Is There Anything to Learn from a National Joint Registry?

Risk factors for total ankle arthroplasty failure: A Dutch Arthroplasty Register study

BACKGROUND

Studies concerning total ankle arthroplasty could be influenced by several forms of bias. Independent national arthroplasty registries represent objective data on survival and patient reported outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine survival and identify risk factors for early failure in a nationwide series of total ankle arthroplasties from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data of 810 patients, who received 836 total ankle arthroplasties between 2014 and 2020 were obtained from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) with a median follow-up of 38 months (range 1-84 months). Survival was expressed in Kaplan-Meier analysis and associated hazard ratios for implant failure were determined. Implant failure was defined as the need for revision surgery for any reason or (pan)arthrodesis.

RESULTS

During follow-up, we recorded 39 failures (4.7%) resulting in a implant survival of 95.3% with a median follow-up of 38 months (range 1-84 months). Medial malleolus osteotomy (HR = 2.27), previous surgery (HR = 1.83), previous osteotomy (HR = 2.82) and previous ligament reconstruction (HR = 2.83) all showed potentially clinically meaningful associations with a higher incidence of implant failure, yet only previous OCD treatment (HR = 6.21), BMI (HR = 1.09) and age (HR = 0.71) were statistically significant.

INTERPRETATION

Excellent short-term survival (95.3%) with a median follow-up of 38 months was reported for TAA patients from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Patients with a lower age, a higher BMI or who had a prior surgical OCD treatment before TAA surgery appear to have a higher risk for revision after short-term clinical follow-up. Thorough patient selection with emphasis on risk factors associated with early implant failure might be essential to improve TAA survivorship.

Outcomes Following Total Ankle Arthroplasty: A Review of the Registry Data and Current Literature

End-stage ankle arthritis has a significant effect on function and quality of life. Total ankle arthroplasty continues to emerge as a safe and effective treatment of ankle arthritis. Ankle arthroplasty preserves motion at the ankle joint, while still achieving the primary goal of pain relief. With encouraging outcomes and improved implant longevity, there has been significant improvement on the results of first-generation implants. Further high-quality studies are required to clarify outcomes post ankle arthroplasty. This article reviews the latest data from national registries and the wider literature to evaluate the current status with outcomes of modern total ankle replacements.

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.