To map the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and High Activity Arthroplasty Score (HAAS) items to a common scale, and to investigate the psychometric properties of this new scale for the measurement of knee health. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data measuring knee health were obtained from the NHS PROMs dataset and Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT). Assumptions for common scale modelling were tested. A graded response model (fitted to OKS item responses in the NHS PROMs dataset) was used as an anchor to calibrate paired HAAS items from the TOPKAT dataset. Information curves for the combined OKS-HAAS model were plotted. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare common scale scores derived from OKS and HAAS items. A conversion table was developed to map between HAAS, OKS, and the common scale.Aims
Methods
Routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been useful to quantify and quality-assess provision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the UK for the past decade. This study aimed to explore whether the outcome following primary THA and TKA had improved over the past seven years. Secondary data analysis of 277,430 primary THAs and 308,007 primary TKAs from the NHS PROMs programme was undertaken. Outcome measures were: postoperative Oxford Hip/Knee Score (OHS/OKS); proportion of patients achieving a clinically important improvement in joint function (responders); quality of life; patient satisfaction; perceived success; and complication rates. Outcome measures were compared based on year of surgery using multiple linear and logistic regression models.Aims
Methods
To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort.Aims
Methods
To estimate the measurement properties for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty (responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC-90), minimal important change (MIC), minimal important difference (MID), internal consistency, construct validity, and interpretability). Secondary data analysis was performed for 10,727 patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty between 2013 to 2019 using a UK national patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) dataset. Outcome data were collected before revision and at six months postoperatively, using the OKS and EuroQol five-dimension score (EQ-5D). Measurement properties were assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to determine whether patients with
metal-on-metal (MoM) arthroplasties of the hip have an increased
risk of cardiac failure compared with those with alternative types
of arthroplasties (non-MoM). A linkage study between the National Joint Registry, Hospital
Episodes Statistics and records of the Office for National Statistics
on deaths was undertaken. Patients who underwent elective total
hip arthroplasty between January 2003 and December 2014 with no
past history of cardiac failure were included and stratified as
having either a MoM (n = 53 529) or a non-MoM (n = 482 247) arthroplasty.
The primary outcome measure was the time to an admission to hospital
for cardiac failure or death. Analysis was carried out using data
from all patients and from those matched by propensity score.Aims
Patients and Methods
The National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland
(NJR) has extended its scope to report on hospital, surgeon and
implant performance. Data linkage of the NJR to the London Implant
Retrieval Centre (LIRC) has previously evaluated data quality for
hip primary procedures, but did not assess revision records. We analysed metal-on-metal hip revision procedures performed
between 2003 and 2013. A total of 69 929 revision procedures from
the NJR and 929 revised pairs of components from the LIRC were included.Aims
Methods
Arthroplasty registries are important for the
surveillance of joint replacements and the evaluation of outcome. Independent
validation of registry data ensures high quality. The ability for
orthopaedic implant retrieval centres to validate registry data
is not known. We analysed data from the National Joint Registry
for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) for primary metal-on-metal
hip arthroplasties performed between 2003 and 2013. Records were
linked to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (RC) for validation.
A total of 67 045 procedures on the NJR and 782 revised pairs of
components from the RC were included. We were able to link 476 procedures
(60.9%) recorded with the RC to the NJR successfully. However, 306
procedures (39.1%) could not be linked. The outcome recorded by the
NJR (as either revised, unrevised or death) for a primary procedure
was incorrect in 79 linked cases (16.6%). The rate of registry-retrieval
linkage and correct assignment of outcome code improved over time.
The rates of error for component reference numbers on the NJR were
as follows: femoral head category number 14/229 (5.0%); femoral head
batch number 13/232 (5.3%); acetabular component category number
2/293 (0.7%) and acetabular component batch number 24/347 (6.5%). Registry-retrieval linkage provided a novel means for the validation
of data, particularly for component fields. This study suggests
that NJR reports may underestimate rates of revision for many types
of metal-on-metal hip replacement. This is topical given the increasing
scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous independent
evaluation of the quality and validity of NJR data. Cite this article:
Blood metal ions have been widely used to investigate
metal-on-metal hip replacements, but their ability to discriminate
between well-functioning and failed hips is not known. The Medicines
and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has suggested a
cut-off level of 7 parts per billion (ppb). We performed a pair-matched, case-control study to investigate
the sensitivity and specificity of blood metal ion levels for diagnosing
failure in 176 patients with a unilateral metal-on-metal hip replacement.
We recruited 88 cases with a pre-revision, unexplained failed hip
and an equal number of matching controls with a well-functioning
hip. We investigated the 7 ppb cut-off level for the maximum of
cobalt or chromium and determined optimal mathematical cut-off levels
from receiver-operating characteristic curves. The 7 ppb cut-off level for the maximum of cobalt or chromium
had a specificity of 89% and sensitivity 52% for detecting a pre-operative
unexplained failed metal on metal hip replacement. The optimal cut-off
level for the maximum of cobalt or chromium was 4.97 ppb and had
sensitivity 63% and specificity 86%. Blood metal ions had good discriminant ability to separate failed
from well-functioning hip replacements. The MHRA cut-off level of
7 ppb provides a specific test but has poor sensitivity.
