Browsing IHR Institute for Health Research by Publisher "British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery"
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
A new approach to managing patients with problematic metal hip implants: the use of an Internet-enhanced multidisciplinary team meetingBackground: Over one million patients worldwide are estimated to have a metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty. To improve the management of these patients and reduce surgeon uncertainty regarding decision-making, we designed an Internet-enhanced multidisciplinary team (iMDT) working approach. Methods: From August 2012 to April 2014, the iMDT discussed 215 patients with 266 metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties. Of these, 236 primary arthroplasties (132 hip resurfacing and 104 total hip) were analyzed. The remaining thirty cases involved problematic revised hips and were therefore excluded. The possible recommendations of the iMDT were monitoring, further investigation, or surgery. The concordance between the recommendation and the actual management was used to assess the usefulness of this approach in reducing uncertainty in surgeon-level decision-making. Results: The median Oxford Hip Score was 35 (range, 4 to 48), and median cobalt and chromium levels in whole blood were 3.54 ppb (range, 0.18 to 161.46 ppb) and 3.17 ppb (range, 0.20 to 100.67 ppb), respectively. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed abductor muscle atrophy in ninety-two (39%) of the hips and a pseudotumor in eighty (34%). The iMDT recommended monitoring of 146 (61.9%) of the hips, further investigation of thirty (12.7%), and surgery in sixty (25.4%). The actual outcome was concordant with the recommendation in 211 (91.7%) of the hips. Conclusions: Our iMDT approach to the metal-on-metal hip burden combines the tacit knowledge of an expert panel, regulatory guidance, and up-to-date evidence to improve decision-making among surgeons. The high level of concordance between the recommendation and the actual outcome, combined with the feasibility of the methods used, suggest that this method effectively reduces uncertainty among surgeons and may lead to improved patient outcomes.
Validation of primary metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties on the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland using data from the London Implant Retrieval Centre: A study using the NJR datasetArthroplasty 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. Validation of primary metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties on the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland using data from the London Implant Retrieval Centre: A study using the NJR dataset (PDF Download Available).