Search

Background The risk of re-operation, otherwise known as revision, following primary hip replacement depends in part on the prosthesis implant materials used. Current performance evidences are based on a broad categorisation grouping together different materials with potentially varying revision risks. We investigated the revision rate of primary total hip replacement (THR) reported in the National Joint Registry by specific types of bearing surfaces used. Methods and findings We analysed THR procedures across all orthopaedic units in England and Wales. All patients who received a primary THR between 2003 and 2019 in the public and private sectors were included. We investigated the all-cause and indication-specific risks of revision using flexible parametric survival analyses to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). We identified primary THRs with heads and monobloc cups or modular acetabular component THRs with head and shell/liner combinations. A total of 1,026,481 primary THRs were analysed (Monobloc: n = 378,979 and Modular: n = 647,502) with 20,869 (2%) of these primary THRs subsequently undergoing a revision episode (Monobloc: n = 7,381 and Modular: n = 13,488). For monobloc implants, compared to implants with a cobalt chrome head and highly crosslinked polyethylene (HCLPE) cup, the all-cause risk of revision for monobloc acetabular implant was higher for patients with cobalt chrome (hazard rate at 10 years after surgery: 1.28 95% confidence intervals [1.10, 1.48]) or stainless steel head (1.18 [1.02, 1.36]) and non-HCLPE cup. The risk of revision was lower for patients with a delta ceramic head and HCLPE cup implant, at any postoperative period (1.18 [1.02, 1.36]). For modular implants, compared to patients with a cobalt chrome head and HCLPE liner primary THR, the all-cause risk of revision for modular acetabular implant varied non-constantly. THRs with a delta ceramic (0.79 [0.73, 0.85]) or oxidised zirconium (0.65 [0.55, 0.77]) head and HCLPE liner had a lower risk of revision throughout the entire postoperative period. Similar results were found when investigating the indication-specific risks of revision for both the monobloc and modular acetabular implants. While this large, nonselective analysis is the first to adjust for numerous characteristics collected in the registry, residual confounding cannot be rule out. Conclusions Prosthesis revision is influenced by the prosthesis materials used in the primary procedure with the lowest risk for implants with delta ceramic or oxidised zirconium head and an HCLPE liner/cup. Further work is required to determine the association of implant bearing materials with the risk of rehospitalisation, re-operation other than revision, mortality, and the cost-effectiveness of these materials., Author(s): Michael R. Whitehouse 1,2, Rita Patel 1, Jonathan M. R. French 1, Andrew D. Beswick 1,2, Patricia Navvuga 1, Elsa M. R. Marques 1, Ashley W. Blom 1,2,3, Erik [...]

Background Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (POPFF) after total hip replacement (THR) requires complex surgery and is associated with a high morbidity, mortality, and cost. Although the United Kingdom based National Joint Registry (NJR) captures over 95% of THRs treated with revision, before June 2023 it did not capture POPFF treated with fixation. We aimed to estimate the incidence and epidemiology of POPFF treated with either surgery in England. Methods and findings We performed a retrospective analysis of a mandatory, prospective database (NJR) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). All linkable primary THRs between 01/01/2004 and 31/12/2020 were included. Revision or fixation of POPFF were identified using a combination of procedural and diagnosis codes. We identified 809,832 THRs representing 5,542,332 prosthesis years at risk. A total of 5,100 POPFF were identified that had been surgically treated by revision, fixation, or both, and 2,831 of these fractures were treated with fixation alone, meaning 56% were not represented with revision data alone. The incidence of POPFF needing surgery was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90, 0.95) per 1,000 prostheses years. This incidence was higher in patients over the age of 70 at the time of primary THR (1.31 [95% CI 1.26, 1.35] per 1,000 prostheses years) and for patients who underwent THR for hip fracture (2.19 [95% CI 1.97, 2.42] per 1,000 prostheses years). This incidence appears to be increasing year on year. The cumulative probability of sustaining a POPFF within 10 years of THR was 1% and over 15% of patients died within 1 year of surgery for a POPFF. Conclusions To date, the incidence of POPFF may have been underestimated with over 50% of cases missed if the case identification in this study is correct. After including these cases, we observed that POPFF is the largest reason for major reoperation following THR and patients sustaining these injuries have a high risk of death. The prevention and treatment of POPFF and requires further resource allocation and research., Author(s): Jonathan Nicholas Lamb 1,2, Jonathan Thomas Evans 2,3,4,*, Samuel Relton 5, Michael Richard Whitehouse 2, J Mark Wilkinson 6, Hemant Pandit 7 Introduction Total hip replacement (THR) is the [...]

Background Unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) are performed by surgeons at various stages in training with varying levels of supervision, but we do not know if this is a safe practice with comparable outcomes to consultant-performed UKR. The aim of this study was to use registry data for England and Wales to investigate the association between surgeon grade (consultant, or trainee), the senior supervision of trainees (supervised by a scrubbed consultant, or not), and the risk of revision surgery following UKR. Methods and findings We conducted an observational study using prospectively collected data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR). We included adult patients who underwent primary UKR for osteoarthritis (n = 106,206), recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2019. Exposures were the grade of the operating surgeon (consultant, or trainee) and whether or not trainees were directly supervised by a consultant during the procedure (referred to as 'supervised by a scrubbed consultant'). The primary outcome was all-cause revision surgery. The secondary outcome was the number of procedures revised for the following specific indications: aseptic loosening/lysis, infection, progression of osteoarthritis, unexplained pain, and instability. Flexible parametric survival models were adjusted for patient, operation, and healthcare setting factors. We included 106,206 UKRs in 91,626 patients, of which 4,382 (4.1%) procedures were performed by a trainee. The unadjusted cumulative probability of failure at 15 years was 17.13% (95% CI [16.44, 17.85]) for consultants, 16.42% (95% CI [14.09, 19.08]) for trainees overall, 15.98% (95% CI [13.36, 19.07]) for trainees supervised by a scrubbed consultant, and 17.32% (95% CI [13.24, 22.50]) for trainees not supervised by a scrubbed consultant. There was no association between surgeon grade and all-cause revision in either crude or adjusted models (adjusted HR = 1.01, 95% CI [0.90, 1.13]; p = 0.88). Trainees achieved comparable all-cause survival to consultants, regardless of the level of scrubbed consultant supervision (supervised: adjusted HR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.87, 1.14]; p = 0.94; unsupervised: adjusted HR = 1.03, 95% CI [0.87, 1.22]; p = 0.74). Limitations of this study relate to its observational design and include: the potential for nonrandom allocation of cases by consultants to trainees; residual confounding; and the use of the binary variable 'surgeon grade,' which does not capture variations in the level of experience between trainees. Conclusions This nationwide study of UKRs with over 16 years' follow up demonstrates that trainees within the current training system in England and Wales achieve comparable all-cause implant survival to consultants. These findings support the current methods by which surgeons in England and Wales are trained to perform UKR., Author(s): Timothy J. Fowler 1,*, Nicholas R. Howells 1, Ashley W. Blom 2, Adrian Sayers 1, Michael R. Whitehouse 1,3 Introduction Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an alternative to total [...]

Background While the United Kingdom National Health Service aimed to reduce social inequalities in the provision of joint replacement, it is unclear whether these gaps have reduced. We describe secular trends in the provision of primary hip and knee replacement surgery between social deprivation groups. Methods and findings We used the National Joint Registry to identify all hip and knee replacements performed for osteoarthritis from 2007 to 2017 in England. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015 was used to identify the relative level of deprivation of the patient living area. Multilevel negative binomial regression models were used to model the differences in rates of joint replacement. Choropleth maps of hip and knee replacement provision were produced to identify the geographical variation in provision by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). A total of 675,342 primary hip and 834,146 primary knee replacements were studied. The mean age was 70 years old (standard deviation: 9) with 60% and 56% of women undergoing hip and knee replacements, respectively. The overall rate of hip replacement increased from 27 to 36 per 10,000 person-years and knee replacement from 33 to 46. Inequalities of provision between the most (reference) and least affluent areas have remained constant for both joints (hip: rate ratio (RR) = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [0.56, 0.60] in 2007, RR = 0.59 [0.58, 0.61] in 2017; knee: RR = 0.82 [0.80, 0.85] in 2007, RR = 0.81 [0.80, 0.83] in 2017). For hip replacement, CCGs with the highest concentration of deprived areas had lower overall provision rates, and CCGs with very few deprived areas had higher provision rates. There was no clear pattern of provision inequalities between CCGs and deprivation concentration for knee replacement. Study limitations include the lack of publicly available information to explore these inequalities beyond age, sex, and geographical area. Information on clinical need for surgery or patient willingness to access care were unavailable. Conclusions In this study, we found that there were inequalities, which remained constant over time, especially in the provision of hip replacement, by degree of social deprivation. Providers of healthcare need to take action to reduce this unwarranted variation in provision of surgery., Author(s): Erik Lenguerrand 1,*, Yoav Ben-Shlomo 2, Amar Rangan 3,4, Andrew Beswick 1, Michael R. Whitehouse 1,5, Kevin Deere 1, Adrian Sayers 1, Ashley W. Blom 1,5, Andrew Judge 1,5,6 [...]

Background: Patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis may undergo non-surgical interventions such as intra-articular steroid injections and knee arthroscopy. This study aimed to investigate their association with the timing and outcomes of subsequent primary knee replacement. Methods and findings: Observational retrospective analysis of linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics, Patient Reported Outcome Measures (CPRD GOLD-HES-PROMS) data of 38,494 patients undergoing primary knee replacements in England. Prior use of intra-articular steroid injections and knee arthroscopy were identified. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs were estimated for primary outcomes of revision and reoperation using Cox regression. Secondary outcomes included time from first diagnosis of ipsilateral knee osteoarthritis to knee replacement, 6-month post-operative Oxford Knee Scores (OKS), mortality (90-days and 3-months), and post-operative surgical site infection (SSI) (3-months) using linear and logistic regression. Prior steroid injections were associated with an increased risk of revision (HR = 1.25 95%CI (1.06 to 1.49)), re-operation (HR = 1.18 95%CI (1.05 to 1.32)), and SSI (HR = 3.10 95%CI (1.14 to 8.46). Timing from diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis to knee replacement was 6 months longer in patients receiving steroid injections. Knee arthroscopy was associated with an increased risk of revision (HR = 3.14 95%CI (2.64 to 3.73)), re-operation (HR = 3.25 95%CI (2.89 to 3.66)), lower post-operative OKS -1.63 95%CI (-2.31 to -0.95). Both interventions were associated with a lower risk of mortality. Conclusions: Steroid injection and knee arthroscopy prior to primary knee replacement are each associated with worse outcomes. The observed association of lower mortality risk is suggestive of confounding by indication. The observed associations in this study could be used to inform shared decision making with patients on the treatment pathway for knee osteoarthritis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of joint pain and disability. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACs) are often used in primary care once other recommended treatments have failed. Evidence shows that IACs provide short-term relief of osteoarthritis symptoms, yet little is known about patients' and primary care clinicians' experiences and beliefs about their use. We explored patients' and primary care clinicians' views about IACs, including the benefits, disadvantages, perceived risks of treatment, when they are used, and factors that affect decision-making. Methods: We conducted individual interviews with patients and primary care clinicians and used inductive thematic analysis to investigate their views and experiences of intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis (IACs). Findings: We interviewed 38 patients and 19 primary care clinicians. We identified 6 patient themes: variation in access; awareness of IACs; views of risk and trust; effectiveness of IACs; variation in onset and effect duration; and an alternative to undesirable treatments. In the interviews with clinicians, we identified an overarching theme of caution and competence, which included eight subthemes: confidence and (dis)comfort with practical procedures; risk of adverse outcomes; training; uncertainty about evidence and guidelines; technical uncertainties; IACs use on the osteoarthritis pathway; perceived benefits and impacts of IACs; and the possibility of placebo. Conclusion: Patients and clinicians valued IACs' potential to relieve symptoms and improve quality of life. Variability in patients' access to treatment appears related to clinicians' confidence in delivering injections and their concerns about the evidence base. Variation in dose frequency and timing reflect clinicians' uncertainty about current guidance. Despite variation in effectiveness patients preferred IACs to other forms of pain medication and to delay or avoid surgery. IACs were mostly used as an adjunct treatment before surgery was offered. These findings can inform further research into the effectiveness of IACs and improvements in information and guidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]