Wednesday, 14 March 2012
Where next for telehealth? Reflections from our international congress
Where next for telehealth? Reflections from our international congress: What did we learn during our second International Congress on Telehealth and Telecare? (13 Mar 2012) Kings Fund
Proposals for a new legislative framework to regulate healthcare workers
Proposals for a new legislative framework to regulate healthcare workers:
The changes are intended to simplify the current complex arrangements and are now out for consultation. NHS Networks
The changes are intended to simplify the current complex arrangements and are now out for consultation. NHS Networks
Shisha cafes 'driven underground'
Shisha cafes 'driven underground': Shisha cafes in the UK are moving underground to avoid smoke-free legislation. BBC News
CCG leaders not 'too busy to see patients' as research finds millions spent on locums
CCG leaders not 'too busy to see patients' as research finds millions spent on locums: Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) leaders have said it is 'nonsense' to claim GPs are too busy with commissioning to see patients after research found millions is being spent on locum cover after the introduction of CCGs. GP Online
NHS will collapse without reforms, Andrew Lansley warns
NHS will collapse without reforms, Andrew Lansley warns: Health secretary says he doesn't care about 'attacks' by health professions, the NHS must change to avert crisisAndrew Lansley has mounted a defiant defence of his unpopular NHS reforms, claiming that the changes will stop the service from collapsing.In a strongly worded article in the British Journal of Nursing (BJN), the health secretary lambasts Labour's "hypocritical" opposition to his plans to extend competition in the NHS and shrugs off the sometimes vitriolic criticism he inspires."Some people ...
Government confirms £250 uplift for staff earning under £21,000
Government confirms £250 uplift for staff earning under £21,000: The Government has confirmed that NHS staff earning up to £21,000 will receive a flat rate pay increase of £250 from 1 April 2012. NHS Employers
Health and Social Care Bill: summary of Lords Committee and Report stages
Health and Social Care Bill: summary of Lords Committee and Report stages:
This note provides a summary of the key amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill made during the House of Lords Committee and Report stages so far, and an account of debates on other clauses where the House divided, or where there was a commitment to return to matters at a later stage. It also provides information on calls for the release of the Department of Health’s “risk registers” on the health reforms, and links to briefings on earlier stages of the Bill’s parliamentary scrutiny.
This note provides a summary of the key amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill made during the House of Lords Committee and Report stages so far, and an account of debates on other clauses where the House divided, or where there was a commitment to return to matters at a later stage. It also provides information on calls for the release of the Department of Health’s “risk registers” on the health reforms, and links to briefings on earlier stages of the Bill’s parliamentary scrutiny.
NHS pay review body: twenty-sixth report 2012
NHS pay review body: twenty-sixth report 2012:
This report makes recommendations on the remuneration of all staff paid under Agenda for Change and employed in the NHS. It notes major developments on the proposed NHS reforms and on changes to public sector pensions and looks at recruitment, motivation and retention of staff as well as workforce planning.
This report makes recommendations on the remuneration of all staff paid under Agenda for Change and employed in the NHS. It notes major developments on the proposed NHS reforms and on changes to public sector pensions and looks at recruitment, motivation and retention of staff as well as workforce planning.
Antibiotics now in crisis, WHO warns
Antibiotics now in crisis, WHO warns: A new book by the World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned of a global crisis in antibiotics, once the mainstay of 20th century medicine.Rapidly evolving resistance among the microbes responsible for some of the world's deadliest and most infectious disease means that every antibiotic ever developed is now at risk of becoming useless.While the last century yielded major breakthroughs in the treatment of ... Healthcare Today
Commons revolt against NHS reforms defeated
Commons revolt against NHS reforms defeated:
Government survives two votes of no confidence in health and social care bill but faces at least two further major challenges
Two votes of no confidence in the government's NHS reforms have been comfortably defeated but other developments mean that ministers face at least two further major challenges to the legislation in the final week before the bill is due to be passed.
MPs voted twice on Tuesday on motions to drop the health and social care bill after Labour held a three-hour opposition day debate inspired by a public e-petition signed by more than 174,000 people calling for the government to abandon the legislation.
The first vote was on a Liberal Democrat motion calling for the bill to be dropped in its current form and urging health professionals and critics to work with the coalition government on further reform of the NHS. Despite earlier hopes of a bigger cross-party uprising, the motion was defeated by 260 votes to 314 in support of the government – a majority of 54, compared with the government's overall majority of 84. A second vote on a simpler motion by Labour to simply drop the bill was defeated by 258 to 314.
Ministers are reported to want the bill passed into law on 20 March, a day before the budget. Some critics of the bill have vowed to keep fighting until then.
On Wednesday the Department of health will be under pressure to respond to a ruling that it was wrong to refuse requests to publish a risk register of the reforms when the tribunal publishes its reasons for doing so.
And the former SDP leader and now cross-bench peer Lord Owen has tabled an amendment calling for the final reading of the health and social care bill in the House of Lords to be delayed until the risk register is published. The move will put pressure on Lib Dem peers, whose party members last weekend refused to vote at their spring conference for a motion calling on them to support the bill.
In further pressure on government on TuesdayLabour's shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, used the debate to expand his offer to co-operate with the government to agree on reforms such as GP-led commissioning of healthcare and "some principles… by which important service change in the NHS could be introduced". Later, Labour MP Joan Walley suggested other reforms endorsed by the Conservative-led health select committee could also be agreed by all parties, such as moving public health policy into local government.
Walley was speaking in favour of an amendment by five Lib Dem MPs to their opposition day motion calling on the government to drop the health bill which added in a call for an "urgent summit" with government, professional and patients' organisations to agree health reforms "based on the coalition agreement".
In response to the threat of a wider than usual coalition of support from rebel Lib Dems and some of the smaller parties for the anti-government motion, Conservative whips took the precaution of contacting MPs during the debate to remind them it was "imperative" they were in the House of Commons to vote.
The debate followed a day of good and bad news for the government's reforms. The Guardian revealed that senior GPs were spending as little as one day a week seeing patients as they had become so preoccupied with the reorganisation, raising costs as they employ locum doctors to cover their normal practice work. However the Royal College of General Practitioners, one of the bill's fiercest opponents, wrote to the prime minister, David Cameron, offering talks on the bill's implementation. Its chair, Dr Clare Gerada, said the organisation would still prefer the bill to be dropped, but that the time had come "to restate our similarities rather than continuously focus on our differences".
In the House of Lords on Tuesday the government also won a string of votes on amendments by Labour and cross-bench peers, including a motion calling for the third part of the bill - introducing more competition into the NHS - to be delayed until beyond the general election in 2015: the government won that, final vote of the day by 237 votes to 178, a majority 59.
Writing last week after the tribunal ruled that the risk register should be published, Lord Owen urged peers to vote for his amendment on Monday. "To go ahead with legislation, while appealing to the high court, would be the third constitutional outrage associated with this legislation," he wrote. "The first was to legislate within months of the prime minister promising in the general election that there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS. The second was to implement large parts of the legislation without parliamentary authority. The attempt to railroad this legislation through both Houses of Parliament has raised very serious questions about the legitimacy of this coalition government. Now at the last moment parliament has a chance to assert its democratic rights and the many Liberal Democrat peers, who know in their heart of hearts that this legislative procedure is fundamentally wrong, have the opportunity to stand by their principles." The Guardian
Two votes of no confidence in the government's NHS reforms have been comfortably defeated but other developments mean that ministers face at least two further major challenges to the legislation in the final week before the bill is due to be passed.
MPs voted twice on Tuesday on motions to drop the health and social care bill after Labour held a three-hour opposition day debate inspired by a public e-petition signed by more than 174,000 people calling for the government to abandon the legislation.
The first vote was on a Liberal Democrat motion calling for the bill to be dropped in its current form and urging health professionals and critics to work with the coalition government on further reform of the NHS. Despite earlier hopes of a bigger cross-party uprising, the motion was defeated by 260 votes to 314 in support of the government – a majority of 54, compared with the government's overall majority of 84. A second vote on a simpler motion by Labour to simply drop the bill was defeated by 258 to 314.
Ministers are reported to want the bill passed into law on 20 March, a day before the budget. Some critics of the bill have vowed to keep fighting until then.
On Wednesday the Department of health will be under pressure to respond to a ruling that it was wrong to refuse requests to publish a risk register of the reforms when the tribunal publishes its reasons for doing so.
And the former SDP leader and now cross-bench peer Lord Owen has tabled an amendment calling for the final reading of the health and social care bill in the House of Lords to be delayed until the risk register is published. The move will put pressure on Lib Dem peers, whose party members last weekend refused to vote at their spring conference for a motion calling on them to support the bill.
In further pressure on government on TuesdayLabour's shadow health secretary, Andy Burnham, used the debate to expand his offer to co-operate with the government to agree on reforms such as GP-led commissioning of healthcare and "some principles… by which important service change in the NHS could be introduced". Later, Labour MP Joan Walley suggested other reforms endorsed by the Conservative-led health select committee could also be agreed by all parties, such as moving public health policy into local government.
Walley was speaking in favour of an amendment by five Lib Dem MPs to their opposition day motion calling on the government to drop the health bill which added in a call for an "urgent summit" with government, professional and patients' organisations to agree health reforms "based on the coalition agreement".
In response to the threat of a wider than usual coalition of support from rebel Lib Dems and some of the smaller parties for the anti-government motion, Conservative whips took the precaution of contacting MPs during the debate to remind them it was "imperative" they were in the House of Commons to vote.
The debate followed a day of good and bad news for the government's reforms. The Guardian revealed that senior GPs were spending as little as one day a week seeing patients as they had become so preoccupied with the reorganisation, raising costs as they employ locum doctors to cover their normal practice work. However the Royal College of General Practitioners, one of the bill's fiercest opponents, wrote to the prime minister, David Cameron, offering talks on the bill's implementation. Its chair, Dr Clare Gerada, said the organisation would still prefer the bill to be dropped, but that the time had come "to restate our similarities rather than continuously focus on our differences".
In the House of Lords on Tuesday the government also won a string of votes on amendments by Labour and cross-bench peers, including a motion calling for the third part of the bill - introducing more competition into the NHS - to be delayed until beyond the general election in 2015: the government won that, final vote of the day by 237 votes to 178, a majority 59.
Writing last week after the tribunal ruled that the risk register should be published, Lord Owen urged peers to vote for his amendment on Monday. "To go ahead with legislation, while appealing to the high court, would be the third constitutional outrage associated with this legislation," he wrote. "The first was to legislate within months of the prime minister promising in the general election that there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS. The second was to implement large parts of the legislation without parliamentary authority. The attempt to railroad this legislation through both Houses of Parliament has raised very serious questions about the legitimacy of this coalition government. Now at the last moment parliament has a chance to assert its democratic rights and the many Liberal Democrat peers, who know in their heart of hearts that this legislative procedure is fundamentally wrong, have the opportunity to stand by their principles." The Guardian
Whistle-blowing survey reveals nurses' safety fears for care home residents
Whistle-blowing survey reveals nurses' safety fears for care home residents: Safety standards in care homes are being put at risk because of a lack of equipment and medical supplies to deal with people with increasingly complex conditions, nurses have warned.
The Daily Telegraph
The Daily TelegraphPatients forced to wait in ambulances due to lack of hospital beds
Patients forced to wait in ambulances due to lack of hospital beds: Hundreds of patients have been forced to wait for more than an hour in the back of ambulances due to a lack of hospital beds, it has been found.
The Daily Telegraph
The Daily Telegraph
All-metal hips need more corrective surgery
All-metal hips need more corrective surgery:
“Experts are calling for controversial metal-on-metal hip implants to be banned,” according to The Guardian. The newspaper said that research has found “unequivocal evidence” of high failure rates of these hip implants, particularly among women.
In recent months there has great deal of scrutiny about the safety of some types of metal-on-metal hip replacements, with concerns they wear out much faster than implants featuring plastic and ceramic parts. To examine the issue researchers working on behalf of the National Joint Registry in England and Wales analysed data on 402,051 hip surgeries performed using implants attached to the thigh bone by a metal stem, including 31,171 metal-on-metal implants. Researchers found that these had higher failure rates than other types of hip replacement, with an overall five-year failure rate of 6.2%. Those with larger ‘heads’ (the part of the implant fitting into the hip joint socket) had a higher failure rate than those with smaller heads, as did hip implants in women.
This study provides more information on the longer-term performance of metal-on-metal hip replacements, and supports claims that they do not last as long as other types of hip implants.
The use of this type of implant in England and Wales is reported to have dropped dramatically since 2008, and the ongoing concerns seem likely to reduce its use further. Overall, this study supports the recent recommendations by UK health regulators. It states that people with large-headed metal-on-metal implants should be monitored carefully over time to identify whether their implants are wearing down at a faster rate.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet.
This story is covered in a balanced way by the Guardian.
Hip implants come in a variety of different sizes and materials, but the debate has centred on large-headed ‘metal-on-metal’ implants. These implants are designed so that both the ball replacing the top of the thigh bone and the artificial socket placed in the pelvis are made from metal.
This research was a registry study looking at data on hip implants collected in the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, which records all hip and knee replacement surgeries. This includes the first operation to install the implant, and any revision operations carried out to replace or remove part of the original implant.
Just like with natural bone, metal hip implants experience wear and tear and can eventually deteriorate. This means any implant may eventually need revision surgery, although analysing the revision rate gives an estimate of how often and how soon implants fail early. While the revision rate is an important indicator of the outcomes of hip replacement, it should be noted that not all hip implants that do not function well or cause pain will be replaced.
The researchers say that due to their resistance to wear, large diameter metal-on-metal hip stemmed implants have become popular. ‘Large diameter’ refers to the size of the ‘head’ part of the implant that sits in the hip socket section of the implant. Stemmed means the head is attached to an elongated stem that sits inside the top of the high bone and holds the head in place.
The study’s authors note that there have been concerns about the high failure rate of one particular brand of metal-on-metal hip stemmed implant called ASR, which was withdrawn from use in 2010. Given this withdrawal and fresh concerns about other types of metal-on-metal implants, the researchers aimed to look at whether general metal-on-metal hip stemmed implants fail any more regularly than other implants (ceramic-on-ceramic or metal-on-polythene). They also looked at whether large diameter implants lasted any longer than implants with smaller diameter heads.
This type of registry analysis is useful for monitoring the long-term performance of devices once they are in use. It can help to identify any problems that are occurring with the implants. Ideally, data on the comparative performance of different implants would come from randomised controlled trials, but the researchers report that there are few such studies available.
The researchers did not include data on ASR implants in their analysis, because they are already known to have much higher revision rates than other brands and have already been withdrawn from the market. The researchers also only included data on hip replacements that had sufficient data recorded to allow them to identify which operations were revisions of which earlier hip replacements. This allowed them to analyse data on 82% of all first total-hip replacements using a stemmed implant performed in the study period.
The researchers tried to make sure the hip implant operations being compared were as similar as possible. For example, they only included those where the implants were not ‘cemented’ in, and where the operation was being performed in ‘typical’ patients.
Typical patients were defined as those whose hip replacement was needed due to osteoarthritis only, and who were generally healthy or with only mild illness at the time of primary surgery as defined using a recognised measure of pre-operative health. The researchers also took into account the age of the patient, and looked at men and women separately.
Overall, metal-on-metal implants required revision due to failure more quickly than other implants, with a 6.2% needing revision within five years of implantation. The size of the head of the metal on metal implant affected the failure rate in men and women, with larger heads failing earlier. Overall, each 1mm increase in head size increased the risk of revision over time by about 2% (hazard ratio [HR] 1.020 in men, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.004 to 1.037; HR in women 1.019, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.038).
In men aged 60 years, the five-year revision rate was 3.2% for 28mm head metal-on-metal implants, and 5.1% for 52mm head implants. In younger women, the five-year revision rate was 6.1% for 46mm head metal-on-metal implants, compared with 1.6% for 28mm head metal-on-polyethylene implants.
Revision rates for metal-on-metal implants were higher for women than men, even with implants with the same head size. For example, a 36mm head metal-on-metal implant in women aged 60 had a five-year revision rate of 5.1% compared to 3.7% among men of the same age and implant head size.
However, larger head sizes were more durable for ceramic-on-ceramic hip implants. In men aged 60 years, the five-year revision rate was 3.3% with 28mm head ceramic-on-ceramic implants, and 2.0% with 40mm head ceramic-on-ceramic implants.
Age also had an effect on implant survival for women, with younger women receiving hip implants more likely to have revisions.
The most common reasons for revisions were loosening and pain, and these were more common in people who had metal-on-metal implants.
As with all such studies, there is the possibility that factors other than the implant type differed between the groups being compared, and that these other factors may influence the results. The researchers tried to minimise the risk of this by:
As the data used in this study came from a surgical registry, not a lot of information was available about factors such as body mass index (BMI) or activity levels. These two factors could potentially influence the stress implants are placed under and therefore the wear that they display. The researchers say that in their opinion there is no obvious reason to suppose that these factors would vary to a large extent between people receiving the different large head metal and ceramic hip implants.
Due to these inherent limitations with observational research it is difficult to conclude that the differences seen are definitely due to the implants alone. The advantage of this registry data is that a large number of people were assessed. Furthermore, this is not a selected subsample of people receiving hip implants but all patients from different surgeons and using different implants. The researchers say that these strengths and the consistency of their findings support the suggestion that these findings do represent the true effects of the implant types.
Overall, these findings do seem to suggest that metal-on-metal hips do require revisions more frequently than other types of hip implants. This study reports that since 2008 there has been a dramatic reduction in the use of metal-on-metal hip implants in England and Wales. Overall it found that most hip replacements analysed in the study period (92% between April 2003 and September 2011) did not use metal-on-metal implants. It seems likely that based on this study their use may decline further. It is important to bear in mind that the overall five-year revision rates with metal-on-metal hips is 6.2%, so the majority of these implants have not needed revision in this time. This study supports the authors’ suggestion and MHRA recommendation that people with these implants should be monitored carefully over time, to identify when such revisions might be required.
Analysis by Bazian
Ban metal-on-metal hip replacements, experts urge. The Guardian, March 13 2012
ALL metal hip joints 'must be banned': Failure rate 'four times higher than other types'. Daily Mail, March 13 2012
In recent months there has great deal of scrutiny about the safety of some types of metal-on-metal hip replacements, with concerns they wear out much faster than implants featuring plastic and ceramic parts. To examine the issue researchers working on behalf of the National Joint Registry in England and Wales analysed data on 402,051 hip surgeries performed using implants attached to the thigh bone by a metal stem, including 31,171 metal-on-metal implants. Researchers found that these had higher failure rates than other types of hip replacement, with an overall five-year failure rate of 6.2%. Those with larger ‘heads’ (the part of the implant fitting into the hip joint socket) had a higher failure rate than those with smaller heads, as did hip implants in women.
This study provides more information on the longer-term performance of metal-on-metal hip replacements, and supports claims that they do not last as long as other types of hip implants.
The use of this type of implant in England and Wales is reported to have dropped dramatically since 2008, and the ongoing concerns seem likely to reduce its use further. Overall, this study supports the recent recommendations by UK health regulators. It states that people with large-headed metal-on-metal implants should be monitored carefully over time to identify whether their implants are wearing down at a faster rate.
Where did the story come from?
The study was carried out by researchers from the Universities of Bristol and Exeter, and the Centre for Hip Surgery at the Wrightington Hospital in Lancashire. It was performed on behalf of the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, which also funded the research.The study was published in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet.
This story is covered in a balanced way by the Guardian.
What kind of research was this?
In recent months there has been some concern over the use of certain all-metal hip implants, particularly over whether they wear down at a faster rate compared to other types of implants.Hip implants come in a variety of different sizes and materials, but the debate has centred on large-headed ‘metal-on-metal’ implants. These implants are designed so that both the ball replacing the top of the thigh bone and the artificial socket placed in the pelvis are made from metal.
This research was a registry study looking at data on hip implants collected in the National Joint Registry of England and Wales, which records all hip and knee replacement surgeries. This includes the first operation to install the implant, and any revision operations carried out to replace or remove part of the original implant.
Just like with natural bone, metal hip implants experience wear and tear and can eventually deteriorate. This means any implant may eventually need revision surgery, although analysing the revision rate gives an estimate of how often and how soon implants fail early. While the revision rate is an important indicator of the outcomes of hip replacement, it should be noted that not all hip implants that do not function well or cause pain will be replaced.
The researchers say that due to their resistance to wear, large diameter metal-on-metal hip stemmed implants have become popular. ‘Large diameter’ refers to the size of the ‘head’ part of the implant that sits in the hip socket section of the implant. Stemmed means the head is attached to an elongated stem that sits inside the top of the high bone and holds the head in place.
The study’s authors note that there have been concerns about the high failure rate of one particular brand of metal-on-metal hip stemmed implant called ASR, which was withdrawn from use in 2010. Given this withdrawal and fresh concerns about other types of metal-on-metal implants, the researchers aimed to look at whether general metal-on-metal hip stemmed implants fail any more regularly than other implants (ceramic-on-ceramic or metal-on-polythene). They also looked at whether large diameter implants lasted any longer than implants with smaller diameter heads.
This type of registry analysis is useful for monitoring the long-term performance of devices once they are in use. It can help to identify any problems that are occurring with the implants. Ideally, data on the comparative performance of different implants would come from randomised controlled trials, but the researchers report that there are few such studies available.
What did the research involve?
The researchers looked at 402,051 first total-hip replacements using a stemmed implant carried out in England and Wales between April 2003 and September 2011. They then identified any revision operations carried out to these hip implants to allow them to determine how long it took before a revision operation was needed for each type.The researchers did not include data on ASR implants in their analysis, because they are already known to have much higher revision rates than other brands and have already been withdrawn from the market. The researchers also only included data on hip replacements that had sufficient data recorded to allow them to identify which operations were revisions of which earlier hip replacements. This allowed them to analyse data on 82% of all first total-hip replacements using a stemmed implant performed in the study period.
The researchers tried to make sure the hip implant operations being compared were as similar as possible. For example, they only included those where the implants were not ‘cemented’ in, and where the operation was being performed in ‘typical’ patients.
Typical patients were defined as those whose hip replacement was needed due to osteoarthritis only, and who were generally healthy or with only mild illness at the time of primary surgery as defined using a recognised measure of pre-operative health. The researchers also took into account the age of the patient, and looked at men and women separately.
What were the basic results?
The researchers found that metal-on-metal hip implants were used in 8% of the 402,051 first total hip replacements using a stemmed implant. This equated to 31,171 replacements. Use of these types of implants peaked around 2008 but then reduced sharply after this.Overall, metal-on-metal implants required revision due to failure more quickly than other implants, with a 6.2% needing revision within five years of implantation. The size of the head of the metal on metal implant affected the failure rate in men and women, with larger heads failing earlier. Overall, each 1mm increase in head size increased the risk of revision over time by about 2% (hazard ratio [HR] 1.020 in men, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.004 to 1.037; HR in women 1.019, 95% CI 1.001 to 1.038).
In men aged 60 years, the five-year revision rate was 3.2% for 28mm head metal-on-metal implants, and 5.1% for 52mm head implants. In younger women, the five-year revision rate was 6.1% for 46mm head metal-on-metal implants, compared with 1.6% for 28mm head metal-on-polyethylene implants.
Revision rates for metal-on-metal implants were higher for women than men, even with implants with the same head size. For example, a 36mm head metal-on-metal implant in women aged 60 had a five-year revision rate of 5.1% compared to 3.7% among men of the same age and implant head size.
However, larger head sizes were more durable for ceramic-on-ceramic hip implants. In men aged 60 years, the five-year revision rate was 3.3% with 28mm head ceramic-on-ceramic implants, and 2.0% with 40mm head ceramic-on-ceramic implants.
Age also had an effect on implant survival for women, with younger women receiving hip implants more likely to have revisions.
The most common reasons for revisions were loosening and pain, and these were more common in people who had metal-on-metal implants.
How did the researchers interpret the results?
The researchers concluded that metal-on-metal stemmed hip implants have a higher failure rate than other options, and should no longer be implanted. They say that all patients with these types of implants should be carefully monitored, particularly young women whose hip implants have large diameter heads. They say that their findings support the continued use of large diameter ceramic-on-ceramic bearings as they seem to perform well.Conclusion
Metal-on-metal hip implants have been under intense scrutiny in recent months, and this analysis provides useful data on how often they require revision and how they compare to implants made of other materials. Overall, this research indicates that metal-on-metal hip implants have higher revision rates (rates of replacement) than other types of hip implants in England and Wales.As with all such studies, there is the possibility that factors other than the implant type differed between the groups being compared, and that these other factors may influence the results. The researchers tried to minimise the risk of this by:
- comparing similar operations in similar patients
- looking at men and women separately
- looking at the effect of age and implant head size
As the data used in this study came from a surgical registry, not a lot of information was available about factors such as body mass index (BMI) or activity levels. These two factors could potentially influence the stress implants are placed under and therefore the wear that they display. The researchers say that in their opinion there is no obvious reason to suppose that these factors would vary to a large extent between people receiving the different large head metal and ceramic hip implants.
Due to these inherent limitations with observational research it is difficult to conclude that the differences seen are definitely due to the implants alone. The advantage of this registry data is that a large number of people were assessed. Furthermore, this is not a selected subsample of people receiving hip implants but all patients from different surgeons and using different implants. The researchers say that these strengths and the consistency of their findings support the suggestion that these findings do represent the true effects of the implant types.
Overall, these findings do seem to suggest that metal-on-metal hips do require revisions more frequently than other types of hip implants. This study reports that since 2008 there has been a dramatic reduction in the use of metal-on-metal hip implants in England and Wales. Overall it found that most hip replacements analysed in the study period (92% between April 2003 and September 2011) did not use metal-on-metal implants. It seems likely that based on this study their use may decline further. It is important to bear in mind that the overall five-year revision rates with metal-on-metal hips is 6.2%, so the majority of these implants have not needed revision in this time. This study supports the authors’ suggestion and MHRA recommendation that people with these implants should be monitored carefully over time, to identify when such revisions might be required.
Analysis by Bazian
Links To The Headlines
Metal-on-metal hip replacements 'high failure rate'. BBC News, March 13 2012Ban metal-on-metal hip replacements, experts urge. The Guardian, March 13 2012
ALL metal hip joints 'must be banned': Failure rate 'four times higher than other types'. Daily Mail, March 13 2012
Links To Science
Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Vernon K et al. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. The Lancet, Early Online Publication March 13 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)