The accuracy of radiographic peer review in identifying primary hip and knee arthroplasties at higher risk of early aseptic revision: an observational cohort study from the JointCare registry of South Africa
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2026.46431Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Hip, Knee, Radiological imagingAbstract
Background and purpose: Healthcare value might be improved with radiographic peer review to evaluate surgical quality. While numerous radiographic recommendations are available, peer review differs by including expert appraisal. We aimed to assess the predictive value of radiographic peer review in identifying primary hip and knee arthroplasties at higher risk of aseptic revision.
Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted to compare aseptic revision rates with peer review scores, using data from the JointCare registry of South Africa. Matching and weighting was applied among cohorts, and revision rates were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression.
Results: The sample consisted of 7,218 arthroplasties performed between January 2020 and June 2023. 5,126 arthroplasties were scored as “good,” 1,931 as “acceptable,” and 161 as “suboptimal.” “Suboptimal” arthroplasties had a significantly higher hazard ratio (HR) for aseptic revision than “good” arthroplasties (HR 9.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.6–24.5). Furthermore, “suboptimal” total hip (HR 11.4, CI 2.6–49.7), total knee (HR 5.7, CI 1.3–25.6), and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (HR 9.8, CI 2.0–47.4) had significantly higher HRs than “good” ones. Overall and for each procedure, “acceptable” arthroplasties had higher HRs than “good” arthroplasties; however, these results were not statistically significant.
Conclusion: Radiographic review by experienced arthroplasty surgeons was able to identify arthroplasties at higher risk of aseptic revision. As such, radiographic review could be used for quality improvement by identifying directions for surgical improvement.
Downloads
References
Porter M E. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 2477-81. PMID: 21142528. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1011024
Bach C M, Steingruber I E, Peer S, Nogler M, Wimmer C, Ogon M. Radiographic assessment in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (385): 144-50. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200104000-00022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200104000-00022
Cho C H, Abrahams J M, Sharma D K, Solomon L B, Wall C J, Pijls B G, et al. Association of acetabular implants with sensitive radiographic surveillance on revision rates: a study based on 5 hip arthroplasty registries. Acta Orthop 2026; 97: 60-6. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2026.45292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2026.45292
Scheerlinck T. Cup positioning in total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 2014; 80: 336-47. PMID: 26280607.
Stamiris D, Gkekas N K, Asteriadis K, Stamiris S, Anagnostis P, Poultsides L, et al. Anterior femoral notching ≥ 3 mm is associated with increased risk for supracondylar periprosthetic femoral fracture after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2022; 32: 383-93. doi: 10.1007/s00590-021-02989-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-021-02989-z
von Elm E, Altman D G, Egger M, Pocock S J, Gøtzsche P C, Vandenbroucke J P; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 344-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
Dymond A. Annual Registry Report 2024. JointCare; 2025. Available from: https://joint-care.co.za/static/documents/registry_annual_report_2024.pdf
Dymond I W, Ashforth J A, Dymond G F, Spirakis T, Learmonth I D. The usage of image trigonometry in bone measurements. Hip Int 2013; 23: 590-5. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000048. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000048
Kelly J D. Your best life: what motivates you? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2019; 477: 509-11. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000656
Verret C I, Nguyen J, Verret C, Albert T J, Fufa D T. How do areas of work life drive burnout in orthopaedic attending surgeons, fellows, and residents? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2021; 479(2): 251-62. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000001457
Leopold S S, Hensinger R N, Schoenfeld A J, Swiontkowski M, Rossi M J, Templeton K J, et al. Improving how orthopaedic journals report research outcomes based on sex and gender. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2024; 32: 1016-18. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2024.04.012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2024.04.012
Ben-Shlomo Y, Blom A, Boulton C, Brittain R, Clark E, Dawson-Bowling S, et al. The National Joint Registry 19th Annual Report 2022. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK587525/
Biedermann R, Tonin A, Krismer M, Rachbauer F, Eibl G, Stöckl B. Reducing the risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: the effect of orientation of the acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 762-9. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.87B6.14745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.87B6.14745
Danoff J R, Bobman J T, Cunn G, Murtaugh T, Gorroochurn P, Geller J A, et al. Redefining the acetabular component safe zone for posterior approach total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31: 506-11. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.09.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.09.010
Abdel M P, von Roth P, Jennings M T, Hanssen A D, Pagnano M W. What safe zone? The vast majority of dislocated THAs are within the Lewinnek safe zone for acetabular component position. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474: 386-91. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4432-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4432-5
Vasso M, Antoniadis A, Helmy N. Update on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: current indications and failure modes. EFORT Open Rev 2018; 3: 442-8. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.3.170060
Hadi M, Barlow T, Ahmed I, Dunbar M, McCulloch P, Griffin D. Does malalignment affect revision rate in total knee replacements: a systematic review of the literature. SpringerPlus 2015; 4: 835. doi: 10.1186/s40064-015-1604-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1604-4
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Antoine S D Dymond, Ian D Learmonth, Ponky Firer, Aashish Diayar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
PlumX (by Elsevier) is an altmetrics platform that tracks and visualizes the online attention, usage, captures, citations, and social media engagement.
