Linkage Between Databases in Joint Arthroplasty and Orthopaedics: The Way Forward?

Over a decade of experience in total knee arthroplasty with a multiradius design and fixed bearing at a single centre: Data from the Catalan Arthroplasty Registry

Purpose

Arthroplasty registers can provide feedback information on the results of arthroplasties performed by a certain institution or surgeon. The use of real-world data to achieve real-world evidence can help evaluate the performance of the implants used and help counsel our patients. The main objective of our study was to determine the survivorship of the total knee implant we are currently using.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of patients who received a total knee arthroplasty from January 2009 to December 2020 in our hospital was conducted, using data from the Catalan arthroplasty registry and the Catalan health service database. Demographic and surgical data were analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards models with the R Project software (p < 0.05).

Results

A total of 1336 total knee arthroplasties were included in the study, of which 992 were women. The causes for revision included aseptic loosening (17), infection (29), instability (13), patellar implantation (13), arthrofibrosis (5) and quadriceps tendon rupture (1).The cumulative risk for revision at 5 years using the Kaplan-Meier method was 6.0% and at 10 years 6.5%. Considering gender, this risk was 7.0% and 7.5% at 5 and 10 years, respectively, in women and 3.3% in men, both at 5 and 10 years (p = 0.009). A higher risk for revision in women was seen, which is considered statistically significant (p = 0.012).

Conclusion

Our survivorship results are comparable to those published in the literature, but with a higher revision risk in women that is only statistically significant for the whole group of reoperations and for patellar implantation, but not for the rest of the diagnoses.

Level of Evidence

Level IV.

European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow (SECEC) rotator cuff tear registry Delphi consensus

Background

The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a Delphi process on the factors that should be included in a registry for those patients undergoing rotator cuff tear treatment.

Methods

A consensus process on the treatment of rotator cuff utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Fifty-seven surgeons completed these consensus statements and 9 surgeons declined. The participants were members of the European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow committees representing 23 European countries. Thirteen questions were generated regarding the diagnosis and follow-up of rotator cuff tears were distributed, with 3 rounds of questionnaires and final voting occurring. Consensus was defined as achieving 80%-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90%-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was defined by 100% agreement with a proposed statement.

Results

Of the 13 total questions and consensus statements on rotator cuff tears, 1 achieved unanimous consensus, 6 achieved strong consensus, 5 achieved consensus, and 1 did not achieve consensus. The statement that reached unanimous consensus was that the factors in the patient history that should be evaluated and recorded in the setting of suspected/known rotator cuff tear are age, gender, comorbidities, smoking, traumatic etiology, prior treatment including physical therapy/injections, pain, sleep disturbance, sports, occupation, workmen's compensation, hand dominance, and functional limitations. The statement that did not achieve consensus was related to the role of ultrasound in the initial diagnosis of patients with rotator cuff tears.

Conclusion

Nearly all questions reached consensus among 57 European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow members representing 23 different European countries. We encourage surgeons to use this minimum set of variables to establish rotator cuff registries and multicenter studies. By adapting and using compatible variables, data can more easily be compared and eventually merged across countries.

A Systematic Review of Data Collection by National Joint Replacement Registries: What Opportunities Exist for Enhanced Data Collection and Analysis?

BACKGROUND

National joint replacement registries assist surgeons and hospitals with guiding decision making and quality of care. The data points collected are essential to interpret and analyze data and to understand confounding variables and other sources of bias, which can impair retrospective observational research. The aim of this study was to review all national joint replacement registries to assess what data points are recorded, and in what manner, for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) so that improvements can be made to enhance data collection, interpretation, and analysis.

METHODS

All national registries were identified through Internet and publication search and contacted to invite participation. Data collection forms for both primary and revision THA and TKA were requested. Data collected were entered into an Excel spreadsheet.

RESULTS

The study group for primary and revision THA consisted of 28 national registries, with 26 agreeing to participate. The study group for primary TKA consisted of 27 national registries, with 24 agreeing to participate. Patient identification details were recorded uniformly. Only a minority recorded patient details beyond American Society of Anesthesiologists and body mass index. Most registries did not record surgeon variables: who actually performed or assisted the procedure and their level of training. There was variation in the degree of detail recorded for diagnosis, mostly regarding secondary causes of osteoarthritis and fracture. The details regarding case complexity were limited. Half recorded previous operations, and fewer recorded bone defects. The location of knee arthritis, preoperative limb alignment, and deformities were rarely recorded. Surgical approach and technological adjuncts were routinely collected, but few other details on the surgical technique were recorded. Implant details and fixation were uniformly collected, although a minority recorded specific details, including cement antibiotic or cementing technique. It was uncommon to record whether additional or adjunctive procedures were concurrently performed. Approximately half the registries lacked a revision specific form. The majority recorded reoperations in addition to revision procedures. Patient, surgeon, case, and postoperative details were recorded similar to primary procedures. There was variation in the degree of details recorded for the reasons underlying the revision +/- reoperation, with most recording greater detail for infection and fracture. Many included details on case complexity and bone defects, including the severity, classification, and how the defect was managed. The majority recorded the specific revision procedure that was performed (total or partial), the fixation used, and the components removed or revised. Other specific aspects of fixation including acetabular screws, cone or sleeve use, stems, and augments were less commonly recorded.

CONCLUSION

Substantial data are recorded by all registries, although each one is different. Data solicited lack many patient factors, surgeon variables, case complexity, and surgical techniques. Separate revision forms are not universal, and many registries do not record reoperation procedures, specific causes of revision, and the revision construct.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.