Factors associated with implant survival following total hip replacement surgery: A registry study of data from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man


Autoři: Jonathan Thomas Evans aff001;  Ashley William Blom aff001;  Andrew John Timperley aff003;  Paul Dieppe aff005;  Matthew James Wilson aff003;  Adrian Sayers aff001;  Michael Richard Whitehouse aff001
Působiště autorů: Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Translational Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, United Kingdom aff001;  National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, United Kingdom aff002;  Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom aff003;  College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom aff004;  The University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom aff005
Vyšlo v časopise: Factors associated with implant survival following total hip replacement surgery: A registry study of data from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. PLoS Med 17(8): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003291
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003291

Souhrn

Background

Nearly 100,000 people underwent total hip replacement (THR) in the United Kingdom in 2018, and most can expect it to last at least 25 years. However, some THRs fail and require revision surgery, which results in worse outcomes for the patient and is costly to the health service. Variation in the survival of THR implants has been observed between units and reducing this unwarranted variation is one focus of the “Getting it Right First Time” (GIRFT) program in the UK. We aimed to investigate whether the statistically improved implant survival of THRs in a high-performing unit is associated with the implants used or other factors at that unit, such as surgical skill.

Methods and findings

We analyzed a national, mandatory, prospective, cohort study (National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man [NJR]) of all THRs performed in England and Wales. We included the 664,761 patients with records in the NJR who have received a stemmed primary THR between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2017 in one of 461 hospitals, with osteoarthritis as the only indication. The exposure was the unit (hospital) in which the THR was implanted. We compared survival of THRs implanted in the “exemplar” unit with THRs implanted anywhere else in the registry. The outcome was revision surgery of any part of the THR construct for any reason. Net failure was calculated using Kaplan–Meier estimates, and adjusted analyses employed flexible parametric survival analysis.

The mean age of patients contributing to our analyses was 69.9 years (SD 10.1), and 61.1% were female. Crude analyses including all THRs demonstrated better implant survival at the exemplar unit with an all-cause construct failure of 1.7% (95% CI 1.3–2.3) compared with 2.9% (95% CI 2.8–3.0) in the rest of the country after 13.9 years (log-rank test P < 0.001). The same was seen in analyses adjusted for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (difference in restricted mean survival time 0.12 years [95% CI 0.07–0.16; P < 0.001]). Adjusted analyses restricted to the same implants as the exemplar unit show no demonstrable difference in restricted mean survival time between groups after 13.9 years (P = 0.34).

A limitation is that this study is observational and conclusions regarding causality cannot be inferred. Our outcome is revision surgery, and although important, we recognize it is not the only marker of success of a THR.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the “better than expected” implant survival results of this exemplar center are associated with implant choice. The survival results may be replicated by adopting key treatment decisions, such as implant selection. These decisions are easier to replicate than technical skills or system factors.

Klíčová slova:

Anesthesiology – Biomaterial implants – England – Surgeons – Surgical and invasive medical procedures – Wales – Total hip replacement – Joint replacement surgery


Zdroje

1. Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007;370(9597):1508–19. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7 17964352

2. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man. 15th Annual Report. 2018 Sep.

3. Evans JT, Evans JP, Walker RW, Blom AW, Whitehouse MR, Sayers A. How long does a hip replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet. 2019;393(10172):647–54. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31665-9 30782340

4. Bayliss LE, Culliford D, Monk AP, Glyn-Jones S, Prieto-Alhambra D, Judge A, et al. The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2017;389(10077):1424–30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30059-4 28209371

5. Deere KC, Whitehouse MR, Porter M, Blom AW, Sayers A. Assessing the non-inferiority of prosthesis constructs used in hip replacement using data from the National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man: a benchmarking study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(4):e026685. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026685 31036708

6. Lenguerrand E, Whitehouse MR, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R, Blom AW. Pain and Function Recovery Trajectories following Revision Hip Arthroplasty: Short-Term Changes and Comparison with Primary Hip Arthroplasty in the ADAPT Cohort Study. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(10):e0164839. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164839 27741321

7. Vanhegan IS, Malik AK, Jayakumar P, Ul Islam S, Haddad FS. A financial analysis of revision hip arthroplasty: the economic burden in relation to the national tariff. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94(5):619–23. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B5.27073 22529080

8. Wylde V, Blom AW. The failure of survivorship. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(5):569–70. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B5.26687 21511918

9. Porter M, Armstrong R, Howard P, Porteous M, Wilkinson JM. Orthopaedic registries—the UK view (National Joint Registry): impact on practice. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4(6):377–90. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180084 31210975

10. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man. 15th Annual report—Unit-level activity and outcomes. 2018.

11. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man. 15th Annual report—Prostheses used in hip, knee, ankle, elbow and shoulder replacement procedures 2017. 2018.

12. Chatfield C. Reducing variations in care. BMJ. 2017;359:j5574. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j5574 29196282

13. Briggs T. A national review of adult elective orthopaedic services in England. Getting It Right First Time 2015. [cited 2020 Jan] Available from: http://gettingitrightfirsttime.co.uk/surgical-specialty/orthopaedic-surgery/.

14. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53(282):457–81.

15. Royston P, Parmar MK. Flexible parametric proportional-hazards and proportional-odds models for censored survival data, with application to prognostic modelling and estimation of treatment effects. Stat Med. 2002;21(15):2175–97. doi: 10.1002/sim.1203 12210632

16. Lambert P. Standardized survival functions blog. 2017 Aug 6 [cited 2020 July 7] Available from https://pclambert.net/software/stpm2_standsurv/standardized_survival/.

17. Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Vernon K, Porter M, Blom AW. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Lancet. 2012;379(9822):1199–204. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60353-5 22417410

18. Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, et al. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ. 2009;338:b2393. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2393 19564179

19. Gooberman-Hill R, Burston A, Clark E, Johnson E, Nolan S, Wells V, et al. Involving patients in research: considering good practice. Musculoskeletal Care. 2013;11(4):187–90. doi: 10.1002/msc.1060 24311367


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS Medicine


2020 Číslo 8

Nejčtenější v tomto čísle

Tomuto tématu se dále věnují…


Přihlášení
Zapomenuté heslo

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se

Zapomenuté heslo

Zadejte e-mailovou adresu se kterou jste vytvářel(a) účet, budou Vám na ni zaslány informace k nastavení nového hesla.

Přihlášení

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se