Search

ObjectivesTo investigate the relative performance of hip prosthesis constructs as compared with the best performing prosthesis constructs and illustrate the substantial variability in performance of currently used prostheses.DesignA non-inferiority study.SettingThe National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR).ParticipantsAll patients with a primary total hip replacement registered in the NJR between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2016.Main outcome measuresKaplan-Meier failure function for hip prosthesis constructs. Failure difference between best performing construct and remaining constructs.MethodsUsing a non-inferiority analysis, the performance of hip prosthesis constructs by brand were compared with the best performing contemporary construct. Construct failure was estimated using the 1-Kaplan-Meier survival function method, that is, an estimate of net failure. The difference in failure between the contemporary benchmark and all other constructs was tested.ResultsOf the 4442 constructs used, only 134 had ≥500 procedures at risk at 3 years postprimary, 89 of which were not demonstrated to be inferior to the benchmark by at least 100% relative risk. By 10 years postprimary, there were 26 constructs with ≥500 at risk, 13 of which were not demonstrated to be inferior by at least 20% relative risk.Even fewer constructs were not inferior to the benchmark when analysed by age and gender. At 5 years postprimary, there were 15 constructs in males and 11 in females, aged 55–75 years, not shown to be inferior.ConclusionsThere is great variability in construct performance and the majority of constructs have not been demonstrated to be non-inferior to contemporary benchmarks. These results can help to inform patients, clinicians and commissioners when considering hip replacement surgery.

ObjectivesTo investigate the relative performance of knee replacement constructs compared with the best performing construct and illustrate the substantial variability in performance.DesignA non-inferiority study.SettingEngland and Wales.ParticipantsAll primary total and unicondylar knee replacements performed and registered in the National Joint Registry between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2016.Main outcome measuresKaplan-Meier failure function for knee replacement constructs. Failure difference between best performing construct (the benchmark) and other constructs.MethodsUsing a non-inferiority analysis, the performance of knee replacement constructs by brand were compared with the best performing construct. Construct failure was estimated using the 1-Kaplan Meier method, that is, an estimate of net failure. The difference in failure between the contemporary benchmark construct and all other constructs were tested.ResultsOf the 449 different knee replacement constructs used, only 27 had ≥500 procedures at risk at 10 years postprimary, 18 of which were classified as inferior to the benchmark by at least 20% relative risk of failure. Two of these 18 were unicondylar constructs that were inferior by at least 100% relative risk. In men, aged 55–75 years, 12 of 27 (44%) constructs were inferior by at least 20% to the benchmark at 7 years postprimary. In women, aged 55–75 years, 8 of 32 (25%) constructs were inferior at 7 years postprimary. Very few constructs were classified as non-inferior to the contemporary benchmark.ConclusionsThere are few knee replacement constructs that can be shown to be non-inferior to a contemporary benchmark. Unicondylar knee constructs have, almost universally, at least 100% worse revision outcomes compared with the best performing total knee replacement. These results will help to inform patients, clinicians and commissioners when considering knee replacement surgery.