Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Importance of a Registry in Spinal Surgery

  • Chapter
Advanced Concepts in Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease

  • 2099 Accesses

Abstract

Spine surgery is one of the fastest growing medical specialties with high epidemiological and financial societal impacts. There are compelling needs for evidence generation and quality assurance. Those aims require nothing other than a standardized documentation as one common language. An important scientific and methodological approach under such conditions is a registry, whereas objective data from care providers should be reasonably accompanied by subjective data from the patients. Not only high-quality data collection but also pragmatic methodological evaluation approaches are required for generation of sound evidence.

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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. Müller ME, Allgöwer M, Willenegger H. Die Gemeinschaftserhebung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen. Arch klin Chir. 1963;304:808–17.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sower S, Fair F. There is more to quality than continuous improvement: listening to Plato. Qual Manage J. 2005;12:8–20.

    Google Scholar 

  3. ASQ. American Society for Quality, Quality glossary. Web: http://asq.org/glossary/q.html. Accessed July 24, 2015.

  4. Garvin D. What does product quality really mean? Sloan Manage Rev. 1984;26:25–43.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Varkey P, Reller MK, Resar RK. Basics of quality improvement in health care. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82:735–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Campbell SM, Braspenning J, Hutchinson A, et al. Research methods used in developing and applying quality indicators in primary care. BMJ. 2003;326:816–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wensing M, Elwyn G. Methods for incorporating patients’ views in health care. BMJ. 2003;326:877–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chassin MR. Is health care ready for Six Sigma quality? Milbank Q. 1998;76:565–91. 10.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Impellizzeri FM, Bizzini M, Leunig M, et al. Money matters: exploiting the data from outcomes research for quality improvement initiatives. Eur Spine J. 2009;18 Suppl 3:348–59.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell DT, Stanley JC. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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;33:155–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. New Engl J Med. 2000;342:1887–92.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. New Engl J Med. 2000;342:1878–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29:126–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosner A. Fables or foibles: inherent problems with RCTs. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003;26:460–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rosner AL. Evidence-based medicine: revisiting the pyramid of priorities. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2012;16:42–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Freiman JA, Chalmers TC, Smith Jr H, et al. The importance of beta, the type II error and sample size in the design and interpretation of the randomized control trial. Survey of 71 “negative” trials. New Engl J Med. 1978;299:690–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rothwell PM. External validity of randomised controlled trials: “to whom do the results of this trial apply?”. Lancet. 2005;365:82–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Melloh M, Roder C, Staub LP, et al. Randomized-controlled trials for surgical implants: are registries an alternative? Orthopedics. 2011;34:161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jarvinen TL, Sievanen H, Kannus P, et al. The true cost of pharmacological disease prevention. BMJ. 2011;342:d2175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bhandari M, Richards RR, Sprague S, et al. The quality of reporting of randomized trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery from 1988 through 2000. JBJS Am. 2002;84-A:388–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hubschle L, Borgstrom F, Olafsson G, et al. Real-life results of balloon kyphoplasty for vertebral compression fractures from the SWISSspine registry. Spine J. 2013;14(9):2063–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Grob D, Porchet F, Kleinstuck FS, et al. A comparison of outcomes of cervical disc arthroplasty and fusion in everyday clinical practice: surgical and methodological aspects. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:297–306.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Black N. Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health care. BMJ. 1996;312:1215–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stromqvist B, Jonsson B. Computerized follow-up after surgery for degenerative lumbar spine diseases. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl. 1993;251:138–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stromqvist B, Fritzell P, Hagg O, et al. Swespine: the Swedish spine register: the 2012 report. Eur Spine J. 2013;22:953–74.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stromqvist F, Jonsson B, Stromqvist B, et al. Dural lesions in decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis: incidence, risk factors and effect on outcome. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:825–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Stromqvist F, Jonsson B, Stromqvist B, et al. Dural lesions in lumbar disc herniation surgery: incidence, risk factors, and outcome. Eur Spine J. 2010;19:439–42.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Deyo RA, Battie M, Beurskens AJ, et al. Outcome measures for low back pain research. A proposal for standardized use. Spine. 1998;23:2003–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mannion AF, Elfering A, Staerkle R, et al. Outcome assessment in low back pain: how low can you go? Eur Spine J. 2005;14:1014–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roder C, Errico TJ, Spivak JM, et al. Hospital for joint diseases participates in international spine registry Spine Tango after successful pilot study. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2012;70:254–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Roder C, El-Kerdi A, Grob D, et al. A European spine registry. Eur Spine J. 2002;11:303–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Melloh M, Staub L, Aghayev E, et al. The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:1201–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Roder C, Staub L, Dietrich D, et al. Benchmarking with Spine Tango: potentials and pitfalls. Eur Spine J. 2009;18 Suppl 3:305–11.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zweig T, Mannion AF, Grob D, et al. How to Tango: a manual for implementing Spine Tango. Eur Spine J. 2009;18 Suppl 3:312–20.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Eurospine. Spine Tango. http://www.eurospine.org/spine-tango.htm. Accessed Feb 2014.

  37. Kessler JT, Melloh M, Zweig T, et al. Development of a documentation instrument for the conservative treatment of spinal disorders in the International Spine Registry, Spine Tango. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:369–79.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Aebi M, Grob D. SSE Spine Tango: a European Spine Registry promoted by the Spine Society of Europe (SSE). Eur Spine J. 2004;13:661–2.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Burkhardt JK, Mannion AF, Marbacher S, et al. A comparative effectiveness study of patient-rated and radiographic outcome after 2 types of decompression with fusion for spondylotic myelopathy: anterior cervical discectomy versus corpectomy. Neurosurg Focus. 2013;35:E4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mannion AF, Fekete TF, O’Riordan D, et al. The assessment of complications after spine surgery: time for a paradigm shift? Spine J. 2013;13:615–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kleinstueck FS, Fekete T, Jeszenszky D, et al. The outcome of decompression surgery for lumbar herniated disc is influenced by the level of concomitant preoperative low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2011;20:1166–73.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Aghayev E, Henning J, Munting E, et al. Comparative effectiveness research across two spine registries. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:1640–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mannion AF, Boneschi M, Teli M, et al. Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted Italian version of the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J. 2012;21 Suppl 6:S737–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Munting E, Röder C, Sobottke R, et al. Patient outcomes after laminotomy, hemilaminectomy, laminectomy and laminectomy with instrumented fusion for spinal canal stenosis: a propensity score based study from the Spine Tango registry. Eur Spine J. 2015;24(2):358–68.

    Google Scholar 

  45. 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;71:111–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wikipedia. Poly implant prosthesis. 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poly_Implant_Proth%C3%A8se

  47. Wikipedia. DePuy hip recall. 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_DePuy_Hip_Recall

  48. Sobottke R, Aghayev E, Roder C, et al. Predictors of surgical, general and follow-up complications in lumbar spinal stenosis relative to patient age as emerged from the Spine Tango Registry. Eur Spine J. 2012;21:411–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Aghayev E, Teuscher R, Neukamp M, et al. The course of radiographic loosening, pain and functional outcome around the first revision of a total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:167.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Roder C, Blozik E, Müller M, et al. SWISSspine: an outcome and quality registry of orthopaedic implants as a condition for reimbursement by basic health insurance. J Manag Mark Healthc. 2008;2:92–101.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Diel P, Reuss W, Aghayev E, et al. SWISSspine-a nationwide health technology assessment registry for balloon kyphoplasty: methodology and first results. Spine J. 2010;10:961–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Swissnoso. Registry for surgical site infections in Switzerland. 2014. http://www.swissnoso.ch/. Accessed Feb 2014.

  54. SIRIS. The Swiss implant registry. 2014. http://siris-implant.ch/. Accessed Feb 2014.

  55. Lee MJ, Cizik AM, Hamilton D, et al. Predicting medical complications after spine surgery: a validated model using a prospective surgical registry. Spine S. 2014;14:291–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Evaluative Research in Medicine, University of Bern, Stauffacherstrasse 78, CH-3014, Bern, Switzerland

    Emin Aghayev MD, MSc, Christoph Röder MD, MPH & Max Aebi MD, DHC

  2. Department of Biomechanics, Medicine and Rehabilitation of the Locomotor System, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil

    Helton L. A. Defino MD & Carlos F. Herrero MD

  3. Hirslanden-Salem Hospital, “Das Rückenzentrum”, Bern, Switzerland

    Max Aebi MD, DHC

Authors
  1. Emin Aghayev MD, MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christoph Röder MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helton L. A. Defino MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carlos F. Herrero MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Max Aebi MD, DHC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emin Aghayev MD, MSc .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Neurological and Spine Surgery, Hospital Samaritano, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    João Luiz Pinheiro-Franco

  2. Rothman Institute, Thomas Jefferson University Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

    Alexander R. Vaccaro

  3. Cleveland Clinic Neurological Surgery, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    Edward C. Benzel

  4. Schön Klinik München Harlaching FG Wirbelsäulenchirurgie, München, Germany

    H. Michael Mayer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aghayev, E., Röder, C., Defino, H.L.A., Herrero, C.F., Aebi, M. (2016). The Importance of a Registry in Spinal Surgery. In: Pinheiro-Franco, J., Vaccaro, A., Benzel, E., Mayer, H. (eds) Advanced Concepts in Lumbar Degenerative Disk Disease. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47756-4_54

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47756-4_54

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-47755-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-47756-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation