Generic implant classification enables comparison across implant designs: the Dutch Arthroplasty Register implant library

Validating Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) Ratings Across 9 Orthopaedic Registries: Total Hip Implants with an ODEP Rating Perform Better Than Those without an ODEP Rating

BACKGROUND

Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) ratings of total hip (TH) and total knee (TK) implants are informative for assessing implant performance. However, the validity of ODEP ratings across multiple registries is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to assess, across multiple registries, whether TH and TK implants with a higher ODEP rating (i.e., an A* rating) have lower cumulative revision risks (CRRs) than those with a lower ODEP rating (i.e., an A rating) and the extent to which A* and A-rated implants would be A*-rated on the basis of the pooled registries' CRR.

METHODS

Implant-specific CRRs at 3, 5, and 10 years that were reported by registries were matched to ODEP ratings on the basis of the implant name. A meta-analysis with random-effects models was utilized for pooling the CRRs. ODEP benchmark criteria were utilized to classify these pooled CRRs.

RESULTS

A total of 313 TH cups (54%), 356 TH stems (58%), 218 TH cup-stem combinations (34%), and 68 TK implants (13%) with unique brand names reported by registries were matched to an ODEP rating. Given the low percentage that matched, TK implants were not further analyzed. ODEP-matched TH implants had lower CRRs than TH implants without an ODEP rating at all follow-up time points, although the difference for TH stems was not significant at 5 years. No overall differences in CRRs were found between A* and A-rated TH implants, with the exception of TH cup-stem combinations, which demonstrated a significantly lower CRR for A*A*-rated cup-stem combinations at the 3-year time point. Thirty-nine percent of A*-rated cups and 42% of A*-rated stems would receive an A* rating on the basis of the pooled registries' CRR at 3 years; however, 24% of A-rated cups and 31% of A-rated stems would also receive an A* rating, with similar findings demonstrated at longer follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

At all follow-up time points, ODEP-matched TH implants had lower CRRs than TH implants without an ODEP rating. Given that the performance of TH implants varied across countries, registries should first validate ODEP ratings with use of country-specific revision data to better guide implant selection in their country. Data source transparency and the use of revision data from multiple registries would strengthen the ODEP benchmarks.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Association Between Surface Modifications for Biologic Fixation and Aseptic Loosening of Uncemented Total Knee Arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Various surface modifications are used in uncemented total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) to enhance bony ingrowth and longevity of implants. This study aimed to identify which surface modifications are used, whether they are associated with different revision rates for aseptic loosening, and which are underperforming compared to cemented implants.

METHODS

Data on all cemented and uncemented TKAs used between 2007 and 2021 were obtained from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Uncemented TKAs were divided into groups based on their surface modifications. Revision rates for aseptic loosening and major revisions were compared between groups. Kaplan-Meier, Competing-Risk, Log-rank tests, and Cox regression analyses were used. In total, 235,500 cemented and 10,749 uncemented primary TKAs were included. The different uncemented TKA groups included the following: 1,140 porous-hydroxyapatite (HA); 8,450 Porous-uncoated; 702 Grit-blasted-uncoated; and 172 Grit-blasted-Titanium-nitride (TiN) implants.

RESULTS

The 10-year revision rates for aseptic loosening and major revision of the cemented TKAs were 1.3 and 3.1%, and for uncemented TKAs 0.2 and 2.3% (porous-HA), 1.3 and 2.9% (porous-uncoated), 2.8 and 4.0% (grit-blasted-uncoated), and 7.9% and 17.4% (grit-blasted-TiN), respectively. Both type of revision rates varied significantly between the uncemented groups (log-rank tests, P < .001, P < .001). All grit-blasted implants had a significantly higher risk of aseptic loosening (P < .01), and porous-uncoated implants had a significantly lower risk of aseptic loosening than cemented implants (P = .03) after 10 years.

CONCLUSION

There were 4 main uncemented surface modifications identified, with different revision rates for aseptic loosening. Implants with porous-HA and porous-uncoated had the best revision rates, at least equal to cemented TKAs. Grit-blasted implants with and without TiN underperformed, possibly due to the interaction of other factors.

Quality and Utility of European Cardiovascular and Orthopaedic Registries for the Regulatory Evaluation of Medical Device Safety and Performance Across the Implant Lifecycle: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The European Union Medical Device Regulation (MDR) requires manufacturers to undertake post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) to assess the safety and performance of their devices following approval and Conformité Européenne (CE) marking. The quality and reliability of device registries for this Regulation have not been reported. As part of the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices (CORE-MD) project, we identified and reviewed European cardiovascular and orthopaedic registries to assess their structures, methods, and suitability as data sources for regulatory purposes.

METHODS

Regional, national and multi-country European cardiovascular (coronary stents and valve repair/replacement) and orthopaedic (hip/knee prostheses) registries were identified using a systematic literature search. Annual reports, peer-reviewed publications, and websites were reviewed to extract publicly available information for 33 items related to structure and methodology in six domains and also for reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 20 cardiovascular and 26 orthopaedic registries fulfilling eligibility criteria, a median of 33% (IQR: 14%-71%) items for cardiovascular and 60% (IQR: 28%-100%) items for orthopaedic registries were reported, with large variation across domains. For instance, no cardiovascular and 16 (62%) orthopaedic registries reported patient/ procedure-level completeness. No cardiovascular and 5 (19%) orthopaedic registries reported outlier performances of devices, but each with a different outlier definition. There was large heterogeneity in reporting on items, outcomes, definitions of outcomes, and follow-up durations.

CONCLUSION

European cardiovascular and orthopaedic device registries could improve their potential as data sources for regulatory purposes by reaching consensus on standardised reporting of structural and methodological characteristics to judge the quality of the evidence as well as outcomes.

The reliability of revision rates following primary shoulder arthroplasty as a quality indicator to rank hospital performance: a national registry analysis including 13,104 shoulders and 87 hospitals

BACKGROUND

To assess the extent of between-hospital variation in revision following primary shoulder arthroplasty (SA), both overall and for specific revision indications to guide quality improvement initiatives, and to assess whether revision rates are suitable as quality indicators to reliably rank hospital performance.

METHODS

All primary SAs performed between 2014 and 2018 were included from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register to examine 1-year revision and all primary SAs performed between 2014 and 2016 for 1- and 3-year revisions. For each hospital, the observed number (O) of revisions was compared with that expected (E) based on case-mix and depicted in funnel plots with 95% control limits to identify outlier hospitals. The rankability (ie, the reliability of ranking hospitals) was calculated as the percentage of total hospital variation due to true between-hospital differences rather than chance and categorized as low (<50%), moderate (50%-75%), and high (>75%).

RESULTS

A total of 13,104 primary SAs (87 hospitals) in 2014-2018 were included, of which 7213 were performed between 2014 and 2016. Considerable between-hospital variation was found in 1-year revision in 2014-2016 (median 1.6%, interquartile range 0.0%-3.1%), identifying 3 outlier hospitals having overall significantly more revisions than expected (O/E range 1.9-2.3) and for specific indications (cuff pathology and infection). Results for 2014-2018 were similar. For 3-year revision, 3 outlier hospitals were identified (O/E range 1.7-3.3). Rankabilities for all outcomes were low.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable between-hospital variation was observed for 1- and 3-year revision rates following primary SA, where outlier hospitals could be identified based on large differences in revision for specific indications to direct quality improvement initiatives. However, rankabilities were low, meaning that much of the other (smaller) variation in performance could not be detected, rendering revisions unsuitable to rank hospital performances following primary SA.

Can Bar Code Scanning Improve Data Capture in a National Register? Findings from the Irish National Orthopaedic Register

BACKGROUND

The Irish National Orthopaedic Register (INOR) provides a national mechanism for managing data on THA and TKA in Ireland, including a detailed implant record populated by intraoperative implant bar code scanning. It is critically important that implant details are recorded accurately for longitudinal outcome studies, implant recalls, and revision surgery planning. Before INOR's 2014 launch, Irish hospitals maintained separate, local institutional arthroplasty databases. These individual databases typically took the form of hardcopy operating room (OR) logbooks with handwritten patient details alongside the descriptive stickers from the implant packaging and/or individual institution electronic records using manual electronic implant data input. With the introduction of the INOR, a single, unifying national database was established with the ability to instead collect implant data using bar code scanning at time of implant unpackaging in the OR. We observed that bar code data entry represented a novel and potentially substantial change to implant recording methods at our institution and so sought to examine the potential effect on implant data quality.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We compared the new bar code scanning method of implant data collection used by the INOR to the previously employed recording methods at our institution (in our case, the previous methods included both an electronic operation note database [Bluespier software] and a duplicate hardcopy OR logbook) and asked (1) Does bar code scanning improve the completeness of implant records? (2) Does bar code scanning improve the accuracy of implant records?

METHODS

Although the INOR was launched in 2014, our institution went live with it in 2019. To avoid any potential recording issues that may have occurred during the 2019 introduction of the novel system, a clear period before the introduction of INOR was selected at our institution to represent an era of manual data input to Bluespier software: July 2018. Although we initially aimed for 2 months of data from July 1, 2018, to August 31, 2018 (n = 247), we decided to proceed to 250 consecutive, primary THAs or TKAs for clarity of results. No procedure meeting these criteria was excluded. A second recent period, January 2021, was identified to represent an era of bar code data input; 250 consecutive, primary THAs or TKAs were also included from this date (to February 15, 2021). No case meeting these criteria was excluded. A total of 4244 implant parameters from these 500 primary THAs or TKAs were manually cross-referenced for missing or incorrect data. Eleven THA and six TKA parameters were chosen for comparison, including implant names and component sizes. For each case, either the 2018 Bluespier electronic record or the 2021 INOR electronic record was manually interrogated, and implant details were recorded by two authors before they were compared against the duplicate record for every case (the reference-standard OR logbook containing the corresponding implant product stickers) for both completeness and accuracy. Completeness was defined binarily as the implant parameter being either present or absent; we did likewise for accuracy, either that parameter was correct or incorrect. The OR logbooks were chosen as the reference standard because we felt the risk of product stickers containing errors (inaccuracies) was negligible, and in our collective experience, missing stickers (incompleteness) has not been encountered. Logbook case completeness was also confirmed by comparison to our inpatient management system.

RESULTS

With the introduction of the automated bar code data entry in the INOR, the proportion of missing data declined from 7% (135 of 2051) to 0% (0 of 2193), and the proportion of incorrectly recorded implant parameters declined from 2% (45 of 2051) to 0% (0 of 2193). The proportion of procedures with entirely accurate implant records rose from 53% (133 of 250) to 100% (250 of 250).

CONCLUSION

The completeness and accuracy of implant data capture was improved after the introduction of a contemporary electronic national arthroplasty registry that utilizes bar code data entry.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Based on the results of this study, other local and national registers may consider bar code data entry in the OR to achieve excellent implant data quality. Future studies may examine implant data quality at a national level to validate the bar code-populated data of the INOR.

Using a Digital Implant Catalog Improves Data Quality and Reduces Administrative Burden in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry

BACKGROUND

Correct registration of implant characteristics is essential to monitor implant safety within implant registries. Currently, in the nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR), these characteristics are being registered manually by plastic surgeons, resulting in administrative burden and potentially incorrect data entry.

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the accuracy of manually registered implant data, possible consequences of incorrect data, and the potential of a Digital Implant Catalog (DIC) on increasing data quality and reducing the administrative burden.

METHODS

Manually entered implant characteristics (fill, shape, coating, texture) of newly inserted breast implants in the DBIR, from 2015 to 2019, were compared with the corresponding implant characteristics in the DIC. Reference numbers were employed to match characteristics between the 2 databases. The DIC was based on manufacturers' product catalogs and set as the gold standard.

RESULTS

A total of 57,361 DBIR records could be matched with the DIC. Accuracy of implant characteristics varied from 70.6% to 98.0%, depending on the implant characteristic. The largest discrepancy was observed for "texture" and the smallest for "coating." All manually registered implant characteristics resulted in different conclusions about implant performance compared with the DIC (P < 0.01). Implementation of the DIC reduced the administrative burden from 14 to 7 variables (50%).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of a DIC increases data quality in the DBIR and reduces the administrative burden. However, correct registration of reference numbers in the registry by plastic surgeons remains key for adequate matching. Furthermore, all implant manufacturers should be involved, and regular updates of the DIC are required.

Development and early findings of a semiautomated arthroplasty registry in a multi-institutional healthcare network

AIMS

The primary aim of this paper was to outline the processes involved in building the Partners Arthroplasty Registry (PAR), established in April 2016 to capture baseline and outcome data for patients undergoing arthroplasty in a regional healthcare system. A secondary aim was to determine the quality of PAR's data. A tertiary aim was to report preliminary findings from the registry and contributions to quality improvement initiatives and research up to March 2019.

METHODS

Structured Query Language was used to obtain data relating to patients who underwent total hip or knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) from the hospital network's electronic medical record (EMR) system to be included in the PAR. Data were stored in a secure database and visualized in dashboards. Quality assurance of PAR data was performed by review of the medical records. Capture rate was determined by comparing two months of PAR data with operating room schedules. Linear and binary logistic regression models were constructed to determine if length of stay (LOS), discharge to a care home, and readmission rates improved between 2016 and 2019.

RESULTS

The PAR captured 16,163 THAs and TKAs between April 2016 and March 2019, performed in seven hospitals by 110 surgeons. Manual comparison to operating schedules showed a 100% capture rate. Review of the records was performed for 2,603 random operations; 2,298 (88.3%) had complete and accurate data. The PAR provided the data for three abstracts presented at international conferences and has led to preoperative mental health treatment as a quality improvement initiative in the participating institutions. For primary THA and TKA surgeries, the LOS decreased significantly (p < 0.001) and the rate of home discharge increased significantly (p < 0.001) between 2016 and 2019. Readmission rates did not correlated with the date of surgery (p = 0.953).

CONCLUSION

The PAR has high rates of coverage (the number of patients treated within the Partners healthcare network) and data completion and can be used for both research purposes and quality improvement. The same method of creating a registry that was used in the PAR can be applied to hospitals using similar EMR systems. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):90-98.