Background: Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) ratings of total hip (TH) and total knee (TK) implants are informative for assessing implant performance. However, the validity of ODEP ratings across multiple registries is unknown. Therefore, we aimed to assess, across multiple registries, whether TH and TK implants with a higher ODEP rating (i.e., an A* rating) have lower cumulative revision risks (CRRs) than those with a lower ODEP rating (i.e., an A rating) and the extent to which A* and A-rated implants would be A*-rated on the basis of the pooled registries’ CRR. Methods: Implant-specific CRRs at 3, 5, and 10 years that were reported by registries were matched to ODEP ratings on the basis of the implant name. A meta-analysis with random-effects models was utilized for pooling the CRRs. ODEP benchmark criteria were utilized to classify these pooled CRRs. Results: A total of 313 TH cups (54%), 356 TH stems (58%), 218 TH cup-stem combinations (34%), and 68 TK implants (13%) with unique brand names reported by registries were matched to an ODEP rating. Given the low percentage that matched, TK implants were not further analyzed. ODEP-matched TH implants had lower CRRs than TH implants without an ODEP rating at all follow-up time points, although the difference for TH stems was not significant at 5 years. No overall differences in CRRs were found between A* and A-rated TH implants, with the exception of TH cup-stem combinations, which demonstrated a significantly lower CRR for A*A*-rated cup-stem combinations at the 3-year time point. Thirty-nine percent of A*-rated cups and 42% of A*-rated stems would receive an A* rating on the basis of the pooled registries’ CRR at 3 years; however, 24% of A-rated cups and 31% of A-rated stems would also receive an A* rating, with similar findings demonstrated at longer follow-up. Conclusions: At all follow-up time points, ODEP-matched TH implants had lower CRRs than TH implants without an ODEP rating. Given that the performance of TH implants varied across countries, registries should first validate ODEP ratings with use of country-specific revision data to better guide implant selection in their country. Data source transparency and the use of revision data from multiple registries would strengthen the ODEP benchmarks.

@en

Background: The European Union Medical Device Regulation (MDR) requires manufacturers to undertake post-market clinical follow-up (PMCF) to assess the safety and performance of their devices following approval and Conformité Européenne (CE) marking. The quality and reliability of device registries for this Regulation have not been reported. As part of the Coordinating Research and Evidence for Medical Devices (CORE-MD) project, we identified and reviewed European cardiovascular and orthopaedic registries to assess their structures, methods, and suitability as data sources for regulatory purposes. Methods: Regional, national and multi-country European cardiovascular (coronary stents and valve repair/replacement) and orthopaedic (hip/knee prostheses) registries were identified using a systematic literature search. Annual reports, peer-reviewed publications, and websites were reviewed to extract publicly available information for 33 items related to structure and methodology in six domains and also for reported outcomes. Results: Of the 20 cardiovascular and 26 orthopaedic registries fulfilling eligibility criteria, a median of 33% (IQR: 14%-71%) items for cardiovascular and 60% (IQR: 28%-100%) items for orthopaedic registries were reported, with large variation across domains. For instance, no cardiovascular and 16 (62%) orthopaedic registries reported patient/ procedure-level completeness. No cardiovascular and 5 (19%) orthopaedic registries reported outlier performances of devices, but each with a different outlier definition. There was large heterogeneity in reporting on items, outcomes, definitions of outcomes, and follow-up durations. Conclusion: European cardiovascular and orthopaedic device registries could improve their potential as data sources for regulatory purposes by reaching consensus on standardised reporting of structural and methodological characteristics to judge the quality of the evidence as well as outcomes.@en