Benchmarking total knee replacement constructs using noninferiority analysis: the New Zealand joint registry study.
Benchmarking
Noninferiority analysis
Total knee replacement
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Aug 2021
23 Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
11
03
2021
accepted:
06
08
2021
entrez:
24
8
2021
pubmed:
25
8
2021
medline:
26
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to compare the relative performance of total knee replacement constructs and discern if there is variability in performance in currently commonly used prostheses in the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) using a noninferiority analysis. All patients who underwent a primary total knee replacement (TKR) registered in the NZJR between 1st January 1999 to June 2020 were identified. Using a noninferiority analysis, the performance of total knee replacement prostheses were compared with the best performing contemporary construct. Construct all-cause revision rate was estimated using the 1-Kaplan Meier survival function method to estimate net failure. The difference in all-cause revision rates between the contemporary benchmark and all other constructs was tested. In total 110 183 TKR were recorded and 25 constructs (102 717 procedures) had > 500 procedures at risk at 3 years post-primary of which 5 were inferior by at least 20 % relative risk of which, one was inferior by at least 100 % relative risk. 14 constructs were identified with > 500 procedures at risk at 10 years with 5 inferior by at least 20 %, of which 2 were inferior by > 100 % relative risk. We discerned that there is great variability in construct performance and at all time points, greater than 25 % of constructs are inferior to the best performing construct by at least 20 %. These results can help inform patients, clinicians and health care funders when considering TKR surgery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to compare the relative performance of total knee replacement constructs and discern if there is variability in performance in currently commonly used prostheses in the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) using a noninferiority analysis.
METHODS
METHODS
All patients who underwent a primary total knee replacement (TKR) registered in the NZJR between 1st January 1999 to June 2020 were identified. Using a noninferiority analysis, the performance of total knee replacement prostheses were compared with the best performing contemporary construct. Construct all-cause revision rate was estimated using the 1-Kaplan Meier survival function method to estimate net failure. The difference in all-cause revision rates between the contemporary benchmark and all other constructs was tested.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total 110 183 TKR were recorded and 25 constructs (102 717 procedures) had > 500 procedures at risk at 3 years post-primary of which 5 were inferior by at least 20 % relative risk of which, one was inferior by at least 100 % relative risk. 14 constructs were identified with > 500 procedures at risk at 10 years with 5 inferior by at least 20 %, of which 2 were inferior by > 100 % relative risk.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We discerned that there is great variability in construct performance and at all time points, greater than 25 % of constructs are inferior to the best performing construct by at least 20 %. These results can help inform patients, clinicians and health care funders when considering TKR surgery.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34425821
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04606-w
pii: 10.1186/s12891-021-04606-w
pmc: PMC8381520
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
721Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 28;7(8):e015397
pubmed: 28851772
Lancet. 2017 Apr 8;389(10077):1424-1430
pubmed: 28209371
BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 29;9(4):e026736
pubmed: 31036709
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Sep;475(9):2194-2201
pubmed: 28573549
Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2009 Jan;15(1 Suppl):120-7
pubmed: 19147090
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Aug;34(8):1626-1633
pubmed: 31031155
Acta Orthop. 2018 Jun;89(3):256-258
pubmed: 29521152
Trials. 2011 May 03;12:106
pubmed: 21539749
N Z Med J. 2013 Jun 28;126(1377):5-6
pubmed: 23831871