Outcome of the cementless Taperloc stem: a comprehensive literature review including arthroplasty register data

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.

[The German Association for Foot and Ankle (D.A.F.) registry on treatment of end-stage total ankle arthritis-what is its clinical impact?]

Initially established as a voluntary prosthesis register for total ankle replacement, the registry now enables analysis of revisions, complications, and clinical and functional outcomes-including patient-reported outcome measures-based on a period spanning more than 10 years. To allow analyses of the outcomes of ankle arthrodesis and supramalleolar osteotomies for treatment of end-stage arthritis in the future, the registry was extended by structured capturing of these procedures in 2018. While descriptive and analytical statistical evaluations of total ankle replacement are already possible today, the number of datasets on arthrodesis and supramalleolar osteotomies is still too small to support these analyses or comparative evaluations.

Implant Survival of 680 Consecutive EcoFit® Flat Single-Wedge Cementless Femoral Stems is Equivalent to the Taperloc® Total Hip Arthroplasty Series

Introduction

The EcoFit® total hip endoprosthesis has recently been approved for clinical use in the USA as a substantially equivalent implant to the Taperloc® Hip System, but no report has directly compared their long-term results so far. The primary aim of the presented single-hospital EcoFit® cohort analysis was to determine femoral stem survival rates at 5/10 years of follow-up in comparison to eight Taperloc® studies published within the last decade (2011-2021). The secondary aim was to find out whether femoral stem survival depended on the patients' age, gender and the operating surgeon.

Materials and Methods

The retrospective surgeon-stratified observational cohort study included 680 consecutive patients with primary EcoFit® femoral stem implanted at the same operating theatre block of a single tertiary hospital between April 2009 and December 2015. Survival analyses after 6-12 years of follow-up were performed with the Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox regression.

Results

The cumulative proportion of revision-free surviving EcoFit® femoral stems 5/10 years after the primary implantation was 96/94%, respectively, and the cumulative proportion of unremoved stems was 99/98%, respectively. The EcoFit® stem revision rate of 0.46 per 100 components-years was not significantly different from most Taperloc® cohorts. Higher age increased the risk of subsequent EcoFit® femoral stem revision (hazard ratio 1.039, p = 0.048) while the impact of gender and the operating surgeon was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

The study presents the first surgeon-stratified cohort analysis of the EcoFit®-Implantcast femoral stem from a single hospital with 5851 component years of observation. Long-term EcoFit® survival rates are comparable to the Taperloc® hip system. Caution is warranted when using such flat cementless single-wedge stems in the elderly population.

Migration behaviour of 2 clinically excellent cementless stems with different design rationales: 5-year follow-up of a randomised RSA-study

INTRODUCTION

Excellent long-term survival has been reported for both the Taperloc and the Mallory-Head cementless stems. However, little is known about the migration behaviour of these stems which have different design rationales. The purpose of this randomised clinical trial was to compare the migration and clinical outcomes of these stems during 5 years of follow-up.

METHODS

42 consecutive hips in 38 patients scheduled to receive cementless THA were randomised to either a Taperloc or a Mallory-Head stem. Evaluation took place preoperatively and postoperatively on the second day, at 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks, and annually thereafter. Primary outcome was stem migration measured using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis (RSA) and secondary outcomes were the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). No patients were lost to follow-up; in 1 patient the THA was removed due to deep infection 3 months postoperatively. In 6 hips migration measurements were not possible due to insufficient marker configuration.

RESULTS

Throughout the follow-up period of 5 years, 3-dimensional migration was comparable between the Taperloc and the Mallory-Head stems (p-values > 0.05). However, at the 5-year follow-up point the retroversion of the Mallory-Head stem was 0.9° more than the Taperloc stem (p = 0.04). Initial subsidence and retroversion were respectively as large as 6.8 mm and 3.6° for the Taperloc stem and 5 mm and 3.6° for the Mallory-Head stem. After the first postoperative year, both implants had stabilised. The mean increment of HHS, as well as the SF-36 scores during the 5-year follow-up, were comparable between the 2 stems.

CONCLUSIONS

The excellent long-term survival of both designs was confirmed in this study showing comparable initial migration with subsequent stabilisation. However, the Taperloc design with a flat, wedged geometry showed better rotational stability.

Early Benchmarking Total Hip Arthroplasty Implants Using Data from the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI)

BACKGROUND

Benchmarking arthroplasty implant revision risk is an informative way to address implant performance. National benchmarking efforts exist in the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Australia. Recently, the International Prosthesis Benchmarking Working Group, including representatives from industry, academia, and national registries, produced a guideline describing arthroplasty benchmarking methodology. The proposal was applied to data from the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI) to assess its feasibility for benchmarking implants in the United States.

METHODS

Primary elective total hip arthroplasty procedures performed for osteoarthritis between 2/15/2012 and 12/31/2018 and their associated revisions were identified in the MARCQI registry. The guidelines recommend that all prostheses combinations receive an early benchmark if they have at least 250 procedures at risk and the revision rate does not exceed the pre-determined standard of 2% at 2 years and 3% at 5 years.

RESULTS

A total of 72,949 primary cases met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 1369 had revisions. Twenty-nine and six stem/cup combinations satisfied the minimum case requirement at 2 and 5 years, respectively. Three implant combinations would not receive a benchmark at 2 years: Secur-Fit/Trident, Anthology/Reflection 3, Taperloc 133/G7.

CONCLUSION

The guideline can be implemented in the United States by a regional registry. Moreover, not all hip implants currently in use would receive an early benchmark. This raises concern as these implant combinations represent a significant number of cases in Michigan, some with increasing utilization.

Cementless fixation in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcome, failures, implant survival, and complications encountered with cementless fixation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature on cementless fixation in UKA was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. The following database was comprehensively searched: PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Google Scholar. The keywords "unicompartmental", "unicondylar", "partial knee arthroplasty", and "UKA" were combined with each of the keyword "uncemented", "cementless" and "survival", "complications", and "outcome". The following data were extracted: demographics, clinical outcome, details of failures and revisions, cumulative survival, and complications encountered. The risk of bias of each study was estimated with the MINORS score and a further scoring system based on the presence of the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

From a cohort of 63 studies identified using the above methodology, 10 papers (1199 knees) were included in the final review. The mean follow-up ranged from 2 to 11 years (median 5 years). The 5-year survival ranged from 90 to 99 % and the 10-year survival from 92 to 97 %. There were 48 revisions with an overall revision rate of 0.8 per 100 observed component-years. The most common cause of failure was progression of osteoarthritis in the retained compartment (0.9 %). The cumulative incidence of complications and revisions was comparable to that reported in similar studies on cemented UKAs. The advantages of cementless fixation include faster surgical time, avoidance of cementation errors, and lower incidence of radiolucent lines.

CONCLUSIONS

Cementless fixation is a safe and effective alternative to cementation in medial UKA. Clinical outcome, failures, reoperation rate, and survival are similar to those reported for cemented implants with lower incidence of radiolucent lines.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Clinical outcome of design modifications to the CLS Spotorno Stem in total hip replacement

PURPOSE

historically, the original CLS Spotorno Stem has demonstrated excellent survival. The design of this stem was recently modified, resulting in the introduction of a shorter, modular version (CLS Brevius). The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the functional, radiological and survivorship outcomes of the cementless CLS Brevius Stem in a multi-surgeon, single center, consecutive series study at two years post-surgery.

METHODS

the Authors performed 170 total hip arthroplasties in 155 patients using the shorter, triple-taper stem design (CLS Brevius). The patients' diagnoses were primary hip osteoarthritis (OA) in 74.4%, secondary hip OA in 22.6%, and post-traumatic hip OA in 3%. All operations were performed through a mini-posterior approach, with the patient in the lateral decubitus position. The mean follow-up was 32 months (24-44 months). Outcome was assessed using the Harris Hip Score (HHS).

RESULTS

the mean HHS improved from 32 preoperatively to 92 points at final follow-up, while the stem survival rate was 99.4%. Overall, the results were excellent in148 hips (87%), good in 14 hips (8.2%), fair in six hips (3.6%), and poor in two hips (1.2%). Intraoperative complications included a calcar fissure in three hips (1.7%). Correct femoral offset was reproduced in 97% while the planned center of hip rotation was achieved in 98%. Only one hip underwent early stem revision; this was due to major subsidence.

CONCLUSIONS

the modified CLS stem design showed excellent short-term results with a low rate of early postoperative complications. One of the main findings of this study was the high correlation between the planned femoral offset and center of hip rotation and the final radiographic measurements. This high reproducibility, which indicates the ability of the system to restore normal hip anatomy, is indeed due to the extensive modularity that characterizes this stem system. Long-term follow-up studies are necessary to fully compare the outcomes of the new design with its highly successful predecessor.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic cases series.

Experience with the Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty: 78 consecutive total elbow arthroplasties reviewed with an average 5 years of follow-up

BACKGROUND

The Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty is a linked implant. This study investigated the hypotheses that reliable results can be obtained in rheumatoid patients and in traumatic conditions and that the survival rate is similar to or better than what has been published for nonlinked implants.

METHODS

Surgery was performed on 70 consecutive patients (78 elbows) for an inflammatory arthritis (45 elbows) or a traumatic condition (33 elbows: 18 acute fractures of the distal humerus, 10 nonunions, and 5 post-traumatic arthritis).

RESULTS

At an average of 5 years of follow-up (2 to 11 years), the mean Mayo Elbow Performance Score for the group that had inflammatory arthritis (89 ± 13 points) was significantly higher than that for the group with a traumatic condition (80 ± 17 points). The QuickDASH score was not significantly different according to the etiology. Radiolucencies were observed in 17 cases around the humeral component and in 14 cases around the ulnar component. Bushing wear was observed in 14 cases. There were 27 complications, and 9 of them went to a revision procedure. The survival rate was 97.7% at 5 years and 91.0% at 10 years if we consider revision for aseptic loosening as an endpoint.

CONCLUSIONS

The Coonrad-Morrey total elbow arthroplasty allows treatment of a large spectrum of causes with satisfactory results. Better results have been obtained for rheumatoid patients than for patients with trauma. The rate of complication remains high even if the rate of implant revision stays low. However, the increased incidence of lucent lines around the ulnar component with follow-up and bushing wear are of concern.

The short and "shorter" of it: >1750 tapered titanium stems at 6- to 88-month follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Femoral fixation in THA can be achieved with different design rationales. Our hypothesis was that two short titanium flat-tapered stems would demonstrate similar stability.

METHODS

Between May 2005 and May 2012, 849 short (135-170mm), titanium flat stems ("Short") were used in THA. Between July 2005 and May 2012, 902 similar, but 35-mm shorter, stems ("Shorter") were utilized. Harris Hip Score, radiographic, and survivorship data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Survivorship of the "Short" stems was 99.1% at 7years. Eight of 849 stems have been revised: 4 for loosening, 3 for fracture, and 1 for infection. Harris Hip Score improved from 41.6 to 88.9. In the "Shorter" group, 9 of 902 have been revised: 6 for fracture/loosening, 2 for infection, and 1 for instability. HHs improved from 43.7 to 92.0. No statistically significant differences were noted in revision rate.

CONCLUSION

This comparison study of short titanium tapered stems has confirmed similar >99% survivorship in >1750 THA stems at 6- to 88 (mean 36)-month follow-up. Early periprosthetic fracture, although rare (0.5%), was more likely to occur in older patients.

Application and surgical technique of total knee arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide registers

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures between different countries with regard to epidemiological data and surgical technique by reference to the worldwide arthroplasty registers.

METHODS

A systematic search was carried out using the EFORT website to identify the relevant arthroplasty registers. We extracted data with respect to the number of implanted TKAs, patients' age distribution, procedure types, and revision rates. After identification of 28 national arthroplasty registers, 11 offered sufficient data regarding the above mentioned parameters and were therefore included in the final analysis.

RESULTS

A large variation was found in the annual number of primary TKA implantations per inhabitant with a reported range from 30 to 199 per 100,000 (mean 106). The fixation method varied strongly between the different registers as well, e.g. 90 % of totally cemented TKAs in Sweden, England and Wales, Slovakia, and New Zealand versus 54 % cemented fixation in Australia. Another significant difference between included countries was observed with respect to the use of patellar resurfacing in TKA. Whilst the Danish knee arthroplasty register reports a percentage of 72 % using a patellar button in TKA the register from Norway reports only a minority of 2 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The comparison of arthroplasty registers revealed large differences regarding the annual number of primary TKAs per inhabitant and primary TKA procedure types. These variations may be explained by several factors such as patient demographics (prevalence of osteoarthritis) and national conditions such as healthcare systems (insurance status), number or availability of performing surgeons, medical facilities and surgeon-dependent factors such as definition of indications, education, tradition and experience.

[Revision rates in journal publications on joint prostheses with noticeably high failure rates in register data sets]

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF STUDY

The value of outcome quality data from clinical studies is an issue of controversial debate particularly in the context of adverse events. The aim of this study is to present and evaluate the data available from clinical studies for products that show inferior outcome in registers and to assess the possibility to draw valid conclusions from these data. STUDY DESIGN AND ANALYTICAL METHODS: Based on a structured literature research, a comparative analysis was made of the revision rates of 12 products showing significantly inferior average results in registers. The primary outcome parameter was the revision rate for any reason calculated using a standardized methodology and the parameter of revisions per 100 observed component years.

RESULTS

For 5 out of 12 products not a single comparable study was available and relatively few data were available for the remaining products. A conventional meta-analysis revealed that only three products showed results that were comparable with those from registers. For 75% of products good results were published. There was not a single case where it would have been possible to identify or isolate the problems that had led to the underperformance observed on the basis of clinical studies alone.

DISCUSSION

Clinical sample-based studies are not a suitable and reliable means to recognize potential product or handling problems and avoid risks for patients and physicians. In this respect registers can provide an essential contribution.

Pooled outcome of total hip arthroplasty with the CementLess Spotorno (CLS) system: a comparative analysis of clinical studies and worldwide arthroplasty register data

PURPOSE

Our aim was to elucidate the pooled outcome of the CementLess Spotorno (CLS) system in total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

We compared the outcome of clinical inventor studies, independent clinical studies, and worldwide register data. The main endpoints for analysis were revision rates.

RESULTS

Twenty clinical studies were evaluated and, with one exception, overall found revision rates largely in line with register data. Revision rates (revisions per 100 observed component years) range from 0.15 (inventor study) to 0.28 (independent studies) and 0.43 (register datasets).

CONCLUSION

Data of journal publications and register datasets using the CLS system do not differ significantly with respect to revision rates. Only the initial inventor study reports a revision rate three times lower than in pooled worldwide register datasets.

Revision rates after knee replacement. Cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies versus joint registers

OBJECTIVE

To assess revision rates after knee arthroplasty by comparing the cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies and arthroplasty registers. We hypothesised that the revision rate of all clinical studies of a given implant and register data would not differ significantly.

METHODS

A systematic review of clinical studies in indexed peer-reviewed journals was performed followed by internal and external validation. Parameters for measurement of revision were applied (Revision for any reason, Revisions per 100 observed component years). Register data served as control group.

RESULTS

Thirty-six knee arthroplasty systems were identified to meet the inclusion criteria: 21 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems, 14 unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) systems, one patello-femoral implant system. For 13 systems (36%), no published study was available that contained revision data. For 17 implants (47%), publications were available dealing with radiographic, surgical or technical details, but power was too weak to compare revision rates at a significant level. Six implant systems (17%) had a significant number of revisions published and were finally analysed. In general, developers report better results than independent users. Studies from developers represent an overproportional share of all observed component years. Register data report overall 10-year revision rates of TKA of 6.2% (range: 4.9-7.8%), rates for UKA are 16.5% (range: 9.7-19.6%).

CONCLUSION

Revision rates of all clinical studies of a given implant do not differ significantly from register data. However, significant differences were found between the revision rates published by developers and register data. Therefore the different data need to be interpreted in the context of the source of the information.

Application and survival curve of total hip arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide hip arthroplasty registers

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to compare primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) implantations between different countries in terms of THA number per inhabitant, age, and procedure type and to compare the survival curve including all THAs using hip arthroplasty registers.

METHODS

THA registers were compared between different countries with respect to the number of primary implantations per inhabitant and age, procedure type and survival curve. We performed a literature search for all national hip arthroplasty registers providing annual reports for 2009 or, if not available, a more recent period. The data from these reports were analysed in terms of number, age distribution and procedure type of primary THAs and survival curves.

RESULTS

We identified nine hip arthroplasty registers, which comprised sufficient data to be included. A large variation was found in the annual number of primary THA implantations per inhabitant. The procedure type varied greatly as well, e.g. in Sweden 67 % are cemented THAs whereas in Emilia-Romagna (Italy) 89 % are cementless THAs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed large differences in terms of the annual number of primary THAs per inhabitant and primary THA procedure type across countries. These data can be used to rank local primary THA implantations within an international context.

Revision rate of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: comparison of published literature and arthroplasty register data

PURPOSE

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty has gained popularity for treating young and active patients who have arthritis. There are two major data sources for assessing outcome and revision rate after total joint arthroplasty: sample-based clinical trials and national arthroplasty registers. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty in terms of revision rate as reported in clinical studies and recorded by national arthroplasty registers.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature research was performed from English-language, peer-reviewed journals and annual reports from national joint arthroplasty registers worldwide. Only publications from MEDLINE-listed journals were included. The revision rate was used as the primary outcome parameter. In order to allow for direct comparison of different data sets, calculation was based on revisions per 100 observed component years. For statistical analysis, confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 18,708 implants, equivalent to 106,565 observed component years, were analysed in the follow-up studies. The register reports contained 9,806 primary cases corresponding to 44,294 observed component years. Statistical analysis revealed a significant difference in revisions per 100 observed component years between the development team (0.27; CI: 0.14-0.40) and register data (0.74; CI: 0.72-0.76).

CONCLUSION

The BHR arthroplasty device shows good results in terms of revision rate in register data as well as in clinical studies. However, the excellent results reported by the development team are not reproducible by other surgeons. Based on the results of our study, we believe that comprehensive national arthroplasty registers are the most suitable tool for assessing hip arthroplasty revision rate.

Impact of implant developers on published outcome and reproducibility of cohort-based clinical studies in arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The reproducibility of the results of cohort-based clinical studies of arthroplasty procedures by the average orthopaedic surgeon is a major issue involving the quality of the scientific literature. We compared the results of a comprehensive literature analysis with data from national arthroplasty registries to examine the influence of arthroplasty implant inventors on the outcomes published in peer-reviewed journals.

METHODS

A structured review of the literature published in MEDLINE-listed journals was performed. A comparison of the average revision rates in the identified studies (adjusted for the number of arthroplasty cases and the duration of follow-up) with the registry data was then conducted.

RESULTS

Seventeen of the analyzed arthroplasty implants were developed in the United States. Studies by the developers of these implants often had a substantial influence on the published outcome. For approximately 50% of the implant systems analyzed, the average revision rate derived by combining all published studies showed a statistically significant and clinically relevant deviation from the revision rate derived from the arthroplasty registry data, which reflected the outcome in the average patient. For the majority of implants for which the revision rate calculated from the published clinical studies was very low compared with the rate calculated from the registry data, the developing institution accounted for 39% to 100% of the published outcome data for the implant. In contrast, the published results were usually reproducible in clinical practice if <25% of the published data were reported by the developers. Three of the nine arthroplasty implants developed in Europe showed a significant and clinically relevant difference between the revision rate derived from only the studies published by the developers and the rate calculated from the registry data. However, because of the considerably greater amount of data from independent studies that was typically available for the European implants than for the American implants, studies by the developer that deviated significantly from the registry data could usually also be identified as outliers by a meta-analysis of all published studies. A high proportion of the published data involving three of the European implants was reported by the inventors, but comparison with the registry data revealed that the average published revision rates for two of these three implants were reproducible in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The published results of the clinical studies involving many of the arthroplasty implants, especially implants developed in the United States, were highly influenced by reports from the center that developed the implant. This often had a substantial effect on the reproducibility of the outcome data. There appeared to be relevant differences between the medical research systems in Europe and the United States that also affected the reproducibility and applicability of the results for the average surgeon. Registry data can contribute substantial added value to an informed discussion of arthroplasty outcomes.

The outcome of the cementless tapered SL-Plus stem: an analysis of arthroplasty register data

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcome of the cementless SL-Plus stem in worldwide arthroplasty register datasets.

METHODS

A structured analysis was conducted the registered data about the SL-Plus stem manufactured by Smith&Nephew including published data from Australia as well as previously unpublished datasets from the Registers of Lombardia, Italy and Valdoltra, Slovenia. A total of 75% of the data analysed had not been published so far. The primary outcome measure was the revision rate, calculated in revisions per 100 observed component years. We evaluated a total of 10,684 primary and 122 revision surgeries with an average follow-up period of four years.

RESULTS

All datasets showed good and reproducible results for treatment with the SL-Plus stem. An average of 0.31 revisions per 100 observed component years had been reported, which is considerably below the worldwide average (1.29) found for total hip arthroplasty independent of the product. The results of a large centre did not essentially deviate from the revision rates in Lombardia, where the numbers of cases per department are relatively low on average.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no indications for product defects or relevant errors in application. The SL-Plus stem can be considered a high-quality product that ensures good results also in the hands of less experienced surgeons. Data from even young registers can substantially contribute to the assessment of implants, even with the short follow-up periods. These datasets particularly allow for valid assessment of safety issues and can therefore make an essential contribution to the solution of problems of current relevance.

AQUILA: assessment of quality in lower limb arthroplasty. An expert Delphi consensus for total knee and total hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

In the light of both the importance and large numbers of case series and cohort studies (observational studies) in orthopaedic literature, it is remarkable that there is currently no validated measurement tool to appraise their quality. A Delphi approach was used to develop a checklist for reporting quality, methodological quality and generalizability of case series and cohorts in total hip and total knee arthroplasty with a focus on aseptic loosening.

METHODS

A web-based Delphi was conducted consisting of two internal rounds and three external rounds in order to achieve expert consensus on items considered relevant for reporting quality, methodological quality and generalizability.

RESULTS

The internal rounds were used to construct a master list. The first external round was completed by 44 experts, 35 of them completed the second external round and 33 of them completed the third external round. Consensus was reached on an 8-item reporting quality checklist, a 6-item methodological checklist and a 22-item generalizability checklist.

CONCLUSIONS

Checklist for reporting quality, methodological quality and generalizability for case series and cohorts in total hip and total knee arthroplasty were successfully created through this Delphi. These checklists should improve the accuracy, completeness and quality of case series and cohorts regarding total hip and total knee arthroplasty.