In Canada, hip and knee replacements are each among the top three surgeries performed annually. In 2020, surgeries across the country were cancelled in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined the impact on these joint replacement surgeries throughout the year.

Using the Discharge Abstract Database and National Ambulatory Care Reporting System, we developed a dataset of all 208,041 hip and knee replacements performed in Canada (except from Quebec) between January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020. We compared patient and surgical characteristics (including sex, age, main diagnosis, and type of surgery (planned/urgent, primary/revision, inpatient/day surgery) in 2020 to 2019.

In 2020, hip and knee replacements volumes decreased by 18.8% compared to 2019. In April and May 2020, hip and knee replacements fell by 69.4% and 93.8%, respectively, compared to the same period in 2019. During those months, 66.5% of hip replacements were performed to treat hip fracture versus 20.2% in April and May 2019, and 64.5% of knee replacements were primaries versus 93.0% in April and May 2019. Patterns by patient age group and sex were similar compared to 2019. These patterns were similar across all provinces. By the summer, planned surgeries resumed across the country and volumes mostly returned to pre-pandemic monthly levels by the end of the year. We also found that there was an increase in the proportion of hip and knee replacements done as day surgery, with 4% in 2020 versus 1% in 2019, and patients undergoing day surgery replacement for osteoarthritis were older, with a median age of 64 for hip patients and 65 for knee patients, versus 63 for both joints the previous year.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a notable drop in 2020 of hip and knee replacements performed in Canada. With the demand for joint replacements continuing to grow, the resulting backlog will have an immediate, significant impact on wait lists and patient quality of life. The shift to a greater proportion of joint replacements performed as day surgeries may have an effect on patient outcomes as well shifts in access to care. It will be important to continue monitor patient outcomes following day surgery and the impact on patients for which day surgery was not an option.

Revision is a key negative outcome of joint replacements. The purpose of this abstract is to present revision risk curves for hip and knee replacements based on the most recently available national data sources. Having a better understanding of determinants of revision risk can help inform clinical and health care system improvements.

We explored revision risk of primary joint replacement stratified by key clinical, prosthesis, and surgeon-level factors using data from three databases managed by CIHI: the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR), the Discharge Abstract Database, and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System. To investigate early revisions, we used Kaplan-Meier analysis stratified by demographic factors to determine the risk of revision within up to five years of primary surgery. This analysis identified the primary cohort from the CJRR from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2017 and was limited to mandatory reporting provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario) to ensure maximal coverage of prosthesis information. Bearing surface was obtained from the International Prosthesis Library maintained by the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries (ICOR) and the International Society of Arthroplasty Registers (ISAR).

The total revision risk cohort contained 283,620 primary surgeries, of which 5,765 (2%) had at least one revision. For total hip arthroplasties, revision risk at the end of the follow-up period did not differ by age, by sex or across bearing surface (metal on cross-linked polyethylene [XLPE], ceramic on XLPE, ceramic on ceramic, metal on non-cross-linked polyethylene). For hemiarthroplasties in hip fracture patients, cement fixation was significantly associated with decreased revision risk. Surgeon volume had a positive effect on survivorship with cementless fixation (2.7% at one year [95% CI 2.3%, 3.1%] for high-volume vs 3.2% [2.7%, 3.7%] for low-volume). However, surgeon volume did not have an effect on survivorship with cemented fixation (2% at one year [95% CI 1.3%, 2.6%] for high-volume vs. 2% [1.4%, 2.6%] for low-volume). For total knee replacements, revision risk increased with decreasing age and male sex. For patients aged 75 and older, four-year revision risks were 1.5% (95% CI 1.3%, 1.7%) for women and 2.0% (1.7%, 2.3%) for men, but for patients under 55 years old, they were 4.3% (3.7%, 5%) for women and 5.9% (4.9%, 6.9%) for men. Additional results from the upcoming 2019 CJRR annual report, including data up to March 31, 2018, will be presented.

Revisions represent a key failure of the primary replacement, they are costly to the health care system and negatively affect patients' quality of life. CJRR's coverage is currently 72%, increased coverage and follow-up time will allow increasingly comprehensive reporting on hip and knee prostheses in Canada. Future work in this area involves exploring additional prosthesis attributes for stratification of revision risk curves and calculation of hazards ratios adjusted by age and sex.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have partnered to advance international patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collection and reporting standards for hip and knee arthroplasty. This project is part of the OECD's Patient-Reported Indicator Survey (PaRIS) initiative, which aims to address the need for internationally comparable patient-reported outcome and experience measures in order to better monitor health system performance and drive continuous improvement. PROMs are in varying stages of implementation across OECD health systems, with differences in collection and reporting practices across existing programs.

CIHI and the OECD are leading an international working group for PROMs in hip and knee replacement surgery in order to build consensus on PROMs data collection standards and develop indicators for international reporting. Working group members include patient representatives, clinicians, national arthroplasty registries, the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR), experts in PROMs measurement, and government representatives of several OECD member countries. Activities of the working group focus on two main priorities: 1) Use existing PROMs programs to maximize pilot comparable reporting in OECD's Health at a Glance 2019 report, and 2) Advance new PROMs standards and data collection to maximize comparable reporting beyond Health at a Glance 2019.

An environmental scan of PROMs in hip and knee arthroplasty found that a number of countries are collecting this data, however, there are variations in survey instruments as well as administration and reporting methods within and across countries. As part of priority 1, the working group has achieved consensus on a number of aspects around pilot reporting. The project is compiling data from existing PROMs programs in order to report results in the Health at a Glance 2019 publication.

For priority 2, the most notable challenge is establishing an agreement across countries on common survey tools, as well as a minimum data set that works for all, given the disparities of existing collection across countries. Many international programs lack the flexibility to change PROMs tools or collections methods, and have concerns regarding the break in trend for PROMs data within their own countries if they were to change methods. The project is exploring the use of crosswalks and other opportunities for comparable reporting, such as the use of single-item anchor questions. To date, the working group continues to develop consensus on international standards for PROMs collection and reporting. Results of the international consensus building and work to date will be shared.

PROMs incorporate the patient's perspective into the delivery of treatments and care – such as hip and knee arthroplasty – that aim to improve a patient's quality of life. Alignment of standards in PROMs collection across countries will make comparable data available for reporting, in order to inform quality improvement initiatives within health systems to provide better care for patients. CIHI and the OECD will continue to work with member countries to develop international data collection and reporting standards for PROMs, and encourage the adoption of common approaches across countries.

Modular total hip arthroplasty (MTHA) stems were introduced in order to provide increased intra-operative flexibility for restoring hip biomechanics, improving stability and potentially reducing revision risk. However, the additional interface at the neck-body junction provides another location for corrosion or mechanical failure of the stem. To delineate the mid term revision risk of MTHA stems, we examined data from the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR) at the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI).

Kinectiv, Profemur and Rejuvenate modular stems were identified from CJRR records submitted between 2004 and 2014. Revision status was determined by examining the discharge abstract database (DAD) also housed by CIHI, which collects information on all revisions, regardless of whether the procedure was submitted to CJRR.

A total of 2446 modular stems were identified with a mean follow up of 4.2 years (range 0 to 10). Their usage peaked in 2012 (the first year of mandatory CJRR form submission for BC, ON and MB), and dropped rapidly thereafter. A total of 155 (6.3%) were revised. This consisted of 5/301 Kinectiv (1.7%), 141/2050 ProFemur (6.9%), and 9/96 Rejuvenate (9.4%) stems. As a group, this falls below the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines of 95% survival at 10 years.

While MTHA stems were introduced to improve outcomes and reduce revision risk, our findings of a 6.3% revision risk at a mean follow up of 4.2 years does not appear to support this.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to utilise data from the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR) to determine trends in the 43,000 total hip and knee replacement surgeries performed annually in Canada. This data will promote improved access to care and evidence-based surgical practice. Total knee replacement in Canada is associated with greater utilisation rates, less morbidity, less re-admissions and lower satisfaction compared to total hip arthroplasty.

Method: The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry is conducted by orthopaedic surgeons under the umbrella of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association, funded by Health Canada and administered by the Canadian Institute of Health Information. Inaugurated in 2000, the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry has issued three annual reports, which highlight trends in total hip and knee replacement in Canada over the past decade. Data from this voluntary Registry provide the data for this study.

Results: THR and TKR utilisation in Canada increased by 34% from 1994–5 to 2000–01.

Total knee replacement utilisation exceeded total hip replacement rates in the mid-1990s and increased TKR use continues to grow.

Considerable provincial area variations exist with regards THR and TKR utilisation in Canada.

THR and TKR are more commonly performed in female patients with peak utilisation being between 65 and 74 years of age. One third of THRs and TKRs are now performed on patients < 65 years of age.

Average length of stay has dropped precipitously over the last two decades. Average length of stay is now approximately five days for THRs and TKRs.

In-hospital mortality is higher for THRs (1.51%) as compared to TKRs (0.54%).

Complications leading to readmission are more common in THRs.

Age-standardised rates of THR and TKR/100,000 population have increased from 1994–5 to present, but are still lower than other countries.

Waiting times for surgery remain a problem with most patients waiting more than six months for surgery.

One year post-operatively, 96% of patients would have their primary or revision total hip or knee replacement performed again.

Patients are more satisfied with the outcome of primary procedures as compared to revisions.

THR patients have a higher level of satisfaction than TKR patients.

Conclusion: THR and TKR utilisation are dynamic in nature. A national registry such as the CJRR is important in pooling large data sets, allowing trends to be recognised, influencing health care providers and promoting evidence-based surgical practice.