Arthroplasty registries around the world: valuable sources of hip implant revision risk data

Purpose of ReviewNational and regional arthroplasty registries have proliferated since the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register was started in 1975. Registry reports typically present implant-specific estimates of revision risk and patient- and technique-related factors that can inform clinical decision-making about implants and techniques. However, annual registry reports are long and it is difficult for clinicians to extract comparable revision risk data. Since implants may appear in multiple registry reports, it is even more difficult to gather relevant data for clinical decision-making about implant selection. The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe arthroplasty registry concepts, international registries around the world, US registries, and provide a parsimonious summary of total hip arthroplasty (THA) implant revision risk reports across registries.Recent FindingsRevision risk data for conventional stem/cup combinations reported by the Australian, R.I.P.O. (Italian), Finnish, and Danish registries are summarized here. These registries were selected because they presented 10-year data on revision risk by stem/cup combination. Four tables of revision risk are presented based on fixation: cemented, uncemented, hybrid, and reverse hybrid. Review of these tables show there is wide variation in revision risk across conventional THA implants. It also demonstrates that some cemented implants have better 10-year risk than the best uncemented implants.SummaryMany arthroplasty registries prepare annual reports that include revision risk data for implants and they are posted on the registry websites. Arthroplasty surgeons should stay current with these registry reports on implant performance and potential outliers and keep them in mind when making implant decisions.

[1]  M. Inacio,et al.  Challenges in prosthesis classification. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[2]  T. Gioe,et al.  Implementation and application of a community total joint registry: a twelve-year history. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[3]  M. Inacio,et al.  The kaiser permanente national total joint replacement registry. , 2008, The Permanente journal.

[4]  Kathrin Sekyra,et al.  Outcome and reproducibility of data concerning the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty , 2011, Acta orthopaedica.

[5]  Aileen Clarke,et al.  Setting benchmark revision rates for total hip replacement: analysis of registry evidence , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  J. Ranstam,et al.  The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register , 2014, Bone & joint research.

[7]  P. Franklin,et al.  Using joint registry data from FORCE-TJR to improve the accuracy of risk-adjustment prediction models for thirty-day readmission after total hip replacement and total knee replacement. , 2015, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[8]  C. Howie,et al.  Outlier analysis in orthopaedics: use of CUSUM: the Scottish Arthroplasty Project: shouldering the burden of improvement. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[9]  L. Havelin,et al.  Effect of femoral head size on metal-on-HXLPE hip arthroplasty outcome in a combined analysis of six national and regional registries. , 2014, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  B F Morrey,et al.  Maintaining a hip registry for 25 years. Mayo Clinic experience. , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[11]  Priscilla H. Chan,et al.  Antibiotic cement was associated with half the risk of re-revision in 1,154 aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties , 2015, Acta orthopaedica.

[12]  Patricia D Franklin,et al.  Beyond joint implant registries: a patient-centered research consortium for comparative effectiveness in total joint replacement. , 2012, JAMA.

[13]  M. Lorimer,et al.  What Is the Learning Curve for the Anterior Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty? , 2015, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[14]  Hua Zheng,et al.  Integrating Patient-reported Outcomes Into Orthopaedic Clinical Practice: Proof of Concept From FORCE-TJR , 2013, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[15]  R. Hughes,et al.  The Michigan Experience with Safety and Effectiveness of Tranexamic Acid Use in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. , 2016, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[16]  L. Jones,et al.  Learning curve for the anterior approach total hip arthroplasty. , 2012, Journal of surgical orthopaedic advances.

[17]  Richard E. Hughes,et al.  Michigan arthroplasty registry collaborative quality initiative (MARCQI) as a model for regional registries in the United States , 2015 .

[18]  D. Markel,et al.  Can an Arthroplasty Registry Help Decrease Transfusions in Primary Total Joint Replacement? A Quality Initiative , 2016, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[19]  A. Urquhart,et al.  No Difference in Dislocation Seen in Anterior Vs Posterior Approach Total Hip Arthroplasty. , 2016, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[20]  Henrik Malchau,et al.  The John Charnley Award: Risk Factors for Cup Malpositioning: Quality Improvement Through a Joint Registry at a Tertiary Hospital , 2011, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[21]  M. Inacio,et al.  Risk Calculators Predict Failures of Knee and Hip Arthroplasties: Findings from a Large Health Maintenance Organization , 2015, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[22]  P. Herberts,et al.  The Swedish Total Hip Replacement Register , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[23]  C A Marrin,et al.  A regional intervention to improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. , 1996, JAMA.

[24]  Russell L. Stogsdill,et al.  A regional intervention to improve the hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. , 1996, JAMA.

[25]  T. Gross,et al.  Risk of revision for fixed versus mobile-bearing primary total knee replacements. , 2012, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[26]  R. Schuh,et al.  Impact of implant developers on published outcome and reproducibility of cohort-based clinical studies in arthroplasty. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.