External validation of the Tyrolean hip arthroplasty registry

Moritz Wagner, Sabrina Neururer, Dietmar Dammerer, Paul Nardelli, Gerhard Kaufmann, Matthias Braito, Alexander Brunner, Moritz Wagner, Sabrina Neururer, Dietmar Dammerer, Paul Nardelli, Gerhard Kaufmann, Matthias Braito, Alexander Brunner

Abstract

Purpose: Arthroplasty registries gained increasing importance to the re-certification of orthopaedic implants according to the European Union (EU) Medical Device Regulation (MDR) adopted in 2017. Until recently, several European countries only had regional arthroplasty registries. Whether regional registries deliver data quality comparable with national registries remained unclear. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to validate the Austrian Tyrolean Hip Arthroplasty Registry (THAR) and to evaluate if this regional registry showed adequate adherence, completeness and correctness when compared with well-established national registries.

Methods: A consecutive series of 1100 primary total hip arthroplasties were identified from our institution's medical database. Patients were interviewed by phone and completed questionnaires after a mean follow-up period of 8.05 years and were asked if they had had revision surgeries. The data were compared to the corresponding dataset from the THAR.

Results: Adherence was 97.91% for primary total hip arthroplasty. Clinical follow-up identified 10 missing cases, resulting in adherence of 81.48% for revisions. Completeness of patient-reported outcome measurements was 78.55% before surgery and 84.45% 1 year after surgery. Correctness was 99.7% for demographic data, 99.54% for implant specifications, and 99.35% for mode of fixation.

Conclusion: The data of this study showed that regional arthroplasty registries can deliver data quality comparable with well-established national registries. The main reason for unrecorded revision cases and wrongly recoded implants was human error. Further digitalization with more automatic data submission may have the potential to reduce these failure rates in the future. Overall, the THAR represents a valid data source for re-certification of medical implants according to the EU's MDR.

Keywords: Adherence; Coverage; MDR; National; Regional; Revision.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have neither financial nor non-financial competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the internal validation process for data from the THAR. THA: Total hip arthroplasty
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow diagram for prospective clinical follow-up of revision surgeries. THA: Total hip arthroplasty

References

    1. Afzal I, Radha S, Smoljanović T, Stafford GH, Twyman R, Field RE. Validation of revision data for total hip and knee replacements undertaken at a high volume orthopaedic centre against data held on the National Joint Registry. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14:318. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1304-9.
    1. Arthursson AJ, Furnes O, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Söreide JA. Validation of data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and the Norwegian Patient Register: 5,134 Primary total hip arthroplasties and revisions operated at a single hospital between 1987 and 2003. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:823. doi: 10.1080/17453670510045435.
    1. Bautista MP, Bonilla GA, Mieth KW, Llinás AM, Rodríguez F, Cárdenas LL. Data Quality in Institutional Arthroplasty Registries: Description of a Model of Validation and Report of Preliminary Results. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32:2065–2069. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.030.
    1. Espehaug B, Furnes O, Havelin LI, Engesæter LB, Vollset SE, Kindseth O. Registration completeness in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2006;77:49. doi: 10.1080/17453670610045696.
    1. Regulation (EU) 2017/745 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2017 on medical devices, amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 and repealing Council Directives 90/385/EEC and 93/42/EEC. OJ L 117, 5.5.2017, p. 1–175.
    1. Henry Coudane JLD The causes of the failure of orthopedic registries in France. Rev Prat. 2021;71(3):333–334.
    1. Hughes RE, Batra A, Hallstrom BR. Arthroplasty registries around the world: valuable sources of hip implant revision risk data. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017;10:240–252. doi: 10.1007/s12178-017-9408-5.
    1. Kandala NB, Connock M, Pulikottil-Jacob R, Sutcliffe P, Crowther MJ, Grove A, Mistry H, Clarke A. Setting benchmark revision rates for total hip replacement: Analysis of registry evidence. BMJ. 2015;350:h756. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h756.
    1. Kynaston-Pearson F, Ashmore AM, Malak TT, Rombach I, Taylor A, Beard D, Arden NK, Price A, Prieto-Alhambra D, Judge Senior A, Carr AJ, Glyn-Jones S. Primary hip replacement prostheses and their evidence base: Systematic review of literature. BMJ. 2013;347:1–11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f6956.
    1. Lübbeke A, Silman AJ, Barea C, Prieto-Alhambra D, Carr AJ. Mapping existing hip and knee replacement registries in Europe. Health Policy. 2018;122:548–557. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.010.
    1. Pugely AJ, Martin CT, Harwood J, Ong KL, Bozic KJ, Callaghan JJ. Database and registry research in orthopaedic surgery: Part 2: Clinical registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;97:1799–1808. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.O.00134.
    1. Rahardja R, Allan R, Frampton CM, Morris AJ, McKie J, Young SW. Completeness and capture rate of publicly funded arthroplasty procedures in the New Zealand Joint Registry. ANZ J Surg. 2020;90:2543–2548. doi: 10.1111/ans.16385.
    1. Rolfson O, Eresian Chenok K, Bohm E, Lübbeke A, Denissen G, Dunn J, Lyman S, Franklin P, Dunbar M, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Dawson J. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries: Part I. Overview and rationale for patient-reported outcome measures. Acta Orthop. 2016;87:3–8. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1181815.
    1. Stea S, Bordini B, De Clerico M, Petropulacos K, Toni A. First hip arthroplasty register in Italy: 55,000 cases and 7 year follow-up. Int Orthop. 2009;33:339. doi: 10.1007/s00264-007-0465-z.
    1. Turppo V, Sund R, Sirola J, Kröger H, Huopio J. Cross-Validation of Arthroplasty Records Between Arthroplasty and Hospital Discharge Registers, Self-Reports, and Medical Records Among a Cohort of 14,220 Women. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33:3649–3654. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.08.010.
    1. Vasiljeva K, van Duren BH, Pandit H. Changing Device Regulations in the European Union: Impact on Research, Innovation and Clinical Practice. Indian J Orthop. 2020;54:123–129. doi: 10.1007/s43465-019-00013-5.
    1. Wagner M, Schönthaler H, Endstrasser F, Dammerer D, Nardelli P, Brunner A. Mid-Term Results After 517 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties With a Shortened and Shoulderless Double-Taper Press-Fit Stem: High Rates of Aseptic Loosening. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37:97–102. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.09.004.
    1. Wagner M, Schönthaler H, Endstrasser F, Neururer S, Leitner H, Brunner A. Survivorship of Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Arthroplasty With Metal-Backed Acetabular Liners at 10 Years. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:3507–3512. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.05.038.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅