Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The utility of international shoulder joint replacement registries and databases: a comparative analytic review of two hundred and sixty one thousand, four hundred and eighty four cases

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

National registries are valuable tools for understanding the results of shoulder arthroplasty across populations. These databases provide an unselected view of shoulder joint replacement within geographical areas that cannot be obtained from case series or prospective studies. They can be particularly helpful in determining which diagnoses, patients, procedures, and prostheses have higher than expected rates of revision. In an attempt to determine the generalizability of registry data, we asked, ‘how similar are the patients and procedures among the different national registries?’

Methods

We analyzed national shoulder arthroplasty registries and databases accessed via Internet portals and through a PubMed literature search.

Results

Seven national/regional registries and five publications regarding national shoulder arthroplasty data were identified; these sources contained a combined total of 261,484 shoulder arthroplasty cases. The percentages of hemiarthroplasty, anatomic (aTSA) and reverse total shoulders (rTSA), the diagnoses leading to arthroplasty, the mean patient age, and the distribution of patient gender varied significantly among these different databases.

Conclusion

This study indicates that the indications for and application of shoulder arthroplasty have important geographical variations and that these variations must be considered when comparing outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty from different locations. Without controlling for age, gender, diagnosis and procedure type, the results from one national registry may not be applicable to patients from a different location. In that national data provide the opportunity to reduce costs by identifying implants and procedures with higher failure rates, the funding of registries needs to be free of conflicts of interest.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Somerson JS, Neradilek MB, Hsu JE, Service BC, Gee AO, Matsen FA (2017) Is there evidence that the outcomes of primary anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty are getting better? Int Orthop 41(6):1235–1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3443-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Blömer W, Steinbrück A, Schröder C, Grothaus FJ, Melsheimer O, Mannel H, Forkel G, Eilers T, Liebs TR, Hassenpflug J, Jansson V (2015) A new universal, standarized implant database for product identification: a unique tool for arthroplasty registries. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(7):919–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2238-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Inacio MCS, Paxton EW, Dillon MT (2016) Understanding orthopaedic registry studies: A comparison with clinical studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(1):e3. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.01332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hasan SS, Leith JM, Smith KL, Matsen FA (2003) The distribution of shoulder replacement among surgeons and hospitals is significantly different than that of hip or knee replacement. J Shoulder Elb Surg 12(2):164–169. https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2003.23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Somerson JS, Stein BA, Wirth MA (2016) Distribution of high-volume shoulder arthroplasty surgeons in the United States: data from the 2014 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data Release. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98(18):e77. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Australian Orthopaedic Association (2016) Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). AOA, Adelaide. Available at: https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/. Accessed 20 April 2017

  7. Capozzi JD, Rhodes R (2010) Examining the ethical implications of an orthopaedic joint registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(5):1330–1333. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.01410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Feeny D, Wong C, Tugwell P, Leslie K, Bullas R (1993) The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75(11):1619–1626

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Maloney WJ (2001) National Joint Replacement Registries: has the time come? J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A(10):1582–1585

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sedrakyan A, Paxton EW, Phillips C, Namba R, Funahashi T, Barber T, Sculco T, Padgett D, Wright T, Marinac-Dabic D (2011) The International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries: overview and summary. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(Suppl 3):1–12. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.01125

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rasmussen JV, Olsen BS, Fevang B-TS, Furnes O, Skytta ET, Rahme H, Salomonsson B, Mohammed KD, Page RS, Carr AJ (2012) A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries. J Shoulder Elb Surg 21(10):1328–1335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2012.03.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. National Joint Registry (2016) 13th Annual Report 2016: National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. NJR Centre, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.njrreports.org.uk/Portals/0/PDFdownloads/NJR 13th Annual Report 2016.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2017

  13. Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Arthroplasty and Hip Fractures (2016) Report 2016. Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. NRL, Bergen, Norway. Available at: http://nrlweb.ihelse.net/eng/Rapporter/Report2016_english.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2017

  14. Portuguese Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology (SPOT) (2013) Portuguese Arthroplasty Register (RPA). 2013 Annual Report. SPOT, Lisboa, Portugal. Available: http://www.rpa.spot.pt/getdoc/c3d0a244-c056-4949-a50b-07d0fdeac2b9/RPA-Report-2013.aspx. Accessed April 20, 2017

  15. Regional Register of Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implantology (2015) REPORT of R.I.P.O. Hip, Knee and Shoulder Arthroplasty. RIPO, Emilia-Romagna, Italy. Available at: https://ripo.cineca.it/pdf/RIPO_REPORT_2015_english_rev1.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2017

  16. Sharma S, Dreghorn CR (2006) Registry of shoulder arthroplasty–the Scottish experience. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 88(2):122–126. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588406X94922

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Dillon MT, Ake CF, Burke MF, Singh A, Yian EH, Paxton EW, Navarro RA (2015) The Kaiser Permanente shoulder arthroplasty registry: results from 6,336 primary shoulder arthroplasties. Acta Orthop 86(3):286–292. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2015.1024565

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim SH, Wise BL, Zhang Y, Szabo RM (2011) Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(24):2249–2254. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Oppermann J, Celik E, Bredow J, Beyer F, Hackl M, Spies CK, Müller LP, Burkhart KJ (2016) Shoulder arthroplasty in Germany: 2005-2012. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136(5):723–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2417-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rasmussen JV, Jakobsen J, Brorson S, Olsen BS (2012) The Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry: clinical outcome and short-term survival of 2,137 primary shoulder replacements. Acta Orthop 83(2):171–173. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2012.665327

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Rahme H, Jacobsen MB, Salomonsson B (2001) The Swedish Elbow Arthroplasty Register and the Swedish Shoulder Arthroplasty Register: two new Swedish arthroplasty registers. Acta Orthop Scand 72(2):107–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/000164701317323336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. New Zealand Orthopaedic Association (NZOA) (2016) The New Zealand Joint Registry. Seventeen Year Report. NZOA, Wellington, New Zealand. Available at: https://nzoa.org.nz/system/files/NZJR%2017%20year%20Report.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2017

  23. Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten (LROI) (2015) Online LROI-Rapportage 2015. LROI, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands. Available at: http://www.lroi-rapportage.nl/media/pdf/PDF Online LROI-Rapportage 2015.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2017

  24. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) (2015) Shoulder Arthroplasty Annual Report. AOA, Adelaide, pp 1–76

  25. Rasmussen JV, Brorson S, Hallan G, Dale H, Äärimaa V, Mokka J, Jensen SL, Fenstad AM, Salomonsson B (2016) Is it feasible to merge data from national shoulder registries? A new collaboration within the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association. J Shoulder Elb Surg 25(12):e369–e377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.02.034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Page RS, Navarro RA, Salomonsson B (2014) Establishing an international shoulder arthroplasty consortium. J Shoulder Elb Surg 23(8):1081–1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-13

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Fevang B-TS, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Skredderstuen A, Furnes O (2009) Risk factors for revision after shoulder arthroplasty: 1,825 shoulder arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 80 (1):83-91

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Susan DeBartolo (University of Washington, Department of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine) for her editorial work on the manuscript.

There was no financial remuneration by the authors, or any member of their family, directly related to the subject of this article.

Dr. Jeremy Somerson is receiving payment from Springer Publishers through a consulting agreement. These fees are outside of the submitted work.

Dr. Frederick A. Matsen III does receive royalties from Elsevier Publishing Company for The Shoulder, 4th Edition, by Rockwood, C.A., Jr. and Matsen, F. A., III. These fees are outside of the submitted work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Clínica Las Américas, Medellín, Colombia

    Carlos Eduardo Afanador Bayona

  2. The University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, TX, 77555, USA

    Jeremy S. Somerson

  3. Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356500, Seattle, WA, 98195-6500, USA

    Frederick A. Matsen III

Authors
  1. Carlos Eduardo Afanador Bayona
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy S. Somerson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frederick A. Matsen III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frederick A. Matsen III.

Additional information

Level of evidence: Level IV review

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bayona, C.E.A., Somerson, J.S. & Matsen, F.A. The utility of international shoulder joint replacement registries and databases: a comparative analytic review of two hundred and sixty one thousand, four hundred and eighty four cases. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 42, 351–358 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3649-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3649-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation