Is the American Joint Replacement Registry Able to Correctly Classify Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Procedural Diagnoses?
AJRR
ICD-10
Registry
Total knee arthroplasty
revision
Journal
The Journal of arthroplasty
ISSN: 1532-8406
Titre abrégé: J Arthroplasty
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8703515
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2023
06 2023
Historique:
received:
10
11
2022
revised:
06
03
2023
accepted:
09
03
2023
pmc-release:
01
06
2024
medline:
23
5
2023
pubmed:
18
3
2023
entrez:
17
3
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) is a powerful tool for the study of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The AJRR uses International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10-CM) codes for recording surgical diagnoses. However, the validity of this methodology is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of ICD-10-CM codes, as used by AJRR, in classifying rTKA diagnoses. There were 988 rTKAs performed from 2015 to 2021 identified in our institutional total joint registry (TJR). Revision diagnoses were obtained from TJR, in which trained abstractors prospectively record diagnoses independent of ICD-10-CM data. The ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes submitted to AJRR were retrieved for the same procedures. The accuracy of ICD-10-CM codes for classifying rTKA diagnoses as septic versus aseptic, aseptic loosening, instability, and periprosthetic fracture was assessed using Cohen's Kappa statistics, sensitivities, and specificities. Concordance between AJRR-submitted codes and TJR was excellent (97.3%, k = 0.9) for identifying septic versus aseptic revisions. Agreement for aseptic diagnoses varied from very good for loosening (k = 0.65) and instability (k = 0.64) to fair for periprosthetic fracture (k = 0.36). Specificity was high (> 94%) for all three diagnoses, but sensitivity was lower at 71%, 63%, and 28% for loosening, instability, and periprosthetic fracture, respectively. The AJRR submitted ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes correctly classified rTKA cases as septic or aseptic with remarkable accuracy, but accuracy for more granular diagnoses varied. These data demonstrate the potential for diagnosis-specific limitations when using administrative claims data for registry reporting and have important implications for researchers using ICD-10-CM data.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) is a powerful tool for the study of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The AJRR uses International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10-CM) codes for recording surgical diagnoses. However, the validity of this methodology is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of ICD-10-CM codes, as used by AJRR, in classifying rTKA diagnoses.
METHODS
There were 988 rTKAs performed from 2015 to 2021 identified in our institutional total joint registry (TJR). Revision diagnoses were obtained from TJR, in which trained abstractors prospectively record diagnoses independent of ICD-10-CM data. The ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes submitted to AJRR were retrieved for the same procedures. The accuracy of ICD-10-CM codes for classifying rTKA diagnoses as septic versus aseptic, aseptic loosening, instability, and periprosthetic fracture was assessed using Cohen's Kappa statistics, sensitivities, and specificities.
RESULTS
Concordance between AJRR-submitted codes and TJR was excellent (97.3%, k = 0.9) for identifying septic versus aseptic revisions. Agreement for aseptic diagnoses varied from very good for loosening (k = 0.65) and instability (k = 0.64) to fair for periprosthetic fracture (k = 0.36). Specificity was high (> 94%) for all three diagnoses, but sensitivity was lower at 71%, 63%, and 28% for loosening, instability, and periprosthetic fracture, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The AJRR submitted ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes correctly classified rTKA cases as septic or aseptic with remarkable accuracy, but accuracy for more granular diagnoses varied. These data demonstrate the potential for diagnosis-specific limitations when using administrative claims data for registry reporting and have important implications for researchers using ICD-10-CM data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36931362
pii: S0883-5403(23)00246-2
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.03.016
pmc: PMC10200748
mid: NIHMS1884025
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
S32-S35.e3Subventions
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : P30 AR076312
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 AR073147
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HL147155
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
J Arthroplasty. 2019 Jul;34(7S):S125-S134.e1
pubmed: 30711371
Health Serv Res. 2008 Aug;43(4):1424-41
pubmed: 18756617
J Am Coll Surg. 2013 Sep;217(3):516-26
pubmed: 23891069
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016 Oct;24(10):673-82
pubmed: 27579813
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Dec;36(12):3950-3958
pubmed: 34538547
J Arthroplasty. 2022 Oct;37(10):1956-1960
pubmed: 36162929
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jan;33(1):41-45.e3
pubmed: 29017802
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Oct;35(10):2960-2965.e3
pubmed: 32507451
Surg Neurol Int. 2014 Jul 19;5(Suppl 3):S192-8
pubmed: 25184098
Orthopedics. 2013 Mar;36(3):175-6
pubmed: 23464934
Med Care. 2010 Dec;48(12):1105-10
pubmed: 20978452
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Oct;36(10):3608-3615
pubmed: 34130871
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6S):S79-S85
pubmed: 32151524
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Jan;476(1):52-63
pubmed: 29529616
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Sep;25(6 Suppl):58-61
pubmed: 20570479