Aims. The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) is a 12-item measure commonly used for the assessment of shoulder surgeries. This study explores whether computerized adaptive testing (CAT) provides a shortened, individually tailored questionnaire while maintaining test accuracy. Methods. A total of 16,238 preoperative OSS were available in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the States of Guernsey dataset (April 2012 to April 2022). Prior to CAT, the foundational item response theory (IRT) assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity, and local independence were established. CAT compared sequential item selection with stopping criteria set at standard error (SE) < 0.32 and SE < 0.45 (equivalent to reliability coefficients of 0.90 and 0.80) to full-length patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) precision. Results. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for unidimensionality exhibited satisfactory fit with root mean square standardized residual (RSMSR) of 0.06 (cut-off ≤ 0.08) but not with comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.85 or Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of 0.82 (cut-off > 0.90). Monotonicity, measured by H value, yielded 0.482, signifying good monotonic trends. Local independence was generally met, with Yen’s Q3 statistic > 0.2 for most items. The median item count for completing the CAT simulation with a SE of 0.32 was 3 (IQR 3 to 12), while for a SE of 0.45 it was 2 (IQR 2 to 6). This constituted only 25% and 16%, respectively, when compared to the 12-item full-length questionnaire. Conclusion. Calibrating IRT for the OSS has resulted in the development of an efficient and shortened CAT while maintaining accuracy and reliability. Through the reduction of redundant items and implementation of a standardized measurement scale, our study highlights a promising approach to alleviate time burden and potentially enhance compliance with these widely used outcome measures. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(8):392–400

Aims. Metal and ceramic humeral head bearing surfaces are available choices in anatomical shoulder arthroplasties. Wear studies have shown superior performance of ceramic heads, however comparison of clinical outcomes according to bearing surface in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA) is limited. This study aimed to compare the rates of revision and reoperation following metal and ceramic humeral head TSA and HA using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR), which collects data from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey. Methods. NJR shoulder arthroplasty records were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and the National Mortality Register. TSA and HA performed for osteoarthritis (OA) in patients with an intact rotator cuff were included. Metal and ceramic humeral head prostheses were matched within separate TSA and HA groups using propensity scores based on 12 and 11 characteristics, respectively. The primary outcome was time to first revision and the secondary outcome was non-revision reoperation. Results. A total of 4,799 TSAs (3,578 metal, 1,221 ceramic) and 1,363 HAs (1,020 metal, 343 ceramic) were included. The rate of revision was higher for metal compared with ceramic TSA, hazard ratio (HR) 3.31 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 6.58). At eight years, prosthesis survival for ceramic TSA was 98.7% (95% CI 97.3 to 99.4) compared with 96.4% (95% CI 95.2 to 97.3) for metal TSA. The majority of revision TSAs were for cuff insufficiency or instability/dislocation. There was no significant difference in the revision rate for ceramic compared with metal head HA (HR 1.33 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.34)). For ceramic HA, eight-year prosthetic survival was 92.8% (95% CI 86.9 to 96.1), compared with 91.6% (95% CI 89.3 to 93.5) for metal HA. The majority of revision HAs were for cuff failure. Conclusion. The rate of all-cause revision was higher following metal compared with ceramic humeral head TSA in patients with OA and an intact rotator cuff. There was no difference in the revision rate for HA according to bearing surface. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):482–491