Pooling data for primary total knee implants across national registries: is the same implant used in multiple registries and for the same patient group? An observational study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.43476Keywords:
Implants, KneeAbstract
Background and purpose: Pooling data on the performance of total knee (TK) implants across registries is only possible if the same TK implant is used across multiple registries and if used in patients with similar characteristics. We assessed to what extent specific TK implants: (i) are used across multiple registries or only in a single registry; and (ii) differ in patient characteristics between registries.
Methods: All primary TK implants implanted between January 2020 and December 2021 in the Danish, Dutch, German, and Italian registries were included. We determined the number of registries using a specific TK implant (based on combined femoral-tibial component brand name and fixation/congruency/mobile bearing insert/patella usage). Patient characteristics (age/body mass index [BMI]/sex/diagnosis osteoarthritis) were compared across registries for TK implants used in ≥ 2 registries ≥ 100 times.
Results: 813 different TK implants (577,351 procedures) were used across the 4 registries, of which 53 TK implants (7%) were used in 1 registry (8,000 procedures). 760 different TK implants (569,351 procedures; 99%) were used in ≥ 2 registries of which 47 different TK implants (393,954 procedures; 68%) were used in ≥ 2 registries and ≥ 100 times. Statistically and clinically significant differences in age for the same TK implant across registries were observed for 29 TK implants (62%) and 3 TK implants (6%), respectively; for other characteristics these were for BMI 30 (64%) and 0 (0%) TK implants; for male proportion 23 (49%) and 17 (36%) TK implants; and for diagnosis of osteoarthritis 42 (89%) and 34 (72%) TK implants, respectively.
Conclusion: Most specific TK implants and TK procedures were used across multiple registries, but they were often used in patients with different characteristics. This has an impact on comparing implant performances between registries.
Downloads
References
de Steiger R N, Miller L N, Davidson D C, Ryan P, Graves S E. Joint registry approach for identification of outlier prostheses. Acta Orthop 2013; 84(4): 348-52. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2013.831320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2013.831320
Hoogervorst L A, Geurkink T H, Lübbeke A, Buccheri S, Schoones J W, Torre M, et al. Quality and uility of European cardiovascular and orthopaedic registries for the regulatory evaluation of medical device safety and performance across the implant lifecycle: a systematic review. Int J Health Policy Manag 2023; 12: 7648. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7648. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7648
Von Hintze J, Ponkilainen V, W-Dahl A, Hailer N P, Furnes O, Fenstad A M, et al. Incidence of constrained condylar and hinged knee implants and mid- to long-term survivorship: a register-based study from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA). Acta Orthop 2025; 96: 142-50. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2025.42999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.42999
Hoogervorst L A, Ren Y, Melvin T, Stratton-Powell A A, Lübbeke A, Geertsma R E, et al. Safety notices and registry outlier data measure different aspects of safety and performance of total knee implants: a comparative study of safety notices and register outliers. Acta Orthop 2024; 95: 667-76. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2024.42361. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2024.42361
Gausden E B, Puri S, Chiu Y F, Figgie M P, Sculco T P, Westrich G, et al. Mid-term survivorship of primary total knee arthroplasty with a specific implant. Bone Joint J 2023; 105-b(3): 277-83. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.105B3.BJJ-2022-0616.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.105B3.BJJ-2022-0616.R1
García-Crespo R, Marco F, Moro L E, Ariza G, Luque R, López-Durán L. Midterm results of Optetrak posterior-stabilized total knee system after 7 to 12 years in a university hospital. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26(8): 1326-31. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.11.020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.11.020
Puijk R, Sierevelt I N, Pijls B, Spekenbrink-Spooren A, Nolte P A. Increased risk of aseptic loosening for posterior stabilized compared with posterior cruciate-retaining uncemented total knee replacements: a cohort study of 13,667 knees from the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 600-6. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.33283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.33283
Schmerler J, Harris A B, Srikumaran U, Khanuja H S, Oni J K, Hegde V. Body mass index and revision total knee arthroplasty: does cause for revision vary by underweight or obese status? J Arthroplasty 2023; 38(12): 2504-9.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2023.06.019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2023.06.019
Bayliss L E, Culliford D, Monk A P, Glyn-Jones S, Prieto-Alhambra D, Judge A, et al. The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 2017; 389(10077): 1424-30. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30059-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30059-4
Gademan M G J, Van Steenbergen L N, Cannegieter S C, Nelissen R, Marang-Van De Mheen P J. Population-based 10-year cumulative revision risks after hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis to inform patients in clinical practice: a competing risk analysis from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2021; 92(3): 280-4. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1876998. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2021.1876998
Lingard E A, Katz J N, Wright E A, Sledge C B. Predicting the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86(10): 2179-86. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200410000-00008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200410000-00008
Ackerman I N, Dieppe P A, March L M, Roos E M, Nilsdotter A K, Brown G C, et al. Variation in age and physical status prior to total knee and hip replacement surgery: a comparison of centers in Australia and Europe. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61(2): 166-73. doi: 10.1002/art.24215. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/art.24215
Irmola T, Ponkilainen V, Mäkelä K T, Robertsson O, A W D, Furnes O, et al. Impact of Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) collaboration on demographics, methods and revision rates in knee arthroplasty: a register-based study from NARA 2000-2017. Acta Orthop 2022; 93:866-73. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2022.5256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2022.5256
Grimberg A W, Steinbrück A. [10 Years of the German Arthroplasty Registry-EPRD: what has been achieved?]. Orthopadie (Heidelb) 2023; 52(6): 463-71. doi: 10.1007/s00132-023-04385-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-023-04385-3
Italian Arthroplasty Registry (RIAP). Annual Report 2021: English addendum. Available from: https://riap.iss.it/riap/en/activities/reports/2023/07/10/annual-report-2021-english-addendum/ (last date accessed: September 18, 2024).
Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Online LROI annual report 2022. Available from: https://www.lroi.nl/media/3j2o5wjg/pdf-lroi-annual-report-2022.pdf (date last accessed: September 18, 2024).
Greenland S, Senn S J, Rothman K J, Carlin J B, Poole C, Goodman S N, et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol 2016; 31(4): 337-50. doi: 10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-016-0149-3
Pijls B G, Dekkers O M, Middeldorp S, Valstar E R, van der Heide H J, Van der Linden-Van der Zwaag H M, et al. AQUILA: assessment of quality in lower limb arthroplasty. An expert Delphi consensus for total knee and total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12: 173. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-173
Hofstede S N, Gademan M G J, Stijnen T, Nelissen R, Marang-van de Mheen P J. The influence of preoperative determinants on quality of life, functioning and pain after total knee and hip replacement: a pooled analysis of Dutch cohorts. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19(1): 68. doi: 10.1186/s12891-018-1991-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-1991-0
Melvin T, Torre M. New medical device regulations: the regulator’s view. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4(6): 351-6. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180061. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180061
Courage O, Strom L, van Rooij F, Lalevée M, Heuzé D, Papin P E, et al. Higher rates of surgical and medical complications and mortality following TKA in patients aged ≥ 80 years: a systematic review of comparative studies. EFORT Open Rev 2021; 6(11): 1052-62. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.200150
Willigenburg N W, Poolman R W. The difference between statistical significance and clinical relevance: the case of minimal important change, non-inferiority trials, and smallest worthwhile effect. Injury 2023; 54(Suppl 5): 110764. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2023.04.051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2023.04.051
Kang Y, Liu C, Ji Y, Zhang H, Wang Y, Bi W, et al. The burden of knee osteoarthritis worldwide, regionally, and nationally from 1990 to 2019, along with an analysis of cross-national inequalities. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2024; 144(6): 2731-43. doi: 10.1007/s00402-024-05250-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-024-05250-4
Günsche J L, Pilz V, Hanstein T, Skripitz R. The variation of arthroplasty procedures in the OECD countries: analysis of possible influencing factors by linear regression. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2020; 12(3): 8526. doi: 10.4081/or.2020.8526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/or.2020.8526
de Steiger R N, Hallstrom B R, Lübbeke A, Paxton E W, van Steenbergen L N, Wilkinson M. Identification of implant outliers in joint replacement registries. EFORT Open Rev 2023; 8(1): 11-17. doi: 10.1530/EOR-22-0058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-22-0058
Kugler C M, Goossen K, Rombey T, De Santis K K, Mathes T, Breuing J, et al. Hospital volume–outcome relationship in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and dose–response meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2022; 30(8): 2862-77. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06692-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06692-8
Pondugula P, Krumme J W, Seedat R, Patel N K, Golladay G J. Evaluation of painful total knee arthroplasty: an approach based on common etiologies for total knee arthroplasty revision. Musculoskelet Surg 2024; 108(1): 11-20. doi: 10.1007/s12306-023-00800-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-023-00800-2
Stone B, Nugent M, Young S W, Frampton C, Hooper G J. The lifetime risk of revision following total knee arthroplasty: a New Zealand Joint Registry study. Bone Joint J 2022; 104-b(2): 235-41. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.104B2.BJJ-2021-0890.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.104B2.BJJ-2021-0890.R1
Hariri M, Hagemann M, Mick P, Deisenhofer J, Panzram B, Innmann M, et al. Physical activity of young patients following minimally invasive lateral unicompartmental knee replacement. J Clin Med 2023; 12(2). doi: 10.3390/jcm12020635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020635
Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). LROI Implant Library—Knee. Available from: https://www.lroi.nl/media/gzxorhtj/625522d75894blroi-implant-library-knee.pdf (date last accessed: September 18, 2024).
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Lotje Hoogervorst, Rob G H H Nelissen, Liza van Steenbergen, Alma B Pedersen, Eskild Bendix Kristiansen, Martin Lindberg-Larsen, Marina Torre, Enrico Ciminello, Riccardo Valentini, Alexander W Grimberg, Yinan Wu, Perla J Marang-van de Mheen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
PlumX (by Elsevier) is an altmetrics platform that tracks and visualizes the online attention, usage, captures, citations, and social media engagement.
