Evaluation of total hip arthroplasty devices using a total joint replacement registry
- PMID: 22552980
- DOI: 10.1002/pds.3228
Evaluation of total hip arthroplasty devices using a total joint replacement registry
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to describe the infrastructure of the total joint replacement registry of a large integrated healthcare system's and emphasize challenges associated with orthopedic device classification and evaluation.
Methods: Using a large integrated healthcare system innovative infrastructure including electronic health record data, administrative data sources, and registry data collection, we evaluated device choice and outcomes of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Devices were classified into type of bearing surface (alternative versus traditional). Multiple imputation was used to accommodate missing data, and a logistic regression model was applied to assess the impact of patient and surgeon factors on choice of bearing surface. A Cox regression model was used to evaluate risk of aseptic revision while controlling for surgeon, site, and patient characteristics. Adjusted cumulative probability-of-event curves were created, comparing survival of alternative against traditional bearings of devices, with aseptic revision as the outcome of interest.
Results: The study sample consisted of 25,377 primary THAs with an average follow-up of 2.7 years. Choice of bearing surface varied by surgeon and patient characteristics. After adjusting for patient, surgeon, and hospital covariates, results showed that the risk of aseptic revision associated with alternative bearings did not differ significantly from traditional bearing surfaces (hazard ratio = 1.33; 95% confidence interval: 0.90, 1.98).
Conclusions: Clinically rich data from a registry with linkages to electronic health records and other administrative databases improve identification of exposures, outcomes, and patient subgroups in medical device evaluation. These various data sources facilitate refined adjustment for potential confounders such as hospital, surgeon, and patient factors and ensure comprehensive device performance evaluation within registries.
Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Similar articles
-
Revision total hip arthoplasty: factors associated with re-revision surgery.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015 Mar 4;97(5):359-66. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.00073. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015. PMID: 25740025
-
Sex and risk of hip implant failure: assessing total hip arthroplasty outcomes in the United States.JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Mar 25;173(6):435-41. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.3271. JAMA Intern Med. 2013. PMID: 23420484
-
Independent predictors of revision following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: a retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data.J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Jun;94(6):746-54. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.94B6.29239. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012. PMID: 22628587
-
Assessing the comparability of hip arthroplasty registries in order to improve the recording and monitoring of outcome.Bone Joint J. 2016 Apr;98-B(4):442-51. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B4.36501. Bone Joint J. 2016. PMID: 27037425 Review.
-
Comparative pooled survival and revision rate of Austin-Moore hip arthroplasty in published literature and arthroplasty register data.J Arthroplasty. 2013 Sep;28(8):1349-53. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.12.011. Epub 2013 Mar 24. J Arthroplasty. 2013. PMID: 23535284 Review.
Cited by
-
Total knee arthroplasty volume, utilization, and outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries, 1991-2010.JAMA. 2012 Sep 26;308(12):1227-36. doi: 10.1001/2012.jama.11153. JAMA. 2012. PMID: 23011713 Free PMC article.
-
The Kaiser Permanente implant registries: effect on patient safety, quality improvement, cost effectiveness, and research opportunities.Perm J. 2012 Spring;16(2):36-44. doi: 10.7812/TPP/12-008. Perm J. 2012. PMID: 22745614 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
