A Systematic Review of Data Collection by National Joint Replacement Registries: What Opportunities Exist for Enhanced Data Collection and Analysis?

What does the SOFCOT-RENACOT 2024 hip prosthesis register tell us?

INTRODUCTION

The French Society of Orthopedic and Traumatology Surgery (SOFCOT) multicenter register of hip prostheses (HP) has been collecting data from nearly 100 centers in France since 2006. After 18 years of collection, this analysis was carried out to deduce the main conclusions.

HYPOTHESIS

Despite its low representativeness (3%), this register provides instructive information on the evolution of hip arthroplasty techniques and implants in France.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

As of the 31st of December 2023, 58,314 primary HP were recorded, mainly for primary osteoarthritis (44,535 hips, 76.4%), followed by femoral neck fractures (4,880, 8.4%). The mean age was 71 years (SD, 11.6) with 57% (33,305) women. In total, 73% of the implants were uncemented and 170 brand names were listed. Over the same period, 5,853 first reoperations were recorded. Social security number matching identified 777 revisions of an already registered primary HP. The revision index for 100 components observed per year (RCOY) allows the performance of implants to be compared (alert threshold if >1.3).

RESULTS

The causes of these 777 early first revisions at a short mean follow-up (MF) of 1.4 years were: dislocation (191/777, 24.6%), peri-prosthetic fracture (175, 22.5%), aseptic loosening (103, 13.3%) and acute infection (101, 13%). The RCOY for all primary HP was 0.25 at 5.4 years of MF. This index: (i) Depended on the type of implant: 0.23 for HP with dual-mobility cups (DMC) at 4.7 years of MF; 0.25 for HP with short femoral stems at 4.4 years; and 0 for resurfacing after only 2.5 years (due to the creation of a specific mandatory register, since 2015, which put an end to the voluntary inclusion of resurfacing in this general register). (ii) Depended on the method of fixation: 0.21 for completely cemented HP at 7.8 years of MF and 0.29 at 4.9 years for completely uncemented HP. (iii) Based on the friction torque: 0.12 for conventional metal-metal HP at 9.7 years of MF and 0.29 at 5.1 years for alumina-alumina HP. (iv) Finally, 3 arthroplasties with 3 uncemented stems had an RCOY > 1.3.

DISCUSSION

Although the RCOY of HP with conventional cemented femoral stems is only 0.16 at 6.6 years of MF, while that of HP with conventional uncemented stems is 0.29 at 4.9 years, the trend towards uncemented femoral fixation has continued to intensify. Resurfacing gives good results following careful selection of implants but with a short MF of 2.5 years. Conventional metal-metal bearings continue to give excellent results at almost 10 years of MF. The 10-year survival of HP with short femoral stems is favorable compared to that of HP with conventional stems. There is no significant difference between the survival of HP with conventional versus highly cross-linked polyethylene liner.

CONCLUSION

Despite its low representativeness, this register provides information on the techniques and implants used in France. The addition of clinical monitoring and PROM within the new SOFCOT-RENACOT registry as well as re-certification obligations should help promote its development.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; prospective comparative study.

What Are the Relative Associations of Surgeon Performance and Prosthesis Quality With THA Revision Rates?

BACKGROUND

Many factors, including some related to the patient, implant selection, and the surgeon's skill and expertise, likely contribute to the risk of THA revision. However, surgeon factors have not been extensively analyzed in national joint replacement registries, and there is limited insight into their potential as a confounding variable for revision outcomes; for example, if surgeons with higher revision rates choose more successful prostheses, would this alone reduce their revision rate?

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

This study used Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) data for patients receiving primary THA for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis to answer the following questions: (1) Will the difference in revision rates among surgeons change or disappear when only procedures performed with the best prostheses or prostheses that have been identified as having higher revision rates are considered? (2) Is the benefit associated with using the best-performing prostheses different among surgeons with different revision rates? (3) Do the reasons for revision differ between surgeons with higher rates of revision compared with surgeons with lower rates of revision?

METHODS

All primary THA procedures performed and recorded in the AOANJRR for osteoarthritis from September 1, 1999, to December 31, 2022, were considered for inclusion. Each THA prosthesis used was categorized per the AOANJRR as superior-performing, middle-performing, or identified as having a higher rate of revision by the AOANJRR benchmarking process. Surgeons who had performed at least 50 procedures and had a recorded 2-year cumulative percent revision (CPR) were included. After applying these restrictions, the study consisted of 302,066 procedures performed by 476 known surgeons. For the primary outcome measure of all-cause revision, we examined the variation in all-cause revision rates across individual surgeons when different classes of devices were used to assess whether differences between surgeons persisted when accounting for prosthesis selection. For the purposes of descriptively comparing reasons for revision between surgeons with higher-than-average or lower-than-average risk of revision, surgeons were classified into quartiles and outcomes compared when these surgeons used the same class of prosthesis.

RESULTS

The difference in rates of revision among surgeons remained even after accounting for the effects of the prosthesis used. For any given surgeon, identified prostheses were associated with higher revision rates compared with both superior-performing prostheses (HR 1.73 [95% CI 1.57 to 1.92]; p < 0.01) and medium-performing prostheses (HR 1.31 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.43]; p < 0.01). All surgeons demonstrated a lower revision rate when using a superior-performing prosthesis, but the difference was greatest for surgeons with the highest rates of revision. Surgeons with the lowest rates of revision had a 19-year CPR of 3.9% (95% CI 3.0% to 5.0%) when using a superior-performing prosthesis compared with 5.4% (95% CI 4.0% to 7.3%) for procedures in which an identified prosthesis was used. Surgeons with the highest rates of revision had a 19-year CPR of 10.9% (95% CI 8.6% to 13.8%) when using a superior-performing prosthesis, and this increased to 20.4% (95% CI 18.0% to 23.1%) for procedures in which an identified prosthesis was used. The reasons for revision differ between surgeons, with causes of revision likely preventable and not related to the prosthesis choice being apparent for surgeons with high revision rates.

CONCLUSION

The choice of implant and the surgeon performing the index procedure both affected the risk of revision as well as the reasons for revision. Surgeons could improve the survivorship of the arthroplasties they perform by choosing implants identified by registries as having lower revision rates. Acceptance of the fact that surgeons have different revision rates is needed, and detailed analysis is required to explain why surgeons with high revision rates have increased rates of likely preventable revisions, and outside of prosthesis choice, how revision rates can be lowered. The influence of training, fellowship completion, ongoing education, patient selection, indications for surgery, and factors underlying prosthesis decision-making should be assessed. The surgeon performing THA is an important confounder that should be considered in future registry analyses.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

No Difference in Revision Rates or Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Between Surgical Approaches for Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed for Femoral Neck Fracture: An Analysis of 5,025 Primary Total Hip Arthroplasties From the New Zealand Joint Registry

BACKGROUND

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) for femoral neck fracture (FNF) can be performed through different surgical approaches. This study compared the revision rates and patient-reported outcome measures by surgical approach.

METHODS

Data from the New Zealand Joint Registry were analyzed for patients undergoing primary THA for FNF from January 2000 to December 2021. A total of 5,025 THAs were performed for FNF; the lateral approach was used in 2,499 (49.7%), the posterior in 2,255 (44.9%), and the anterior in 271 (4.3%). The primary outcome measure was the all-cause revision rate. Secondary outcome measures included revision rates for: dislocation, aseptic femoral component loosening, periprosthetic fracture, and infection. Oxford Hip Scores (OHS) were also collected. Age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, femoral head size, dual mobility use, femoral fixation, and surgeon experience were assessed as potential confounding variables.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the revision rates between lateral and posterior (P = .156), lateral and anterior (P = .680), or posterior and anterior (P = .714) approaches. There was no difference in the reasons for revision between the lateral and posterior approaches or 6-month OHS (P = .712). There was insufficient data to compare the anterior approach.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference in the overall revision rates, reasons for revision, or OHS between the lateral and posterior surgical approaches for THA performed for FNF. Insufficient data on the anterior approach is available for an accurate comparison.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

A comparison of cemented femoral fixation via anterior versus posterior approach total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 60,739 total hip arthroplasties

BACKGROUND

Anterior approach total hip arthroplasty (THA) decreases the rate of dislocation but increases femoral-sided complications in the way of periprosthetic fractures and component loosening. A cemented prosthesis may reduce femoral-sided complications and improve the risk:benefit profile of anterior approach THA.

METHODS

Data from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry were analysed for patients undergoing primary THA via the anterior or posterior approach using a cemented polished femoral stem from January 2015 to December 2021. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative percent revision (CPR) for all causes and CPR for femoral component loosening and fracture. The CPR for the primary outcome measures were compared between the anterior and posterior approach and adjusted for age, sex, ASA score, BMI and femoral head size.

RESULTS

The study included 60,739 THAs with cemented stems (10,742 anterior, 49,997 posterior). The rate of revision of the anterior versus the posterior approach did not significantly differ (HR 0.87 (95% CI, 0.74-1.03), p = 0.100). Anterior approach THA had a significantly higher rate of revision for femoral component loosening (HR 5.06 [95% CI, 3.08-8.30], p < 0.001); and a decreased rate of revision for infection (HR 0.59 [95% CI, 0.43-0.81], p = 0.001) and dislocation/instability (HR 0-3 months 0.48 [95% CI, 0.27-0.83], p = 0.008; HR >3 months 0.30 [95% CI, 0.15-0.61], p < 0.001). There was no difference in the rate of revision surgery for fracture between the 2 approaches (HR 1.01 [95% CI, 0.71-1.43]), p = 0.975).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference in overall revision rates with cemented femoral fixation performed with an anterior or posterior approach. Cemented fixation performed with the anterior approach partly mitigates femoral complications with no difference in the revision rate for fracture but an increased rate of femoral component loosening.