Comparing contemporary revision burden among hip and knee joint replacement registries

Brian J McGrory; Caryn D Etkin; David G Lewallen

doi:10.1016/j.artd.2016.04.003

Comparing contemporary revision burden among hip and knee joint replacement registries

Arthroplast Today. 2016 May 27;2(2):83-86. doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2016.04.003. eCollection 2016 Jun.

Authors

Brian J McGrory¹, Caryn D Etkin², David G Lewallen³

Affiliations

¹ Maine Joint Replacement Institute, Portland, ME, USA; Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
² American Joint Replacement Registry, Rosemont, IL, USA.
³ American Joint Replacement Registry, Rosemont, IL, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Abstract

Background: Hip and knee arthroplasties are common and successful procedures, however, success and durability are not guaranteed. The revision burden, defined as the ratio of implant revisions to the total number of arthroplasties in a specific period, is a measure of the steady state of arthroplasty success in a given registry. This study examines the hypothesis that revision burden would be similar among contemporary joint replacement registries and improving over time compared with historic controls.

Methods: We evaluated the national joint registries of 5 health systems (Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry [AOANJRR]; National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man; New Zealand Joint Registry [NZJR]; Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register [SHAR] and Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register [SKAR]; and the American Joint Replacement Registry [AJRR]) for hip and knee revision burden over the past 4 years or since registry inception. Historic controls were obtained from previously published reports.

Results: The 2014 hip revision burden varied from 9.7 percent (NJR) to 11.9 percent (NZJR), and the unweighted average was 10.4 percent. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 mean hip revision burden was 11.9, 11.9, and 11.4 percent. The 2014 knee revision burden varied from to 6.0 percent (NJR) to 8.1 percent (AJRR), and the unweighted average for the 5 registries studied was 7.0 percent. The 2011, 2012, and 2013 mean knee revision burden was 6.9, 7.0, and 7.0 percent. Historically, the observed hip revision burden was 15.8 percent and the knee revision burden 8.0 percent.

Conclusions: Revision burden has gradually decreased for hip replacements and has remained relatively constant for knee replacements both for the last 4 years and compared to historic controls. Knee revision burden was lower than hip revision burden for each period examined. Revision burden is one measure that may be helpful in following the effect of changes in surgical technique and implant design over time in registry populations and may be a helpful way to compare overall results between registries.

Keywords: Joint replacement registry; Revision; Revision burden; Total hip replacement (THR); Total knee replacement (TKR).