Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Institutional arthroplasty registry: what is the minimum acceptable dataset to be included in your hospital? Recommendations from a single-country national consensus using the Delphi method

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Institutional arthroplasty registries are very popular nowadays; however, very few efforts have been made in order to standardize the information to be collected, thus limiting the possibility of inter-institutional data interpretation. This manuscript reports the results of a single-country consensus designed to define the minimum standardized dataset to be recorded within an institutional arthroplasty registry.

Methods

A national consensus was carried out among all members of the Colombian Society of Hip and Knee Surgeons using the Delphi method. Eleven questions and answers comprising every potential domain of an institutional registry of hip and knee arthroplasty were defined. According to the methodology, anonymous voting and multiple discussion rounds were performed. Three levels of agreement were defined: Strong consensus: equal to or greater than 80%, weak consensus between 70 and 79.9%, and no consensus below 70%.

Results

All of the questions reached consensus level. The minimum dataset was defined to include demographic and clinical information, intraoperative and implant details, follow-up and early complications, implant survival, and functional outcome scores, as well as the validation model to assess information quality within the database. Currently, this dataset is being implemented voluntarily by the members of our national society.

Discussion

A national consensus is a feasible method to build homogeneous arthroplasty registries. We recommend such an exercise since it establishes the basis to compare and add data between institutions and the joint analysis of said information in a national registry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data and materials are available as per request.

References

  1. Brooke EM (1974) The current and future use of registers in health information systems. In: Brooke EM (ed) World Health Organization. World Health Organization, United States (WHO offset publication ; no. 8)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bautista MP, Bonilla GA, Mieth KW, Llinas AM, Rodriguez F, Cardenas LL (2017) Data quality in Institutional Arthroplasty Registries: description of a model of validation and report of preliminary results. J Arthroplast 32(7):2065–2069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H (2000) Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 32(4):1008–1015

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Okoli C, Pawlowski S (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manag 42:15–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Profillidis VA, Botzoris GN (2019) Chapter 4 - Executive judgment, delphi, scenario writing, and survey methods. In: Profillidis VA, Botzoris GN (eds) Modeling of transport demand. Elsevier, pp 125–161

  6. Canadian Joint Replacement Registry. Minimum data set manual. 2018–2019. [Internet]. Available from: https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/cjrr-minimum-data-set-manual-2018-en-web.pdf

  7. The New Zealand Joint Registry. Eignteen year report. January 1999 to December 2016. Hip Arthroplasty

  8. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2017 [Internet]. Available from: https://shpr.registercentrum.se/shar-in-english/annual-reports/p/rkeyyeElz

  9. Aggarwal VK, Elbuluk A, Dundon J, Herrero C, Hernandez C, Vigdorchik JM et al (2019) Surgical approach significantly affects the complication rates associated with total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 101 B(6):646–651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Berry DJ, von Knoch M, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS (2005) Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87(11):2456–2463

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Memtsoudis SG, Cozowicz C, Bekeris J, Bekere D, Liu J, Soffin EM et al (2019) Anaesthetic care of patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty: consensus recommendations from the International Consensus on Anaesthesia-Related Outcomes after Surgery group (ICAROS) based on a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth 123(3):269–287

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Kuijpers MFL, Hannink G, Vehmeijer SBW, van Steenbergen LN, Schreurs BW (2019) The risk of revision after total hip arthroplasty in young patients depends on surgical approach, femoral head size and bearing type; an analysis of 19,682 operations in the Dutch arthroplasty register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20(1):385

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Porter M, Howard P, Lawrence S, Reed M, Stonadge J, Wilkinson M (2018) National Joint Registry 15th Annual Report. Natl Jt Regist 15th Annu Rep 1821(December 2017):1–270

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chan JJ, Robinson J, Poeran J, Huang H-H, Moucha CS, Chen DD (2019) Antibiotic-loaded bone cement in primary total knee arthroplasty: utilization patterns and impact on complications using a national database. J Arthroplast 34(7S):S188–S194.e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brockman BS, Maupin JJ, Thompson SF, Hollabaugh KM, Thakral R (2020) Complication rates in total knee arthroplasty performed for osteoarthritis and post-traumatic arthritis: a comparison study. J Arthroplast 35(2):371–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Miller LE, Gondusky JS, Kamath AF, Boettner F, Wright J, Bhattacharyya S (2018) Influence of surgical approach on complication risk in primary total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 89(3):289–294

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2019. Factors affecting revision rate. Hip Replacement Class 2019

  18. The American Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report. 2017. Available online at https://aaos.org/registries/registry-program/american-joint-replacement-registry/

  19. Markel DC, Allen MW, Zappa NM (2016) Can an arthroplasty registry help decrease transfusions in primary total joint replacement? A quality initiative. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(1):126–131

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Healy WL, Della Valle CJ, Iorio R, Berend KR, Cushner FD, Dalury DF et al (2013) Complications of total knee arthroplasty: standardized list and definitions of the knee society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(1):215–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Healy WL, Iorio R, Clair AJ, Pellegrini VD, Della Valle CJ, Berend KR (2016) Complications of total hip arthroplasty: standardized list, definitions, and stratification developed by the hip society. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474(2):357–364

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lovelock TM, Broughton NS (2018) Follow-up after arthroplasty of the hip and knee: are we over-servicing or under-caring? Bone Joint J 100-B(1):6–10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Parkes RJ, Palmer J, Wingham J, Williams DH (2019) Is virtual clinic follow-up of hip and knee joint replacement acceptable to patients and clinicians? A sequential mixed methods evaluation. BMJ Open Qual 8(1):e000502

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Grassi A, Golinelli D, Tedesco D, Rolli M, Bordini B, Amabile M et al (2019) Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after elective hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty: protocol for a prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 20(1):374

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Nilsdotter A, Bremander A (2011) Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63(Suppl 1):S200–S207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hospital for Special Surgery. HOOS, JR Scoring Instructions. 2017

  27. Afzal I, Radha S, Smoljanović T, Stafford GH, Twyman R, Field RE (2019) Validation of revision data for total hip and knee replacements undertaken at a high volume orthopaedic centre against data held on the National Joint Registry. J Orthop Surg Res 14(1):318

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Saczynski JS, McManus DD, Goldberg RJ (2013) Commonly used data-collection approaches in clinical research. Am J Med 126(11):946–950

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Serra-Sutton V, Allepuz A, Espallargues M, Labek G, Pons JMV (2009) Arthroplasty registers: a review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25(1):63–72

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital Universitario Fundación Santa Fe de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia

    Guillermo A. Bonilla

  2. School of Medicine, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia

    Guillermo A. Bonilla

  3. Clinical Care Center in Joint Replacements, Clínica El Rosario, Medellín, Colombia

    Beatriz E. Montoya & Victoria E. Restrepo

  4. Ortovital SAS, Barranquilla, Colombia

    Miguel M. Gomez

  5. Orthopedics and Traumatology, Fundación Valle del Lili, Cali, Colombia

    Alfredo A. Sánchez

  6. School of Medicine, Universidad Icesi, Cali, Colombia

    Alfredo A. Sánchez

  7. Group of Hip and Knee Surgery, Hospital Militar Central, Bogotá, Colombia

    Jose I. Sánchez

  8. Hospital Infantil de San Jose, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud, Bogotá, Colombia

    Hugo A. Rodríguez

  9. Joint Replacements Arthroplasty and Hip Arthroscopy, Keralty Group, Clínica Colsanitas S.A, Bogotá, Colombia

    Jairo A. Rincón

  10. Orthopedics, Clínica Iberoamérica, Barranquilla, Colombia

    Antonio L. Solano

  11. Group of Joint Replacements, Clínica Desa, Cali, Colombia

    Diego Cardona

  12. Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hospital Santa Clara, Bogotá, Colombia

    Saúl L. Martínez

  13. Clínica de Fracturas de Pereira, Pereira, Colombia

    Alejandro López

  14. Department of Orthopedics, Hospital Pablo Tobon Uribe, Medellin, Colombia

    Jose L. Moore

Authors
  1. Guillermo A. Bonilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beatriz E. Montoya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Victoria E. Restrepo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Miguel M. Gomez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alfredo A. Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jose I. Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hugo A. Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jairo A. Rincón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Antonio L. Solano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Diego Cardona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Saúl L. Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Alejandro López
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Jose L. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

on behalf of the members of the Colombian Society of Hip and Knee Surgeons (SOCCAR)

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by all authors. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Guillermo Bonilla, Beatriz Montoya, and Victoria Restrepo and all authors commented on all versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guillermo A. Bonilla.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

Not applicable.

Statement of human and animal rights

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bonilla, G.A., Montoya, B.E., Restrepo, V.E. et al. Institutional arthroplasty registry: what is the minimum acceptable dataset to be included in your hospital? Recommendations from a single-country national consensus using the Delphi method. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 45, 5–12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04866-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04866-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation