Application and surgical technique of total knee arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide registers
- 417 Downloads
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.
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.
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 %.
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.
KeywordsTotal Knee Arthroplasty Revision Rate Total Joint Arthroplasty Patellar Resurface Arthroplasty Register
- 1.Robertsson O (2007) Knee arthroplasty registers. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89B:1–4Google Scholar
- 3.Berry DJ, Kessler M, Morrey BF (1997) Maintaining a hip registry for 25 years: Mayo clinic experience. Clin Orthop 344:618Google Scholar
- 4.Robertsson O, Lewold S, Knutson K, Lidgren L (2007) The Swedish knee arthroplasty project. Acta Orthop Scand 71:7–18Google Scholar
- 15.European Arthroplasty Register (2011) EAR European arthroplasty register. http://www.ear.efort.org. Accessed 22 September 2012
- 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.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.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
- 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