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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data and materials are available as per request.
References
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)
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
Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H (2000) Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 32(4):1008–1015
Okoli C, Pawlowski S (2004) The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manag 42:15–29
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
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
The New Zealand Joint Registry. Eignteen year report. January 1999 to December 2016. Hip Arthroplasty
Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2017 [Internet]. Available from: https://shpr.registercentrum.se/shar-in-english/annual-reports/p/rkeyyeElz
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2019. Factors affecting revision rate. Hip Replacement Class 2019
The American Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report. 2017. Available online at https://aaos.org/registries/registry-program/american-joint-replacement-registry/
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Hospital for Special Surgery. HOOS, JR Scoring Instructions. 2017
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
Saczynski JS, McManus DD, Goldberg RJ (2013) Commonly used data-collection approaches in clinical research. Am J Med 126(11):946–950
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Consortia
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
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04866-6