The Experts below are selected from a list of 939 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Alister Hart - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
validation of primary metal on metal hip procedures on the national joint registry by the london Implant Retrieval centre
Orthopaedic Proceedings, 2018Co-Authors: J Skinner, S Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, Harry Hothi, Alister HartAbstract:IntroductionThe National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland contributes important information on the performance of Implants and surgeons. However, the quality of this data is not known. This study aimed to perform an independent validation of primary metal-on-metal hip procedures recorded on the NJR through linkage to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC).Patients/Materials & MethodsPrimary, metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 1st April 2003 and 5th November 2013 were recruited from the NJR (n=67045). Retrieved, metal-on-metal components were recruited from the LIRC (n=782). Data linkage and validation checks were performed.Results476 procedures (60.9%) on the LIRC were successfully linked to the NJR. 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 outco...
-
are all metal on metal hip revision operations contributing to the national joint registry Implant survival curves a study comparing the london Implant Retrieval centre and national joint registry datasets
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2016Co-Authors: S A Sabah, J Henckel, Harry Hothi, J A Skinner, S Koutsouris, R Rajani, Alister HartAbstract:Aims 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. Methods 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. Results We were able to link 716 (77.1%) revision procedures on the NJR to the LIRC. This meant that 213 (22.9%) revision procedures at the LIRC could not be identified on the NJR. We found that 349 (37.6%) explants at the LIRC completed the full linkage process to both NJR primary and revision databases. Data completion was excellent (> 99.9%) for revision procedures reported to the NJR. Discussion This study has shown that only approximately one third of retrieved components at the LIRC, contributed to survival curves on the NJR. We recommend prospective registry-Retrieval linkage as a tool to feedback missing and erroneous data to the NJR and improve data quality. Take home message: Prospective Registry – Retrieval linkage is a simple tool to evaluate and improve data quality on the NJR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:33–9.
-
validation of primary metal on metal hip procedures on the national joint registry by the london Implant Retrieval centre
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2015Co-Authors: J Skinner, S Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, Harry Hothi, Alister HartAbstract:Introduction The National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland contributes important information on the performance of Implants and surgeons. However, the quality of this data is not known. This study aimed to perform an independent validation of primary metal-on-metal hip procedures recorded on the NJR through linkage to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC). Patients/Materials & Methods Primary, metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 1st April 2003 and 5th November 2013 were recruited from the NJR (n=67045). Retrieved, metal-on-metal components were recruited from the LIRC (n=782). Data linkage and validation checks were performed. Results 476 procedures (60.9%) on the LIRC were successfully linked to the NJR. 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: 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%). Discussion Registry-Retrieval linkage provided a novel means for data validation, particularly for component fields. This study suggests that NJR reports may underestimate revision rates for many types of metal-on-metal hip. This is topical given the increasing scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous, independent evaluation of NJR data quality and validity.
-
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
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2015Co-Authors: S Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, R Whittaker, Harry Hothi, Yannis Pappas, G W Blunn, J A Skinner, Alister HartAbstract: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 er...
-
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
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2015Co-Authors: Shiraz A Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, R Whittaker, Harry Hothi, Yannis Pappas, G W Blunn, J A Skinner, Alister HartAbstract: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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:10–18.
Manresa Quirante Carolina - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Estudio de la correlación entre parámetros histomorfométricos y de valoración de la estabilidad de los Implantes. Nuevo método de determinación del BIC basado en imágenes BS-SEM
'Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona', 2014Co-Authors: Manresa Quirante CarolinaAbstract:La presente tesis doctoral se enmarca en el campo de la Implantología, dentro de un proyecto encaminado a mejorar la predictibilidad clínica de los Implantes. Los objetivos del presente trabajo han sido: 1) establecer un procedimiento de análisis de imagines para medir el contacto hueso-Implante (BIC, Bone-to-Implant Contact) mediante una aproximación sistemática, no-subjectiva basada, en imágenes de microscopía electrónica de barrido con electrones retrodispersados (BS-SEM), 2) estudiar la relación entre la Frecuencia de Resonancia (FR) y otros parámetros de estabilidad del Implante, tales como el parámetro histomorfométrico BIC, y 3) clarificar la controvertida relación entre la FR y las mediciones histomorfométricas de BIC. Un total de 36 Implantes dentales (9 mm length, Ø 4.0 mm; Biohorizons, Implant Systems Inc., Birmingham, AL, USA) con superficie SBM (Soluble blasting Media, arenado conpartículas solubles) se Implantaron en las mandíbulas de seis perros Beagle. Las mediciones de AFR (Análisis de Frecuencia de Resonancia) se llevaron a cabo con un aparato magnético Osstell Mentor en el momento de la instalación de los Implantes y durante los tiempos monitorizados, a las 1, 2, 4, 6 y 8 semanas, antes de la retirada del Implante. Los perros se sacrificaron y los Implantes se retiraron en bloque después de 8, 6, 4, 2, 1 y 0 semanas, respectivamente. Se consideró un grupo como tiempo 0, inmediatamente después de la Implantación. Las muestras se incrustaron en polímeros de metacrilato de metilo (Technovit) y se cortaron a lo largo de su eje más largo. La observación de las muestras se llevó a cabo mediante BS-SEM, adquiriendo 10-16 imágenes por muestra. El procesado de las imágenes y la determinación del BIC se llevaron a cabo usando el paquete de procesado de imágenes Fiji. Las imágenes se unieron unas con otras, se filtraron y se estableció un umbral para los niveles de grises máximos, con lo que se obtuvo una imagen binaria del Implante completo, que finalmente se dilató y perfiló. La longitud de este perfil se midió como el máximo posible BIC. Las regiones de coincidencia entre esta línea y el hueso fueron consideradas como el BIC real. El BIC% a diferentes tiempos se comparó con los correspondientes valores del cociente de estabilidad del Implante (ISQ, Implant Stability Quocient) de las mediciones de AFR. El método propuesto para la determinación del BIC, basado en SEM, que posee mucha mayor resolución que el microscopio óptico, permitió la adquisición de imágenes altamente discriminativas con gran contraste entre el Implante y el hueso. La elevada resolución y el gran contraste de las imágenes SEM proporcionaron resultados más precisos que los obtenidos por el método clásico. Además, la metodología de análisis de imágenes descrita en este estudio delinea con precisión y automáticamente el contorno del Implante; lo que da lugar a mediciones sin “sesgo”. El promedio del porcentaje de BIC fue 35%, con un rango de 24,7 a 45,5%. Estos valores fueron similares a los resultados publicados en la bibliografía. No se obtuvo una correlación estadísticamente significativa entre los valores de BIC y ISQ (Osstell Mentor). La ausencia de correlación entre estos dos parámetros está en concordancia con varios estudios previos en humanos y animales de experimentación. La falta de correlación entre el BIC y el ISQ sugiere que el ISQ, tal como se determina por el AFR, no es capaz de identificar la relación entre la FR y los datos histomorfométricos.The aims of the present work was 1) to establish an image analysis procedure for measuring the bone-to-Implant contact (BIC) by a systematic non-subjective approach based on backscattered scanning electron microscopy (BS-SEM), 2) to study the relationship between resonance frequency (RF) and other parameters of Implant stability, such as the histomorphometrical bone-to-Implant contact (BIC) parameter, and 3) to clarify the controversial relationship between RF and histomorphometrical BIC measurements. A total of 36 dental Implants {9 mm length, Ø 4.0 mm with a SBM (Soluble Blasting Media) surface} were Implanted in six beagle dog mandibles. RFA (Resonance Frequency Analysis) assessments were performed with a magnetic Osstel Mentor device at the time of Implant installation, and during the monitoring period at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8, before Implant Retrieval. The dogs were sacrificed and the Implants were removed in block after 8, 6, 4, 2, 1 and 0 weeks, respectively and then embedded in resin and cut along their long axis. Sample observation was performed by BS-SEM, acquiring 10 to 16 images per sample. Image processing and BIC determination were performed using the Fiji image processing package. The methodology of image analysis described in this study delineates precisely and automatically the contour of the Implant, which results in non-biased measurements. The average percentage of BIC was 35%, ranging from 24.7 to 45.5%. These values were similar to the results documented in the literature for Implants of similar roughness in animal models. No statistically significant correlation between BIC and ISQ values (Osstell Mentor) was identified. The lack of correlation between BIC and ISQ values suggests that ISQ as determined by RFA is not able to identify the relationship between RF and histomorphometrical data
-
Estudio de la correlación entre parámetros histomorfométricos y de valoración de la estabilidad de los Implantes. Nuevo método de determinación del BIC basado en imágenes BS-SEM
'Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona', 2014Co-Authors: Manresa Quirante CarolinaAbstract:[spa] La presente tesis doctoral se enmarca en el campo de la Implantología, dentro de un proyecto encaminado a mejorar la predictibilidad clínica de los Implantes. Los objetivos del presente trabajo han sido: 1) establecer un procedimiento de análisis de imagines para medir el contacto hueso-Implante (BIC, Bone-to-Implant Contact) mediante una aproximación sistemática, no-subjectiva basada, en imágenes de microscopía electrónica de barrido con electrones retrodispersados (BS-SEM), 2) estudiar la relación entre la Frecuencia de Resonancia (FR) y otros parámetros de estabilidad del Implante, tales como el parámetro histomorfométrico BIC, y 3) clarificar la controvertida relación entre la FR y las mediciones histomorfométricas de BIC. Un total de 36 Implantes dentales (9 mm length, Ø 4.0 mm; Biohorizons, Implant Systems Inc., Birmingham, AL, USA) con superficie SBM (Soluble blasting Media, arenado conpartículas solubles) se Implantaron en las mandíbulas de seis perros Beagle. Las mediciones de AFR (Análisis de Frecuencia de Resonancia) se llevaron a cabo con un aparato magnético Osstell Mentor en el momento de la instalación de los Implantes y durante los tiempos monitorizados, a las 1, 2, 4, 6 y 8 semanas, antes de la retirada del Implante. Los perros se sacrificaron y los Implantes se retiraron en bloque después de 8, 6, 4, 2, 1 y 0 semanas, respectivamente. Se consideró un grupo como tiempo 0, inmediatamente después de la Implantación. Las muestras se incrustaron en polímeros de metacrilato de metilo (Technovit) y se cortaron a lo largo de su eje más largo. La observación de las muestras se llevó a cabo mediante BS-SEM, adquiriendo 10-16 imágenes por muestra. El procesado de las imágenes y la determinación del BIC se llevaron a cabo usando el paquete de procesado de imágenes Fiji. Las imágenes se unieron unas con otras, se filtraron y se estableció un umbral para los niveles de grises máximos, con lo que se obtuvo una imagen binaria del Implante completo, que finalmente se dilató y perfiló. La longitud de este perfil se midió como el máximo posible BIC. Las regiones de coincidencia entre esta línea y el hueso fueron consideradas como el BIC real. El BIC% a diferentes tiempos se comparó con los correspondientes valores del cociente de estabilidad del Implante (ISQ, Implant Stability Quocient) de las mediciones de AFR. El método propuesto para la determinación del BIC, basado en SEM, que posee mucha mayor resolución que el microscopio óptico, permitió la adquisición de imágenes altamente discriminativas con gran contraste entre el Implante y el hueso. La elevada resolución y el gran contraste de las imágenes SEM proporcionaron resultados más precisos que los obtenidos por el método clásico. Además, la metodología de análisis de imágenes descrita en este estudio delinea con precisión y automáticamente el contorno del Implante; lo que da lugar a mediciones sin “sesgo”. El promedio del porcentaje de BIC fue 35%, con un rango de 24,7 a 45,5%. Estos valores fueron similares a los resultados publicados en la bibliografía. No se obtuvo una correlación estadísticamente significativa entre los valores de BIC y ISQ (Osstell Mentor). La ausencia de correlación entre estos dos parámetros está en concordancia con varios estudios previos en humanos y animales de experimentación. La falta de correlación entre el BIC y el ISQ sugiere que el ISQ, tal como se determina por el AFR, no es capaz de identificar la relación entre la FR y los datos histomorfométricos.[eng] The aims of the present work was 1) to establish an image analysis procedure for measuring the bone-to-Implant contact (BIC) by a systematic non-subjective approach based on backscattered scanning electron microscopy (BS-SEM), 2) to study the relationship between resonance frequency (RF) and other parameters of Implant stability, such as the histomorphometrical bone-to-Implant contact (BIC) parameter, and 3) to clarify the controversial relationship between RF and histomorphometrical BIC measurements. A total of 36 dental Implants {9 mm length, Ø 4.0 mm with a SBM (Soluble Blasting Media) surface} were Implanted in six beagle dog mandibles. RFA (Resonance Frequency Analysis) assessments were performed with a magnetic Osstel Mentor device at the time of Implant installation, and during the monitoring period at weeks 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8, before Implant Retrieval. The dogs were sacrificed and the Implants were removed in block after 8, 6, 4, 2, 1 and 0 weeks, respectively and then embedded in resin and cut along their long axis. Sample observation was performed by BS-SEM, acquiring 10 to 16 images per sample. Image processing and BIC determination were performed using the Fiji image processing package. The methodology of image analysis described in this study delineates precisely and automatically the contour of the Implant, which results in non-biased measurements. The average percentage of BIC was 35%, ranging from 24.7 to 45.5%. These values were similar to the results documented in the literature for Implants of similar roughness in animal models. No statistically significant correlation between BIC and ISQ values (Osstell Mentor) was identified. The lack of correlation between BIC and ISQ values suggests that ISQ as determined by RFA is not able to identify the relationship between RF and histomorphometrical data
Harry Hothi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
validation of primary metal on metal hip procedures on the national joint registry by the london Implant Retrieval centre
Orthopaedic Proceedings, 2018Co-Authors: J Skinner, S Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, Harry Hothi, Alister HartAbstract:IntroductionThe National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland contributes important information on the performance of Implants and surgeons. However, the quality of this data is not known. This study aimed to perform an independent validation of primary metal-on-metal hip procedures recorded on the NJR through linkage to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC).Patients/Materials & MethodsPrimary, metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 1st April 2003 and 5th November 2013 were recruited from the NJR (n=67045). Retrieved, metal-on-metal components were recruited from the LIRC (n=782). Data linkage and validation checks were performed.Results476 procedures (60.9%) on the LIRC were successfully linked to the NJR. 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 outco...
-
are all metal on metal hip revision operations contributing to the national joint registry Implant survival curves a study comparing the london Implant Retrieval centre and national joint registry datasets
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2016Co-Authors: S A Sabah, J Henckel, Harry Hothi, J A Skinner, S Koutsouris, R Rajani, Alister HartAbstract:Aims 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. Methods 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. Results We were able to link 716 (77.1%) revision procedures on the NJR to the LIRC. This meant that 213 (22.9%) revision procedures at the LIRC could not be identified on the NJR. We found that 349 (37.6%) explants at the LIRC completed the full linkage process to both NJR primary and revision databases. Data completion was excellent (> 99.9%) for revision procedures reported to the NJR. Discussion This study has shown that only approximately one third of retrieved components at the LIRC, contributed to survival curves on the NJR. We recommend prospective registry-Retrieval linkage as a tool to feedback missing and erroneous data to the NJR and improve data quality. Take home message: Prospective Registry – Retrieval linkage is a simple tool to evaluate and improve data quality on the NJR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:33–9.
-
validation of primary metal on metal hip procedures on the national joint registry by the london Implant Retrieval centre
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2015Co-Authors: J Skinner, S Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, Harry Hothi, Alister HartAbstract:Introduction The National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland contributes important information on the performance of Implants and surgeons. However, the quality of this data is not known. This study aimed to perform an independent validation of primary metal-on-metal hip procedures recorded on the NJR through linkage to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC). Patients/Materials & Methods Primary, metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 1st April 2003 and 5th November 2013 were recruited from the NJR (n=67045). Retrieved, metal-on-metal components were recruited from the LIRC (n=782). Data linkage and validation checks were performed. Results 476 procedures (60.9%) on the LIRC were successfully linked to the NJR. 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: 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%). Discussion Registry-Retrieval linkage provided a novel means for data validation, particularly for component fields. This study suggests that NJR reports may underestimate revision rates for many types of metal-on-metal hip. This is topical given the increasing scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous, independent evaluation of NJR data quality and validity.
-
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
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2015Co-Authors: S Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, R Whittaker, Harry Hothi, Yannis Pappas, G W Blunn, J A Skinner, Alister HartAbstract: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 er...
-
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
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2015Co-Authors: Shiraz A Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, R Whittaker, Harry Hothi, Yannis Pappas, G W Blunn, J A Skinner, Alister HartAbstract: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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:10–18.
J Henckel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
validation of primary metal on metal hip procedures on the national joint registry by the london Implant Retrieval centre
Orthopaedic Proceedings, 2018Co-Authors: J Skinner, S Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, Harry Hothi, Alister HartAbstract:IntroductionThe National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland contributes important information on the performance of Implants and surgeons. However, the quality of this data is not known. This study aimed to perform an independent validation of primary metal-on-metal hip procedures recorded on the NJR through linkage to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC).Patients/Materials & MethodsPrimary, metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 1st April 2003 and 5th November 2013 were recruited from the NJR (n=67045). Retrieved, metal-on-metal components were recruited from the LIRC (n=782). Data linkage and validation checks were performed.Results476 procedures (60.9%) on the LIRC were successfully linked to the NJR. 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 outco...
-
are all metal on metal hip revision operations contributing to the national joint registry Implant survival curves a study comparing the london Implant Retrieval centre and national joint registry datasets
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2016Co-Authors: S A Sabah, J Henckel, Harry Hothi, J A Skinner, S Koutsouris, R Rajani, Alister HartAbstract:Aims 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. Methods 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. Results We were able to link 716 (77.1%) revision procedures on the NJR to the LIRC. This meant that 213 (22.9%) revision procedures at the LIRC could not be identified on the NJR. We found that 349 (37.6%) explants at the LIRC completed the full linkage process to both NJR primary and revision databases. Data completion was excellent (> 99.9%) for revision procedures reported to the NJR. Discussion This study has shown that only approximately one third of retrieved components at the LIRC, contributed to survival curves on the NJR. We recommend prospective registry-Retrieval linkage as a tool to feedback missing and erroneous data to the NJR and improve data quality. Take home message: Prospective Registry – Retrieval linkage is a simple tool to evaluate and improve data quality on the NJR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:33–9.
-
validation of primary metal on metal hip procedures on the national joint registry by the london Implant Retrieval centre
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2015Co-Authors: J Skinner, S Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, Harry Hothi, Alister HartAbstract:Introduction The National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland contributes important information on the performance of Implants and surgeons. However, the quality of this data is not known. This study aimed to perform an independent validation of primary metal-on-metal hip procedures recorded on the NJR through linkage to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC). Patients/Materials & Methods Primary, metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 1st April 2003 and 5th November 2013 were recruited from the NJR (n=67045). Retrieved, metal-on-metal components were recruited from the LIRC (n=782). Data linkage and validation checks were performed. Results 476 procedures (60.9%) on the LIRC were successfully linked to the NJR. 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: 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%). Discussion Registry-Retrieval linkage provided a novel means for data validation, particularly for component fields. This study suggests that NJR reports may underestimate revision rates for many types of metal-on-metal hip. This is topical given the increasing scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous, independent evaluation of NJR data quality and validity.
-
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
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2015Co-Authors: S Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, R Whittaker, Harry Hothi, Yannis Pappas, G W Blunn, J A Skinner, Alister HartAbstract: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 er...
-
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
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2015Co-Authors: Shiraz A Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, R Whittaker, Harry Hothi, Yannis Pappas, G W Blunn, J A Skinner, Alister HartAbstract: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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:10–18.
Erica Jane Cook - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
validation of primary metal on metal hip procedures on the national joint registry by the london Implant Retrieval centre
Orthopaedic Proceedings, 2018Co-Authors: J Skinner, S Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, Harry Hothi, Alister HartAbstract:IntroductionThe National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland contributes important information on the performance of Implants and surgeons. However, the quality of this data is not known. This study aimed to perform an independent validation of primary metal-on-metal hip procedures recorded on the NJR through linkage to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC).Patients/Materials & MethodsPrimary, metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 1st April 2003 and 5th November 2013 were recruited from the NJR (n=67045). Retrieved, metal-on-metal components were recruited from the LIRC (n=782). Data linkage and validation checks were performed.Results476 procedures (60.9%) on the LIRC were successfully linked to the NJR. 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 outco...
-
validation of primary metal on metal hip procedures on the national joint registry by the london Implant Retrieval centre
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2015Co-Authors: J Skinner, S Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, Harry Hothi, Alister HartAbstract:Introduction The National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales and Northern Ireland contributes important information on the performance of Implants and surgeons. However, the quality of this data is not known. This study aimed to perform an independent validation of primary metal-on-metal hip procedures recorded on the NJR through linkage to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (LIRC). Patients/Materials & Methods Primary, metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 1st April 2003 and 5th November 2013 were recruited from the NJR (n=67045). Retrieved, metal-on-metal components were recruited from the LIRC (n=782). Data linkage and validation checks were performed. Results 476 procedures (60.9%) on the LIRC were successfully linked to the NJR. 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: 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%). Discussion Registry-Retrieval linkage provided a novel means for data validation, particularly for component fields. This study suggests that NJR reports may underestimate revision rates for many types of metal-on-metal hip. This is topical given the increasing scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous, independent evaluation of NJR data quality and validity.
-
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
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2015Co-Authors: S Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, R Whittaker, Harry Hothi, Yannis Pappas, G W Blunn, J A Skinner, Alister HartAbstract: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 er...
-
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
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-british Volume, 2015Co-Authors: Shiraz A Sabah, J Henckel, Erica Jane Cook, R Whittaker, Harry Hothi, Yannis Pappas, G W Blunn, J A Skinner, Alister HartAbstract: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: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:10–18.
