hta_ knee intro.qxp - Ministero della Salute

36
Table 7.2: Results of the preliminary examination of the registers’ reports identified. We focused
on the reporting related to the implants’ performance.
Country of the register
Implant
performance by
model
Notes
Australia YES Considered for further analysis
Canada NO Performance data were cumulative for all the procedures
Denmark NO Performance data were by femoral components only
England and Wales YES Considered for further analysis
Finland NO Does not report performance data
New Zealand YES Considered for further analysis
Norway NO Does not report performance data
Scotland NO Performance data cumulative for all the procedures
Sweden YES Considered for further analysis
Italian Regions
Emilia-Romagna YES Considered for further analysis
Lombardia NO Does not report performance data
Cumulative measures of performance, such as revision or survival rate, revision rate per 100
component-years, yearly cumulative percent of revision (CPR), and risk of revision (RR), report the
general performance of each knee system.
We found the following problems:
• the population receiving the implant was either not stratified into sub groups or stratified
in different ways across registers;
• four different prosthesis-related outcomes were reported in five reports (revision rate,
survival rate, revision rate per 100 component-years, and risk of revision);
• the follow-up reporting intervals were 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 years;
• age groups overlapped.
Heterogeneity of reporting causes major data loss, by hampering meaningful comparisons between
registers. As all Registries identified are linked by EAR/EFORT, we expected a higher degree
of homogeneity.