Comparison of the information in arthroplasty registers from different countries

Robotic-assisted mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty does not lead to better clinical and radiological outcomes when compared to conventional TKA: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (R-TKA) has emerged as an alternative to improve the results of the conventional manual TKA (C-TKA). The aim of this study was to analyse the high-level studies comparing R-TKA and C-TKA in terms of clinical outcomes, radiological results, perioperative parameters, and complications.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted on three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science) on 1 February 2023 according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Inclusion criteria were: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), written in English language, published in the last 15 years, focusing on the comparison of C-TKA and R-TKA results. The quality of each article was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB 2). The statistical analysis was carried out using random effects (DerSimonian & Laird) for weighted mean difference (MD) of the continuous variables and Peto method for odds ratios of the dichotomous variables.

RESULTS

Among the 2905 articles retrieved, 14 RCTs on 12 series of patients treated with mechanically aligned implants were included. A total of 2255 patients (25.1% males and 74.9% females; mean age 62.9 ± 3.0; mean BMI 28.1 ± 1.3) were analysed. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that R-TKA did not provide overall superior results compared to C-TKA in mechanically aligned implants in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes. R-TKA showed longer operative time (MD = 15.3 min, p = 0.004) and similar complication rates compared to C-TKA. A statistically significant difference in favour of R-TKA was found in the posterior-stabilized subgroup in terms of radiological outcomes (hip-knee-ankle angle MD = 1.7, p < 0.001) compared to C-TKA, although without resulting in appreciable difference of clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

R-TKA did not provide overall superior results compared to C-TKA in terms of clinical and radiological outcomes, showing longer operative time and similar complication rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

The First Report of the International Cartilage Regeneration and Joint Preservation Society's Global Registry

OBJECTIVE

The International Cartilage Regeneration and Joint Preservation Society's (ICRS's) global registry, aims to be the best source of information for patients and an unbiased resource of evidence-based medicine for scientists and clinicians working to help those unfortunate enough to suffer the pain and disability associated with articular cartilage lesions. This article constitutes the scientific summary of the reports' main findings.

DESIGN

The article outlines the historical precedents in the development of orthopedic registries from the earliest tumor registries, then local arthroplasty databases that led ultimately to international collaborations between national arthroplasty and soft tissue registries. The ICRS global cartilage registry was designed from the outset as a GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) compliant, multilingual, multinational cooperative system. It is a web-based user-friendly, live in 11 languages by end 2019, which can be accessed via https://cartilage.org/society/icrs-patient-registry/. Patients and clinicians enter data by smartphone, tablet, or computer on any knee cartilage regeneration and joint preservation treatment, including the use of focal arthroplasty. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Kujala patient-reported outcome measures are collected preoperatively, 6 months, 12 months, and annually for ten years thereafter. EQ-5D data collection will allow cost-effectiveness analysis. Strengths, weaknesses, and future plans are discussed.

RESULTS

Since inception the registry has 264 users across 50 countries. Major findings are presented and discussed, while the entire first ICRS global registry report is available at https://cartilage.org/society/icrs-patient-registry/registry-annual-reports/. Conclusion. A measure of the maturity of any registry is the publication of its findings in the peer reviewed literature. With the publication of its first report, the ICRS global registry has achieved that milestone.

Quality of outcome data in total hip arthroplasty: comparison of registry data and worldwide non-registry studies from 5 decades

PURPOSE

This systematic review assessed evidence on outcome (revision rate for all reasons) following hip arthroplasty from its beginning 5 decades ago.

METHODS

We evaluated all studies from all current hip implants since their market introduction in 1962 regarding "revision rate per 100 observed component years". Data were compared with arthroplasty registries.

RESULTS

A total of 54 different hip implants were included: for 81% (44 of 54) data is either absent or poor; for 30% (16 of 54) not a single publication could be found. For 52% (28 of 54) less than 100 revisions for all reasons are published in non-registry studies. The remaining 10 implants (19%) comprise 92638 primary implants with 4473 revisions. Control group were the same implants with 111658 primary cases and 3029 revisions from arthroplasty registries. A systematic developer bias as in knee arthroplasty could not be found but several independent authors were found to significantly bias the literature. The overall revision rates per 100 observed component years from non-registry studies (and joint registries) are 0.4 (0.5) for stems, 0.7 (0.7) for cups and 1.4 (2.1) for resurfacing systems.

CONCLUSIONS

For 81% of all hip implants assessed limited evidence exists from non-registry studies regarding outcome (revision rate) even 5 decades after market introduction. For the remaining 19% of implants no systematic developer bias could be found but several individual authors significantly biased results of single implants. We therefore ask for a more active publication of new implants.

Assessing the comparability of hip arthroplasty registries in order to improve the recording and monitoring of outcome

Aims

We aimed to assess the comparability of data in joint replacement registries and identify ways of improving the comparisons between registries and the overall monitoring of joint replacement surgery.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a review of registries that are full members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries with publicly available annual reports in English. Of the six registries which were included, we compared the reporting of: mean age, definitions for revision and re-operation, reasons for revision, the approach to analysing revisions, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).

Results

Outcomes were infrequently reported for HRA compared with THA and all hip arthroplasties. Revisions were consistently defined, though re-operation was defined by one registry. Implant survival was most commonly reported as the cumulative incidence of revision using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Three registries reported patient reported outcome measures.

Conclusion

More consistency in the reporting of outcomes for specific types of procedures is needed to improve the interpretation of joint registry data and accurately monitor safety trends. As collecting additional details of surgical and patient-reported outcomes becomes increasingly important, the experience of established registries will be valuable in establishing consistency among registries while maintaining the quality of data. Take home message: As the volume of joint replacements performed each year continues to increase, greater consistency in the reporting of surgical and patient-reported outcomes among joint replacement registries would improve the interpretation and comparability of these data to monitor outcomes accurately. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:442–51.

Comparative pooled survival and revision rate of Austin-Moore hip arthroplasty in published literature and arthroplasty register data

The aim was to evaluate the pooled survival and revision rate of Austin-Moore hip arthroplasty (AMHA) in published literature and arthroplasty register data. A comprehensive literature analysis of clinical publications and register reports was conducted with the main endpoints revision surgery and revision rate. Sixteen relevant clinical studies have been found to significantly underestimate revision rates by a ratio of 2.15 compared to register data sets. The medium-term outcome of AMHA showed significantly worse outcomes than the use of other bipolar implants, or modular cervicocephalic prostheses and data of journal publications on revision rates deviate significantly from data of arthroplasty registers.

[Revision rates in journal publications on joint prostheses with noticeably high failure rates in register data sets]

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF STUDY

The value of outcome quality data from clinical studies is an issue of controversial debate particularly in the context of adverse events. The aim of this study is to present and evaluate the data available from clinical studies for products that show inferior outcome in registers and to assess the possibility to draw valid conclusions from these data. STUDY DESIGN AND ANALYTICAL METHODS: Based on a structured literature research, a comparative analysis was made of the revision rates of 12 products showing significantly inferior average results in registers. The primary outcome parameter was the revision rate for any reason calculated using a standardized methodology and the parameter of revisions per 100 observed component years.

RESULTS

For 5 out of 12 products not a single comparable study was available and relatively few data were available for the remaining products. A conventional meta-analysis revealed that only three products showed results that were comparable with those from registers. For 75% of products good results were published. There was not a single case where it would have been possible to identify or isolate the problems that had led to the underperformance observed on the basis of clinical studies alone.

DISCUSSION

Clinical sample-based studies are not a suitable and reliable means to recognize potential product or handling problems and avoid risks for patients and physicians. In this respect registers can provide an essential contribution.

Revision rates after knee replacement. Cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies versus joint registers

OBJECTIVE

To assess revision rates after knee arthroplasty by comparing the cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies and arthroplasty registers. We hypothesised that the revision rate of all clinical studies of a given implant and register data would not differ significantly.

METHODS

A systematic review of clinical studies in indexed peer-reviewed journals was performed followed by internal and external validation. Parameters for measurement of revision were applied (Revision for any reason, Revisions per 100 observed component years). Register data served as control group.

RESULTS

Thirty-six knee arthroplasty systems were identified to meet the inclusion criteria: 21 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems, 14 unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) systems, one patello-femoral implant system. For 13 systems (36%), no published study was available that contained revision data. For 17 implants (47%), publications were available dealing with radiographic, surgical or technical details, but power was too weak to compare revision rates at a significant level. Six implant systems (17%) had a significant number of revisions published and were finally analysed. In general, developers report better results than independent users. Studies from developers represent an overproportional share of all observed component years. Register data report overall 10-year revision rates of TKA of 6.2% (range: 4.9-7.8%), rates for UKA are 16.5% (range: 9.7-19.6%).

CONCLUSION

Revision rates of all clinical studies of a given implant do not differ significantly from register data. However, significant differences were found between the revision rates published by developers and register data. Therefore the different data need to be interpreted in the context of the source of the information.

Revision rate of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: comparison of published literature and arthroplasty register data

PURPOSE

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty has gained popularity for treating young and active patients who have arthritis. There are two major data sources for assessing outcome and revision rate after total joint arthroplasty: sample-based clinical trials and national arthroplasty registers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty in terms of revision rate as reported in clinical studies and recorded by national arthroplasty registers.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature research was performed from English-language, peer-reviewed journals and annual reports from national joint arthroplasty registers worldwide. Only publications from MEDLINE-listed journals were included. The revision rate was used as the primary outcome parameter. In order to allow for direct comparison of different data sets, calculation was based on revisions per 100 observed component years. For statistical analysis, confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 18,708 implants, equivalent to 106,565 observed component years, were analysed in the follow-up studies. The register reports contained 9,806 primary cases corresponding to 44,294 observed component years. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference in revisions per 100 observed component years between the development team (0.27; CI: 0.14-0.40) and register data (0.74; CI: 0.72-0.76).

CONCLUSION

The BHR arthroplasty device shows good results in terms of revision rate in register data as well as in clinical studies. However, the excellent results reported by the development team are not reproducible by other surgeons. Based on the results of our study, we believe that comprehensive national arthroplasty registers are the most suitable tool for assessing hip arthroplasty revision rate.

The outcome of the cementless tapered SL-Plus stem: an analysis of arthroplasty register data

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcome of the cementless SL-Plus stem in worldwide arthroplasty register datasets.

METHODS

A structured analysis was conducted the registered data about the SL-Plus stem manufactured by Smith&Nephew including published data from Australia as well as previously unpublished datasets from the Registers of Lombardia, Italy and Valdoltra, Slovenia. A total of 75% of the data analysed had not been published so far. The primary outcome measure was the revision rate, calculated in revisions per 100 observed component years. We evaluated a total of 10,684 primary and 122 revision surgeries with an average follow-up period of four years.

RESULTS

All datasets showed good and reproducible results for treatment with the SL-Plus stem. An average of 0.31 revisions per 100 observed component years had been reported, which is considerably below the worldwide average (1.29) found for total hip arthroplasty independent of the product. The results of a large centre did not essentially deviate from the revision rates in Lombardia, where the numbers of cases per department are relatively low on average.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no indications for product defects or relevant errors in application. The SL-Plus stem can be considered a high-quality product that ensures good results also in the hands of less experienced surgeons. Data from even young registers can substantially contribute to the assessment of implants, even with the short follow-up periods. These datasets particularly allow for valid assessment of safety issues and can therefore make an essential contribution to the solution of problems of current relevance.

The painful knee after TKA: a diagnostic algorithm for failure analysis

Pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) represents a common observation in about 20% of the patients after surgery. Some of these painful knees require early revision surgery within 5 years. Obvious causes of failure might be identified with clinical examinations and standard radiographs only, whereas the unexplained painful TKA still remains a challenge for the surgeon. It is generally accepted that a clear understanding of the failure mechanism in each case is required prior considering revision surgery. A practical 10-step diagnostic algorithm is described for failure analysis in more detail. The evaluation of a painful TKA includes an extended history, analysis of the type of pain, psychological exploration, thorough clinical examination including spine, hip and ankle, laboratory tests, joint aspiration and test infiltration, radiographic analysis and special imaging techniques. It is also important to enquire about the length and type of conservative therapy. Using this diagnostic algorithm, a sufficient failure analysis is possible in almost all patients with painful TKA.

Revision rates after total ankle arthroplasty in sample-based clinical studies and national registries

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of specific implants in total ankle arthroplasty as reported in clinical studies and determined by national registries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A structured literature review was conducted regarding sample-based clinical studies and national registry data. To allow for comparative analyses, registry data had to be available for the implants included. These were STAR Ankle, Büchel-Pappas, Hintegra, Mobility, Agility, and Ramses Total Ankle Arthroplasty. The revision rate was used as the main outcome parameter.

RESULTS

On average, the revision rates published in sample-based clinical studies were about half the value found in registries. Implant developers represent a share of almost 50% of the published content and are therefore over-represented in scientific publications. The inventors of STAR Ankle and BP total ankle implants published data which was statistically significantly superior to the outcome achieved in average patients as documented in registries. Irrespective of the implant, the average revision rate to be expected according to the registry data available is 21.8% after 5 years, and 43.5% after 10 years.

CONCLUSION

The average revision rate published in peer-reviewed scientific articles was significantly lower than the outcome achieved according to national arthroplasty registry data, which reflect actual average patient care in the respective countries. Publications by some research groups, particularly by implant inventors, show a deviation from the outcome published by other users and those shown in registry data.

Revision rates after total joint replacement: cumulative results from worldwide joint register datasets

In a systematic review, reports from national registers and clinical studies were identified and analysed with respect to revision rates after joint replacement, which were calculated as revisions per 100 observed component years. After primary hip replacement, a mean of 1.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen. The results after primary total knee replacement are 1.26 revisions per 100 observed component years, and 1.53 after medial unicompartmental replacement. After total ankle replacement a mean of 3.29 revisions per 100 observed component years was seen. The outcomes of total hip and knee replacement are almost identical. Revision rates of about 6% after five years and 12% after ten years are to be expected.

Validity of published outcome data concerning Anatomic Graduated Component total knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty register data

PURPOSE

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) as a treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee shows good results in terms of patient satisfaction. For the assessment of outcome and revision rate after total joint arthroplasty, there are two major data sources: clinical studies and national arthroplasty registers. The purpose of this study was to analyse the outcome of Anatomic Graduated Component (AGC) TKA reported in clinical studies and to perform a comparison with the outcome reported by national arthroplasty registers.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed using standardised methodology in order to determine the outcome and revision rate of AGC TKA. In a comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical studies and worldwide register results we examined the quality of the basic data and the occurrence and influence of potential bias factors. Confidence intervals were calculated to determine the statistical significance of differences.

RESULTS

We found significant differences as regards the revision rate measured in revisions per 100 observed component years. Compared to worldwide register data it turned out to be significantly lower in clinical studies published by the implant development team. Actually, they reported a revision rate of 0.18 revisions per 100 observed component years, whereas annual reports of national arthroplasty registers report 0.74 revisions per 100 observed component years. A comparison of the results from national arthroplasty registers of different countries revealed a significantly higher revision rate for Denmark in relation to worldwide register data.

CONCLUSIONS

A conventional meta-analysis of clinical studies is affected by the influence of the development team and therefore subject to bias. For the assessment of outcome arthroplasty register data should be rated as superior and, being used as reference data for the detection of potential bias factors in the clinical literature, could make an essential contribution to the quality of scientific meta-analysis.

Outcome of the cementless Taperloc stem: a comprehensive literature review including arthroplasty register data

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The validity of various data sources for the assessment of the outcome quality of medical devices was investigated by comparative analysis of the published data sources available for a sample of implants. It was the aim of the study to determine the performance of this implant and to identify potential bias factors inherent to the various datasets.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was carried out from English-language, peer-reviewed journals and worldwide reports from national arthroplasty registers. Publications from Medline-listed journals were included. The main parameter was revision rate, calculated as "revisions per 100 observed component years" to allow adjusted direct comparison of different datasets.

RESULTS

Of 16 clinical studies that met the inclusion criteria, 9 originated from the implant developer's hospital. In the clinical studies category, publications from the developer's hospital suggested considerably lower revision rates than the other datasets. In fact, the values quoted were 5.5 times below the average of all other studies, and 9.51 times lower than in the Australian arthroplasty register. These differences are statistically significant.

INTERPRETATION

The cementless Taperloc stem is an implant that shows good performance regarding revision rates in registry data and in clinical studies. However, the excellent results published by the developer's clinic are generally not reproducible by other surgeons. In terms of reference data, registry data are able to make an important contribution to the assessment of clinical sample-based studies, particularly regarding evaluation of the extent to which published results are reproducible in daily routine.

Outcome and reproducibility of data concerning the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty registry data

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The reproducibility of results and potential confounders in sample-based studies is important to consider in the assessment of studies. Comprehensive arthroplasty registers could serve as a reference dataset for comparative analyses. We analyzed an implant that is frequently used worldwide, the Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement, in order to identify potential confounders inherent in the datasets and to evaluate the outcome achieved with this implant.

METHODS

We performed a structured literature review of the data published on the revision rate of the Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty. Both clinical follow-up studies and worldwide registry data were included. Confidence intervals were calculated to determine the statistical significance of differences.

RESULTS

A substantial proportion of the published data (52-68% depending on the method of calculation) is derived from studies involving participation of the institution that developed the implant. The results published by this group show a statistically significant deviation from the reference datasets from registers or independent studies. Data from the developing hospital show mean revision rates that are 4 times lower than those based on worldwide register data, and 3 times lower than the ones quoted in independent studies. On average, the data published in independent studies are reproducible in registry data.

INTERPRETATION

A conventional meta-analysis of clinical studies is substantially affected by the influence of the developing hospital, and is therefore subject to bias. For assessment of the outcome of implants, registry data are superior and, in terms of reference data for the detection of potential bias factors in the literature, could make an essential contribution to meta-analyses.

International survey of primary and revision total knee replacement

PURPOSE

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is currently the international standard of care for treating degenerative and rheumatologic knee joint disease, as well as certain knee joint fractures. We sought to answer the following three research questions: (1) What is the international variance in primary and revision TKA rates around the world? (2) How do patient demographics (e.g., age, gender) vary internationally? (3) How have the rates of TKA utilization changed over time?

METHODS

The survey included 18 countries with a total population of 755 million, and an estimated 1,324,000 annual primary and revision total knee procedures. Ten national inpatient databases were queried for this study from Canada, the United States, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland. Inpatient data were also compared with published registry data for eight countries with operating arthroplasty registers (Denmark, England & Wales, Norway, Romania, Scotland, Sweden, Australia, and New Zealand).

RESULTS

The average and median rate of primary and revision (combined) total knee replacement was 175 and 149 procedures/100,000 population, respectively, and ranged between 8.8 and 234 procedures/100,000 population. We observed that the procedure rate significantly increased over time for the countries in which historical data were available. The compound annual growth in the incidence of TKA ranged by country from 5.3% (France) to 17% (Portugal). We observed a nearly 27-fold range of TKA utilization rates between the 18 different countries included in the survey.

CONCLUSION

It is apparent from the results of this study that the demand for TKA has risen substantially over the past decade in countries around the world.

Organisation, data evaluation, interpretation and effect of arthroplasty register data on the outcome in terms of revision rate in total hip arthroplasty

Originally developed in Scandinavia, national arthroplasty registers have spread worldwide during the last decade. The value of registers for quality improvement in arthroplasty has frequently been documented. However, for the development of a successful register a few key points should be taken into account. Uncontrolled loss of patients from the registry area should be avoided. Registers should form an integral part of a country's medical system. To realise the potential for improvement, it is crucial that physicians deal with the results in detail. Thus it is absolutely essential to involve the specialty societies in the interpretation and dissemination of results. With respect to revision rates, register data are usually more valid than meta-analyses of clinical studies. For every physician the most valuable data are those coming from a register in his own country; the development of national arthroplasty registers should therefore be continued.

Comparison of the performance of hip implants with data from different arthroplasty registers

This study evaluated the feasibility of using published data from more than one register to define the performance of different hip implants. In order to obtain estimates of performance for specific types of hip system from different register, we analysed data from the annual reports of five national and one Italian regional register. We extracted the number of implants and rates of implant survival at different periods of follow-up. Our aim was to assess whether estimates of cumulative survival rate were comparable with data from registers from different countries, and our conclusion was that such a comparison could only be performed incompletely.

Health Technology Assessment: managing the introduction and use of medical devices in clinical practice in Italy

Technology assumes a key role in current clinical practice. A number of innovative or improved products are constantly being launched on the market and offered directly to the users (i.e., clinicians) or even to the patients. However, in most cases, the regulation for admission to commerce is slower than the innovation process and may be inadequate for assessing the real clinical effectiveness and safety of medical devices in the premarket phase. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) can be used as a tool for the evaluation of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and risk to patients of medical devices. HTA products (e.g., periodic reports) may aid healthcare payers to make informed choices regarding the appropriate use, coverage and reimbursement of medical devices. We present the strengths and limitations of the first three Italian HTA reports we coauthored and critically explore some of the aspects related to the introduction, adoption and use of medical technologies in clinical practice.