (RLL) are observed around cemented acetabular components, they may progress and be associated with loosening.

We reviewed the incidence and progression of RLLs around the Exeter Contemporary flanged acetabular component and compared our results with other published series.

We reviewed a consecutive series of 203 sockets with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Up to date radiographs were reviewed by 2 independent assessors for the presence, location and thickness of RLL and an assessment for loosening/migration was made. Initial post-operative radiographs were examined for any case with RLLs at review.

There were no revisions for aseptic loosening. 103 hips remained in situ with a minimum follow up of 10 years. Lucent lines were seen on 37/103 (36%) of hips with a mean follow up of 12.1 years (10.0–13.9 years). In these 37 hips, the lucency was present in one zone in 84%, two zones in 8% and all three zones in 8%.

Of the 37 hips with a RLL at minimum 10 years follow up, five exhibited a RLL immediately post-operatively. All 5 of these lines were initially isolated to zone 1 and progressed over the 10 years around at least 1 more zone. Only one line became circumferential, although the cup did not migrate.

Compared to previous papers (DeLee & Charnley, Hodgkinson and Garcia-Cimbrelo) the presence of RLL at 10 years is reduced in our series (table 2) and no cup migrated. All RLL seen in cups at both 10 years and immediate post-operatively in our series progressed (table 3), unlike in the previous studies. This reduction in lucent lines may be down to modern cementing techniques, cup design or a combination of both.

For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly by clicking on ‘Info & Metrics’ above to access author contact details.