The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Primary hip replacement prostheses and their evidence base: systematic review of literature

Primary hip replacement prostheses and their evidence base: systematic review of literature
Primary hip replacement prostheses and their evidence base: systematic review of literature
Objective To determine the extent to which prostheses with no readily available evidence to support their use are being implanted in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Design Systematic review of the literature.

Data sources The 9th annual report of the National Joint Registry of England and Wales (NJR) was analysed to identify prostheses with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel rating of “unclassified” or “pre-entry” used in primary total hip arthroplasty in 2011. A systematic review of those prostheses was carried out using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, OVID, and Google databases.

Study selection Prostheses used in primary total hip arthroplasty as published in the NJR’s 9th annual report were analysed. Only literature that included the name of the prosthesis was included. Literature yielded in the search results was excluded if it reported animal, non-orthopaedic, non-total hip arthroplasty, or non-device related studies.

Results The systematic review found that 24% (57/235) of all hip replacement implants available to surgeons in the UK have no evidence for their clinical effectiveness. It also shows that 10?617 (7.8%) of the 136?593 components used in primary hip replacements in 2011 were implanted without readily identifiable evidence of clinical effectiveness. These comprised 157 cemented stems (0.5% of 34?655 implanted), 936 (2.8% of 33?367) uncemented stems, 1732 (7.1% of 24?349) cemented cups, and 7577 (17.1% of 44?222) uncemented cups.

Conclusions This study shows that a considerable proportion of prostheses available to orthopaedic surgeons have no readily available evidence of clinical effectiveness to support their use. Concern exists about the current system of device regulation, and the need for a revised process for introducing new orthopaedic devices is highlighted.

0959-8138
f6956-[11pp]
Kynaston-Pearson, F.
f2eb7fa5-a70d-4c4e-b30d-4b3864b065a3
Ashmore, A.M.
0be5ef1b-eb33-48fc-8d5f-a80f3e089809
Malak, T.T.
da0035e8-9269-415b-af1c-79b07d105886
Rombach, I.
fc88cb65-24f5-4ef8-8fcf-409b3d446530
Taylor, A.
39974814-4868-4c73-a3fa-2adfa4be3e46
Beard, D.
109d8a7c-8747-4ee6-91c3-f8584c889104
Arden, N.K.
23af958d-835c-4d79-be54-4bbe4c68077f
Price, A.
0544e71a-16ce-48b4-afb2-4ef3e448cbc5
Prieto-Alhambra, D.
19a5643f-5969-4c0e-b6a9-863fb9e9d1c7
Judge, A.
c6a83964-1d7c-4aa8-b2bf-9c264d1e487d
Carr, A.J.
8989b4b9-e986-4599-8595-f17ab2f0c960
Glyn-Jones, S.
cd9b71ce-7f5d-43e8-994c-61e24c6cd08c
Kynaston-Pearson, F.
f2eb7fa5-a70d-4c4e-b30d-4b3864b065a3
Ashmore, A.M.
0be5ef1b-eb33-48fc-8d5f-a80f3e089809
Malak, T.T.
da0035e8-9269-415b-af1c-79b07d105886
Rombach, I.
fc88cb65-24f5-4ef8-8fcf-409b3d446530
Taylor, A.
39974814-4868-4c73-a3fa-2adfa4be3e46
Beard, D.
109d8a7c-8747-4ee6-91c3-f8584c889104
Arden, N.K.
23af958d-835c-4d79-be54-4bbe4c68077f
Price, A.
0544e71a-16ce-48b4-afb2-4ef3e448cbc5
Prieto-Alhambra, D.
19a5643f-5969-4c0e-b6a9-863fb9e9d1c7
Judge, A.
c6a83964-1d7c-4aa8-b2bf-9c264d1e487d
Carr, A.J.
8989b4b9-e986-4599-8595-f17ab2f0c960
Glyn-Jones, S.
cd9b71ce-7f5d-43e8-994c-61e24c6cd08c

Kynaston-Pearson, F., Ashmore, A.M., Malak, T.T., Rombach, I., Taylor, A., Beard, D., Arden, N.K., Price, A., Prieto-Alhambra, D., Judge, A., Carr, A.J. and Glyn-Jones, S. (2013) Primary hip replacement prostheses and their evidence base: systematic review of literature. British Medical Journal, 347, f6956-[11pp]. (doi:10.1136/bmj.f6956.). (PMID:24355538)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Objective To determine the extent to which prostheses with no readily available evidence to support their use are being implanted in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Design Systematic review of the literature.

Data sources The 9th annual report of the National Joint Registry of England and Wales (NJR) was analysed to identify prostheses with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel rating of “unclassified” or “pre-entry” used in primary total hip arthroplasty in 2011. A systematic review of those prostheses was carried out using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, OVID, and Google databases.

Study selection Prostheses used in primary total hip arthroplasty as published in the NJR’s 9th annual report were analysed. Only literature that included the name of the prosthesis was included. Literature yielded in the search results was excluded if it reported animal, non-orthopaedic, non-total hip arthroplasty, or non-device related studies.

Results The systematic review found that 24% (57/235) of all hip replacement implants available to surgeons in the UK have no evidence for their clinical effectiveness. It also shows that 10?617 (7.8%) of the 136?593 components used in primary hip replacements in 2011 were implanted without readily identifiable evidence of clinical effectiveness. These comprised 157 cemented stems (0.5% of 34?655 implanted), 936 (2.8% of 33?367) uncemented stems, 1732 (7.1% of 24?349) cemented cups, and 7577 (17.1% of 44?222) uncemented cups.

Conclusions This study shows that a considerable proportion of prostheses available to orthopaedic surgeons have no readily available evidence of clinical effectiveness to support their use. Concern exists about the current system of device regulation, and the need for a revised process for introducing new orthopaedic devices is highlighted.

Full text not available from this repository.

More information

Published date: 19 December 2013
Organisations: Faculty of Medicine

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 361931
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/361931
ISSN: 0959-8138
PURE UUID: 728f6873-c4a1-4976-91e2-53ba2ccf1cee

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 10 Feb 2014 11:27
Last modified: 16 Mar 2021 17:33

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: F. Kynaston-Pearson
Author: A.M. Ashmore
Author: T.T. Malak
Author: I. Rombach
Author: A. Taylor
Author: D. Beard
Author: N.K. Arden
Author: A. Price
Author: D. Prieto-Alhambra
Author: A. Judge
Author: A.J. Carr
Author: S. Glyn-Jones

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×