Aims

The aim of this study was to investigate the association between the type of operation used to treat a trochanteric fracture of the hip and 30-day mortality.

Introduction

Although we know that smoking damages health, we do not know impact of smoking on a patient's outcome following primary knee arthroplasty (KA). In the UK, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have the authority (& funds) to commission healthcare services for their communities. Over the past decade, an increasing number of CCGs are using smoking as a contraindication for patients with end-stage symptomatic knee arthritis being referred to a specialist for due consideration of KA without any clear evidence of the associated risks & benefits.

The overall objective of this study is to compare clinical outcomes after knee arthroplasty surgery in smokers, ex-smokers & non-smokers.

Introduction

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) offers significant advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA) but is reported to have higher revision rates in joint registries. In both the New Zealand and the UK national registry the revision rate of cementless UKR is less than cementless. It is not clear whether this is because the cementless is better or because more experienced surgeons, who tend to get better results are using cementless. We aim to use registry data to compare cemented and cementless UKA outcomes, matching for surgical experience and other factors.

Pseudotumours have recently been reported in non-metal-on-metal total hip replacements (non-MoM THRs), however the magnitude and risk factors for this complication are unknown, as is the outcome of its treatment.

3340 primary THR undergoing revision for pseudotumour between 2008 and 2015 were identified in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 7.5% (n=249) of these pseudotumour revisions, had non-MoM bearing surfaces. The risk of revision for pseudotumour in non-MoM hips was 0.032% (249/789,397; 95% CI 0.028%–0.036%). The risk of pseudotumour revision was 2.35 times (95% CI 1.76–3.11) higher in ceramic-on-ceramic compared with hard-on-soft bearings, and 2.80 times (95% CI 1.74–4.36) higher in 36mm metal-on-polyethylene bearings compared to 28mm and 32mm metal-on-polyethylene bearings.

The outcome of revision for pseudotumour non-MoM hips was studied in 185 hips. 13.5% (n=25) had re-revisions at a mean of 1.2 years (range 0.1–3.1 years). Infection (32%), dislocation/subluxation (24%), and aseptic loosening (24%) were the commonest indications for re-revision. The 4-year survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI=76.7%–88.9%). Multiple revision indications (Hazard Ratio (HR)=2.78; 95% CI=1.03–7.49) and incomplete revision procedures (HR=5.76; 95% CI=1.28–25.9) increased the risk of re-revision

Although the overall risk of revision for pseudotumour in non-MoM THRs is low, the risk is increasing and is significantly higher in ceramic-on-ceramic and large head metal-on-polyethylene THR. These revisions have a high early failure rate.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether the rates of revision for metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with Pinnacle components varied according to the year of the initial operation, and compare these with the rates of revision for other designs of MoM THA.

Aims

To determine the outcomes following revision surgery of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties (MoMHA) performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD), and to identify factors predictive of re-revision.

Objectives

Few studies have assessed outcomes following non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (non-MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). We assessed outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD, and identified predictors of re-revision.

Outcomes following metal-on-metal hip replacement (MoMHR) revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) have been poor, and inferior compared with non-ARMD revisions. Subsequently, surgeons and worldwide authorities widely recommended early revision for ARMD, with a lower surgical threshold adopted. However, the impact of early surgery for ARMD is unknown. We compared the rates of adverse outcomes following MoMHR revision surgery in matched ARMD and non-ARMD patients.

We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All MoMHR patients subsequently undergoing revision surgery for any indication between August 2008 and August 2014 were eligible. ARMD and non-ARMD revisions were matched one-to-one for multiple potential confounding factors using propensity scores. Adverse outcomes following revision surgery (intra-operative complications, mortality, re-revision surgery) were compared between matched groups using regression analysis.

In 2,576 matched MoMHR revisions (ARMD=1,288 and non-ARMD=1,288), intra-operative complications were similar between ARMD (2.4%) and non-ARMD (2.5%) revisions (odds ratio=0.97, 95% CI=0.59–1.60; p=0.899). All-cause mortality rates were lower following ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (hazard ratio (HR)=0.43, 95% CI=0.22–0.86; p=0.018). All-cause re-revision rates were lower following ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (HR=0.52, 95% CI=0.36–0.75; p<0.001). Compared with ARMD revision (5-years=94.3%), MoMHR revisions for infection (5-years=81.2%) and dislocation/subluxation (5-years=81.9%) had the lowest implant survival rates.

Contrary to previous observations, MoMHRs revised for ARMD have approximately half the risk of re-revision and death compared to non-ARMD revisions. We suspect worldwide regulatory authorities have positively influenced outcomes following ARMD revision by widely recommending that surgeons exercise a lower revision threshold.

Our findings suggest the threshold for ARMD revision surgery need not be lowered further. The high risk of failure following MoMHR revision for infection and dislocation is concerning.

Recent studies have demonstrated that implant-specific blood metal ion thresholds exist in unilateral and bilateral metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty patients, with these thresholds being most effective for identifying patients at low-risk of adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). We investigated whether these new blood metal ion thresholds could effectively identify patients at risk of ARMD in an external cohort of MoM hip arthroplasty patients.

We performed a validation study involving 803 MoM hip arthroplasties implanted in 710 patients at three European centres (323=unilateral Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR); 93=bilateral BHR; 294=unilateral Corail-Pinnacle). All patients underwent whole blood metal ion sampling. Patients were divided into those with ARMD (revised for ARMD or ARMD on imaging; n=75), and those without ARMD (n=635). Previously devised implant-specific blood metal ion thresholds (cobalt=2.15μg/l for unilateral BHR; maximum cobalt or chromium=5.5μg/l for bilateral BHR; cobalt=3.57μg/l for unilateral Corail-Pinnacle) were applied to the validation cohort, with receiver operating characteristic curve analysis used to establish the discriminatory characteristics for each respective threshold.

The area under the curve, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for distinguishing between patients with and without ARMD for each implant-specific threshold were respectively: unilateral BHR=89.4% (95% CI=82.8%-96.0%), 78.9%, 86.7%, 44.1%, 96.9%; bilateral BHR=89.2% (95% CI=81.3%-97.1%), 70.6%, 86.8%, 54.5%, 93.0%; unilateral Corail-Pinnacle=76.9% (95% CI=63.9%-90.0%), 65.0%, 85.4%, 24.5%, 97.1%. The 7μg/l UK MHRA threshold missed significantly more patients with ARMD compared with the implant-specific thresholds (4.9% vs. 2.8%; p=0.0003).

This external multi-centre validation study has confirmed that MoM hip arthroplasty patients with blood metal ion levels below newly devised implant-specific thresholds have a low-risk of ARMD. Compared to implant-specific thresholds, the currently proposed fixed MHRA threshold missed more patients with ARMD.

We recommend using implant-specific thresholds over fixed thresholds when managing MoM hip arthroplasty patients.

Recent studies have reported on non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (non-MoMHA) patients requiring revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). Although the outcomes following revision surgery for ARMD in MoMHA patients are known to generally be poor, little evidence exists regarding outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD. We determined the outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD, and identified predictors of re-revision.

We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. All primary non-MoMHA patients who subsequently underwent revision surgery for ARMD between 2008–2014 were included (n=185). Outcome measures following ARMD revision were intraoperative complications, mortality, and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision surgery were identified using Cox regression analysis.

Intra-operative complications occurred in 6.0% (n=11) of ARMD revisions. The cumulative 4-year patient survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI=92.9–99.5%). Re-revision surgery was performed in 13.5% (n=25) of hips at a mean time of 1.2 years (range 0.1–3.1 years) following ARMD revision. Infection (32%), dislocation/subluxation (24%), and aseptic loosening (24%) were the commonest re-revision indications. The cumulative 4-year implant survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI=76.7%-88.9%). Significant predictors of re-revision were: multiple revision indications (Hazard Ratio (HR)=2.78; 95% CI=1.03–7.49; p=0.043), incomplete revision procedures (including modular component exchange only) (HR=5.76; 95% CI=1.28–25.9; p=0.022), and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (HR=3.08; 95% CI=1.01–9.36; p=0.047).

Non-MoMHA patients undergoing ARMD revision have a high short-term risk of re-revision. Infection, dislocation/subluxation, and aseptic loosening were the commonest re-revision indications. Furthermore, important and potentially modifiable predictors of future re-revision were identified.

Although the poor prognostic factors identified require validation in future studies, our findings may be used to counsel patients about the risks associated with ARMD revision surgery, and guide decisions about the reconstructive procedure.

Aims

To determine ten-year failure rates following 36 mm metal-on-metal (MoM) Pinnacle total hip arthroplasty (THA), and identify predictors of failure.

We recently published a paper comparing the incidence of adverse outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty (UKA and TKA). The conclusion of this study, which was in favour of UKA, was dismissed as “biased” in a review in Bone & Joint 360. Although this study is one of the least biased comparisons of UKA and TKA, this episode highlights the biases that exist both for and against UKA. In this review, we explore the different types of bias, particularly selection, reporting and measurement. We conclude that comparisons between UKA and TKA are open to bias. These biases can be so marked, particularly in comparisons based just on national registry data, that the conclusions can be misleading. For a fair comparison, data from randomised studies or well-matched, prospective observational cohort studies, which include registry data, are required, and multiple outcome measures should be used. The data of this type that already exist suggest that if UKA is used appropriately, compared with TKA, its advantages outweigh its disadvantages.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:12–15.

Introduction

The impact of pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings (MoMHRs) within the second decade is unknown. We investigated: (1) the incidence and risk factors for all-cause and pseudotumour revision following MoMHR at 15-years follow-up, and (2) whether risk factors were gender specific.

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has advantages over total knee arthroplasty but national joint registries report a significantly higher revision rate for UKA. As a result, most surgeons are highly selective, offering UKA only to a small proportion (up to 5%) of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee, and consequently performing few each year. However, surgeons with large UKA practices have the lowest rates of revision. The overall size of the practice is often beyond the surgeon’s control, therefore case volume may only be increased by broadening the indications for surgery, and offering UKA to a greater proportion of patients requiring arthroplasty of the knee.

The aim of this study was to determine the optimal UKA usage (defined as the percentage of knee arthroplasty practice comprised by UKA) to minimise the rate of revision in a sample of 41 986 records from the for National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR).

UKA usage has a complex, non-linear relationship with the rate of revision. Acceptable results are achieved with the use of 20% or more. Optimal results are achieved with usage between 40% and 60%. Surgeons with the lowest usage (up to 5%) have the highest rates of revision. With optimal usage, using the most commonly used implant, five-year survival is 96% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.9 to 96.0), compared with 90% (95% CI 88.4 to 91.6) with low usage (5%) previously considered ideal.

The rate of revision of UKA is highest with low usage, implying the use of narrow, and perhaps inappropriate, indications. The widespread use of broad indications, using appropriate implants, would give patients the advantages of UKA, without the high rate of revision.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1506–11.

Despite being one of the most common orthopaedic operations, it is still not known how many arthroscopies of the knee must be performed during training in order to develop the skills required to become a Consultant. A total of 54 subjects were divided into five groups according to clinical experience: Novices (n = 10), Junior trainees (n = 10), Registrars (n = 18), Fellows (n = 10) and Consultants (n = 6). After viewing an instructional presentation, each subject performed a simple diagnostic arthroscopy of the knee on a simulator with visualisation and probing of ten anatomical landmarks. Performance was assessed using a validated global rating scale (GRS). Comparisons were made against clinical experience measured by the number of arthroscopies which had been undertaken, and ROC curve analysis was used to determine the number of procedures needed to perform at the level of the Consultants.

There were marked differences between the groups. There was significant improvement in performance with increasing experience (p < 0.05).

ROC curve analysis identified that approximately 170 procedures were required to achieve the level of skills of a Consultant.

We suggest that this approach to identify what represents the level of surgical skills of a Consultant should be used more widely so that standards of training are maintained through the development of an evidenced-based curriculum.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1309–15.

Whether to use total or unicompartmental knee replacement (TKA/UKA) for end-stage knee osteoarthritis remains controversial. Although UKA results in a faster recovery, lower rates of morbidity and mortality and fewer complications, the long-term revision rate is substantially higher than that for TKA. The effect of each intervention on patient-reported outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine whether six-month patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are better in patients after TKA or UKA, using data from a large national joint registry (NJR).

We carried out a propensity score-matched cohort study which compared six-month PROMs after TKA and UKA in patients enrolled in the NJR for England and Wales, and the English national PROM collection programme. A total of 3519 UKA patients were matched to 10 557 TKAs.

The mean six-month PROMs favoured UKA: the Oxford Knee Score was 37.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 37.4 to 38.0) for UKA and 36.1 (95% CI 35.9 to 36.3) for TKA; the mean EuroQol EQ-5D index was 0.772 (95% CI 0.764 to 0.780) for UKA and 0.751 (95% CI 0.747 to 0.756) for TKA. UKA patients were more likely to achieve excellent results (odds ratio (OR) 1.59, 95% CI 1.47 to 1.72, p < 0.001) and to be highly satisfied (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.39, p <  0.001), and were less likely to report complications than those who had undergone TKA.

UKA gives better early patient-reported outcomes than TKA; these differences are most marked for the very best outcomes. Complications and readmission are more likely after TKA. Although the data presented reflect the short-term outcome, they suggest that the high revision rate for UKA may not be because of poorer clinical outcomes. These factors should inform decision-making in patients eligible for either procedure.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:793–801.

We explored the trends over time and the geographical variation in the use of subacromial decompression and rotator cuff repair in 152 local health areas (Primary Care Trusts) across England. The diagnostic and procedure codes of patients undergoing certain elective shoulder operations between 2000/2001 and 2009/2010 were extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics database. They were grouped as 1) subacromial decompression only, 2) subacromial decompression with rotator cuff repair, and 3) rotator cuff repair only.

The number of patients undergoing subacromial decompression alone rose by 746.4% from 2523 in 2000/2001 (5.2/100 000 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.0 to 5.4) to 21 355 in 2009/2010 (40.2/100 000 (95% CI 39.7 to 40.8)). Operations for rotator cuff repair alone peaked in 2008/2009 (4.7/100 000 (95% CI 4.5 to 4.8)) and declined considerably in 2009/2010 (2.6/100 000 (95% CI 2.5 to 2.7)).

Given the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of these operations and the significant increase in the number of procedures being performed in England and elsewhere, there is an urgent need for well-designed clinical trials to determine evidence of clinical effectiveness.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:70–4.

INTRODUCTION

Although simulation studies have shown superior wear properties of metal-on-metal articulations, increased concern exists regarding the excess in-vivo wear of a small number of Metal-on-Metal-Hip-Resurfacing (MoMHRA) implants. Serum ion levels of Chromium (Cr) and Cobalt (Co) are surrogate markers of wear. Risk factors associated with increased wear include female gender, small components, dysplasia, cup orientation outside safe zone and femoral head downsize during surgery with an associated decrease in Head-Neck-Ratio (HNR). However, these factors are interlinked. This study aims to identify the factors that are most important for subsequent wear of MoMHRA, by performing a multivariate analysis.

Purpose

The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) is a validated and widely used PROM that has been successfully used in assessing the outcome of knee arthroplasty (KA). It has been adopted as the nationally agreed outcome measure for this procedure and is now routinely collected. Increasingly, it is being used on an individual patient basis as a pre-operative measure of osteoarthritis and the need for joint replacement, despite not being validated for this use. The aim of this paper is to present evidence that challenges this new role for the OKS.

We obtained information from the Elective Orthopaedic Centre on 1523 patients with baseline and six-month Oxford hip scores (OHS) after undergoing primary hip replacement (THR) and 1784 patients with Oxford knee scores (OKS) for primary knee replacement (TKR) who completed a six-month satisfaction questionnaire.

Receiver operating characteristic curves identified an absolute change in OHS of 14 points or more as the point that discriminates best between patients’ satisfaction levels and an 11-point change for the OKS. Satisfaction is highest (97.6%) in patients with an absolute change in OHS of 14 points or more, compared with lower levels of satisfaction (81.8%) below this threshold. Similarly, an 11-point absolute change in OKS was associated with 95.4% satisfaction compared with 76.5% below this threshold. For the six-month OHS a score of 35 points or more distinguished patients with the highest satisfaction level, and for the six-month OKS 30 points or more identified the highest level of satisfaction. The thresholds varied according to patients’ pre-operative score, where those with severe pre-operative pain/function required a lower six-month score to achieve the highest levels of satisfaction.

Our data suggest that the choice of a six-month follow-up to assess patient-reported outcomes of THR/TKR is acceptable. The thresholds help to differentiate between patients with different levels of satisfaction, but external validation will be required prior to general implementation in clinical practice.