Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Registries in Spine Care: UK and Europe

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quality Spine Care

Abstract

Within the last two decades, registries have become a substantial source of scientific evidence as well as a monitoring tool of the quality of healthcare providers and healthcare systems overall. Yet, due to national specifics, including healthcare systems, professional societies, and data protection legislation, the design and value vary significantly among the vast amount of registries existing today.

This chapter aims to provide an overview of the currently used registries in spinal care in the UK and Europe and investigates their specifics, strengths, and weaknesses as well as their scientific output in order to shed light on the medical, socioeconomic, and scientific value of spine registries in particular.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Melloh M, Staub L, Aghayev E, Zweig T, Barz T, Theis JC, et al. The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results. Eur Spine J. 2008;17(9):1201–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fritzell P, Stromqvist B, Hagg O. A practical approach to spine registers in Europe: the Swedish experience. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(Suppl 1):S57–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Stromqvist B, Fritzell P, Hagg O, Jonsson B, Sanden B, Swedish Society of Spinal Surgeons. Swespine: the Swedish spine register : the 2012 report. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(4):953–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. van Hooff ML, Jacobs WC, Willems PC, Wouters MW, de Kleuver M, Peul WC, et al. Evidence and practice in spine registries. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(5):534–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kessler JT, Melloh M, Zweig T, Aghayev E, Roder C. Development of a documentation instrument for the conservative treatment of spinal disorders in the international spine registry, Spine Tango. Eur Spine J. 2011;20(3):369–79.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. McGirt MJ, Speroff T, Dittus RS, Harrell FE Jr, Asher AL. The National Neurosurgery Quality and Outcomes Database (N2QOD): general overview and pilot-year project description. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;34(1):E6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Armstrong D, Kline-Rogers E, Jani SM, Goldman EB, Fang J, Mukherjee D, et al. Potential impact of the HIPAA privacy rule on data collection in a registry of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(10):1125–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wood AM, White IR, Thompson SG. Are missing outcome data adequately handled? A review of published randomized controlled trials in major medical journals. Clin Trials. 2004;1(4):368–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Godil SS, Parker SL, Zuckerman SL, Mendenhall SK, Devin CJ, Asher AL, et al. Determining the quality and effectiveness of surgical spine care: patient satisfaction is not a valid proxy. Spine J. 2013;13(9):1006–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hailer NP, Weiss RJ, Stark A, Karrholm J. The risk of revision due to dislocation after total hip arthroplasty depends on surgical approach, femoral head size, sex, and primary diagnosis. An analysis of 78,098 operations in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2012;83(5):442–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Karrholm J. The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (http://www.shpr.se). Acta Orthop 2010;81(1):3–4.

  12. Pronovost P, Needham D, Berenholtz S, Sinopoli D, Chu H, Cosgrove S, et al. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(26):2725–32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Forsth P, Michaelsson K, Sanden B. Does fusion improve the outcome after decompressive surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis?: a two-year follow-up study involving 5390 patients. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(7):960–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Forsth P, Olafsson G, Carlsson T, Frost A, Borgstrom F, Fritzell P, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of fusion surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(15):1413–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. van Hooff ML, van Loon J, van Limbeek J, de Kleuver M. The Nijmegen decision tool for chronic low back pain. Development of a clinical decision tool for secondary or tertiary spine care specialists. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e104226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Clement RC, Welander A, Stowell C, Cha TD, Chen JL, Davies M, et al. A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(5):523–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, Zhao W, Blood EA, Tosteson AN, et al. Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. Four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1295–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mannion AF, Brox JI, Fairbank JC. Comparison of spinal fusion and nonoperative treatment in patients with chronic low back pain: long-term follow-up of three randomized controlled trials. Spine J. 2013;13(11):1438–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Parker SL, Asher AL, Godil SS, Devin CJ, McGirt MJ. Patient-reported outcomes 3 months after spine surgery: is it an accurate predictor of 12-month outcome in real-world registry platforms? Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(6):E17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chotai S, Parker SL, Sivaganesan A, Sielatycki JA, Asher AL, McGirt MJ, et al. Effect of complications within 90 days on patient-reported outcomes 3 months and 12 months following elective surgery for lumbar degenerative disease. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(6):E8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Guerin P, El Fegoun AB, Obeid I, Gille O, Lelong L, Luc S, et al. Incidental durotomy during spine surgery: incidence, management and complications. A retrospective review. Injury. 2012;43(4):397–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Desai A, Ball PA, Bekelis K, Lurie J, Mirza SK, Tosteson TD, et al. SPORT: Does incidental durotomy affect longterm outcomes in cases of spinal stenosis? Neurosurgery. 2015;76(Suppl 1):S57–63. discussion S

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Desai A, Ball PA, Bekelis K, Lurie JD, Mirza SK, Tosteson TD, et al. Outcomes after incidental durotomy during first-time lumbar discectomy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(5):647–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward. Lancet. 2002;359(9308):781–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McGirt MJ, Parker SL, Asher AL, Norvell D, Sherry N, Devin CJ. Role of prospective registries in defining the value and effectiveness of spine care. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 Suppl 1):S117–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Biering K, Hjollund NH, Frydenberg M. Using multiple imputation to deal with missing data and attrition in longitudinal studies with repeated measures of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Epidemiol. 2015;7:91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schmidt CO, Raspe H, Pfingsten M, Hasenbring M, Basler HD, Eich W, et al. Does attrition bias longitudinal population-based studies on back pain? Eur J Pain. 2011;15(1):84–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Twisk J, de Vente W. Attrition in longitudinal studies. How to deal with missing data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2002;55(4):329–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

SK is consultant for Brainlab AG (Munich, Germany) and Nexstim Plc (Helsinki, Finland). BM is consultant for Ulrich Medical (Ulm, Germany), Medtronic (Dublin, Ireland), Relievant Medsystems Inc. (Redwood City, USA), DePuy Synthes (West Chester, USA), and Brainlab AG (Munich, Germany). ES is consultant for Nevro Corp. (Redwood City, USA) and receiving research grants from Icotec (Altstaetten, Switzerland) and Inomed (Emmendingen, Germany).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Universitätsklinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Munich, Germany

    Bernhard Meyer, Ehab Shiban & Sandro M. Krieg

Authors
  1. Bernhard Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ehab Shiban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sandro M. Krieg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernhard Meyer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurosurgery, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    John Ratliff

  2. Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA

    Todd J. Albert

  3. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Joseph Cheng

  4. Atlantic Neurosurgical Specialists, Morristown, NJ, USA

    Jack Knightly

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Meyer, B., Shiban, E., Krieg, S.M. (2019). Registries in Spine Care: UK and Europe. In: Ratliff, J., Albert, T., Cheng, J., Knightly, J. (eds) Quality Spine Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97990-8_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97990-8_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97989-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97990-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation