National Joint Registry Data Research Articles

Association between surgeon and hospital volume and outcome of first-time revision hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening.

This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip arthroplasties (RHAs) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Among 12,961 RHAs there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant's first RHA (hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.12)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 24 cases (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHAs performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 167 RHAs were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.59)), and those having undertaken fewer than 307 RHAs were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3.05 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.82)). This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHA for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralization of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons.

The incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture following total hip replacement: An analysis of UK National Joint Registry and Hospital Episodes statistics data.

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. 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. 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.

Association between surgeon training grade and the risk of revision following unicompartmental knee replacement: An analysis of National Joint Registry data.

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. 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. 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.

Total elbow replacement in England: a protocol for analysis of National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics data

IntroductionPrimary total elbow replacement (TER) services in England are being restructured with the goal of centralising care to specialised centres. It is important to monitor the impact of this service redesign. This protocol outlines an intended analysis to provide detailed descriptions of the patients who are receiving primary TER, where and by whom TER is being performed, and what the current surgical practices for TER are in England before the reconfiguration.MethodsThis analysis will use the National Joint Registry (NJR) elbow dataset and link it with NHS England Hospital Episode Statistics-Admitted Patient Care (HES-APC). It will include eligible patients from the start of the NJR elbow dataset in April 2012 to December 2022. The main objective is to determine the incidence of TER in England. Age-sex standardised rates will be calculated for groups including different ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds, using the mid-year population data provided by the Office for National Statistics. This planned analysis will summarise patient characteristics such as age, sex, body mass index (BMI), hand dominance, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for TER, socioeconomic status, and patient co-morbidities. It will also examine implant fixation type, classification, brand/type, and changes over time in implant types used in England. Additionally, it will explore the characteristics and volume of the surgeons and hospitals providing primary TER services, including the grade of the primary surgeons, funding source for surgery, and admission type. The analysis will cover the number of procedures performed by surgeons and hospitals annually in England and in each region of England. Finally, the planned analysis will summarise the elective wait time, postoperative length of stay, and any serious adverse events or re-admissions within 30 and 90 days after the TER.DiscussionThis protocol describes the first deep dive analysis into the NJR elbow dataset to describe the incidence of TER surgery in England and the characteristics of patients who are receiving it. This analysis will summarise current primary TER practices in England before service reconfigurations. The impact of reconfiguration can be monitored by comparing future practice to the outcomes from this study.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06355011. Registered 02 April 2024, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06355011.

THE SURVIVAL OF TOTAL ANKLE ARTHROPLASTIES: A DATA LINKAGE STUDY FROM THE NATIONAL JOINT REGISTRY

IntroductionDespite the increasing numbers of ankle replacements that are being performed there are still limited studies on the survival of ankle replacements and comparisons between different implants. The primary aim of this study is to link NJR data with NHS digital data to determine the true failure rates of ankle replacements. Secondary outcomes include analysis risk factors for failure, patient demographics and outcomes of individual prosthesis.MethodsA data linkage study combined National Joint Registry Data and NHS Digital data. The primary outcome of failure is defined as the removal or exchange of any components of the implanted device inserted during ankle replacement surgery. Life tables and Kaplan Meier survival charts demonstrated survivorship. Cox proportional hazards regression models with the Breslow method used for ties were fitted to compare failure rates.Results5,562 primary ankle replacement were recorded on the NJR. The 1-year survivorship was 98.8% (95% CI 98.4%–99.0%), 5-year survival in 2725 patients was 90.2% (95% CI 89.2%–91.1%), and 10-year survival in 199 patients was 86.2% (95% CI 84.6%–87.6%).When using a Cox regression model for all implants with over 100 implantations using the Infinity as the reference, only the Star (Hazard ratio 1.60 95% CI 0.87–2.96) and Inbone (HR 0.38 95% CI 0.05–2.84) did not produce significantly worse survivorship.ConclusionAnkle replacements have increased in numbers over the past decade, and the currently used implants have lower failure rates than older prosthesis. It is expected that in the future the outcomes of ankle replacements will continue to improve.

REOPERATION-FREE SURVIVAL OF COMMON FEMORAL STEM TYPES IN PRIMARY TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY FROM A LARGE NATIONAL DATASET: TIME TO RETHINK GIRFT GUIDANCE? A NATIONAL COHORT STUDY USING AN INTEGRATED NATIONAL JOINT REGISTRY AND HES DATASET

Current advice regarding implant choice is based on estimates of cost-benefit derived from implant survival to an endpoint of revision. Current estimates do not account for many implant failures which are treated with non-revision surgery and may not be accurate. The aim of this study was to estimate survival of major stem implant design groups to an endpoint of reoperation.Primary total hip replacement and linked revision form the National Joint Registry (NJR) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data linked by unique identifier were used. Survival of femoral implant groups (cemented stainless steel polished taper [PTSS], cemented cobalt chrome polished taper [PTCC], cemented composite beam [CB], collarless cementless [NCOL] and collared cementless [COL]) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier method.809,832 patients with valid NJR and HES data from England, were included. Cumulative failure at ten years for PTSS increased overall from 2.9% (95%CI 2.8–2.9) to 3.6% (95%CI 3.6–3.7) after inclusion of reoperations. Cumulative failure at ten years for PTSS increased from 2.5% (95%CI 2.5–2.6) to 3.3% (95%CI 3.2–3.4), for PTCC increased from 3.8% (95%CI 3.5–4.0) to 5.4% (95%CI 5.1–5.6), for CB increased from 3.1% (95%CI 2.9–3.3) to 4.1% (95%CI 3.8–4.3), for NCOL increased from 3.4% (95%CI 3.3–3.5) to 3.9% (95%CI 3.8–4.0), and for COL increased from 2.5% (95%CI 2.4–2.6) to 3.1% (95%CI 2.9–3.2), after inclusion of reoperations.Re-operation for internal fixation is as significant life event for the patient as revision. When a more inclusive metric is used, the patient and clinician's perspective on what constitutes a GIRFT implant may not be the same. Further work is required to update implant selection guidance in view of the change in implant performance.

ASSOCIATION BETWEEN SURGEON AND CENTRE VOLUME AND OUTCOME OF FIRST-TIME REVISION HIP ARTHROPLASTY FOR ASEPTIC LOOSENING: A STUDY USING THE NJR DATASET

This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip replacement for aseptic loosening.We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip replacements (RHR) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome.Among 12,676 RHR there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant's first RHR (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1·58 (95%CI 1·16 to 2·15)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 26 cases (HR 1·26 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·28 (95%CI 1·00 to 1·64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1·81 (95%CI 1·02 to 3·21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHR performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 168 RHR were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1·70 (95% CI 1·12 to 2·60)), and those having undertaken fewer than 309 RHR were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3·06 (95% CI 1·19 to 7·86)).This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHR for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralisation of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons.

HOW MUCH DO HIP ARTHROPLASTIES COST? THE BURDEN AND BUDGET IMPACT OF IMPLANTS AND HIP ARTHROPLASTY ON THE NATIONAL HEALTH SYSTEM FOR ENGLAND AND WALES

Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common and cost-effective elective surgical procedures. In the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales a myriad of implants for THR are offered at a variety of locally negotiated prices. This study aims to estimate the total burden of elective THR to the NHS, expenditure on implants, and different scenarios of cost changes if implant selection changed for different patient groups.Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data and NHS reference costs, we estimated the number and expenditure of NHS funded primary and revision THR in the 10-year period 2008–2017 and forecasted the number and expenditure on THR over the next decade. Using NJR average NHS Trust prices for the different implant combinations we estimated the average cost of implants used in THRs and estimated the budget impact on NHS providers from switching to alternative implants.The NHS spent over £4.76 billion performing 702,381 THRs between 2008–2017. The average cost of implants was £1,260 per surgery, almost a fifth of the cost of primary THR. Providing cemented implant combinations in primary elective THRs may potentially save up to £281 million over the next 10 years, whilst keeping 10-year revision risks low.The NHS is likely to spend over £5.6 billion providing primary elective THR over the next decade. There are efficiency savings to realise in the NHS by switching to more cost-effective implant combinations available for patients undergoing primary elective THR surgery, but these will need to be balanced against the risks inherent to a change in selection of implants and surgical practice. The HIPPY programme will be conducting practice surveys, discrete choice experiments and a large randomised controlled trial of cemented, uncemented and hybrid fixation in THR for patients under 70 to answer uncertainties.

A review of the New Zealand National Joint Registry to evaluate the survivorship and revision rates of Nexel and Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty

BackgroundTotal elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is an appropriate surgical treatment option for a variety of conditions ranging from inflammatory arthritis to trauma. Due to a high complication profile, implant companies have attempted to improve patient outcomes with evolving design mechanics and philosophy. However, the Nexel TEA prosthesis has been criticized for its unacceptably high revision rate by other research groups in the literature. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survivorship and revision rates of the Nexel and Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty implant systems in New Zealand. MethodsProspectively collected national joint registry data was used to compare the survival rates of these prostheses. Underlying diagnoses, reasons for revision, and patient demographics were all recorded. Statistical analysis included survival analysis using Kaplan-Meier curves and comparison between groups using independent t-tests. ResultsOver the 23-year study interval, the Nexel and Coonrad-Morrey prostheses showed similar survivorship and revision rates. The revision rates at 5 years were 7.3% for ZN and 4.5% for the Coonrad-Morrey cohorts. The average time to revision for those who are revised was 3.13 ± 1.74 years in the Nexel group and 4.93 ± 4.13 years in the Coonrad-Morrey population. ConclusionOur study confirms a lower revision rate of the Nexel TEA compared to other studies in the literature. Additionally, the Nexel TEA implant performs comparably to its predecessor, the Coonrad-Morrey prosthesis in New Zealand. While it is difficult to explain the discrepancy in results with the study by Morrey et. al, future studies should focus on investigating postoperative radiographs and a deep analysis of the specific surgical technique used for this implant.

Is American Joint Replacement Registry Data Consistent With International Survivorship in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty? A Comparative Analysis

BackgroundIn collaboration with the Orthopedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP), the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) investigated the consistency of hip and knee arthroplasty survivorship results compared to the UK National Joint Registry (NJR). MethodsA total of three primary knee devices and three primary hip devices were selected by AJRR and ODEP with known variation in performance. Implant manufacturers independently produced Kaplan Meier survivorship based on NJR data and submitted to ODEP for comparison. The AJRR mirrored the methodology, and results from both sources were stratified into three cohorts (all-age, < 65, and ≥ 65 years). ResultsThere were 42,671 AJRR and 60,439 NJR primary knee cases and 70,169 AJRR and 422,657 NJR primary total hip arthroplasty cases. For TKA, performance between the AJRR and NJR were consistent, showing similar trends for comparatively high and low performing devices. Both PS and CR devices showed statistical agreement in survivorship for all 3 cohorts. Unicompartmental comparison also showed statistical agreement for the Medicare cohort. The all-age and < 65-year-old cohorts showed similar trends and reached statistical agreement through 7 and 6 years. For total hip arthroplasty, performance between the AJRR and NJR were consistent, showing similar trends for comparatively high and low performing devices; 0.18% average difference in survivorship at final follow-up (8 years). One femoral device did not reach statistical agreement but showed only 0.61% difference in survivorship. The remaining acetabular and femoral devices reached statistical agreement in all-ages and through 7 and 8 years in the ≥ 65-year-old cohort. ConclusionsAJRR and NJR performance trends and survivorship were similar across hip and knee arthroplasty with greatest consistency in the all-age and ≥ 65 cohorts. This focused comparison of survivorship showed encouraging results for reliability of patient outcomes in AJRR compared to the world’s largest joint arthroplasty registry which has strong implications for global improvement in patient safety.

Supporting Regional Upper Limb Arthroplasty: The Impact of Establishing an Upper Limb Orthopaedic Network

Background and Objectives The management of complex upper limb arthroplasty has received national guidelines supporting the use of a regional network. An upper limb network was established for both elbow and shoulder arthroplasty. This study evaluates the impact of establishing this network over a 5-year period. Methods Data were collected from network meetings from June 2017 to December 2022. Hospital-level National Joint Registry data were obtained for analysis of case volume. Results A total of 243 cases were discussed. Network discussion changed the management plan in 53% of cases. Only 8% of cases required transfer to the tertiary center. The proportional caseload at either hub or spoke hospitals did not change after creation of the network. Discussion Regional network discussion aids decision-making for complex cases, with further management options realized in over half of the cases presented. The discussion allowed every patient to gain the advantage of regional expertise while being managed conveniently at their local hospital.

Knee

The December 2023 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Obesity is associated with greater improvement in patient-reported outcomes following primary total knee arthroplasty; Does mild flexion of the femoral prosthesis in total knee arthroplasty result in better early postoperative outcomes?; Robotic or manual total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial; Patient-relevant outcomes following first revision total knee arthroplasty, by diagnosis: an analysis of implant survivorship, mortality, serious medical complications, and patient-reported outcome measures using the National Joint Registry data set; Sagittal alignment in total knee arthroplasty: are there any discrepancies between robotic-assisted and manual axis orientation?; Tourniquet use does not impact recovery trajectory in total knee arthroplasty; Impact of proximal tibial varus anatomy on survivorship after medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty; Bone cement directly to the implant in primary total knee arthroplasty?; Maintaining joint line obliquity optimizes outcomes in patients with constitutionally varus knees.

RISK OF REVISION FOLLOWING TOTAL HIP AND KNEE ARTHROPLASTY PERFORMED USING COMPUTER-ASSISTED TECHNOLOGIES VERSUS CONVENTIONAL TECHNIQUE: AN ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL JOINT REGISTRY DATA

AbstractIntroductionComponent mal-positioning in total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) can increase the risk of revision for various reasons. Compared to conventional surgery, relatively improved accuracy of implant positioning can be achieved using computer assisted technologies including navigation, patient-specific jigs, and robotic systems. However, it is not known whether application of these technologies has improved prosthesis survival in the real-world. This study aimed to compare risk of revision for all-causes following primary THR and TKR, and revision for dislocation following primary THR performed using computer assisted technologies compared to conventional technique.MethodsWe performed an observational study using National Joint Registry data. All adult patients undergoing primary THR and TKR for osteoarthritis between 01/04/2003 to 31/12/2020 were eligible. Patients who received metal-on-metal bearing THR were excluded. We generated propensity score weights, using Sturmer weight trimming, based on: age, gender, ASA grade, side, operation funding, year of surgery, approach, and fixation. Specific additional variables included position and bearing for THR and patellar resurfacing for TKR. For THR, effective sample sizes and duration of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided and robotic-assisted analyses were 9,379 and 10,600 procedures, and approximately 18 and 4 years, respectively. For TKR, effective sample sizes and durations of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided, patient-specific jigs, and robotic-assisted groups were 92,579 procedures over 18 years, 11,665 procedures over 8 years, and 644 procedures over 3 years, respectively. Outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and expressed using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsFor THR, analysis comparing computer-guided versus conventional technique demonstrated HR of 0.771 (95%CI 0.573–1.036) p=0.085, and 0.594 (95%CI 0.297–1.190) p=0.142, for revision for all-causes and dislocation, respectively. When comparing robotic-assisted versus conventional technique, HR for revision for all-causes was 0.480 (95%CI 0.067 –3.452) p=0.466. For TKR, compared to conventional surgery, HR for all-cause revision for procedures performed using computer guidance and patient-specific jigs were 0.967 (95% CI 0.888–1.052) p=0.430, and 0.937 (95% CI 0.708–1.241) p=0.65, respectively. HR for analysis comparing robotic-assisted versus conventional technique was 2.0940 (0.2423, 18.0995) p = 0.50.ConclusionsThis is the largest study investigating this topic utilising propensity score analysis methods. We did not find a statistically significant difference in revision for all-causes and dislocation although these analyses are underpowered to detect smaller differences in effect size between groups. Additional comparison for revision for dislocation between robotic-assisted versus conventionally performed THR was not performed as this is a subset of revision for all-causes and wide confidence intervals were already observed for that analysis. It is also important to mention this NJR analysis study is of an observational study design which has inherent limitations. Nonetheless, this is the most feasible study design to answer this research question requiring use of a large data set due to revision being a rare outcome.Declaration of Interest(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.

Bridging Institutional and National Registry Data Through Revision Centers of Excellence: Commentary on an article by Shiraz A. Sabah, BSc, FRCS(Orth), et al.: "Patient-Relevant Outcomes Following First Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty, by Diagnosis. An Analysis of Implant Survivorship, Mortality, Serious Medical Complications, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Utilizing the National Joint Registry Data Set".

Bridging Institutional and National Registry Data Through Revision Centers of Excellence: Commentary on an article by Shiraz A. Sabah, BSc, FRCS(Orth), et al.: "Patient-Relevant Outcomes Following First Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty, by Diagnosis. An Analysis of Implant Survivorship, Mortality, Serious Medical Complications, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Utilizing the National Joint Registry Data Set".

Fusion after a failed primary total ankle arthroplasty.

When a total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) fails, it can be converted to a fusion or a revision arthroplasty. Despite the increasing numbers of TAAs being undertaken, there is little information in the literature about the management of patients undergoing fusion following a failed TAA. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the survival of fusions following a failed TAA using a large dataset from the National Joint Registry (NJR). A data linkage study combined NJR and NHS Digital data. Failure of a TAA was defined as a fusion, revision to a further TAA, or amputation. Life tables and Kaplan-Meier graphs were used to record survival. Cox proportional hazards regression models were fitted to compare the rates of failure. A total of 131 patients underwent fusion as a salvage procedure following TAA. Their mean age was 65.7 years (SD 10.6) and 73 (55.7%) were male. The mean follow-up was 47.5 months (SD 27.2). The mean time between TAA and fusion was 5.3 years (SD 2.7). Overall, 32 (24.4%) underwent reoperations other than revision and 29 (22.1%) failed. Of these 24 (18.3%) underwent revision of the fusion and five (3.8%) had a below-knee amputation. No patients underwent conversion to a further TAA. Failure usually occurred in the first three postoperative years with one-year survival of fusion being 96.0% (95% confidence interval (CI) 90.7 to 98.3) and three-year survival in 69 patients being 77.5% (95% CI 68.3 to 84.4). Salvage fusion after a failed TAA shows moderate rates of failure and reoperations. Nearly 25% of patients required revision within three years. This study is an extension of studies using the same methodology reporting the failure rates and risk factors for failure, which have recently been published, and also one reporting the outcome of revision TAA for a failed primary TAA, using the same methodology, which will shortly be published.

Consultant revision hip arthroplasty volumes and new consultant volume trajectories in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man.

This study describes the variation in the annual volumes of revision hip arthroplasty (RHA) undertaken by consultant surgeons nationally, and the rate of accrual of RHA and corresponding primary hip arthroplasty (PHA) volume for new consultants entering practice. National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man were received for 84,816 RHAs and 818,979 PHAs recorded between April 2011 and December 2019. RHA data comprised all revision procedures, including first-time revisions of PHA and any subsequent re-revisions recorded in public and private healthcare organizations. Annual procedure volumes undertaken by the responsible consultant surgeon in the 12 months prior to every index procedure were determined. We identified a cohort of 'new' HA consultants who commenced practice from 2012 and describe their rate of accrual of PHA and RHA experience. The median annual consultant RHA volume, averaged across all cases, was 21 (interquartile range (IQR) 11 to 34; range 0 to 181). Of 1,695 consultants submitting RHA cases within the study period, the top 20% of surgeons by annual volume performed 74.2% of total RHA case volume. More than half of all consultants who had ever undertaken a RHA maintained an annual volume of just one or fewer RHA, however, collectively contributed less than 3% of the total RHA case volume. Consultant PHA and RHA volumes were positively correlated. Lower-volume surgeons were more likely to undertake RHA for urgent indications (such as infection) as a proportion of their practice, and to do so on weekends and public holidays. The majority of RHAs were undertaken by higher-volume surgeons. There was considerable variation in RHA volumes by indication, day of the week, and between consultants nationally. The rate of accrual of RHA experience by new consultants is low, and has important implications for establishing an experienced RHA consultant workforce.

Patient-Relevant Outcomes Following First Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty, by Diagnosis: An Analysis of Implant Survivorship, Mortality, Serious Medical Complications, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Utilizing the National Joint Registry Data Set.

The purpose of this study was to investigate patient-relevant outcomes following first revision total knee arthroplasties (rTKAs) performed for different indications. This population-based cohort study utilized data from the United Kingdom National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care, National Health Service Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, and the Civil Registrations of Death. Patients undergoing a first rTKA between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2019, were included in our data set. Patient-relevant outcomes included implant survivorship (up to 11 years postoperatively), mortality and serious medical complications (up to 90 days postoperatively), and patient-reported outcome measures (at 6 months postoperatively). A total of 24,540 first rTKAs were analyzed. The patient population was 54% female and 62% White, with a mean age at the first rTKA of 69 years. At 2 years postoperatively, the cumulative incidence of re-revision surgery ranged from 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9% to 3.4%) following rTKA for progressive arthritis to 16.3% (95% CI, 15.2% to 17.4%) following rTKA for infection. The mortality rate at 90 days was highest following rTKA for fracture (3.6% [95% CI, 2.5% to 5.1%]) and for infection (1.8% [95% CI, 1.5% to 2.2%]) but was <0.5% for other indications. The rate of serious medical complications requiring hospital admission within 90 days was highest for patients treated for fracture (21.8% [95% CI, 17.9% to 26.3%]) or infection (12.5% [95% CI, 11.2% to 13.9%]) and was lowest for those treated for progressive arthritis (4.3% [95% CI, 3.3% to 5.5%]). Patients who underwent rTKA for stiffness or unexplained pain had some of the poorest postoperative joint function (mean Oxford Knee Score, 24 and 25 points, respectively) and had the lowest proportion of responders (48% and 55%, respectively). This study found large differences in patient-relevant outcomes among different indications for first rTKA. The rate of complications was highest following rTKA for fracture or infection. Although rTKA resulted in large improvements in joint function for most patients, those who underwent surgery for stiffness and unexplained pain had worse outcomes. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Hinge prostheses in the revision of unicompartmental knee replacement: a descriptive analysis of data from the national joint registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is an effective surgical strategy in patients with isolated medial or lateral compartment osteoarthritis. Study aims were to (1) describe the epidemiology of patients undergoing revision of UKR to a hinge knee replacement (HKR); (2) identify factors influencing time to revision; (3) evaluate HKR survival. An analysis of National Joint Registry data was undertaken, exploring revision of UKR to HKR between 2007 and April 2021. Descriptive analysis of eligible patients and Cox Regression to identify key determinants of time to revision were performed. Failure of HKR post-revision was assessed using survival analysis. 111 patients underwent revision of UKR to HKR. Median age at revision was 70years and most common indications were instability (n = 42) and infection (n = 22). The most common implant was a rotating HKR. Significant independent factors associated with earlier revision were periprosthetic fracture (p = 0.03) and malalignment (p = 0.03). Progressive osteoarthritis (p = 0.01) and higher ASA grades (3: p = 0.01, 4: p < 0.01) delayed time to revision; patient sex and age were not significant factors. Ten patients required subsequent re-revision; median age at re-revision was 61years. HKR revised from UKR had an 89.3% revision-free risk at 5years. Male sex (p < 0.01) and younger age (p < 0.01) were associated with re-revision. Factors associated with time to revision may be used to counsel patients prior to UKR. The survivorship of the HKR of 89.3% at 5years is concerning and careful consideration should be given when using this level of constraint when revising UKR in younger or male patients.

Risk Factors for Failure of Total Ankle Replacements: A Data Linkage Study Using the National Joint Registry and NHS Digital.

Despite the increasing numbers of ankle replacements, there remains debate about which patients should undergo an ankle replacement, and there are limited studies analyzing risk factors for failure of an ankle replacement. The primary aim of this study is to analyze the risk factors for failure of total ankle replacements. A data linkage study combining the National Joint Registry (NJR) Data and NHS (National Health Service) Digital data was performed. The primary outcome of failure is defined as the removal or exchange of any components of the implanted device. Kaplan-Meier survival charts were used to illustrate survivorship. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were fitted to analyze potential risk factors for failures or ankle replacements. The overall 5-year survival was 90.2% (95% CI 89.2%-91.1%). In multivariable (adjusted) Cox regression models, only age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.97), body mass index (BMI; HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06), and underlying etiology (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.97) were associated with an increased risk of failure. This study demonstrates that younger patients and those with an increased BMI have an increased risk of failure of a primary ankle replacement. We also show that rheumatoid patients have higher survivorship than those with osteoarthritis. Level III, retrospective cohort study.

What effect have commissioners’ policies for body mass index had on hip replacement surgery?: an interrupted time series analysis from the National Joint Registry for England

BackgroundDespite their widespread use, the impact of commissioners’ policies for body mass index (BMI) for access to elective surgery is not clear. Policy use varies by locality, and there are concerns that these policies may worsen health inequalities. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of policies for BMI on access to hip replacement surgery in England.MethodsA natural experimental study using interrupted time series and difference-in-differences analysis. We used National Joint Registry data for 480,364 patients who had primary hip replacement surgery in England between January 2009 and December 2019. Clinical commissioning group policies introduced before June 2018 to alter access to hip replacement for patients with overweight or obesity were considered the intervention. The main outcome measures were rate of surgery and patient demographics (BMI, index of multiple deprivation, independently funded surgery) over time.ResultsCommissioning localities which introduced a policy had higher surgery rates at baseline than those which did not. Rates of surgery fell after policy introduction, whereas rates rose in localities with no policy. ‘Strict’ policies mandating a BMI threshold for access to surgery were associated with the sharpest fall in rates (trend change of − 1.39 operations per 100,000 population aged 40 + per quarter-year, 95% confidence interval − 1.81 to − 0.97, P < 0.001). Localities with BMI policies have higher proportions of independently funded surgery and more affluent patients receiving surgery, indicating increasing health inequalities. Policies enforcing extra waiting time before surgery were associated with worsening mean pre-operative symptom scores and rising obesity.ConclusionsCommissioners and policymakers should be aware of the counterproductive effects of BMI policies on patient outcomes and inequalities. We recommend that BMI policies involving extra waiting time or mandatory BMI thresholds are no longer used to reduce access to hip replacement surgery.