Abstract
Aims
We aimed to assess the comparability of data in joint replacement registries and identify ways of improving the comparisons between registries and the overall monitoring of joint replacement surgery.
Materials and Methods
We conducted a review of registries that are full members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries with publicly available annual reports in English. Of the six registries which were included, we compared the reporting of: mean age, definitions for revision and re-operation, reasons for revision, the approach to analysing revisions, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA).
Results
Outcomes were infrequently reported for HRA compared with THA and all hip arthroplasties. Revisions were consistently defined, though re-operation was defined by one registry. Implant survival was most commonly reported as the cumulative incidence of revision using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Three registries reported patient reported outcome measures.
Conclusion
More consistency in the reporting of outcomes for specific types of procedures is needed to improve the interpretation of joint registry data and accurately monitor safety trends. As collecting additional details of surgical and patient-reported outcomes becomes increasingly important, the experience of established registries will be valuable in establishing consistency among registries while maintaining the quality of data.
Take home message: As the volume of joint replacements performed each year continues to increase, greater consistency in the reporting of surgical and patient-reported outcomes among joint replacement registries would improve the interpretation and comparability of these data to monitor outcomes accurately.
Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:442–51.
