The German Arthroscopy Registry (DART)

The German Arthroscopy Registry DART: what has happened after 5 years?

PURPOSE

The German Arthroscopy Registry (DART) has been initiated in 2017 with the aim to collect real-life data of patients undergoing knee, shoulder, hip or ankle surgery. The purpose of this study was to present an overview of the current status and the collected data thus far.

METHODS

Data entered between 11/2017 and 01/2022 were analyzed. The number of cases (each case is defined as a single operation with or without concomitant procedures) entered for each joint, follow-up rates and trends between different age groups (18-29 years, 30-44 years, 45-64 years,  ≥ 65 years) and across genders, and quality of life improvement (pre- vs. 1 year postoperative EQ visual analogue scale [EQ-VAS]) for frequently performed procedures (medial meniscus repair [MMR] vs. rotator cuff repair [RCR] vs. microfracturing of the talus [MFX-T]) were investigated.

RESULTS

Overall, 6651 cases were entered into DART, forming three distinct modules classified by joint (5370 knee, 1053 shoulder and 228 ankle cases). The most commonly entered procedures were: knee: partial medial meniscectomy (n = 2089), chondroplasty (n = 1389), anterior cruicate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autograft (n = 880); shoulder: sub acromial decompression (n = 631), bursectomy (n = 385), RCR (n = 359); ankle: partial synovectomy (n = 117), tibial osteophyte resection (n = 72), loose body removal (n = 48). In the knee and shoulder modules, middle-aged patients were the predominant age group, whereas in the ankle module, the youngest age group was the most frequent one. The two oldest age groups had the highest 1-year follow-up rates across all modules. In the knee and shoulder module, 1-year follow-up rates were higher in female patients, whereas follow-up rates were higher in male patients in the ankle module. From pre- to 1-year postoperative, MFX-T (EQ-VAS: 50.0 [25-75% interquartile range: 31.8-71.5] to 75.0 [54.3-84.3]; ∆ + 25.0) led to a comparably larger improvement in quality of life than did MMR (EQ-VAS: 70.0 [50.0-80.0] to 85.0 [70.0-94.0]; ∆ + 15.0) or RCR (EQ-VAS: 67.0 [50.0-80.0] to 85.0 [70.0-95.0]; ∆ + 18.0).

CONCLUSION

DART has been sufficiently established and collects high-quality patient-related data with satisfactory follow-up allowing for a comprehensive analysis of the collected data. The current focus lies on improving patient enrolment and follow-up rates as well as initiating the hip module.

Substantial Loss to Follow-Up and Missing Data in National Arthroscopy Registries: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To report follow-up methodologies, compliance, and existing strategies for handling missing data in national arthroscopy registries collecting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

Annual reports, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were queried following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify national arthroscopy registries reporting follow-up with a validated PROM and sample size greater than 500. Extracted data included weighted compliance in peer-reviewed publications, cumulative compliance throughout the time span of data collection, and missing-data methodologies.

RESULTS

Nine national arthroscopy registries currently collect PROMs, with cumulative rates of follow-up ranging from less than 10% to more than 70%. We identified 36 publications from 5 national registries reporting hip and knee arthroscopies. The weighted mean compliance with PROMs in national registry publications was 56% at 0.5 years, 44% to 59% at 1 year, 40% to 61% at 2 years, 35% to 54% at 5 years, and 40% at 10 years. A missing-data analysis was reported or referenced in 58% of publications.

CONCLUSIONS

In national arthroscopy registries, compliance with 2-year PROMs does not meet traditional follow-up thresholds of 60% or 80% and reporting of missing-data methodologies is inconsistent.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II through IV studies.

Total ankle arthroplasty and national registers: What is the impact on scientific production?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze clinical studies on total ankle replacement (TAR) whose data were extracted from national registers.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature, to identify all studies reporting outcomes after TAR, was performed. Two independent investigators performed the research using MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Embase and Cochrane Databases (1950 to December 2017). The search terms used were "total ankle replacement" or "total ankle arthroplasty" AND "register" or "registers" or "registry" or "registries" or "national registry" or "national register".

RESULTS

Analysis of the literature included 18 articles from 2007 to 2017. Of these 5 articles performed a comprehensive analysis of the national registers, 5 articles evaluated complications and reasons of failure after TAR, 6 articles made a specific outcome register analysis, one article compared TAR and ankle arthrodesis while the last one analyzed the role of TAR in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

CONCLUSIONS

Scientific publications extracted from national joint registers for total ankle replacement provide useful but heterogeneous information on implants survivorship, implant models and risk factors. There is still a discrepancy between the data reported by designers in clinical studies and the data reported by the registries. The centralization of registers in specialized hospitals with dedicated surgeons, the use of patient reported outcomes (PROMs) in association with surgeon assessments and periodical publications can improve the development of registries and consequently of the literature in this regard.