Validation of revision data for total hip and knee replacements undertaken at a high volume orthopaedic centre against data held on the National Joint Registry

5Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: With over 2.35 million records, the National Joint Registry (NJR) is the largest arthroplasty registry in the world. It provides a powerful tool to monitor implant survivorship and influence different surgical strategies. To date, little work has been undertaken to investigate the validity of the 'Reason for Revision' recorded in Consultant Outcome Reports on the NJR. Methods: The NJR was queried to identify all revisions on the THR performed at a single centre over an 11-year period. Review and validation of 'Reason for Revision' for each case was undertaken using radiological imaging studies, pathology, histology, microbiology and electronic medical records. Results: Of the 22,046 primary total hip replacements (THR) and total knee replacements (TKR) undertaken by 23 surgeons at our hospital, over an 11-year period, 1.35% (297) were subsequently reported to the NJR as revised. Discrepancies in reporting to the NJR were identified for 41 cases (25.63%) for THR and 28 (20.40%) cases for TKR. Revision for infection was under-reported for both THR and TKR by 1.88% and 3.65% respectively. Reporting of adverse soft tissue reaction to particulate debris for THR was unreported by 11%. Progressive arthritis following a TKR was unreported by 6.56%. All the cases reported as 'other' (8.75% for THRs and 3.65% for TKRs) were reclassified to the most appropriate 'reason for revision' category. The 'reason for revision' data is recorded to the NJR with findings at the time of surgery. It is some days before microbiology and histology reports become available and source data is not always updated. Conclusion: If an average of 23% wrong data entry at a highly organised institution is replicated throughout the UK, a formal process to validate primary and revision data submitted to the NJR should be considered. Local scrutiny, review and validation of revision data are all vital to optimise the value of the NJR. Accurate data recorded to the NJR is imperative to provide safe and effective improvements in orthopaedic surgery.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Afzal, I., Radha, S., Smoljanović, T., Stafford, G. H., Twyman, R., & Field, R. E. (2019). Validation of revision data for total hip and knee replacements undertaken at a high volume orthopaedic centre against data held on the National Joint Registry. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-019-1304-9

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free