Background and purpose — The amount of information publicly available from arthroplasty registries is large but could be used more effectively. This project aims to improve the knowledge concerning existing registries to facilitate access, transparency, harmonization, and reporting. Methods — Within the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) we aimed at developing, testing, adopting, and making publicly available a short, standardized registry description with items considered relevant for stakeholders using a cross-sectional study survey. Items were chosen based on a literature review and expert advice, selected by 9 ISAR working group members, tested iteratively in 3 registries, and commented upon by 4 external experts. All 29 ISAR member registries as of July 2023 were invited to participate in the project. Results — Included items covered general descriptive information regarding registries, information related to governance, outcomes, data quality, data access, and registry production. The template was adopted, completed, and made publicly available by 25 of the 29 registries. Of those, 2/3 were national registries. 23 captured both hip and knee arthroplasties and 10 captured shoulder arthroplasties. Most registries had public reporting of data quality, methods, and results. Data was accessible in all but 2 registries, mainly as aggregated data. Important items relevant to registry quality for researchers to consistently indicate in scientific papers include scope, inclusion criteria, outcomes definitions, coverage/completeness, and validation processes. Conclusion — This ISAR initiative implemented a short, standardized description to facilitate appropriate use of orthopedic registry data worldwide relevant for a diverse group of stakeholders including researchers, industry, public health and regulatory agencies.

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.

Background and purpose — Safety notices for medical devices such as total knee arthroplasty (TKA) implants may indicate problems in their design or performance that require corrective action to prevent patient harm. Safety notices are often published on national Ministries of Health or regulatory agencies websites. It is unknown whether problems triggering safety notices identify the same implants as those identified by registries as “outlier.” We aimed to assess the extent to which safety notices and outlier identification in registries signal the same or different TKA implants. Methods — The CORE-MD tool, an automated web scraper tool, was used to collect safety notices related to TKA implants on 13 national Ministries of Health websites and regulatory agencies. Safety notices were defined accord-ing to the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) as “a com-munication sent by a manufacturer to users or customers in relation to a field safety corrective action.” Identified TKA outliers, defined as having a significantly higher revision risk than other comparable TKA implants, were extracted from registry reports. Results — 787 safety notices for 38 TKA implants and 35 TKA outliers were identified, together identifying 47 unique TKA implants. 26 (55%) TKA implants had safety notices and were also outliers, 12 (26%) TKA implants had only safety notices, and 9 (19%) were outliers only. TKA implants with safety notices only had similar types of problems to TKA outliers with safety notices, with “Manufac-turing/Packaging/Shipping” problems being most frequent (44%). Cumulative revision risks (1/5/10 years) were lower for TKA implants with safety notices only than for TKA out-liers with safety notices. Conclusion — 55% of the TKA with a safety notice were identified as outliers in the registry, whereas around 25% of TKA outliers are not the subject of publicly released safety notices, with safety notices pointing to TKA implants not identified by registries as potentially having a higher risk of failure. This suggests that safety notices and registry outlier data measure different aspects of safety and performance.

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.