Das KnorpelRegister DGOU zur Erfassung von Behandlungsergebnissen nach Knorpeloperationen: Erfahrungen nach 6 Monaten und erste epidemiologische Daten

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Das KnorpelRegister DGOU wurde im Oktober 2013 mit dem Ziel der Evaluation und Nachverfolgung von Patienten nach operativer Behandlung von Knorpelschäden eingeführt. Es stellt eine multizentrische Datenbank dar, welche durch die AG Klinische Geweberegeneration der DGOU initiiert wurde. Technisch basiert die Datenbank auf einem webbasierten RDE-System (RDE: Remote Data Entry), welches die automatisierte Nachverfolgung der Patienten über mehrere Jahre ermöglicht. Die vorliegende Arbeit berichtet über erste Erfahrungen mit dem KnorpelRegister DGOU und über patientenspezifische und behandlungsspezifische Charakteristika der bisher im Register dokumentierten Patienten. Zwischen Oktober 2013 und April 2014 wurden insgesamt 230 Patienten nach operativer Behandlung symptomatischer Knorpelschäden am Kniegelenk in 24 Zentren in das Register aufgenommen. Das durchschnittliche Patientenalter betrug 37,11 Jahre (SD 13,61), die durchschnittliche Defektgröße 3,68 cm² (SD 0,23). Seit Einführung des Registers ist die Zahl eingegebener Patienten pro Monat auf zuletzt 72 Patienten kontinuierlich angestiegen. Die durchgeführten Therapien verteilen sich hauptsächlich auf die in entsprechenden Empfehlungen aufgeführten Therapieverfahren. Den prozentual stärksten Anteil stellen hierbei die knochenmarkstimulierenden Verfahren (55,02 %) sowie die autologe Knorpelzelltransplantation dar (34,92 %). Abweichend vom Patientenkollektiv in der Mehrzahl prospektiv randomisierter Studien fallen im KnorpelRegister DGOU ein hoher Anteil an Patienten mit Begleitpathologien, ein relevanter Patientenanteil mit einem Alter von mehr als 50 Jahren zum Behandlungszeitpunkt sowie auch ein signifikanter Anteil von Patienten mit als ungünstig eingeschätzten Begleitpathologien, wie z. B. einer Affektion der gegenüberliegenden Knorpelfläche oder einem vorausgehend resezierten Meniskus, auf. Zusammenfassend hat sich innerhalb der ersten 6 Monate die technische Plattform und Dokumentationsform des KnorpelRegisters DGOU als erfolgreich und vielversprechend erwiesen. Die bisherige Analyse der eingegebenen Patienten und Therapien lässt schlussfolgern, dass das Register, anders als viele Studien, die Versorgungsrealität von Patienten mit Knorpelschäden am Kniegelenk erfolgreich abbilden kann und auch neue Informationen über Subgruppen von Patienten generiert werden können, die bisher in der wissenschaftlichen Literatur noch nicht abgebildet sind. Dies wird Teil der ersten Analyse klinischer Behandlungsdaten sein. Eine Ausweitung des KnorpelRegisters DGOU auf Patienten mit Knorpelschäden am Sprung- und Hüftgelenk ist bereits beschlossen und initialisiert.

Abstract

The German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU) has been introduced in October 2013 and aims on the evaluation of patients who underwent cartilage repair for symptomatic cartilage defects. It represents a nation-wide cohort study which has been introduced by the working group “Tissue Regeneration” of the Germany Society of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology and is technically based upon a web-based remote data entry (RDE) system. The present article describes first experiences with the registry including patient and treatment characteristics. Between October 2013 and April 2014, a total of 230 patients who had undergone surgical cartilage repair for symptomatic full-thickness cartilage defects of the knee has been included in the German Cartilage Registry from 23 cartilage repair centres. Mean age was 37.11 years (SD 13.61) and mean defect size was 3.68 cm² (SD 0.23). Since the introduction of the KnorpelRegister DGOU the total number of registered patients has increased steadily up to the most recent figure of 72 patients within one month. Patients were treated mainly according to the recommended therapies. The highest percentage in therapy is represented by the bone marrow stimulation techniques (55.02 %) as well as by the autologous chondrocyte transplantation (34.92 %). Unlike the patient collective in the majority of prospective randomised controlled trials, the patient population within the registry shows a high proportion of patients with accompanying pathologies, with an age of more than 50 years at the time of treatment and with unfavourably assessed accompanying pathologies such as an affection of the opposite cartilage surface or a previously resected meniscus. In summary, the technical platform and forms of documentation of the KnorpelRegister DGOU have proved to be very promising within the first six months. Unlike data from other clinical trials, the previous analysis of the patientsʼ data and therapies reflects successfully the actual medical care situation of patients with cartilage defects of the knee joint. This analysis also provides new information on subgroups of patients that have not yet been recorded in the scientific literature. This will be part of the first analysis of clinical treatment data. An expansion of the KnorpelRegister DGOU to patients with cartilage defects of the ankle and hip joints is already decided upon and initialised.

• Literatur

• 1 Sihvonen R, Paavola M, Malmivaara A et al. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 2515-2524
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Katz JN, Brophy RH, Chaisson CE et al. Surgery versus physical therapy for a meniscal tear and osteoarthritis. N Engl J Med 2013; 368: 1675-1684
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Moseley JB, OʼMalley K, Petersen NJ et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 81-88
  Google Scholar
• 4 Saris D, Price A, Widuchowski W et al. Matrix-applied characterized autologous cultured chondrocytes versus microfracture: two-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42: 1384-1394
  Google Scholar
• 5 Saris DB, Vanlauwe J, Victor J et al. Treatment of symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee: characterized chondrocyte implantation results in better clinical outcome at 36 months in a randomized trial compared to microfracture. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (Suppl. 01) S10-S19
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Saris DB, Vanlauwe J, Victor J et al. Characterized chondrocyte implantation results in better structural repair when treating symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee in a randomized controlled trial versus microfracture. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36: 235-246
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Knutsen G, Drogset JO, Engebretsen L et al. A randomized trial comparing autologous chondrocyte implantation with microfracture. Findings at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 2105-2112
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Knutsen G, Engebretsen L, Ludvigsen TC et al. Autologous chondrocyte implantation compared with microfracture in the knee. A randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86: 455-464
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Basad E, Ishaque B, Bachmann G et al. Matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation versus microfracture in the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee: a 2-year randomised study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18: 519-527
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Wondrasch B, Zak L, Welsch GH et al. Effect of accelerated weightbearing after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation on the femoral condyle on radiographic and clinical outcome after 2 years: a prospective, randomized controlled pilot study. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (Suppl. 01) 88S-96S
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Ebert JR, Fallon M, Zheng MH et al. A randomized trial comparing accelerated and traditional approaches to postoperative weightbearing rehabilitation after matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation: findings at 5 years. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40: 1527-1537
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Bekkers JE, Inklaar M, Saris DB. Treatment selection in articular cartilage lesions of the knee: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (Suppl. 01) S148-S155
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Jakobsen RB, Engebretsen L, Slauterbeck JR. An analysis of the quality of cartilage repair studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 2232-2239
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Vasiliadis HS, Wasiak J, Salanti G. Autologous chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of cartilage lesions of the knee: a systematic review of randomized studies. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18: 1645-1655
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Sanson-Fisher RW, Bonevski B, Green LW et al. Limitations of the randomized controlled trial in evaluating population-based health interventions. Am J Prev Med 2007; 33: 155-161
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Concato J, Lawler EV, Lew RA et al. Observational methods in comparative effectiveness research. Am J Med 2010; 123: e16-e23
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Ligthelm RJ, Borzi V, Gumprecht J et al. Importance of observational studies in clinical practice. Clin Ther 2007; 29: 1284-1292
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Felson DT, Nevitt MC. Epidemiologic studies for osteoarthritis: new versus conventional study design approaches. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2004; 30: 783-797 vii
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Yang W, Zilov A, Soewondo P et al. Observational studies: going beyond the boundaries of randomized controlled trials. Diabetes Res Clin Pract 2010; 88 (Suppl. 01) S3-S9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Enochsson L, Swahn F, Arnelo U et al. Nationwide, population-based data from 11,074 ERCP procedures from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1175-1184
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Ahlden M, Samuelsson K, Sernert N et al. The Swedish National Anterior Cruciate Ligament Register: a report on baseline variables and outcomes of surgery for almost 18,000 patients. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40: 2230-2235
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Radovanovic D, Erne P. AMIS Plus: Swiss registry of acute coronary syndrome. Heart 2010; 96: 917-921
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Miric A, Inacio MC, Kelly MP et al. Can total knee arthroplasty be safely performed among nonagenarians? An evaluation of morbidity and mortality within a total joint replacement registry. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1635-1638
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Miric A, Inacio MC, Namba RS. Can total knee arthroplasty be safely performed in patients with chronic renal disease?. Acta Orthop 2014; 85: 71-78
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Singh JA, Lewallen DG. Cerebrovascular disease is associated with outcomes after total knee arthroplasty: a US total joint registry study. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 40-43
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Hunt LP, Ben-Shlomo Y, Clark EM et al. 90-day mortality after 409,096 total hip replacements for osteoarthritis, from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales: a retrospective analysis. Lancet 2013; 382: 1097-1104
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Jameson SS, Baker PN, Mason J et al. Independent predictors of failure up to 7.5 years after 35 386 single-brand cementless total hip replacements: a retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B: 747-757
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Lind MC et al. Validation of 14,500 operated knees registered in the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register: registration completeness and validity of key variables. Clin Epidemiol 2013; 5: 219-228
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Moseley jr. JB, Anderson AF, Browne JE et al. Long-term durability of autologous chondrocyte implantation: a multicenter, observational study in US patients. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38: 238-246
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Hambly K, Griva K. IKDC or KOOS? Which measures symptoms and disabilities most important to postoperative articular cartilage repair patients?. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36: 1695-1704
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Higgins LD, Taylor MK, Park D et al. Reliability and validity of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form. Joint Bone Spine 2007; 74: 594-599
  Google Scholar
• 32 Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS et al. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998; 28: 88-96
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Marlovits S, Singer P, Zeller P et al. Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) for the evaluation of autologous chondrocyte transplantation: determination of interobserver variability and correlation to clinical outcome after 2 years. Eur J Radiol 2006; 57: 16-23
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Mithoefer K, Saris DB, Farr J et al. Guidelines for the design and conduct of clinical studies in knee articular cartilage repair: international cartilage repair society recommendations based on current scientific evidence and standards of clinical care. Cartilage 2011; 2: 100-121
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Maletis GB, Inacio MC, Funahashi TT. Analysis of 16,192 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions from a community-based registry. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41: 2090-2098
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Andernord D, Björnsson H, Petzold M et al. Surgical Predictors of Early Revision Surgery After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results From the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register on 13,102 Patients. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42: 1574-1582
  Google Scholar
• 37 Persson A, Fjeldsgaard K, Gjertsen JE et al. Increased risk of revision with hamstring tendon grafts compared with patellar tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 12,643 patients from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry, 2004–2012. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42: 285-291
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB et al. Comparison of hamstring tendon and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a nationwide population-based cohort study: results from the Danish registry of knee ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42: 278-284
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Li S, Chen Y, Lin Z et al. A systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials comparing hamstring autografts versus bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2012; 132: 1287-1297
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar