Assessment of the Value of Registries in Shoulder Arthroplasty Using Reverse Arthroplasty as an Example. / Die Wertigkeit von Endoprothesenregistern in der Schulterendoprothetik am Beispiel der inversen Endoprothese.

INTRODUCTION: As a consequence of the Swedish model, endoprosthesis registers have become increasingly important worldwide. Due to the increasing number of joint replacements at the shoulder, these are being increasingly included in the register databases - in addition to interventions at the hip and knee joint. In this study, the value of endoprosthesis registers is investigated, using the example of shoulder endoprosthetics and including a comparison with clinical studies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The annual reports of 32 different endoprosthesis registers with data on hip, knee and/or shoulder arthroplasty were analysed. The number of operations and demographic patient data for all areas of endoprosthetics were examined. In addition, a more detailed consideration of variables such as the primary diagnosis, the cause of the revision, the revision rate depending on risk factors and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM scores) was carried out exclusively for the shoulder joint endoprostheses. Using the example of the inverse shoulder prosthesis, clinical studies were compared to registry data with special regard to the revision rate. RESULTS: A total of 20 endoprosthesis registers could be included, 9 of these collected data on shoulder arthroplasty. The main primary diagnoses were osteoarthritis (40.6%), rotator cuff defect arthropathy (30.2%) and fractures (17.6%). The most commonly used shoulder joint endoprosthesis was the inverse prosthesis (47.3%). The proportion of revision surgeries in total shoulder arthroplasty operations was less than 10% in all registers. In addition to the revision rate, the PROM scores were sometimes used in the registers to evaluate the success of the prosthesis. Compared to registry data, clinical studies showed more heterogeneous data with a significantly higher revision rate of over 10% in long-term follow-up - using the example of the inverse shoulder prosthesis. CONCLUSION: Register data are a valuable source of information in shoulder arthroplasty and can make a significant contribution to the quality assurance of endoprosthetic treatments. Compared to clinical studies, they primarily provide data on durability of different endoprosthesis and give lower revision rates. Clinical studies use PROM scores and clinical and radiological examinations to focus only on individual implants and surgical centres on the one hand and much more on the functional results on the other.

The Diagnostic Arthroscopy Skill Score (DASS): a reliable and suitable assessment tool for arthroscopic skill training.

PURPOSE: To develop and validate a novel score to more objectively assess the performance of diagnostic knee arthroscopy using a simulator. METHODS: A Diagnostic Arthroscopy Skill Score (DASS) was developed by ten AGA (AGA-Society for Arthroscopy and Joint-Surgery) instructors for the assessment of arthroscopic skills. DASS consists of two parts: the evaluation of standardized diagnostic knee arthroscopy (DASSpart1) and the evaluation of manual dexterity, including ambidexterity and triangulation, using objective measurement parameters (DASSpart2). Content validity was determined by the Delphi method. One hundred and eleven videos of diagnostic knee arthroscopies were recorded during simulator training courses and evaluated by six specially trained instructors using DASS. Construct validity, measurement error calculated by the minimum detectable change (MDC), internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha and interrater and intrarater reliability were assessed. The Bland-Altman method was used to calculate the intrarater agreement. RESULTS: Six skill domains were identified and evaluated for each knee compartment. DASS, DASSpart1, and DASSpart2 showed construct validity, with experts achieving significantly higher scores than competents and novices. MDC was 4.5 ± 1.7 points for DASSpart1. There was high internal consistency for all domains in each compartment from 0.78 to 0.86. The interrater reliability showed high agreement between the six raters (ICC = 0.94). The evaluation of intrarater reliability demonstrated good and excellent agreement for five raters (ICC > 0.80) and moderate agreement for one rater (ICC = 0.68). The Bland-Altman comparison showed no difference between the first and second evaluations in five out of six raters. Precision, estimated by the regression analysis and comparison with the method of Bland and Altman, was excellent for four raters and moderate for two raters. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate good validity and reliability of DASS for the assessment of the surgical performance of diagnostic knee arthroscopy during simulator training. Standardized training is recommended before arthroscopy surgery is considered in patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.