Abstract
Introduction
Every joint registry aims to improve patient care by identifying implants that have an inferior performance. For this reason, each registry records the implant name that has been used in the individual patient. In most registries, a paper-based approach has been utilized for this purpose. However, in addition to being time-consuming, this approach does not account for the fact that failure patterns are not necessarily implant specific but can be associated with design features that are used in a number of implants. Therefore, we aimed to develop and evaluate an implant product library that allows both time saving barcode scanning on site in the hospital for the registration of the implant components and a detailed description of implant specifications.
Materials and methods
A task force consisting of representatives of the German Arthroplasty Registry, industry, and computer specialists agreed on a solution that allows barcode scanning of implant components and that also uses a detailed standardized classification describing arthroplasty components. The manufacturers classified all their components that are sold in Germany according to this classification. The implant database was analyzed regarding the completeness of components by algorithms and real-time data.
Results
The implant library could be set up successfully. At this point, the implant database includes more than 38,000 items, of which all were classified by the manufacturers according to the predefined scheme. Using patient data from the German Arthroplasty Registry, several errors in the database were detected, all of which were corrected by the respective implant manufacturers.
Conclusions
The implant library that was developed for the German Arthroplasty Registry allows not only on-site barcode scanning for the registration of the implant components but also its classification tree allows a sophisticated analysis regarding implant characteristics, regardless of brand or manufacturer. The database is maintained by the implant manufacturers, thereby allowing registries to focus their resources on other areas of research. The database might represent a possible global model, which might encourage harmonization between joint replacement registries enabling comparisons between joint replacement registries.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Moran CG, Horton TC (2000) Total knee replacement: the joint of the decade. A successful operation, for which there’s a large unmet need. BMJ 320(7238):820
Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C (2007) The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 370(9597):1508–1519. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7
Qualiätsreport 2013 (2014). AQUA—Institut für angewandte Qualitätsförderung und Forschung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH, Göttingen, https://www.sqg.de/themen/qualitaetsreport/index.html
Herberts P, Malchau H (1997) How outcome studies have changed total hip arthroplasty practices in Sweden. Clin Orthop Relat Res 344:44–60
Capozzi JD, Rhodes R (2010) Examining the ethical implications of an orthopaedic joint registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(5):1330–1333. doi:10.2106/JBJS.I.01410
de Steiger RN, Miller LN, Davidson DC, Ryan P, Graves SE (2013) Joint registry approach for identification of outlier prostheses. Acta orthopaedica 84(4):348–352. doi:10.3109/17453674.2013.831320
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. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01125
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785
Jack CM, Walter WL, Shimmin AJ, Cashman K, de Steiger RN (2013) Large diameter metal on metal articulations. Comparison of total hip arthroplasty and hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Arthrop 28(4):650–653. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2012.07.032
de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN, Graves SE, Davidson DC (2011) Five-year results of the ASR XL acetabular system and the ASR hip resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(24):2287–2293. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01727
Pivec R, Meneghini RM, Hozack WJ, Westrich GH, Mont MA (2014) Modular taper junction corrosion and failure: how to approach a recalled total hip arthroplasty implant. J Arthrop 29(1):1–6. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2013.08.026
Krishnan H, Krishnan SP, Blunn G, Skinner JA, Hart AJ (2013) Modular neck femoral stems. Bone Joint J 95-B(8):1011–1021. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.95B8.31525
Technical Committee ISO/TC 150, Implants for surgery Subcommittee SC 4 Bone and joint replacements (2007) ISO 7207-1. Implants for Surgery—Partial and Total Hip Joint Prostheses—Classification, Definitions and Designation of Dimensions. Beuth Verlag
Technical Committee ISO/TC 150 Implants for surgery Subcommittee SC 4 Bone and joint replacements (2008) ISO 7206-1. Implants for Surgery—Partial and Total Hip Joint Prostheses—Classification, Definitions and Designation of Dimensions. Beuth Verlag
Callanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, Zurakowski D, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA, Malchau H (2011) The John Charnley Award: risk factors for cup malpositioning: quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(2):319–329. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1487-1
Sadoghi P, Schroder C, Fottner A, Steinbruck A, Betz O, Muller PE, Jansson V, Holzer A (2012) Application and survival curve of total hip arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide hip arthroplasty registers. Int Orthop 36(11):2197–2203. doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1614-6
Liebs TR, Splietker F, Hassenpflug J (2015) Is a Revision a Revision? An analysis of national arthroplasty registries’ definitions of revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4255-4
Robertsson O, Mendenhall S, Paxton EW, Inacio MC, Graves S (2011) Challenges in prosthesis classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(Suppl 3):72–75. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.00990
Sedrakyan A, Paxton EW, Marinac-Dabic D (2011) Stages and tools for multinational collaboration: the perspective from the coordinating center of the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries (ICOR). J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(Suppl 3):76–80. doi:10.2106/JBJS.K.01141
Pitto RP, Lang I, Kienapfel H, Willert HG (2002) The German arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 73(305):30–33
Hassenpflug J (2012) The German arthroplasty register EPRD. Structure, procedures and organisation. Paper presented at the EFFORT Congress, Berlin
Liebs TR, Melsheimer O, Hassenpflug J (2014) Early detection of systematic defects by endoprostheses registries. Orthopade 43(6):549–554. doi:10.1007/s00132-014-2293-3
Hassenpflug J, Liebs TR (2014) [Registries as a tool for more safety of endoprothesis: Experiences from other countries and from the setup of the German Arthroplasty Registry]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt. Gesundheitsforschung. Gesundheitsschutz
The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2010 (2011) Department of Orthopedics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
OPS Version 2015, Operationen- und Prozedurenschlüssel, Internationale Klassifikation der Prozeduren in der Medizin (2014). Deutsches Institut für Medizinische Dokumentation und Information (DIMDI) [German Insitute for Medical Documentation and Information], Cologne, Germany
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
For the German Arthroplasty Registry Implant Library Task Force.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blömer, W., Steinbrück, A., Schröder, C. et al. A new universal, standardized implant database for product identification: a unique tool for arthroplasty registries. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135, 919–926 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2238-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2238-2