Several different designs of hemiarthroplasty are used to treat intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur, with large variations in costs. No clinical benefit of modular over monoblock designs has been reported in the literature. Long-term data are lacking. The aim of this study was to report the ten-year implant survival of commonly used designs of hemiarthroplasty. Patients recorded by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) between 1 September 1999 and 31 December 2020 who underwent hemiarthroplasty for the treatment of a hip fracture with the following implants were included: a cemented monoblock Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS), cemented Exeter V40 with a bipolar head, a monoblock Thompsons prosthesis (Cobalt/Chromium or Titanium), and an Exeter V40 with a Unitrax head. Overall and age-defined cumulative revision rates were compared over the ten years following surgery.Aims
Methods
The Exeter V40 femoral stem is the most implanted stem in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for primary total hip arthroplasty (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 patient anatomy requires a smaller stem with a 44 mm offset. We aimed to investigate survival of this implant in comparison to others in the range when used in primary THAs recorded in the NJR. We analyzed 328,737 primary THAs using the Exeter V40 stem, comprising 34.3% of the 958,869 from the start of the NJR to December 2018. Our exposure was the stem, and the outcome was all-cause construct revision. We stratified analyses into four groups: constructs using the 44/00/125 stem, those using the 44/0/150 stem, those including a 35.5/125 stem, and constructs using any other Exeter V40 stem.Aims
Methods
Total hip arthroplasties (THAs) are performed by surgeons at various stages in training with varying levels of supervision, but we do not know if this is safe practice with comparable outcomes to consultant-performed THA. Our aim was to examine the association between surgeon grade, the senior supervision of trainees, and the risk of revision following THA. We performed an observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data. We included adult patients who underwent primary THA for osteoarthritis, recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2016. Exposures were operating surgeon grade (consultant or trainee) and whether or not trainees were directly supervised by a scrubbed consultant. Outcomes were all-cause revision and the indication for revision up to ten years. We used methods of survival analysis, adjusted for patient, operation, and healthcare setting factors.Aims
Methods
“Get It Right First Time” (GIRFT) and NHS England’s Best Practice Tariff (BPT) have published directives advising that patients over the ages of 65 (GIRFT) and 69 years (BPT) receiving total hip arthroplasty (THA) should receive cemented implants and have brought in financial penalties if this policy is not observed. Despite this, worldwide, uncemented component use has increased, a situation described as a ‘paradox’. GIRFT and BPT do, however, acknowledge more data are required to support this edict with current policies based on the National Joint Registry survivorship and implant costs. This study compares THA outcomes for over 1,000 uncemented Corail/Pinnacle constructs used in all age groups/patient frailty, under one surgeon, with identical pre- and postoperative pathways over a nine-year period with mean follow-up of five years and two months (range: nine months to nine years and nine months). Implant information, survivorship, and regular postoperative Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) were collected and two comparisons undertaken: a comparison of those aged over 65 years with those 65 and under and a second comparison of those aged 70 years and over with those aged under 70.Aims
Methods
The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate the early migration of the TriFit cementless proximally coated tapered femoral stem using radiostereometric analysis (RSA). A total of 21 patients (eight men and 13 women) undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis of the hip were recruited in this study and followed up for two years. Two patients were lost to follow-up. All patients received a TriFit stem and Trinity Cup with a vitamin E-infused highly cross-linked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene liner. Radiographs for RSA were taken postoperatively and then at three, 12, and 24 months. Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), and adverse events were reported.Aims
Methods
It is not known whether change in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) over time can be predicted by factors present at surgery, or early follow-up. The aim of this study was to identify factors associated with changes in PROM status between two-year evaluation and medium-term follow-up. Patients undergoing Birmingham Hip Resurfacing completed the Veteran’s Rand 36 (VR-36), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Tegner Activity Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at two years and a minimum of three years. A change in score was assessed against minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between patient factors and deterioration in PASS status between follow-ups.Aims
Patients and Methods
Aims. The aim of this retrospective audit was to determine the route of referral or presentation of patients requiring revision following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Patients and Methods. A total of 4802 patients were implanted with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* cementless implant (Corail/Pinnacle) between 2005 and 2015; 80 patients with a mean age of 67.8 years (. sd. 10.8) underwent a subsequent revision. The primary outcome measure was route of referral for revision. Results. Of the 80 revisions, 31 (38.8%) took place within the first year and 69 (86.3%) took place within six years. Only two of the 80 patients were picked up at a routine review clinic, one for infection and the other for liner dissociation. A total of 36 revised patients (45.0%) were reviewed following self-referral. Of the remaining 44 revised patients (55.0%), 15 (18.8%) were General Practitioner referrals, 13 (16.3%) were other hospital referrals, six (7.5%) were inpatients, six (7.5%) were Emergency Department referrals, and two (2.5%) were readmitted from their homes. No revisions were carried out on asymptomatic patients. Conclusion. Our experience suggests that if there is a robust system in place for self-referral, patients with an
High failure rates of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty implants have highlighted the need for more careful introduction and monitoring of new implants and for the evaluation of the safety of medical devices. The National Joint Registry and other regulatory services are unable to detect failing implants at an early enough stage. We aimed to identify validated surrogate markers of long-term outcome in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating surrogate markers for predicting long-term outcome in primary THA. Long-term outcome was defined as revision rate of an implant at ten years according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines. We conducted a search of Medline and Embase (OVID) databases. Separate search strategies were devised for the Cochrane database and Google Scholar. Each search was performed to include articles from the date of their inception to June 8, 2015.Objectives
Methods
Arthroplasty registries are important for the
surveillance of joint replacements and the evaluation of outcome. Independent
validation of registry data ensures high quality. The ability for
orthopaedic implant retrieval centres to validate registry data
is not known. We analysed data from the National Joint Registry
for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) for primary metal-on-metal
hip arthroplasties performed between 2003 and 2013. Records were
linked to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (RC) for validation.
A total of 67 045 procedures on the NJR and 782 revised pairs of
components from the RC were included. We were able to link 476 procedures
(60.9%) recorded with the RC to the NJR successfully. However, 306
procedures (39.1%) could not be linked. The outcome recorded by the
NJR (as either revised, unrevised or death) for a primary procedure
was incorrect in 79 linked cases (16.6%). The rate of registry-retrieval
linkage and correct assignment of outcome code improved over time.
The rates of error for component reference numbers on the NJR were
as follows: femoral head category number 14/229 (5.0%); femoral head
batch number 13/232 (5.3%); acetabular component category number
2/293 (0.7%) and acetabular component batch number 24/347 (6.5%). Registry-retrieval linkage provided a novel means for the validation
of data, particularly for component fields. This study suggests
that NJR reports may underestimate rates of revision for many types
of metal-on-metal hip replacement. This is topical given the increasing
scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous independent
evaluation of the quality and validity of NJR data. Cite this article:
Recent guidance recommends the use of a well-proven
cemented femoral stem for hemiarthroplasty in the management of
fractures of the femoral neck, and the Exeter Trauma Stem (ETS)
has been suggested as an example of such an implant. The design
of this stem was based on the well-proven Exeter Total Hip Replacement
stem (ETHRS). This study assessed the surface finish of the ETS
in comparison with the ETHRS. Two ETSs and two ETHRSs were examined
using a profilometer with a precision of 1 nm and compared with
an explanted Exeter Matt stem. The mean roughness average (RA) of
the ETSs was approximately ten times higher than that of the ETHRSs (0.235 μm
(0.095 to 0.452) Cite this article:
In this paper, we will consider the current role
of metal-on-metal bearings by looking at three subtypes of MoM hip
arthroplasty separately: Hip resurfacing, large head (>
36 mm) MoM
THA and MoM THA with traditional femoral head sizes.
The debate whether to use cemented or uncemented
components in primary total hip replacement (THR) has not yet been
considered with reference to the cost implications to the National
Health Service. We obtained the number of cemented and uncemented components
implanted in 2009 from the National Joint Registry for England and
Wales. The cost of each component was established. The initial financial
saving if all were cemented was then calculated. Subsequently the
five-year rates of revision for each type of component were reviewed
and the predicted number of revisions at five years for the actual
components used was compared with the predicted number of revisions
for a cemented THR. This was then multiplied by the mean cost of
revision surgery to provide an indication of the savings over the
first five years if all primary THRs were cemented. The saving at primary THR was calculated to be £10 million with
an additional saving during the first five years of between £5 million
and £8.5 million. The use of cemented components in routine primary
THR in the NHS as a whole can be justified on a financial level
but we recognise individual patient factors must be considered when deciding
which components to use.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published the guidelines on the selection of prostheses for primary hip replacement in 2000. They supported the use of cemented hip prostheses to the exclusion of uncemented and hybrid implants. The information from the Trent (and Wales) Regional Arthroplasty Study has been examined to identify retrospectively the types of hip prostheses used between 1990 and 2005, and to assess the impact that the guidelines have had on orthopaedic practice. The results show that the publication of the NICE guidelines has had little impact on clinical practice, with the use of uncemented prostheses increasing from 6.7% (137) in 2001 to 19.2% (632) in 2005. The use of hybrid prostheses has more than doubled from 8.8% (181) to 22% (722) of all hips implanted in the same period. The recommendations made by NICE are not being followed, which calls into question their value.
