The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) Steering Committee established the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Working Group to convene, evaluate, and advise on best practices in the selection, administration, and interpretation of PROMs and to support the adoption and use of PROMs for hip and knee arthroplasty in registries worldwide. The 2 main types of PROMs include generic (general health) PROMs, which provide a measure of general health for any health state, and specific PROMs, which focus on specific symptoms, diseases, organs, body regions, or body functions. The establishment of a PROM instrument requires the fulfillment of methodological standards and rigorous testing to ensure that it is valid, reliable, responsive, and acceptable to the intended population.A survey of the 41 ISAR member registries showed that 8 registries administered a PROMs program that covered all elective hip or knee arthroplasty patients and 6 registries collected PROMs for sample populations; 1 other registry had planned but had not started collection of PROMs. The most common generic instruments used were the EuroQol 5 dimension health outcome survey (EQ-5D) and the Short Form 12 health survey (SF-12) or the similar Veterans RAND 12-item health survey (VR-12). The most common specific PROMs were the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and the University of California at Los Angeles Activity Score (UCLA).

— The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Working Group have evaluated and recommended best practices in the selection, administration, and interpretation of PROMs for hip and knee arthroplasty registries. The 2 generic PROMs in common use are the Short Form health surveys (SF-36 or SF-12) and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D). The Working Group recommends that registries should choose specific PROMs that have been appropriately developed with good measurement properties for arthroplasty patients. The Working Group recommend the use of a 1-item pain question (“During the past 4 weeks, how would you describe the pain you usually have in your [right/left] [hip/knee]?”; response: none, very mild, mild, moderate, or severe) and a single-item satisfaction outcome (“How satisfied are you with your [right/left] [hip/knee] replacement?”; response: very unsatisfied, dissatisfied, neutral, satisfied, or very satisfied). Survey logistics include patient instructions, paper- and electronic-based data collection, reminders for follow-up, centralized as opposed to hospital-based follow-up, sample size, patient- or joint-specific evaluation, collection intervals, frequency of response, missing values, and factors in establishing a PROMs registry program. The Working Group recommends including age, sex, diagnosis at joint, general health status preoperatively, and joint pain and function score in case-mix adjustment models. Interpretation and statistical analysis should consider the absolute level of pain, function, and general health status as well as improvement, missing data, approaches to analysis and case-mix adjustment, minimal clinically important difference, and minimal detectable change. The Working Group recommends data collection immediately before and 1 year after surgery, a threshold of 60% for acceptable frequency of response, documentation of non-responders, and documentation of incomplete or missing data.

Background and purpose A complete and correct national arthroplasty register is indispensable for the quality of arthroplasty outcome studies. We evaluated the coverage, completeness, and validity of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) for hip and knee arthroplasty.Patients and methods The LROI is a nationwide population-based registry with information on joint arthroplasties in the Netherlands. Completeness of entered procedures was validated in 2 ways: (1) by comparison with the number of reimbursements for arthroplasty surgeries (Vektis database), and (2) by comparison with data from hospital information systems (HISs). The validity was examined by conducting checks on missing or incorrectly coded values in the LROI.Results The LROI contains over 300,000 hip and knee arthroplasties performed since 2007. Coverage of all Dutch hospitals (n = 100) was reached in 2012. Completeness of registered procedures was 98% for hip arthroplasty and 96% for knee arthroplasty in 2012, based on Vektis data. Based on comparison with data from the HIS, completeness of registered procedures was 97% for primary total hip arthroplasty and 96% for primary knee arthroplasty in 2013. Completeness of revision arthroplasty was 88% for hips and 90% for knees in 2013. The proportion of missing or incorrectly coded values of variables was generally less than 0.5%, except for encrypted personal identity numbers (17% of which were missing) and ASA scores (10% of which were missing).Interpretation The LROI now contains over 300,000 hip and knee arthroplasty procedures, with coverage of all hospitals. It has a good level of completeness (i.e. more than 95% for primary hip and knee arthroplasty procedures in 2012 and 2013) and the database has high validity.

This is a repository copy of Collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries : multinational survey and recommendations.

Background and purpose — The preference for a cruciate retaining (CR) or posterior stabilized (PS) TKA (total knee arthroplasty) system varies greatly between Dutch hospitals, independent of patient characteristics. We examined mid-term revision rates for men and women of different age categories.Patients and methods — We included all 133,841 cemented fixed-bearing primary CR or PS TKAs for osteoarthritis reported in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) in 2007–2016. Revision procedures were defined as minor when only insert and/or patella were revised and as major when fixed components (tibia and femur) were revised or removed. 8-year all-cause revision rates of CR and PS TKAs were calculated using competing-risk analyses. Cox-regression analyses were performed, adjusted for age at surgery, sex, ASA -score, and previous operations.Results — PS TKAs were 1.5 (95% CI 1.4–1.6) times more likely to be revised within 8 years of the primary procedure, compared with CR TKAs. When stratified for sex and age category, 8-year revision rate of PS TKAs in men <60 years was 13% (CI 11–15), compared to 7.2% (CI 6.1–8.5) of CR TKAs. Less prominent differences were found in older men and women. For men <60 years differences were found for minor (CR 1.8% (CI 1.4-2.5); PS 3.7% (CI 3.0–4.7)) and major revisions (CR 4.2% (CI 3.3–5.3); PS 7.0% (CI 5.6–8.7)).Interpretation — Patients who received a cemented fixed-bearing primary PS TKA for osteoarthritis are more likely to undergo either a minor or a major revision within 8 years. This is especially prominent for younger men.