Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T17:42:31.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Arthroplasty registers: A review of international experiences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2009

Victoria Serra-Sutton ,
Alejandro Allepuz ,
Mireia Espallargues ,
Gerold Labek  and
Joan M. V. Pons
Victoria Serra-Sutton
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research
Alejandro Allepuz
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research
Mireia Espallargues
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research
Gerold Labek
Affiliation:
European Arthroplasty Register Office and EFORT
Joan M. V. Pons
Affiliation:
Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Registers have proven to be a valuable instrument in the evaluation of arthroplasty procedures and the performance of implants. The aim of this study was to describe the structure, functioning, and content of arthroplasty registers in Europe and other parts of the world.

Methods: A search of technical reports was carried out through the Internet and in Medline/PubMed. The exhaustiveness of the information was confirmed using the links to Web pages of other registers and contacts with key people. Aims, methods in data collection and evaluation, internal structure and organization, participants, validity of the data, and other variables were assessed for each arthroplasty register using a qualitative content analysis of the texts.

Results: Fifteen arthroplasty registers were identified which published sufficient information to conduct a comparative analysis. Eight additional registers were identified but no information was available on the Internet or in English. Most registers were initiatives of an orthopaedic society receiving governmental funding. Data were collected using standardized clinical forms and additional information from clinical-administrative datasets or other registers (mortality, implant costs, hip fractures). The main outcome measure of these registers is survival of the prostheses. Registers use the Internet and their annual reports as the main strategy for the dissemination and feed-back of their results.

Conclusions: Scientific or professional societies and the public health administration should collaborate in the development of arthroplasty registers. To adequately assess the results of observational data information on the structure, the process of arthroplasty interventions and patients characteristics should be collected.

Keywords

ReviewArthroplastyEffectivenessHipKnee
Type
General Essays
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 63 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Aamodt, A, Nordsletten, L, Havelin, LI et al. , Documentation of hip prostheses used in Norway. A critical review of the literature from 1996–2000. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:663–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Allepuz, A, Martinez, O, Serra-Sutton, V, Espallargues, M. Catalan Arthroplasty Register. Structure and operation. RACat. Barcelona: Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research. Catalan Health Service. Department of Health. Autonomous Government of Catalonia; 2008. http://www.gencat.net/salut/depsan/units/aatrm/html/en/dir404/doc8805.html. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
3. Arthursson, AJ, Furnes, O, Espehaug, B, Havelin, LI, Soreide, JA. Validation of data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and the Norwegian Patient Register. 5134 primary total hip arthroplasties and revisions operated at a single hospital between 1987 and 2003. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:823–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Australian Orthopaedic Association (AOA) National Joint Replacement Registry (NJRR). Annual report. Adelaide, Australia: AOA; 2006. http://www.aoa.org.au/docs/njrrrep06.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
5. Berry, DJ, Kessler, M, Morrey, BF. Maintaining a hip registry for 25 years. Mayo Clinic experience. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;344:61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Bischoff-Ferrari, HA, Lingard, EA, Losina, E, et al. . Psychosocial and geriatric correlates of functional status after total hip replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;51:829–835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Buckwalter, AE, Callaghan, JJ, Liu, SS et al. , Results of Charnley total hip arthroplasty with use of improved femoral cementing techniques. A concise follow-up, at a minimum of twenty-five years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1481–1485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Canadian Institute of Health Information. Canadian Joint Replacement Registry 2006 Report. Total hip and total knee replacements in Canada. Ontario, Canada: CIHI; 2006. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=download_form_e&cw_sku=06CJRRANNREPPDF&cw_ctt=1&cw_dform=N. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
9. Carr, JA, Higginson, IJ, Robinson, PG. Quality of life. London: BMJ Books; 2003.Google ScholarPubMed
10. Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry (DHAR). Annual Report 2006. Aarthus, Denmark: DHAR; 2006. http://www.dhr.dk/annual_report.htm. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
11. Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register (DKAR). Annual Report for DKAR and Danish Orthopaedic Society. Aarhus, Denmark: DKAR; 2006.Google Scholar
12. Dunbar, MJ. Subjective outcomes after knee arthroplasty [Doctoral thesis]. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Hospital; 2001.Google ScholarPubMed
13. Espehaug, B, Furnes, O, Havelin, LI et al. , Registration completeness in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2006;77:49–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Faulkner, A, Kennedy, LG, Baxter, K et al. , Effectiveness of hip prostheses in primary total hip replacement: A critical review of evidence and an economic model. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2:1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. García-Cimbrelo, E, Cruz-Pardos, A, Madero, R, Ortega-Andreu, M. Total hip arthroplasty with use of the cementless Zweymuller Alloclassic system. A ten to thirteen-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:296–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Gliklich, RE, Dreyer, NA, eds. Registries for evaluating patient outcomes: In: User's guide. (Prepared by Outcome DEcIDE Center [Outcome Sciences, Inc. dba Outcome] under Contract No. HHSA29020050035I TO1. AHRQ Publication No. 07-EHC001–1). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007.Google Scholar
17. Herberts, P, Malchau, H. Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement. A review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:111–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Imaz Iglesia, I, Aibar Remon, C, Gonzalez Enriquez, A, Gol Freixa, J, Gómez López, LJ. Características de 107 registros sanitarios españoles y valoración de su utilización [Characteristics of 107 Spanish health registers and assessment of their uses]. Rev Esp Salud Publica. 2005;79:17–34.Google Scholar
19. Jamtvedt, G, Young, JM, Kristoffersen, DT, O'Brien, MA, Oxman, AD. Audit and feedback: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;19:CD000259.Google Scholar
20. Kärrholm, J, Garallick, G, Herberts, P. The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR). Annual Report 2006. Mölndal, Sweden: SHAR; 2007. www.jru.orthop.gu.se/archive/AnnualReport-2006-eng.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
21. Kärrholm, J, Garellick, G, Lindahl, H, Herberts, P. Improved analyses in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Mölndal, Sweden: SHAR; 2007. www.jru.orthop.gu.se/archive/AAOS-2007.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
22. Katz, JN, Losina, E, Barrett, J et al. , Association between hospital and surgeon procedure volume and outcomes of hip replacement in the United States Medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1622–1629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Labek, G. Arthroplasty registers. Results of arthroplasty registers and benefit for a country or national society running an arthroplasty register. Innsbruk, Austria: European Arthroplasty Register-EFFORT; 2005. http://www.ear.efort.org/_documents/EAR-LabekLiegeEFORTForum2005.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
24. Laboratorio di Tecnologia Medica-IOR. Report RIPO. Register of orthopedic prosthetic implantology. Overall data hip and knee arthroplasty in Emilia Romana Region 2000–2005. Bolonia, Italy: Laboratorio di Tecnologia Medica-IOR; 2006. https://ripo.cineca.it/pdf/report_2006_ING.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
25. Lampe, K. HTA Core Model. Work Package 4. European Network for Health Technology Assessment; 2007. http://www.eunethta.net/upload/Barcelona_2007/Lampe.ppt. Accessed 17 September 2008.Google Scholar
26. Merx, H, Dreinhöfer, K, Schräder, P et al. , International variations in hip replacement rates. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62:222–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Muir Gray, JA. Evidence-based healthcare. How to make health policy and management decision. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.Google Scholar
28. National Health Service Scottland (NHSS). Scottish Arthroplasty Project Annual Report 2004. Edinburgh, Scotland: NHSS; 2004. http://www.arthro.scot.nhs.uk/Reports/Scottish_Arthroplasty_Project_Report_2004.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
29. National Health Service Scottland (NHSS). Scottish Arthroplasty Project Annual Report. Edinburgh, Scotland: NHSS; 2007. http://www.arthro.scot.nhs.uk/Reports/Scottish_Arthroplasty_Project_Report_2007.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
30. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Guidance on the selection of prostheses for primary total hip replacement. Technology appraisals guidance. London, England: NICE; 2000.Google Scholar
31. National Joint Registry (NJR). Annual Report 2005–2006. Hemel Hempstead, England: NJR Steering Committee and NJR; 2007. http://www-new.njrcentre.org.uk/NjrCentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/NJR_AR_3.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
32. National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales. Second Annual Report. Hemel Hempstead, England: NJR Steering Committee and NJR; 2005. http://www-new.njrcentre.org.uk/NjrCentre/Portals/0/Documents/England/Reports/NJR_AR_2.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
33. New Zealand National Joint Register. Seven Year Report 1999-2005. Chirstchurch, New Zeland: New Zealand Orthopaedic Association and National Joint Register; 2006. www.cdhb.govt.nz/NJR/reports/7-year-report-master.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
34. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The OECD Health Project. Health technologies and decision making. Science Information Technology. Paris, France: OECD; 2005.Google Scholar
35. Pedersen, AB, Johnsen, SP, Overgaard, S et al. , Registration of the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry. Completeness of total hip arthroplasties and positive predictive value of registered diagnosis and postoperative complications. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:434–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Pons, JMV. Marti, Valls J, Granados, A. Elements for the improvement of effectiveness and efficiency in hip prosthetic replacement. Catalonia, Spain: Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research. Catalan Health Service. Department of Health; 1999. BR99006. http://www.gencat.net/salut/depsan/units/aatrm/pdf/br9906en.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
37. Puolakka, TJ, Pajamaki, KJJ, Halonen, PJ et al. , The Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Report of the hip register. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:433–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Rantanen, P, Keinonen, A, Mäkelä, A. The 2004 implant yearbook on orthopaedic endoprosthesis. Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Helsinki, Finland: National Agency for Medicines; 2006. http://www.nam.fi/instancedata/prime_product_julkaisu/laakelaitos/embeds/julkaisut_laitteet_ja_tarvikkeet_Yearbook_2006.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
39. Robertsson, O. Knee arthroplasty registers. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40. Romanian Arthroplasty register (RAR). Hip and knee endoprostheses. Activity report 2001-2003. Bucarest, Romania: The Ministry of Health and Family and National House of Health Insurance; 2004.Google Scholar
41. Serra-Sutton, V, Allepuz, A. Consenso sobre la organización de un registro de artroplastias en el Sistema Nacional de Salud. Estudio Delphi [Consensus on the organization of an arthroplasty register in the Spanish National Health System. Delphi study]. Informatiu AATRM 43. Barcelona: Catalan Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Research; 2008.Google Scholar
42. Shervin, N, Rubash, HE, Katz, JN. Orthopeadic procedure volume and patient outcomes: A systematic literature review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;457:35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). The Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Register, the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Report 2006. Haukeland, Norway: NAR; 2006. www.haukeland.no/nrl/Report2006.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
44. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry (SKAR). Annual Report 2006. Lund, Sweden: SKAR; 2006. http://www.knee.nko.se/english/online/uploadedFiles/107_SKAR2006_Englv2.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
45. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry (SKAR). Annual Report 2005. Lund, Sweden: SKAR; 2005. http://www.knee.nko.se/english/online/uploadedFiles/104_SKAR%202005_engl.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2008.Google Scholar
46. Torre, M, Morciano, C, D'Errigo, P et al. , The EUPHORIC project: Outcome indicators collection in Europe. Results of the first phase. Eur J Public Health. 2007;17:213.Google Scholar
47. Wray, NP, Hollingsworth, JC, Peterson, NJ, Ashton, CM. Case-mix adjustment using administrative databases: A paradigm to guide for future research. Med Care Res Rev. 1997;51:326–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar