National registers compare implants by their revision rates, but the validity of the method has never been assessed. The New Zealand Joint Registry publishes clinical outcomes (Oxford knee scores, OKS) alongside revision rates, allowing comparison of the two measurements. In the two types of knee replacement, unicompartmental (UKR) had a better knee score than total replacement (TKR), but the revision rate of the former was nearly three times higher than that of the latter. This was because the sensitivity of the revision rate to clinical failure was different for the two implants. For example, of knees with a very poor outcome (OKS < 20 points), only about 12% of TKRs were revised compared with about 63% of UKRs with similar scores.

Revision therefore is not an objective measurement and should not be used to compare these two types of implant. Furthermore, revision is much less sensitive than the OKS to clinical failure in both types and therefore exaggerates the success of knee replacements, particularly of TKR.

We have compared the outcome of hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in three distinct diagnostic groups, using survival analysis as used by the United Kingdom national joint registers, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as recommended by Darzi in the 2008 NHS review, and transition and satisfaction questions.

A total of 72 hemiarthroplasties, 19 for primary osteoarthritis (OA) with an intact rotator cuff, 22 for OA with a torn rotator cuff, and 31 for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), were followed up for between three and eight years. All the patients survived, with no revisions or dislocations and no significant radiological evidence of loosening. The mean new Oxford shoulder score (minimum/worst 0, maximum/best 48) improved significantly for all groups (p < 0.001), in the OA group with an intact rotator cuff from 21.4 to 38.8 (effect size 2.9), in the OA group with a torn rotator cuff from 13.3 to 27.2 (effect size 2.1) and in the RA group from 13.7 to 28.0 (effect size 3.1). By this assessment, and for the survival analysis, there was no significant difference between the groups. However, when ratings using the patient satisfaction questions were analysed, eight (29.6%) of the RA group were ‘disappointed’, compared with one (9.1%) of the OA group with cuff intact and one (7.7%) of the OA group with cuff torn. All patients in the OA group with cuff torn indicated that they would undergo the operation again, compared to ten (90.9%) in the OA group with cuff intact and 20 (76.9%) in the RA group.

The use of revision rates alone does not fully represent outcome after hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder. Data from PROMs provides more information about change in pain and the ability to undertake activities and perform tasks. The additional use of satisfaction ratings shows that both the rates of revision surgery and PROMs need careful interpretation in the context of patient expectations.

We describe 119 meniscal allograft transplantations performed concurrently with articular cartilage repair in 115 patients with severe articular cartilage damage. In all, 53 (46.1%) of the patients were over the age of 50 at the time of surgery. The mean follow-up was for 5.8 years (2 months to 12.3 years), with 25 procedures (20.1%) failing at a mean of 4.6 years (2 months to 10.4 years). Of these, 18 progressed to knee replacement at a mean of 5.1 years (1.3 to 10.4). The Kaplan-Meier estimated mean survival time for the whole series was 9.9 years (sd 0.4). Cox’s proportional hazards model was used to assess the effect of covariates on survival, with age at the time of surgery (p = 0.026) and number of previous operations (p = 0.006) found to be significant.

The survival of the transplant was not affected by gender, the severity of cartilage damage, axial alignment, the degree of narrowing of the joint space or medial versus lateral allograft transplantation. Patients experienced significant improvements at all periods of follow-up in subjective outcome measures of pain, activity and function (all p-values < 0.05), with the exception of the seven-year Tegner index score (p = 0.076).

The rate and mode of early failure in 463 Birmingham hip resurfacings in a two-centre, multisurgeon series were examined. Of the 463 patients two have died and three were lost to follow-up. The mean radiological and clinical follow-up was for 43 months (6 to 90).

We have revised 13 resurfacings (2.8%) including seven for pain, three for fracture, two for dislocation and another for sepsis. Of these, nine had macroscopic and histological evidence of metallosis. The survival at five years was 95.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.1 to 96.8) for revision for all causes and 96.9% (95% CI 95.5 to 98.3) for metallosis.

The rate of metallosis related revision was 3.1% at five years. Risk factors for metallosis were female gender, a small femoral component, a high abduction angle and obesity. We do not advocate the use of the Birmingham Hip resurfacing procedure in patients with these risk factors.

Orthopaedic outcome measures are used to evaluate the effect of operative interventions. They are used for audit and research. Knowledge of these measures is becoming increasingly important with league tables comparing surgeons and hospitals being made accessible to the profession and the general public.

Several types of tool are available to describe outcome after hip surgery such as generic quality-of-life questionnaires, disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaires, hip-specific outcome measures and general short-term clinical measures. We provide an overview of the outcome measures commonly used to evaluate hip interventions.