Article

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

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Impact Factor: 4.31). 12/2011; 93 Suppl 3:55-61. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01108
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
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.
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.
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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
310 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Der endoprothetische Ersatz des Hüftgelenks hat sich zu einem der erfolgreichsten Standardeingriffe in der Orthopädie entwickelt. Dies wurde durch eine kontinuierliche Verbesserung der verwendeten Endoprothesensysteme und Materialien sowie eine kontinuierliche Erweiterung der präklinischen Untersuchungen und gesetzlichen Rahmenbedingungen ermöglicht. Eine weitere Verbesserung der klinischen Situation kann nur durch verstärkte Anstrengungen auch in den beiden anderen für den Erfolg einer Endoprothesenimplantation entscheidenden Faktoren erreicht werden: intensive Aus- und Weiterbildung der Anwender sowie Aufklärung der Patienten hinsichtlich der Limitationen dieses Eingriffs. Bei der Einführung neuer Prothesenkonzepte können neue Versagensmechanismen nicht grundsätzlich durch präklinische Testung im Vorfeld ausgeschlossen werden. Hier sind eine vorsichtige klinische Einführung in Verbindung mit einer standardisierten Schadensanalyse die Grundlagen für die Vermeidung von in einem größeren Umfang auftretenden Problemfällen.
    Trauma und Berufskrankheit 01/2013; 15(4). DOI:10.1007/s10039-013-2037-3
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and purpose - Recent reports on developer bias in unicondylar knee arthroplasty led to concerns about quality of publications regarding knee implants. We therefore compared revision rates of registry and non-registry studies from the beginning of knee arthroplasty up to the present. We assessed the time interval between market introduction of an implant and emergence of reliable data in non-registry studies. Material and methods - We systematically reviewed registry studies (n = 6) and non-registry studies (n = 241) on knee arthroplasty published in indexed, peer-reviewed international scientific journals. The main outcome measure was revision rate per 100 observed component years. Results and interpretation - For 82% of the 34 knee implants assessed, revision data from non-registry studies are either absent or poor. 91% of all studies were published in the second and third decade after market introduction. Only 5% of all studies and 1% of all revisions were published in the first decade. The first publications on revision rates of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) started 6 years after market introduction, and reliable data were found from year 12 onward in non-registry studies. However, in unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) the first publications on revision rates could be found first 13 years after market introduction. Revision rates of TKA from non-registry studies were reliable after year 12 following market introduction. UKA revision rates remained below the threshold of registry indices, and failed to demonstrate adjustment towards registries. Thus, the superiority of registry data over non-registry data regarding outcome measurement was validated.
    Acta Orthopaedica 09/2014; DOI:10.3109/17453674.2014.961119 · 2.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background and purpose - The aim of short-stem total hip arthroplasty is to preserve proximal bone stock for future revisions, to improve biomechanical reconstruction, and to make minimally invasive approaches easier. It is therefore being increasingly considered to be a sound alternative to conventional total hip arthroplasty, especially for young and active patients. However, it is still unknown whether survival rates of short-stem hips match current standards. We made a systematic summary of reported overall survival after short-stem total hip arthroplasty. Materials and methods - We conducted a systematic review of English, French, German, and Dutch literature. 2 assessors independently identified clinical studies on short-stem hip arthroplasty. After recalculating reported revision rates, we determined whether each implant had a projected revision rate of 10% or less at 10 years of follow-up or a revision rate per 100 observed component years of 1 or less. Stems were classified as "collum", "partial collum", or "trochanter-sparing". Results and Interpretation - We found 49 studies, or 51 cohorts, involving 19 different stems. There was a large increase in recent publications. The majority of studies included had a follow-up of less than 5 years. We found a large number of observational studies on "partial collum" and "trochanter-sparing" stems, demonstrating adequate survival rates at medium-term follow-up. Clinical evidence from "collum stem" studies was limited to a small number of studies with a medium-term follow-up period. These studies did not show a satisfactory overall survival rate.
    Acta Orthopaedica 04/2014; 85(3). DOI:10.3109/17453674.2014.908343 · 2.45 Impact Factor
    This article is viewable in ResearchGate's enriched format

Full-text

Download
90 Downloads
Available from
May 29, 2014