Dataset Information

The risk of developing cancer following metal-on-metal hip replacement compared with non metal-on-metal hip bearings: Findings from a prospective national registry "The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man".

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

Over 1 million metal-on-metal hip replacements were implanted. Even well-functioning implants produce wear debris that can cause tissue damage, disseminate and cause DNA damage. We aimed to establish if there was an association between metal-on-metal hip replacement and the risk of subsequently developing cancer compared with alternative hip replacements.

Methods

We performed a population based prospective longitudinal cohort study using data from the National Joint Registry linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (n = 403,881 patients). We examined the incidence of a new diagnosis of cancer in patients who received a metal-on-metal bearing in comparison with those who received a non metal-on-metal bearing. Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to first cancer diagnosis were used with Cox proportional hazards regression models to assess the effect on the time to cancer diagnosis for all cancer types, haematological, malignant melanoma, urinary tract cancers or prostate cancer in men.

Results

The maximum follow up available was 11.8 years with 25% of patients followed up for more than 6.8 years (mean follow up 4.6 years; median 4.3; IQR 2.1-6.8; range 0.01-11.8). Analyses by gender that adjusted for age at primary and presence or absence of linked Welsh (PEDW) records showed no increase in the risk of developing cancer according to the bearing surface implanted for all cancers, haematological cancers, malignant melanoma, urinary tract cancers or prostate cancer in men. For patients receiving a second hip replacement, there was also no difference.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated that there is currently no evidence of an increase in the risk of cancer following primary hip replacement according to the type of bearing material used. Although the risk of revision in metal-on-metal bearing hip replacements is higher, it is reassuring that the risk of a new diagnosis of cancer is not currently increased. Despite the long term follow up available in this study, the latency period for some cancers is very long and therefore continued monitoring is required to ensure no new patterns emerge that may indicate need for universal screening.

SUBMITTER: Hunt LP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6147563 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The risk of developing cancer following metal-on-metal hip replacement compared with non metal-on-metal hip bearings: Findings from a prospective national registry "The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man".

Hunt Linda P LP Blom Ashley W AW Matharu Gulraj S GS Porter Martyn L ML Whitehouse Michael R MR

PloS one 20180920 9

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>Over 1 million metal-on-metal hip replacements were implanted. Even well-functioning implants produce wear debris that can cause tissue damage, disseminate and cause DNA damage. We aimed to establish if there was an association between metal-on-metal hip replacement and the risk of subsequently developing cancer compared with alternative hip replacements.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a population based prospective longitudinal cohort study using data from the Nation ...[more]

PMID: 30235326

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNearly 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 findingsWe 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.ConclusionsOur 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.

Project description:BackgroundTotal hip replacement (THR) is clinically and cost-effective. The surgical approach employed influences the outcome; however, there is little generalisable and robust evidence to guide practice.MethodsA total of 723,904 primary THRs captured in the National Joint Registry, linked to hospital inpatient, mortality and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data with up to 13.75 years follow-up, were analysed. There were seven surgical approach groups: conventional posterior, lateral, anterior and trans-trochanteric groups and minimally invasive posterior, lateral and anterior. Survival methods were used to compare revision rates and 90-day mortality. Groups were compared using Cox proportional hazards and Flexible Parametric Survival Modelling (FPM). Confounders included age at surgery, sex, risk group (indications additional to osteoarthritis), American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, THR fixation, thromboprophylaxis, anaesthetic, body mass index (BMI) and deprivation. PROMs were analysed with regression modelling or non-parametric methods.ResultsUnadjusted analysis showed a higher revision risk than the referent conventional posterior for the conventional lateral, minimally invasive lateral, minimally invasive anterior and trans-trochanteric groups. This persisted with all adjusted FPM and adjusted Cox models, except in the Cox model including BMI where the higher revision rate only persisted for the conventional lateral approach (hazard rate ratio (HRR) 1.12 [95% CI 1.06,1.17] P < 0·001) and trans-trochanteric approaches (HRR 1.48 [95% CI 1.14,1.91] P = 0.003). PROMs demonstrated statistically, but not clinically, significant differences. Self-reported complications were more frequent with the conventional lateral approach, and the risk of 90-day mortality was higher (HRR 1.15 [95%CI 1.01-1.30] P = 0.029).ConclusionsLateral approaches for THR are associated with worse outcomes, including more deaths and revisions, than the posterior approach. We recommend the posterior approach should be considered the current standard approach for THR. Large well-designed studies are needed to assess any potential benefits from using minimally invasive posterior approaches and the conventional anterior approach.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe the prevalence rates of revision surgery for the treatment of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients undergoing knee replacement, their time trends, the cumulative incidence function of revision for PJI and estimate the burden of PJI at health service level.DesignWe analysed revision knee replacements performed due to a diagnosis of PJI and the linked index procedures recorded in the National Joint Registry from 2003 to 2014 for England and Wales. The cohort analysed consisted of 679 010 index primary knee replacements, 33 920 index revision knee replacements and 8247 revision total knee replacements performed due to a diagnosis of PJI. The prevalence rates, their time trends investigated by time from index surgery to revision for PJI, cumulative incidence functions and the burden of PJI (total procedures) were calculated. Overall linear trends were investigated with log-linear regression.ResultsThe incidence of revision total knee replacement due to PJI at 2 years was 3.2/1000 following primary and 14.4/1000 following revision knee replacement, respectively. The prevalence of revision due to PJI in the 3 months following primary knee replacement has risen by 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.2 to 5.3) from 2005 to 2013 and 7.5-fold (95% CI 1.0 to 56.1) following revision knee replacement. Over 1000 procedures per year are performed as a consequence of knee PJI, an increase of 2.8 from 2005 to 2013. Overall, 75% of revisions were two-stage with an increase in use of single-stage from 7.9% in 2005 to 18.8% in 2014.ConclusionsAlthough the risk of revision due to PJI following knee replacement is low, it is rising, and coupled with the established and further predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision knee replacements, this represents an increasing and substantial treatment burden for orthopaedic service delivery in England and Wales. This has implications for future service design and the funding of individual and specialist centres.

Project description: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.We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. All non-MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014 were included (185 hips in 185 patients). Outcome measures following ARMD revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using Cox regression.Intra-operative complications occurred in 6.0% (n = 11) of the 185 cases. The cumulative four-year patient survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI 92.9 to 99.5). Re-revision surgery was performed in 13.5% (n = 25) of hips at a mean time of 1.2 years (0.1 to 3.1 years) following ARMD revision. Infection (32%; n = 8), dislocation/subluxation (24%; n = 6), and aseptic loosening (24%; n = 6) were the most common re-revision indications. The cumulative four-year implant survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI 76.7 to 88.9). Multivariable analysis identified three predictors of re-revision: multiple revision indications (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.78; 95% CI 1.03 to 7.49; p = 0.043); selective component revisions (HR = 5.76; 95% CI 1.28 to 25.9; p = 0.022); and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (HR = 3.08; 95% CI 1.01 to 9.36; p = 0.047).Non-MoMHAs revised for ARMD have a high short-term risk of re-revision, with important predictors of future re-revision including selective component revision, multiple revision indications, and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings. Our findings may help counsel patients about the risks of ARMD revision, and guide reconstructive decisions. Future studies attempting to validate the predictors identified should also assess the effects of implant design (metallurgy and modularity), given that this was an important study limitation potentially influencing the reported prognostic factors.Cite this article: G. S. Matharu, A. Judge, D. W. Murray, H. G. Pandit. Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients: Analysis of 185 revisions from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:405-413. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2017-0017.R2.

Project description:BackgroundDelirium is common after hip fracture surgery, affecting up to 50% of patients. The incidence of delirium may be influenced by mode and conduct of anaesthesia. We examined the effect of spinal anaesthesia (with and without sedation) compared with general anaesthesia on early outcomes following hip fracture surgery, including delirium.MethodsWe used prospective data on 107,028 patients (2018 to 2019) from the National Hip Fracture Database, which records all hip fractures in patients aged 60 years and over in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients were grouped by anaesthesia: general (58,727; 55%), spinal without sedation (31,484; 29%), and spinal with sedation (16,817; 16%). Outcomes (4AT score on post-operative delirium screening; mobilisation day one post-operatively; length of hospital stay; discharge destination; 30-day mortality) were compared between anaesthetic groups using multivariable logistic and linear regression models.ResultsCompared with general anaesthesia, spinal anaesthesia without sedation (but not spinal with sedation) was associated with a significantly reduced risk of delirium (odds ratio (OR)=0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.92-0.98), increased likelihood of day one mobilisation (OR=1.06, CI=1.02-1.10) and return to original residence (OR=1.04, CI=1.00-1.07). Spinal without sedation (p<0.001) and spinal with sedation (p=0.001) were both associated with shorter hospital stays compared with general anaesthesia. No differences in mortality were observed between anaesthetic groups.ConclusionsSpinal and general anaesthesia achieve similar outcomes for patients with hip fracture. However, this equivalence appears to reflect improved perioperative outcomes (including a reduced risk of delirium, increased likelihood of mobilisation day one post-operatively, shorter length of hospital stay and improved likelihood of returning to previous residence on discharge) among the sub-set of patients who received spinal anaesthesia without sedation. The role and effect of sedation should be studied in future trials of hip fracture patients undergoing spinal anaesthesia.

Dataset Information

The risk of developing cancer following metal-on-metal hip replacement compared with non metal-on-metal hip bearings: Findings from a prospective national registry "The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man".

Background and purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

The risk of developing cancer following metal-on-metal hip replacement compared with non metal-on-metal hip bearings: Findings from a prospective national registry "The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man".

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets