A Systematic Review of Data Collection by National Joint Replacement Registries: What Opportunities Exist for Enhanced Data Collection and Analysis?
Journal
JBJS reviews
ISSN: 2329-9185
Titre abrégé: JBJS Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101674872
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Oct 2023
01 Oct 2023
Historique:
medline:
15
11
2023
pubmed:
13
11
2023
entrez:
13
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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 II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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
METHODS
Level II, therapeutic study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37956205
doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00062
pii: 01874474-202310000-00009
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSREV/B16).
Références
Malchau H, Garellick G, Berry D, Harris WH, Robertson O, Kärrlholm J, Lewallen D, Bragdon CR, Lidgren L, Herberts P. Arthroplasty implant registries over the past five decades: development, current, and future impact. J Orthop Res. 2018;36(9):2319-30.
Porter M, Rolfson O, de Steiger R. International registries: U.K. National Joint Registry, Nordic Registries, and Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). J Bone Joint Surg. 2022;104(suppl 3):23-7.
de Steiger RN, Graves SE. Orthopaedic registries: the Australian experience. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4(6):409-15.
Evans JT, Whitehouse MR, Evans JP. A review of registry research. Bone Joint 360. 2021;10(2):57-9.
Romanini E, Schettini I, Torre M, Venosa M, Tarantini A, Calvisi V, Zanoli G. The rise of registry-based research: a bibliometric analysis. Acta Orthop. 2021;92(5):628-32.
Swiontkowski MF. Large database and registry research in joint arthroplasty and orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022;104(20):1775-7.
Hoskins W, Bingham R, Corfield S, Harries D, Harris IA, Vince KG. Do the revision rates of arthroplasty surgeons correlate with postoperative patient-reported outcome measure scores? A study from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023. doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000002737
doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002737
Campbell A, Emara AK, Klika A, Piuzzi NS; The Cleveland Clinic OME. Does implant selection affect patient-reported outcome measures after primary total hip arthroplasty? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103(24):2306-17.
Heath EL, Ackerman IN, Cashman K, Lorimer M, Graves SE, Harris IA. Patient-reported outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasty: results from a large national registry. Bone Jt Open. 2021;2(6):422-32.
Wilson I, Bohm E, Lübbeke A, Lyman S, Overgaard S, Rolfson O, W-Dahl A, Wilkinson M, Dunbar M. Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4(6):357-67.
Constantin H, Le M, de Steiger RN, Harris IA. Operation rate is more than double the revision rate for periprosthetic femur fractures. ANZ J Surg. 2019;89(12):1647-51.
Sinagra ZP, Davis JS, Lorimer M, de Steiger RN, Graves SE, Yates P, Manning L. The accuracy of reporting of periprosthetic joint infection to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Bone Jt Open. 2022;3(5):367-73.
Hermansen LL, Viberg B, Hansen L, Overgaard S. “True” cumulative incidence of and risk factors for hip dislocation within 2 years after primary total hip arthroplasty due to osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2021;103(4):295-302.
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(1):318.
Browne JA, Springer B, Spindler KP. Optimizing use of large databases in joint arthroplasty and orthopaedics. J Bone Joint Surg. 2022;104(suppl 3):28-32.
Boyle JR. Future of surgical registries. Br J Surg. 2021;108(7):740-1.
Jang B, Walsh NA, Bruce AJM. Association National Joint Replacement Registry using a surgeon's database. J Orthop Surg. 2013;21(3):347-50.
Heckmann ND, Glusenkamp NT. Linkage between databases in joint arthroplasty and orthopaedics: the way forward? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2022;104(suppl 3):33-8.
Hoskins W, Rainbird S, Lorimer M, Graves SE, Bingham R. What can we learn from surgeons who perform THA and TKA who have the lowest revision rates? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022;480(3):464-81.
Baker PN, Jeyapalan R, Jameson SS. The value of national arthroplasty registry data in 2023. Bone Joint J. 2023;105-B(4):356-60.
Stammers JG, Kuo A, Hart AJ, Smeeth L, Skinner JA. Registry data-valuable lessons but beware the confounders. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(9S):S63-7.
International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) website. Accessed December 7, 2022. https://www.isarhome.org/members .
The Network of Orthopaedic Registries of Europe (NORE) website. Accessed December 7, 2022. https://nore.efort.org/arthroplasty-registries .
Joint Replacement Registry Wikipedia page. Accessed December 7, 2022. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_replacement_registry .
Australian Orthopaedic Association – Other Registries Worldwide. Accessed December 7, 2022. https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/registries .
Lübbeke A, Carr AJ, Hoffmeyer P. Registry stakeholders. EFORT Open Rev. 2019;4(6):330-6.
Okafor CE, Nghiem SH, Vertullo C, Byrnes JM. Joint replacement registries significantly reduce revision rates [preprint]. Accessed December 7, 2022. https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-149537/v1/70b23d0e-0e1d-4224-b716-1ae2d1d2877f.pdf?c=1631871733 .
Mahmood SS, Levy D, Vasan RS, Wang TJ. The Framingham Heart Study and the epidemiology of cardiovascular diseases: a historical perspective. Lancet. 2014;383(9921):999-1008.
Rasmussen JV, El-Galaly A, Thillemann TM, Jensen SL. High completeness and accurate reporting of key variables make data from the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry: a valuable source of information. Clin Epidemiol. 2021;13:141-8.
Jang B, Walsh NA, Bruce WJM. Verification of the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry using a surgeon's database. J Orthop Surg. 2013;21(3):347-50.
Wang Q, Goswami K, Shohat N, Aalirezaie A, Manriquem J, Parvizi J. Longer operative time results in a higher rate of subsequent periprosthetic joint infection in patients undergoing primary joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(5):947-53.
Naranje S, Lendway L, Mehle S, Gioe TJ. Does operative time affect infection rate in primary total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(1):64-9.
Mahure SA, Feng JE, Schwarzkopf RM, Long WJ. The impact of arthroplasty fellowship training on total joint arthroplasty: comparison of peri-operative metrics between fellowship-trained surgeons and non-fellowship-trained surgeons. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(10):2820-4.
Thomas JC, Haidukewych GJ. Total hip arthroplasty for acute femoral neck fractures: who should perform the operation—adult reconstructive or trauma surgeons? J Orthop Trauma. 2021;35(11):606-11.
Dlott CC, Metcalfe T, Jain S, Bahel A, Donnelley CA, Wiznia DH. Preoperative risk management programs at the top 50 orthopaedic institutions frequently enforce strict cutoffs for BMI and hemoglobin A1c which may limit access to total joint arthroplasty and provide limited resources for smoking cessation and dental care. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023;481(1):39-47.
Russell SP, Broderick JM, O'Dea SD, Fahey E, Kenny P, Cashman J. Can bar code scanning improve data capture in a national register? Findings from the Irish National Orthopaedic Register. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2022;480(10):1971-6.
Barr CJ, Barbalace RJ, Wessinger SJ, Bragdon CR, Kwon Y, Malchau H. Validation of a hospital-based joint registry quantification of errors and maximizing utility. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(10):1766-71.