The importance of registries has been brought into focus by recent UK national reports focusing on implant (Cumberlege) and surgeon (Paterson) performance. National arthroplasty registries provide real-time, real-world information about implant, hospital, and surgeon performance and allow case identification in the event of product recall or adverse surgical outcomes. They are a valuable resource for research and service improvement given the volume of data recorded and the longitunidal nature of data collection. This review discusses the current value of registry data as it relates to both clinical practice and research.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(4):356–360.

The posterior malleolus of the ankle is the object of increasing attention, with considerable enthusiasm for CT scanning and surgical fixation, as expressed in a recent annotation in The Bone & Joint Journal. Undoubtedly, fractures with a large posterior malleolar fragment that allow posterior talar subluxation from the mortise are served better by fixation. However, in all other situations, the existing literature does not support this widespread change in practice. The available biomechanical evidence shows that the posterior malleolus has little part to play in the stability or contact stresses of the ankle joint. Radiographic studies have not shown that CT scanning offers helpful information on pathoanatomical classification, case selection, or prognosis, or that scanning improves the likelihood of an adequate surgical reduction. Clinical studies have not shown any improvement in patient outcome after surgical fixation, and have confirmed that the inevitable consequence of increased intervention is an increased rate of complications. A careful and thoughtful evaluation of indications, risks, and benefits of this fashionable concept is required to ensure that we are deploying valuable resources with efficacy, and that we do no harm.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:566–9.

In a systematic review, reports from national registers and clinical studies were identified and analysed with respect to revision rates after joint replacement, which were calculated as revisions per 100 observed component years.

After primary hip replacement, a mean of 1.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen. The results after primary total knee replacement are 1.26 revisions per 100 observed component years, and 1.53 after medial unicompartmental replacement. After total ankle replacement a mean of 3.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen.

The outcomes of total hip and knee replacement are almost identical. Revision rates of about 6% after five years and 12% after ten years are to be expected.