International Orthopaedics

, Volume 37, Issue 8, pp 1465–1469 | Cite as

Application and surgical technique of total knee arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide registers

  • Ines Vielgut
  • Norbert Kastner
  • Karin Pichler
  • Lukas Holzer
  • Mathias Glehr
  • Gerald Gruber
  • Andreas Leithner
  • Gerold Labek
  • Patrick Sadoghi
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Total Knee Arthroplasty Revision Rate Total Joint Arthroplasty Patellar Resurface Arthroplasty Register 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Robertsson O (2007) Knee arthroplasty registers. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89B:1–4Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Charnley J (1979) Low friction arthroplasty of the hip: theory and practice. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berry DJ, Kessler M, Morrey BF (1997) Maintaining a hip registry for 25 years: Mayo clinic experience. Clin Orthop 344:618Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Robertsson O, Lewold S, Knutson K, Lidgren L (2007) The Swedish knee arthroplasty project. Acta Orthop Scand 71:7–18Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ranstam J, Robertsson O (2010) Statistical analysis of arthroplasty register data. Acta Orthop 81(1):10–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Robertsson O, Mendenhall S, Paxton EW, Inacio MCS, Graves S (2011) Challenges in prosthesis classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93E:72–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sadoghi P, Schröder C, Fottner A, Steinbrück A, Betz O, Müller PE, Jansson V, Hölzer A (2012) Application and survival curve of total hip arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide hip arthroplasty registers. Int Orthop 36(11):2197–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Labek G, Janda W, Agreiter M, Schuh R, Böhler N (2011) Organisation, data evaluation, interpretation and effect of arthroplasty register data on the outcome in terms of revision rate in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 35(2):157–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Labek G, Frischhut S, Schlichtherle R, Williams A, Thaler M (2011) Outcome of the cementless Taperloc stem: a comprehensive literature review including arthroplasty register data. Acta Orthop 82(2):143–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Labek G, Kovac S, Levasic V, Janda W, Zagra L (2012) The outcome of the cementless tapered SL-Plus stem: an analysis of arthroplasty register data. Int Orthop 36(6):1149–1154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paxton EW, Furnes O, Namba RS, Inacio MCS, Fenstad AM, Havelin LI (2011) Comparison of the Norwegian knee arthroplasty register and a United States Arthroplasty Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(3E):20–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Robertsson O, Bizjajeva S, Fenstad AM, Furnes O, Lidgren L, Mehnert F, Odgaard A, Pedersen AB, Havelin LI (2010) Knee arthroplasty in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Acta Orthop 81:82–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    W-Dahl A, Robertsson O, Lidgren L, Miller L, Davidson D, Graves S (2010) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in patients aged less than 65. Acta Orthop 81:90–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Lau E, Widmer M, Maravic M, Gómez-Barrena E, de Fátima de Pina M, Manno V, Torre M, Walter WL, Steiger R, Geesink RGT, Peltola M, Röder C (2011) International survey of primary and revision total knee replacement. Int Orthop 35:1783–1789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    European Arthroplasty Register (2011) EAR European arthroplasty register. http://www.ear.efort.org. Accessed 22 September 2012
  16. 16.
    Sadoghi P, Liebensteiner M, Agreiter M, Leithner A, Böhler N, Labek G (2013) Revision surgery after total joint arthroplasty: a complication-based analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers. J Arthroplasty doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.01.012
  17. 17.
    Sadoghi P, Thaler M, Janda W, Hübl M, Leithner A, Labek G (2013) Comparative pooled survival and revision rate of Austin-Moore hip arthroplasty in published literature and arthroplasty register data. J Arthroplasty doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2012.12.011
  18. 18.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):EGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 354:1896–900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sadoghi P, Leithner A, Labek G (2013) Overcoming boundaries of worldwide joint arthroplasty registers: the European arthroplasty register minimal dataset. J Arthroplasty doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.023

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ines Vielgut
    • 1
  • Norbert Kastner
    • 1
  • Karin Pichler
    • 1
  • Lukas Holzer
    • 1
  • Mathias Glehr
    • 1
  • Gerald Gruber
    • 1
  • Andreas Leithner
    • 1
  • Gerold Labek
    • 2
  • Patrick Sadoghi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMedical University of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations