Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :
- Author: Peter van Schie x
- General Orthopaedics x
Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Peter van Schie in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Shaho Hasan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Leti van Bodegom-Vos in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jan W Schoones in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rob G H H Nelissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Perla J Marang-van de Mheen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
In order to improve care for total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA), hospitals may want to compare their performance with hospitals in other countries. Pooling data across countries also enable early detection of infrequently occurring safety issues. We therefore aimed to assess the between-hospital variation and definitions used for revision, readmission, and complications across countries.
-
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, Emcare, and Academic Search Premier were searched from January 2009 to August 2020 for studies reporting on: (i) primary THA/TKA; (ii) revision, readmission, or complications; and (iii) between-hospital variation. Most recent registry reports of Network of Orthopedic Registries of Europe members were also reviewed. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Integrated quality Criteria for the Review Of Multiple Study designs tool for studies and relevant domains for registries. We assessed agreement for the following domains: (i) outcome definition; (ii) follow-up and starting point; (iii) case-mix adjustment; and (iv) type of patients and hospitals included.
-
Between-hospital variation was reported in 33 (1 high-quality, 13 moderate-quality, and 19 low-quality) studies and 8 registry reports. The range of variation for revision was 0–33% for THA and 0–27% for TKA varying between assessment within hospital admission until 10 years of follow-up; for readmission, 0–40% and 0–32% for THA and TKA, respectively; and for complications, 0–75% and 0–50% for THA and TKA, respectively. Indicator definitions and methodological variables varied considerably across domains.
-
The large heterogeneity in definitions and methods used likely explains the considerable variation in between-hospital variation reported for revision, readmission, and complications , making it impossible to benchmark hospitals across countries or pool data for earlier detection of safety issues. It is necessary to collaborate internationally and strive for more uniformity in indicator definitions and methods in order to achieve reliable international benchmarking in the future.
Search for other papers by Shaho Hasan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Peter van Schie in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Bart L Kaptein in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jan W Schoones in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Safety & Security Science, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Perla J Marang-van de Mheen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rob G H H Nelissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background
-
Loosening is a major cause for failure of total hip and total knee arthroplasties (THAs/TKAs). Preemptive diagnostics of asymptomatic loosening could open strategies to prevent gross loosening. A multitude of biomarkers may discriminate between loosened and stable implants, but it is unknown which have the best performance. The present systematic review aimed to assess which biomarkers have shown the most promising results in discriminating between stable and aseptic loosened THAs and TKAs.
Methods
-
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Academic Search Premier were systematically searched up to January 2020 for studies including THA/TKA and biomarkers to assess loosening. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the ICROMS tool to classify the quality of the studies.
Results
-
Twenty-eight (three high-quality) studies were included, reporting on a median of 48 patients (interquartile range 28–69). Serum and urine markers were evaluated in 22 and 10 studies, respectively. Tumor necrosis factor α and osteocalcin were significantly higher in loosened compared with stable implants. Urinary N-terminal telopeptide had significantly elevated levels in loosened prostheses.
Conclusion
-
Several serum and urine markers were promising in discriminating between loosened and stable implants. We recommend future studies to evaluate these biomarkers in a longitudinal fashion to assess whether progression of loosening is associated with a change in these biomarkers. In particular, high-quality studies assessing the usability of these biomarkers are needed.
