Similar revision rates in clinical studies and arthroplasty registers and no bias for developer publications in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Abstract

Purpose Our aim was to assess the outcome with respect to cumulative revision rates of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) by comparing published literature and arthroplasty registry data. Our hypothesis was that there is a superior outcome of UKA described in dependent clinical studies compared to independent studies or arthroplasty registers. Methods A systematic review of all clinical studies on UKA in the past decade was conducted with the main endpoint revision rate. Revision rate was calculated as "revision per 100 component years (CY)". The respective data were analysed with regard to a potential difference of the percentage of performed revision surgeries as described in dependent and independent clinical studies. Clinical data were further compared to arthroplasty registers in a systematic search algorithm. Results In total, 48 study cohorts fulfilled our inclusion criteria and revealed 1.11 revisions per 100 CY. This corresponds to a revision rate of 11.1% after 10 years. No deviations with regard to revision rates for UKA among dependent and independent clinical literature were detected. Data from four arthroplasty registers showed lower survival rates after 10 years compared to published literature without being significant. Conclusions The outcomes of UKA in dependent and independent clinical studies do not differ significantly and are in line with arthroplasty register datasets. We cannot confirm biased results and the authors recommend the use of UKAs in properly selected patients by experts in their field.Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Revision Rates After Total Ankle Replacement: A Comparison of Clinical Studies and Arthroplasty Registers

“…This method has been commonly applied in the literature. [24][25][26]57,63,65 The exact formula for calculation is number of revisions divided by observed CYs multiplied by 100. A value of 1 revision per 100 CYs equals a 7-year revision rate of 7%, and a 10 year revision rate of 10%.…”

“…However, these studies were published a decade ago and this bias has not yet been observed in other joint prostheses in recent years. 24,26,63 Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to compare current revision rates of TARs published in clinical studies of the past decade to those described in arthroplasty registers. The secondary aim was to compare revision rates between sponsored/dependent and independent studies and between mobile bearing TARs (MB-TARs) and fixed bearing TARs (FB-TARs).…”

Impact of age on unicompartmental knee arthroplasty outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The revision outcome was assessed using two methods; first, the raw number of revisions (incident) was calculated to compare between both age groups. Additionally, for the annual revision rate, revisions per 100 observed component years (CY) was adopted [ 11 ]; a widely accepted method in orthopedic literature and is used to overcome inconsistencies in data sources and follow-up periods across studies and ensure appropriate weighting in comparisons.…”

Application and Surgical Technique of ACL Reconstruction Using Worldwide Registry Datasets: What Can We Extract?

“…The final search date was 20 September 2021. This method is widely accepted and has been applied repeatedly in the field of orthopedics concerning the use of arthroplasty registers [ 12 , 13 , 14 ].…”