Challenges in Prosthesis Classification

ArticleinThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 93 Suppl 3(Supplement_3):72-5 · December 2011with13 Reads
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00990 · Source: PubMed
Accurate prosthesis classification is critical for total joint arthroplasty surveillance and assessment of comparative effectiveness. Historically, prosthesis classification was based solely on the names of the prosthesis manufacturers. As a result, prosthesis designs changed without corresponding name changes, and other prostheses' names changed over time without substantial design modifications. As the number of prostheses used in total joint arthroplasty on the market increased, catalog and lot numbers associated with prosthesis descriptions were introduced by manufacturers. Currently, these catalog and lot numbers are not standardized, and there is no consensus on categorization of these numbers into brands or subbrands. Classification of the attributes of a prosthesis also varies, limiting comparisons of prostheses across studies and reports. The development of a universal prosthesis classification system would standardize prosthesis classification and enhance total joint arthroplasty research collaboration worldwide. This is a current area of focus for the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries (ICOR).
    • "They were usually developed without a global approach reflecting the most relevant scientific research questions of the time when developed, e.g., implant fixation methods, metal-on-metal bearings, and head sizes. Critical issues include historical changes in prosthesis design that were not accompanied by device name change or catalog number change [7, 18, 19]. When using catalog or lot numbers for creating a classification , the lack of standardization and the lack of categorization into attributes and characteristics limits the usability for other registries. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Every joint registry aims to improve patient care by identifying implants that have an inferior performance. For this reason, each registry records the implant name that has been used in the individual patient. In most registries, a paper-based approach has been utilized for this purpose. However, in addition to being time-consuming, this approach does not account for the fact that failure patterns are not necessarily implant specific but can be associated with design features that are used in a number of implants. Therefore, we aimed to develop and evaluate an implant product library that allows both time saving barcode scanning on site in the hospital for the registration of the implant components and a detailed description of implant specifications. A task force consisting of representatives of the German Arthroplasty Registry, industry, and computer specialists agreed on a solution that allows barcode scanning of implant components and that also uses a detailed standardized classification describing arthroplasty components. The manufacturers classified all their components that are sold in Germany according to this classification. The implant database was analyzed regarding the completeness of components by algorithms and real-time data. The implant library could be set up successfully. At this point, the implant database includes more than 38,000 items, of which all were classified by the manufacturers according to the predefined scheme. Using patient data from the German Arthroplasty Registry, several errors in the database were detected, all of which were corrected by the respective implant manufacturers. The implant library that was developed for the German Arthroplasty Registry allows not only on-site barcode scanning for the registration of the implant components but also its classification tree allows a sophisticated analysis regarding implant characteristics, regardless of brand or manufacturer. The database is maintained by the implant manufacturers, thereby allowing registries to focus their resources on other areas of research. The database might represent a possible global model, which might encourage harmonization between joint replacement registries enabling comparisons between joint replacement registries.
    Article · May 2015
    • "National joint arthroplasty registries facilitate an exchange of experiences concerning new materials and surgical methods, which is beneficial for the evaluation of efficacy and detection of failures and disadvantages as early as possible. Furthermore, national registers play an important role in the comparative analysis of implant performance, the detection of revision rates following total joint arthroplasty, and identification of patients for the purpose of follow-ups and recalls5678910 . This allows a continuous, evidencebased adaptation of implant-choice and surgical technique to achieve improved results. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures between different countries with regard to epidemiological data and surgical technique by reference to the worldwide arthroplasty registers. Methods: A systematic search was carried out using the EFORT website to identify the relevant arthroplasty registers. We extracted data with respect to the number of implanted TKAs, patients' age distribution, procedure types, and revision rates. After identification of 28 national arthroplasty registers, 11 offered sufficient data regarding the above mentioned parameters and were therefore included in the final analysis. Results: A large variation was found in the annual number of primary TKA implantations per inhabitant with a reported range from 30 to 199 per 100,000 (mean 106). The fixation method varied strongly between the different registers as well, e.g. 90 % of totally cemented TKAs in Sweden, England and Wales, Slovakia, and New Zealand versus 54 % cemented fixation in Australia. Another significant difference between included countries was observed with respect to the use of patellar resurfacing in TKA. Whilst the Danish knee arthroplasty register reports a percentage of 72 % using a patellar button in TKA the register from Norway reports only a minority of 2 %. Conclusions: The comparison of arthroplasty registers revealed large differences regarding the annual number of primary TKAs per inhabitant and primary TKA procedure types. These variations may be explained by several factors such as patient demographics (prevalence of osteoarthritis) and national conditions such as healthcare systems (insurance status), number or availability of performing surgeons, medical facilities and surgeon-dependent factors such as definition of indications, education, tradition and experience.
    Full-text · Article · May 2013
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective: The aim is to present the functioning and results of the Catalan Arthroplasty Registry (RACat). Material and method: The RACat arose by the initiative of the Catalan Society of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, the Catalan Health Service (CHS) and the Catalan Agency for Health Information Assessment and Quality. Publicly funded hospitals sent information through the Internet (CHS Applications website) on knee and hip arthroplasties: patient identification, hospital, joint (hip/knee), type (primary/revision), side of operation, date of surgery and prosthesis (manufacturer's name and reference number). The quality of the data is analysed regularly. We estimate the risk of replacement by the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: A total of 52 hospitals out of 62 send data to RACat, and information on 36,951 knee and 26,477 hip arthroplasties is available. Data quality improved between 2005 and 2010. In 2010 coverage exceeded 70%, with side of operation 97%, and prostheses identification of 80%. The risk of replacement at three years was 3.3% (95% CI:3.1-3.6) for knee, 2.9% (95% CI:2.5-3.3) for total hip, and 2.5% (95% CI:2.0-3.1) for partial hip. Discussion: Risk of replacement is higher than that observed in other registers, although data quality and its improvement over time should be taken into account. Conclusions: The information available in the RACat will help to establish a standard that will enable hospitals to compare results.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2013
Show more