Industrial support of orthopaedic research in the academic setting

Battle of the titans: Survivorship analysis of the 3 most common types of uncemented femoral stems used across national registries

Background

Although many institutions utilize uncemented stems as routine in performing total hip arthroplasty (THA), many surgeons continue to rely on outcomes reported in the literature in the form of small cohorts and patient series when analyzing survivorship for specific implants. The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze the survivorship of the 3 most common uncemented stem types (as opposed to brands) used across multiple national joint registries.

Methods

A review of data available from all national joint registries was carried out in July 2022. Analysis of each individual registry and classified uncemented implants into the seven different uncemented stem types. The 3 most common stem types were identified, and average cumulative revision rates calculated. Metal on metal bearings surface implants were excluded from this study due to high revision rates across all implant types.

Results

Our detailed review identified 6 out of 13 (NJR, AOANJRR, LROI, EPRD, MARCQI and the NZJR) international registries reporting implant specific survivorship on uncemented femoral stems; including 960,328 uncemented stems across all registries. The most common type of stem used was type 3c, accounting for 61% (583,724), followed by type 1 stems with 23% (217,897) and type 2 stems with 8% (79,257). Cumulative revision rates at 13 years follow-up for these stems ranged from 6.9% to 7.9%.

Conclusion

Although all stem types have comparable revision rates across all registries, the most common uncemented stem reported was the type 3c, tapered rectangular fully coated stem. Furthermore, out of all type 3c, the Müller design philosophy with full hydroxyapatite coating seems to be the most sought after worldwide. In this study we can conclude, thus far, that there does not appear to clinical or statistical differences in revision rates between the different stem types.

Level of evidence

III.

Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Is Prevalent in Spine Literature

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the rate of accurate conflict of interest (COI) disclosure within three prominent subspecialty Spine journals during a 4-year period.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Industry-physician relationships are crucial for technological advancement in spine surgery but serve as a source of bias in biomedical research. The Open Payments Database (OPD) was established after 2010 to increase financial transparency.

METHODS

All research articles published from 2014 to 2017 in Spine, The Spine Journal (TSJ), and the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine (JNS) were reviewed in this study. In these articles, all author's COI statements were recorded. The OPD was queried for all author entries within the disclose period of the journal. Discrepancies between the author's self-reported COIs and the documented COIs from OPD were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 6816 articles meeting inclusion criteria between 2014 and 2017 in Spine, TSJ, and JNS with 39,869 contributing authors. Overall, 15.8% of all authors were found to have an OPD financial relationship. Of 2633 authors in Spine with financial disclosures, 77.1% had accurate financial disclosures; 42.5% and 41.0% of authors with financial relationships in the OPD had accurate financial disclosures in TSJ and JNS, respectively. The total value of undisclosed conflicts of interest between 2014 and 2017 was $421 million with $1.48 billion in accurate disclosures. Of undisclosed payments, 68.7% were <$1000 and only 7.2% were >$10,000. Undisclosed payments included $180 million in research funding and $188 million in royalties.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that undisclosed COI is highly prevalent for authors in major Spine journals. This study indicates that there remains a need to standardize definitions and financial thresholds for significant COI as well as to shift the reporting burden for COI to journals who actively review potential COIs instead of relying on self-reporting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Evaluation of the Medial Stabilized Knee Design Using Data From National Joint Registries and Current Literature

BACKGROUND

Various designs of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have provided satisfactory outcomes for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis for many years. The aim of the study is to evaluate the success and failure rate of the medial stabilized (MS) TKA design through national joint registries and the current literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was carried out through PubMed and MEDLINE database. The international registries analyzed included the National Joint Registry, the Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, the New Zealand Orthopedic Association Joint Registry, and the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative. We are reporting descriptive data which include means and percentages of survival rates and revision rates and number of years after the primary procedure. The revision rates and the cumulative revision rates are reported separately for each MS implant.

RESULTS

Our detailed review identified 5 of 12 registries and 25 of 550 studies reporting on the survivorship of an MS TKA design. There were a total of 3684 procedures between the 25 studies, with an average survivorship free of aseptic loosening of 99% at 6.9 years. There are 26,693 (2.5%) MS TKAs in the current National Joint Registry with a mean cumulative revision rate of 2.63% at 5 years, 3.35% at 10 years, and 4.6% at 15 years. The Australian Orthopedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry provides survivorship data on 19,249 (2.9%) MS TKAs, with a mean cumulative revision rate of 3.34% at 5 years, 7.4% at 10 years, and 8.1% at 15 years. The Dutch Arthroplasty Register contains survivorship data on 1490 MS designs and a mean revision rate of these implants is 0.8% at 1 year, 5.95% at 5 years, and 9.8% at 10 years. The Evolution MP is the only implant reported in the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative and has a revision rate of 2.28% at 3 years.

CONCLUSION

The MS TKA design has comparable results to traditional TKA designs across several joint registries and 25 studies in the literature.

Counterpoint: physician-industry relationships can be ethically established, and conflicts of interest can be ethically managed

STUDY DESIGN

Review of the nature of conflicts of interest in physician-industry relationships, with a focus on the efforts to ethically manage physician-industry relationships.

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate the perspective that physician-industry relationships can be ethically established, and conflicts of interest can be ethically managed.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The interest in considering the appropriateness of physician-industry relationships has recently become focused on spine surgery. Many of the conflicts of interest inherent to these relationships have been interpreted as problematic, and have been scrutinized by the media, industry, medical and legal professions, and Federal government.

METHODS

The basis for conflicts of interest, manner in which bias may be introduced, and methods to reduce bias are presented. The potential risks and benefits to patients that are inherent to physician-industry relationships are considered. A framework, developed by medical ethicists, is provided to guide analysis of conflicts of interest in physician-industry relationships.

RESULTS

Collaboration between spine surgeons and industry is necessary to improve patient care. The conflicts of interest that often arise in physician-industry relationships must be recognized, and keenly managed in order to eliminate the risk and maximize the benefit to the patient. Ethical management of conflicts must include disclosure. To preserve patient autonomy, management should also include a discussion of the quality of the medical evidence on which treatment recommendations are made. Guidelines from industry and medical professional organizations, including the "Standards of Professionalism" currently under development by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgery, are also expected to aid in the ethical establishment and management of conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful consideration of conflicts of interest in physician-industry relationships has provided an opportunity to review our goals as physicians in society, and to continue collaborative advancement of our field for the benefit of our patients.

The orthopaedic profession and the industry partnership

The partnership between the orthopaedic profession and industry has existed for more than half a century and has created advanced orthopaedic care and conflicting interest in the delivery of that care. The orthopaedic surgeon first initiated and controlled the relationship with industry as surgeon innovators strove to improve orthopaedic implants. Over time, the practice of orthopaedic surgery and the business of orthopaedic product supply have changed substantially, as has the environment within which each functions. The surgeon's scope of care has expanded enormously over the past decades. Today, orthopaedic care is delivered through a highly interdependent relationship of the orthopaedic profession, the products industry, healthcare providers, healthcare financers, and government agencies. In many ways the relative influence of the orthopaedic surgeon has diminished in this relationship as the influence of other parties has grown. This work outlines some of the current risks and opportunities for the beneficial delivery of patient care the orthopaedic profession and industry mutually face.

Conflict of interest in orthopaedic research. An association between findings and funding in scientific presentations

BACKGROUND

Financial conflict of interest has been associated with an increased likelihood that authors will report positive study outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between types of declared conflict of interest and reported study outcomes in orthopaedic research.

METHODS

The abstracts of all podium presentations given at the 2001 and 2002 Annual Meetings of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons were analyzed by three orthopaedic surgeons with advanced training in clinical epidemiology. The findings reported in each abstract were graded as positive, negative, neutral, or not applicable. Self-reported conflict of interest was recorded and classified.

RESULTS

Conflicts of interest were reported in 40.8% (212) of 519 abstracts. The interobserver reliability of the grading of the study findings was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.725). Rates of conflict of interest related to royalties, stock options, or consultant or employee status varied significantly by subspecialty field (p < 0.001). The overall rate of positive study findings was 84.0% (436 of the 519 abstracts). Positive findings were more common in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to royalties (98.4% [sixty of sixty-one] compared with 88.0% [381 of 433] for studies authored by individuals without a conflict of interest related to royalties; relative risk = 1.1 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.1]; p = 0.02), in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to stock options (100.0% [twenty-nine of twenty-nine] compared with 84.7% [394 of 465]; relative risk = 1.2 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.3]; p = 0.04), and in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to consultant or employee status (97.8% [ninety-one of ninety-three] compared with 89.0% [357 of 401]; relative risk = 1.1 [95% confidence interval = 1.0 to 1.2]; p = 0.01). Positive findings were not more common in studies authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to research or institutional funding (93.5% [143 of 153] compared with 91.8% [313 of 341]; relative risk = 1.0 [95% confidence interval = 0.95 to 1.5]; p = 0.65). In the multivariate analysis, the factors that remained significant predictors of positive outcomes were royalties (p = 0.002) and consultant or employee status (p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported conflicts of interest are common in orthopaedic research, particularly in the subspecialty fields of adult reconstruction of the knee, adult reconstruction of the hip, and spine. Presentations authored by individuals with a conflict of interest related to royalties, stock options, or consulting or employee status were significantly more likely to describe positive findings. While there may be distinct benefits associated with industry support of orthopaedic research, safeguards must be established to maintain public trust in the medical research establishment.