Accuracy and completeness of registry‐reported unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revision

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionThe key outcome of joint registries is revision events, which inform clinical practice and identify poor‐performing implants. Registries record revision events and reasons, but accuracy may be limited by a lack of standardized definitions of revision. Our study aims to assess the accuracy and completeness of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision and indications reported to the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) with independent clinical review.MethodsCase record review of 2272 patients undergoing primary UKA at four large tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2017 was performed, identifying 158 patients who underwent revision. Detailed review of clinical findings, radiographs and operative data was performed to identify revision cases and the reasons for revision using a standardized protocol. These were compared to NZJR data using chi‐squared and Fisher exact tests.ResultsThe NZJR recorded 150 (95%) of all UKA revisions. Osteoarthritis progression was the most common reason on the systematic clinical review (35%), however, this was underreported to the registry (8%, P < 0.001). A larger proportion of revisions reported to the registry were for ‘pain’ (30% of cases vs. 5% on clinical review, P < 0.001). A reason for revision was not reported to the registry for 10% of cases.ConclusionThe NZJR had good capture of UKA revisions, but had significant differences in registry‐reported revision reasons compared to our independent systematic clinical review. These included over‐reporting of ‘pain’, under‐reporting of osteoarthritis progression, and failing to identify a revision reason. Efforts to improve registry capture of revision reasons for UKA could be addressed through more standardized definitions of revision and tailored revision options for UKA on registry forms.