Quality of outcome data in total hip arthroplasty

Comparison of registry data and worldwide non-registry studies from 5 decades

Christof Pabinger, Anna Bridgens, Andrea Berghold, Paul Wurzer, Nikolaus Boehler, Gerold Labek

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: This systematic review assessed evidence on outcome (revision rate for all reasons) following hip arthroplasty from its beginning 5 decades ago. Methods: We evaluated all studies from all current hip implants since their market introduction in 1962 regarding “revision rate per 100 observed component years”. Data were compared with arthroplasty registries. Results: A total of 54 different hip implants were included: for 81% (44 of 54) data is either absent or poor; for 30% (16 of 54) not a single publication could be found. For 52% (28 of 54) less than 100 revisions for all reasons are published in non-registry studies. The remaining 10 implants (19%) comprise 92638 primary implants with 4473 revisions. Control group were the same implants with 111658 primary cases and 3029 revisions from arthroplasty registries. A systematic developer bias as in knee arthroplasty could not be found but several independent authors were found to significantly bias the literature. The overall revision rates per 100 observed component years from non-registry studies (and joint registries) are 0.4 (0.5) for stems, 0.7 (0.7) for cups and 1.4 (2.1) for resurfacing systems. Conclusions: For 81% of all hip implants assessed limited evidence exists from non-registry studies regarding outcome (revision rate) even 5 decades after market introduction. For the remaining 19% of implants no systematic developer bias could be found but several individual authors significantly biased results of single implants. We therefore ask for a more active publication of new implants.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)394-401
Number of pages8
JournalHIP International
Volume25
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Arthroplasty
Registries
Hip
Publications
Knee Replacement Arthroplasties
Joints
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Control Groups
Data Accuracy

Keywords

  • Arthroplasty registry
  • Hip arthroplasty
  • Quality
  • Registry
  • Revision
  • Revision rate

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Quality of outcome data in total hip arthroplasty : Comparison of registry data and worldwide non-registry studies from 5 decades. / Pabinger, Christof; Bridgens, Anna; Berghold, Andrea; Wurzer, Paul; Boehler, Nikolaus; Labek, Gerold.

In: HIP International, Vol. 25, No. 5, 01.09.2015, p. 394-401.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pabinger, Christof ; Bridgens, Anna ; Berghold, Andrea ; Wurzer, Paul ; Boehler, Nikolaus ; Labek, Gerold. / Quality of outcome data in total hip arthroplasty : Comparison of registry data and worldwide non-registry studies from 5 decades. In: HIP International. 2015 ; Vol. 25, No. 5. pp. 394-401.
@article{325fddeb904a4cafb835859f67712ef5,
title = "Quality of outcome data in total hip arthroplasty: Comparison of registry data and worldwide non-registry studies from 5 decades",
abstract = "Purpose: This systematic review assessed evidence on outcome (revision rate for all reasons) following hip arthroplasty from its beginning 5 decades ago. Methods: We evaluated all studies from all current hip implants since their market introduction in 1962 regarding “revision rate per 100 observed component years”. Data were compared with arthroplasty registries. Results: A total of 54 different hip implants were included: for 81{\%} (44 of 54) data is either absent or poor; for 30{\%} (16 of 54) not a single publication could be found. For 52{\%} (28 of 54) less than 100 revisions for all reasons are published in non-registry studies. The remaining 10 implants (19{\%}) comprise 92638 primary implants with 4473 revisions. Control group were the same implants with 111658 primary cases and 3029 revisions from arthroplasty registries. A systematic developer bias as in knee arthroplasty could not be found but several independent authors were found to significantly bias the literature. The overall revision rates per 100 observed component years from non-registry studies (and joint registries) are 0.4 (0.5) for stems, 0.7 (0.7) for cups and 1.4 (2.1) for resurfacing systems. Conclusions: For 81{\%} of all hip implants assessed limited evidence exists from non-registry studies regarding outcome (revision rate) even 5 decades after market introduction. For the remaining 19{\%} of implants no systematic developer bias could be found but several individual authors significantly biased results of single implants. We therefore ask for a more active publication of new implants.",
keywords = "Arthroplasty registry, Hip arthroplasty, Quality, Registry, Revision, Revision rate",
author = "Christof Pabinger and Anna Bridgens and Andrea Berghold and Paul Wurzer and Nikolaus Boehler and Gerold Labek",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5301/hipint.5000239",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "394--401",
journal = "HIP International",
issn = "1120-7000",
publisher = "Wichtig Publishing",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of outcome data in total hip arthroplasty

T2 - Comparison of registry data and worldwide non-registry studies from 5 decades

AU - Pabinger, Christof

AU - Bridgens, Anna

AU - Berghold, Andrea

AU - Wurzer, Paul

AU - Boehler, Nikolaus

AU - Labek, Gerold

PY - 2015/9/1

Y1 - 2015/9/1

N2 - Purpose: This systematic review assessed evidence on outcome (revision rate for all reasons) following hip arthroplasty from its beginning 5 decades ago. Methods: We evaluated all studies from all current hip implants since their market introduction in 1962 regarding “revision rate per 100 observed component years”. Data were compared with arthroplasty registries. Results: A total of 54 different hip implants were included: for 81% (44 of 54) data is either absent or poor; for 30% (16 of 54) not a single publication could be found. For 52% (28 of 54) less than 100 revisions for all reasons are published in non-registry studies. The remaining 10 implants (19%) comprise 92638 primary implants with 4473 revisions. Control group were the same implants with 111658 primary cases and 3029 revisions from arthroplasty registries. A systematic developer bias as in knee arthroplasty could not be found but several independent authors were found to significantly bias the literature. The overall revision rates per 100 observed component years from non-registry studies (and joint registries) are 0.4 (0.5) for stems, 0.7 (0.7) for cups and 1.4 (2.1) for resurfacing systems. Conclusions: For 81% of all hip implants assessed limited evidence exists from non-registry studies regarding outcome (revision rate) even 5 decades after market introduction. For the remaining 19% of implants no systematic developer bias could be found but several individual authors significantly biased results of single implants. We therefore ask for a more active publication of new implants.

AB - Purpose: This systematic review assessed evidence on outcome (revision rate for all reasons) following hip arthroplasty from its beginning 5 decades ago. Methods: We evaluated all studies from all current hip implants since their market introduction in 1962 regarding “revision rate per 100 observed component years”. Data were compared with arthroplasty registries. Results: A total of 54 different hip implants were included: for 81% (44 of 54) data is either absent or poor; for 30% (16 of 54) not a single publication could be found. For 52% (28 of 54) less than 100 revisions for all reasons are published in non-registry studies. The remaining 10 implants (19%) comprise 92638 primary implants with 4473 revisions. Control group were the same implants with 111658 primary cases and 3029 revisions from arthroplasty registries. A systematic developer bias as in knee arthroplasty could not be found but several independent authors were found to significantly bias the literature. The overall revision rates per 100 observed component years from non-registry studies (and joint registries) are 0.4 (0.5) for stems, 0.7 (0.7) for cups and 1.4 (2.1) for resurfacing systems. Conclusions: For 81% of all hip implants assessed limited evidence exists from non-registry studies regarding outcome (revision rate) even 5 decades after market introduction. For the remaining 19% of implants no systematic developer bias could be found but several individual authors significantly biased results of single implants. We therefore ask for a more active publication of new implants.

KW - Arthroplasty registry

KW - Hip arthroplasty

KW - Quality

KW - Registry

KW - Revision

KW - Revision rate

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84944454949&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84944454949&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5301/hipint.5000239

DO - 10.5301/hipint.5000239

M3 - Article

VL - 25

SP - 394

EP - 401

JO - HIP International

JF - HIP International

SN - 1120-7000

IS - 5

ER -