Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2025; 38(02): 079-088
DOI: 10.1055/a-2428-1058
Original Article

Characterization and Potential Relevance of Randomized Controlled Trial Patient Populations in Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Jonathan S. Yu
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California
,
Vidushi Tripathi
2   Weill Cornell Medical College, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
,
Patrick Magahis
2   Weill Cornell Medical College, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
,
Michael Ast
3   Hip and Knee Replacement, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
,
Peter Sculco
3   Hip and Knee Replacement, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York
,
Ajay Premkumar
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies in revision total joint arthroplasty (rTJA) are essential to investigate the effectiveness of interventions. However, there has been limited research investigating how patient cohorts comprising rTJA RCT samples resemble the U.S. patient population undergoing rTJA in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics. Thus, the purpose of this systematic review was to compare the patient characteristics of rTJA RCT cohorts with the characteristics of national patient database cohorts. RCT studies for rTJA were aggregated. Patient demographics in this group were compared against Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) patient cohorts. Forty-six RCTs met inclusion criteria. There were 3,780 total patients across 46 RCTs. The average age of patients in the rTJA RCT cohort was 66.4 ± 9.4 while in the NIS cohort was 67.3 ± 11.1 (d = 0.08, effect size = small). The average body mass index (BMI) of the rTJA RCT cohort was 31.1 ± 5.7 while the NSQIP cohort was 31.7 ± 8.3 (d = 0.08, effect size = small). For rTJA, effect sizes for age, BMI, sex, ethnicity, smoking, and diabetes were all small or very small.

Overall, the rTJA RCT patient cohort does not differ significantly compared with the general patient population undergoing rTJA. Differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between the rTJA RCT cohort and database cohorts were minimal to small, indicating that these differences are unlikely to impact clinical outcomes.

Keywords

revision total knee arthroplasty - revision total hip arthroplasty - randomized controlled trial - patient demographics


Publication History

Received: 18 May 2024

Accepted: 30 September 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
01 October 2024

Article published online:
30 October 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS. et al. Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (17) 1386-1397
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (04) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Singh JA, Yu S, Chen L, Cleveland JD. Rates of total joint replacement in the United States: future projections to 2020-2040 using the National Inpatient Sample. J Rheumatol 2019; 46 (09) 1134-1140
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Bumpass DB, Nunley RM. Assessing the value of a total joint replacement. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2012; 5 (04) 274-282
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C. et al. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993; 75 (11) 1619-1626
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Sadoghi P, Liebensteiner M, Agreiter M, Leithner A, Böhler N, Labek G. Revision surgery after total joint arthroplasty: a complication-based analysis using worldwide arthroplasty registers. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 (08) 1329-1332
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Barnett AJ, Toms AD. Revision total hip and knee replacement. Clin Geriatr Med 2012; 28 (03) 431-446
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Pabinger C, Berghold A, Boehler N, Labek G. Revision rates after knee replacement. Cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies versus joint registers. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21 (02) 263-268
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Zhao K, Kelly M, Bozic KJ. Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (10) 2606-2612
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP. Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (17) 1455-1460
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Schwartz AM, Farley KX, Guild GN, Bradbury Jr TL. Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (6S): S79-S85
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Charette RS, Sloan M, DeAngelis RD, Lee GC. Higher rate of early revision following primary total knee arthroplasty in patients under age 55: a cautionary tale. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (12) 2918-2924
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Bayliss LE, Culliford D, Monk AP. et al. The effect of patient age at intervention on risk of implant revision after total replacement of the hip or knee: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 2017; 389 (10077): 1424-1430
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Figgie MP, Blevins JL, Richardson SS, Gausden EB, Sculco TP, Sculco PK. Younger patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty have higher complication rates. Orthop Proc 2018; 100-B (SUPP_12): 59-59
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Kahlenberg CA, Swarup I, Krell EC, Heinz N, Figgie MP. Causes of revision in young patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (07) 1435-1440
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Weinreb JH, Yoshida R, Cote MP, O'Sullivan MB, Mazzocca AD. A review of databases used in orthopaedic surgery research and an analysis of database use in arthroscopy: the Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (01) 225-231
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Karlson NW, Nezwek TA, Menendez ME, Tybor D, Salzler MJ. Increased utilization of American administrative databases and large-scale clinical registries in orthopaedic research, 1996 to 2016. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2018; 2 (11) e076
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Matar HE, Platt SR, Board TN, Porter ML. Overview of randomized controlled trials in primary total hip arthroplasty (34,020 patients): what have we learnt?. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 2020; 4 (08) 00120
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Booth CM, Tannock IF. Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence. Br J Cancer 2014; 110 (03) 551-555
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Kagawa-Singer M. Improving the validity and generalizability of studies with underserved U.S. populations expanding the research paradigm. Ann Epidemiol 2000; 10 (08) S92-S103
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 LaPlante A, Yen RW, Isaacs T. et al. Enrollment, retention, and strategies for including disadvantaged populations in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev 2021; 10 (01) 233
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Yu JS, Sanchez L, Zeitlin J, Sosa B, Sculco P, Premkumar A. Characterization and potential relevance of randomized controlled trial patient populations in total joint arthroplasty in the United States: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37 (12) 2473-2479.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (07) e1000097
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 D'Hoore W, Bouckaert A, Tilquin C. Practical considerations on the use of the Charlson Comorbidity Index with administrative data bases. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49 (12) 1429-1433
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Accessed October 15, 2024 at: https://hcupnet.ahrq.gov/
    PubMed
  • 26 ACS NSQIP Participant Use Data File. 2019. Accessed October 15, 2024 at: https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/acs-nsqip/participant-use
    PubMed
  • 27 Alluri RK, Leland H, Heckmann N. Surgical research using national databases. Ann Transl Med 2016; 4 (20) 393
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Bohl DD, Singh K, Grauer JN. Nationwide databases in orthopaedic surgery research. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016; 24 (10) 673-682
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Heckmann ND, Bouz GJ, Piple AS. et al. Elective inpatient total joint arthroplasty case volume in the United States in 2020: effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2022; 104 (13) e56
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Stulberg JJ, Haut ER. Practical guide to surgical data sets: healthcare cost and utilization project National Inpatient Sample (NIS). JAMA Surg 2018; 153 (06) 586-587
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Raval MV, Pawlik TM. Practical guide to surgical data sets: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and Pediatric NSQIP. JAMA Surg 2018; 153 (08) 764-765
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Weiss A, Anderson JE, Chang DC. Comparing the national surgical quality improvement program with the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. JAMA Surg 2015; 150 (08) 815-816
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 McGrath RE, Meyer GJ. When effect sizes disagree: the case of r and d. Psychol Methods 2006; 11 (04) 386-401
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test. Restor Dent Endod 2017; 42 (02) 152-155
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using effect size-or why the P value is not enough. J Grad Med Educ 2012; 4 (03) 279-282
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Kapadia BH, Johnson AJ, Naziri Q, Mont MA, Delanois RE, Bonutti PM. Increased revision rates after total knee arthroplasty in patients who smoke. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (09) 1690-1695.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Fevang BT, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Skredderstuen A, Furnes O. Risk factors for revision after shoulder arthroplasty: 1,825 shoulder arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2009; 80 (01) 83-91
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Elliott D, Husbands S, Hamdy FC, Holmberg L, Donovan JL. Understanding and improving recruitment to randomised controlled trials: qualitative research approaches. Eur Urol 2017; 72 (05) 789-798
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Chaudhari N, Ravi R, Gogtay NJ, Thatte UM. Recruitment and retention of the participants in clinical trials: challenges and solutions. Perspect Clin Res 2020; 11 (02) 64-69
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Census Bureau Releases Comprehensive Analysis of Fast-Growing 90-and-Older Population. 2011 . Accessed October 15, 2024 at: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/aging_population/cb11-194.html
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Vespa J, Medina L, Armstrong D. Demographic Turning Points for the United States: Population Projections for 2020 to 2060. 2020 . Accessed October 15, 2024 at: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1144.pdf
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Delanois RE, Mistry JB, Gwam CU, Mohamed NS, Choksi US, Mont MA. Current epidemiology of revision total knee arthroplasty in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (09) 2663-2668
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Motififard M, Pesteh M, Etemadifar MR, Shirazinejad S. Causes and rates of revision total knee arthroplasty: local results from Isfahan, Iran. Adv Biomed Res 2015; 4: 111
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Kummerant J, Wirries N, Derksen A, Budde S, Windhagen H, Floerkemeier T. The etiology of revision total hip arthroplasty: current trends in a retrospective survey of 3450 cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2020; 140 (09) 1265-1273
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K, Vail TP, Berry DJ. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (01) 128-133
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Brassington I. The ethics of reporting all the results of clinical trials. Br Med Bull 2017; 121 (01) 19-29
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Courtney PM, Huddleston JI, Iorio R, Markel DC. Socioeconomic risk adjustment models for reimbursement are necessary in primary total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (01) 1-5
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Kandel CE, Jenkinson R, Widdifield J. et al. Identification of prosthetic hip and knee joint infections using administrative databases-a validation study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2021; 42 (03) 325-330
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar