Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1186021
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York
Erfassung von minderwertigen Produkten in der Endoprothetik und Umsetzung der Erkenntnisse: eine retrospektive Analyse am Beispiel des Boneloc-Knochenzements
Detection of Inferior Products in Arthroplasty and Implementation of Findings: A Retrospective Analysis of the Boneloc IncidentPublication History
Publication Date:
09 October 2009 (online)
Zusammenfassung
Studienziel: Am Fall des Boneloc-Knochenzements, eines Produkts, das die Erwartungen nicht erfüllen konnte und vom Markt genommen wurde, wurden der Wert unterschiedlicher Literaturquellen für die Erfassung von schlechten Ergebnissen sowie die Qualität der publizierten Daten in einer retrospektiven Analyse untersucht. Methode: Es wurden die in englisch- und deutschsprachigen Peer-reviewed wissenschaftlichen Journalen veröffentlichten Arbeiten retrospektiv hinsichtlich Revisionsrate und Aussage zum Produkt untersucht. Dabei wurde eine standardisierte Methodologie, welche die Studien hinsichtlich Fallzahlen und Nachuntersuchungszeiträumen adjustiert und gewichtet, verwendet. Hauptzielkriterium war die Übereinstimmung bei Revisionsraten in unterschiedlichen Literaturquellen. Ergebnisse: In den ersten 4 Jahren nach der Markteinführung von Boneloc wurden ausschließlich experimentelle Studien publiziert, die sich überwiegend positiv zum Produkt äußerten. 1995 wurden zeitnahe Publikationen aus Registern und auf Basis von RSA-Migrationsanalysen veröffentlicht, die über schlechte Ergebnisse berichteten. Im selben Jahr wurde das Produkt vom Markt genommen. Klinische Studien konnten keinen wesentlichen Beitrag leisten. Sie erschienen erst mit jahrelanger Verzögerung und relativ geringen Fallzahlen. Sie äußern sich alle negativ zum Produkt, jedoch fast ausschließlich zu einem Zeitpunkt, als das Produkt bereits weltweit vom Markt genommen war. Die Revisionsrate zeigt deutliche Abweichungen von nicht stichprobenbasierten Registerergebnissen. Klinische Studien überschätzten die Revisionsrate um das 7,35-Fache. Zum Zeitpunkt der Publikation der schlechten Ergebnisse durch das norwegische Endoprothesenregister war das Produkt im Land bereits vom Markt verschwunden. Schon 2 Jahre davor waren die Verkaufszahlen in Norwegen deutlich rückläufig gewesen, was den Effekt der Information der Ärzte über die Fachgesellschaft belegt. Schlussfolgerungen: Endoprothesenregister und Migrationsanalysen haben den höchsten Wert für die möglichst rasche und zuverlässige Erfassung von unzureichenden Ergebnissen. Die Einbindung der Fachgesellschaften in die Wertung der Ergebnisse und die Information der Ärzte sind wesentliche Faktoren für die Realisierung der Verbesserungspotenziale durch ein Endoprothesenregister.
Abstract
Aim: By a retrospective assessment of the Boneloc incident, a bone cement which had an inferior outcome in terms of survival rate, the value of published datasets for the detection of inferior outcomes was evaluated. Method: A structured literature review of English and German peer reviewed journals was conducted. The articles were assessed with respect to revision rate and statements about the product. In a standardised methodology, adjusted for number of cases and follow-up period, the revision rate was calculated. Main goal was to assess the agreement of published information from different datasets. Results: In the first 4 years after Boneloc had been brought on the market exclusively experimental studies were published, most of which were in favour of the product. In 1995, clinical studies, migration analyses and register-based articles were published. Most of them reported about inferior results, in the same year Boneloc was taken from the market worldwide. Sample-based clinical follow-up studies were not able to contribute to the decision-making process, they were published with a delay of several years and were underpowered from a statistical point of view. All of them published critical statements – after the product had no longer been available on the market for many years. The average revision rate in sample-based studies exceeded the reference value in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 7.35-fold. When the inferior results with Boneloc were published, the product had already disappeared from the national markets in Scandinavian countries' operating registers. The central position of orthopaedic scientific societies in the entire outcome monitoring system in these countries seems to be a key factor for success and rapid reaction to identified problems. Conclusion: Arthroplasty registers and migration analyses have the highest value for the rapid and reliable detection of inferior outcomes in comparative analyses of published articles. Experimental studies did not agree with the performance of the product in a retrospective view, the data cannot be transferred from the estimation of future clinical outcome like survival rates. The involvement of scientific societies in the assessment and dissemination of the results is a key factor to realise potential benefit by an advanced quality monitoring project like arthroplasty registers.
Schlüsselwörter
Boneloc - Ergebnisqualitätsmessung - Datenqualität - Register - Migrationsanalysen
Key words
Boneloc - outcome measurement - data quality - registry - migration analysis
Literatur
- 1 Havelin L I et al. Prospective studies of hip prostheses and cement. A presentation of the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, 1987 – 1999. Orlando; Scientific Exhibition AAOS 2000 www.haukeland.no/nrl/eng/default.htm#Publications 1.3.2009
- 2 Ungethuem S, Lehner B, Reitzel T et al. Effect of femoral cementing technique on results, comparison between retrograde technique and vacuum application. Orthopäde. 2005; 34 690-697
- 3 Geiger M H, Keating E M, Ritter M A et al. The clinical significance of vacuum mixing bone cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; 382 258-266
- 4 Grelsamer R. More recent advances in cementing technique. Cement centrifugation and vacuum mixing have significantly improved the results of cement femoral implants. J Arthroplasty. 1998; 13 484
- 5 Riehmann M. Regulatory measures for implementing new medical devices. Recalling Boneloc. Dan Med Bull. 2005; 52 11-17
-
6
Kolling C, Simmen B R, Labek G et al.
Key factors for a successful National Arthroplasty Register.
J Bone Joint Surg [Br].
2007;
89
1567-1573
, Erratum in: J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2008; 90: 1533
- 7 Jensen J S, Trap B, Skydsgaard K. Delayed contact hypersensitivity and surgical glove penetration with acrylic bone cements. Acta Orthop Scand. 1991; 62 24-28
- 8 Jensen J S, Sylvest A, Trap B et al. Genotoxicity of acrylic bone cements. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1991; 69 386-389
- 9 Darre E, Jorgensen L G, Vedel P et al. Breathing zone concentrations of methylmethacrylate monomer during joint replacement operations. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1992; 71 198-200
- 10 Nimb L, Sturup J, Jensen J S. Improved cortical histology after cementation with a new MMA-DMA-IBMA bone cement: an animal study. J Biomed Mater Res. 1993; 27 565-574
- 11 Kindt-Larsen T, Smith D B, Jensen J S. Innovations in acrylic bone cement and application equipment. J Appl Biomater. 1995; 6 75-83
- 12 Thanner J, Freij-Larsson C, Karrholm J et al. Evaluation of Boneloc. Chemical and mechanical properties, and a randomized clinical study of 30 total hip arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995; 66 207-214
- 13 Sturup J, Nimb L, Jensen J S. Blood perfusion and remodelling activity in canine tibial diaphysis after filling with a new bone cement compared to bone wax and poly(methyl methacrylate) cement. Biomaterials. 1995; 16 845-848
- 14 Wykman A G, Sandersjoo G A. Low polymerization temperature with Boneloc. In vivo measurements in 11 hip replacements. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995; 66 218-219
- 15 Havelin L I, Espehaug B, Vollset S E et al. The effect of the type of cement on early revision of Charnley total hip prostheses. A review of eight thousand five hundred and seventy-nine primary arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Joint Surg [Am]. 1995; 77 1543-1550
- 16 Suominen S. Early failure with Boneloc bone cement. 4/8 femoral stems loose within 3 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995; 66 13
- 17 Riegels-Nielsen P, Sorensen L, Andersen H M et al. Boneloc cemented total hip prostheses. Loosening in 28/43 cases after 3–38 months. Acta Orthop Scand. 1995; 66 215-217
- 18 Nilsen A R, Wiig M. Total hip arthroplasty with Boneloc: loosening in 102/157 cases after 0.5-3 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996; 67 57-59
- 19 Furnes A, Lie S A, Havelin L I et al. The economic impact of failures in total hip replacement surgery: 28,997 cases from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, 1987–1993. Acta Orthop Scand. 1996; 67 115-121
- 20 Furnes O, Lie S A, Havelin L I et al. Exeter and Charnley arthroplasties with Boneloc or high viscosity cement. Comparison of 1,127 arthroplasties followed for 5 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand. 1997; 68 515-520
- 21 Wedderkopp N, Andersen-Ranberg F, Andersen M B et al. Aseptic loosening of BonelocR cemented hip prostheses. Int Orthop. 1997; 21 87-90
- 22 Nilsson K G, Dalen T. Inferior performance of Boneloc bone cement in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study comparing Boneloc with Palacos using radiostereometry (RSA) in 19 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 1998; 69 479-483
- 23 Morberg P, Johansson C B, Malchau H. No biological advantage with a low temperature curing versus a conventional bone cement: an experimental, mechanical and histomorphometrical study in the rabbit tibia. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1999; 10 329-331
- 24 Gebuhr P, Stentzer K, Thomsen F et al. Failure of total hip arthroplasty with Boneloc bone cement. Acta Orthop Belg. 2000; 66 472-476
- 25 Walczak J P, D'Arcy J C, Ross K R et al. Low-friction arthroplasty with Boneloc bone-cement: outcome at 2 to 4 years. J Arthroplasty. 2000; 15 205-209
- 26 Harper E J, Bonfield W. Tensile characteristics of ten commercial acrylic bone cements. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000; 53 605-616
- 27 Havelin L I, Engesaeter L B, Espehaug B et al. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000; 71 337-353
- 28 Markel D C, Hoard D B, Porretta C A. Cemented total hip arthroplasty with Boneloc bone cement. J South Orthop Assoc. 2001; 10 202-208
- 29 Abdel-Kader K F, Allcock S, Walker D I et al. Boneloc bone-cement: experience in hip arthroplasty during a 3-year period. J Arthroplasty. 2001; 16 811-819
- 30 Kalairajah Y, Molloy S, Patterson M. The effect of femoral stem size on failure rates in total hip replacement cemented with Boneloc. Acta Orthop Belg. 2002; 68 33-36
- 31 Dunlop D J, Masri B A, Greidanus N V et al. Tapered stems in cemented primary total hip replacement. AAOS Instr Course Lect. 2002; 51 81-91
- 32 Labek G, Stoica C I, Böhler N. Comparison of information in arthroplasty registers from different countries. J Bone Joint Surg [Br]. 2008; 90 288-291
Dr. MD Gerold Labek
Orthopädische Universitätsklinik
Medizinische Universität Innsbruck
Anichstraße 35
6020 Innsbruck
Österreich
Phone: + 43/5 12/5 04-8 16 00
Fax: + 43/5 12/5 04-2 27 01
Email: gerold.labek@efort.org