As part of the Centre’s evolving priorities, a number of long-running implant retrieval programmes are being concluded. These programmes made a major contribution to understanding implant performance and safety, and their legacy continues to inform clinical practice, regulation and research.
The transition has been managed with care, recognising the sensitivity of retrieval activity and the multiple stakeholders involved. Ethical, governance and data-management standards guide this process.
What these programmes contributed
Retrieval work has provided important real-world insights into how implants behave in patients, strengthening the evidence base for implant safety and contributing to improvements across orthopaedics.
Figure 1: Retrieved hip implants for one of our studies.
Key contributions included:
- Advancing understanding of implant failure
Identifying real-world wear patterns, material degradation and mechanical behaviours that explain why implants may fail. - Recognising early signals of underperformance
Detecting subtle or emerging concerns, supporting timely and evidence-based responses. - Improving implant design and manufacturing
Informing refinements in materials, surface treatments, geometries and manufacturing processes. - Informing safer surgical practice
Supporting implant selection, highlighting technical considerations and guiding operative technique. - Supporting national surveillance and policy
Providing evidence to registries, regulators and professional bodies, strengthening device oversight. - Advancing scientific methods
Improving retrieval, examination and evaluation techniques across the field. - Supporting decisions to discontinue specific implant systems
Providing evidence where early failure, accelerated wear or adverse material interactions indicated that limiting or withdrawing certain implants was necessary to safeguard patients. - Guiding management of affected patients
Helping clinicians understand complications such as osteolysis, bone loss, soft-tissue necrosis, muscle damage and peri-prosthetic pseudotumours, and informing pathways for investigation, surveillance and revision surgery.
Figure 2: Retrieved hip implants recalled by the manufacturer for high revision rates.
Contribution to national registry validation
The Centre’s registry–retrieval studies helped validate the National Joint Registry (NJR) by linking clinical registry data with findings from retrieved implants. This work strengthened confidence in NJR performance signals and supported ongoing development of national surveillance methods.
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. Bone Joint J. 2016 Jan;98-B(1):33-9.
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. Bone Joint. J. 2015 Jan;97-B(1):10-8.
Who benefitted
This work provided value to:
- Patients
- Clinicians and surgical teams
- NHS governance bodies
- Regulators and national surveillance organisations
- Manufacturers and device developers
- Researchers and academic partners
A responsible transition
As retrieval programmes come to an end, the Centre continues to ensure responsible handling of all materials and information. The knowledge generated remains valued and, where appropriate, accessible for future learning.
The expertise developed through years of retrieval work is now being applied to new areas of implant science, including advanced imaging, engineering evaluation and computational modelling.
“Our past retrieval work shaped global implant safety standards. As we move forward, we’re applying those lessons to today’s technologies and tomorrow’s challenges.” – Professor John Skinner.