Page 27 - The value of total hip and knee arthroplasties for patients

INTRODUCTION
Total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA andTKA) are effective interventions to reduce 2 symptoms, improve daily activities and improve quality of life (QoL) in patients with
end stage hip or knee osteoarthritis.1 To monitor the safety and effectiveness of
THA and TKA, national arthroplasty registers are instituted. Currently, 40 national,
regional, or institutional registries are member of ISAR (International Society of Arthroplasty Registers).2-5
By tradition, arthroplasty registries mainly comprise procedure-related data on the characteristics of the implants and surgical techniques as well as their functional outcomes, the focus regarding the latter being mainly on implant sur vival.6 However, since patient satisfaction as outcome scores after THA and TKA are lower than implant survival rates, there is a growing recognition of the importance of the collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) next to survival data within orthopedic arthroplasty registers.7-9 Currently, there are numerous examples of the registration of PROMs alongside orthopedic implant registries in Europe (Sweden, UK, Norway), North Americas 2;3 and New Zealand.10
The scientific value of the collected PROMs depends largely on the inclusion rates and completeness of collected data. Rolfson et al. presented an overview of inclusion and follow-up response rates specifically for THA and TKA, obtained in 3 national registries:The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR), New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) and the National Joint Registry for England,Wales Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR).8 Overall inclusion rates varied between 69-86%. Follow-up response rates were around 75% after 6 months, between 64 and 90% after 1 year and between 72 and 75% until 5 years.
Heterogeneity in completeness of inclusion and follow-up response rates is likely to be related to differences in clinical outcome measures and the logistic procedures of data collection.11-13 This variation raises the question to what extent the collection of PROMs alongside an arthroplasty register or for that matter as a nested study within a national arthroplasty register is feasible in daily clinical practice. In addition, completed follow-up rates are often not mentioned, questioning the achievability of long-term follow-up of such data.The aim of the present study was to evaluate the feasibility of PROMs data collection up to 2-years after THA or TKA in a network
feasibility of collecting multiple PROMs
25