Status and Prospect of an European Arthroplasty Register (EAR)

  • Sebastian Gaiser


Arthroplasty Registers deliver important outcomes research parameters (Patt and Mauerhan 2005). The main indicators are implant survival and revision rates. Registers are established on a national or regional level. International comparison of registers is a challenge as the registration and the publication of results differ (Labek et al. 2008). From international prognosis it is obvious that knee and hip incidence will further increase and will remain a medical and economic burden to societies (◘ Fig. 4.1; Kim 2008). Therefore outcomes research in the field of arthroplasty will help medical personal and decision makers in the health-care market to base their decisions on relevant evidence.


Knee Replacement Bone Cement Sickness Fund German Register Arthroplasty Register 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BVMed (2009) Qualitätssicherung bei Gelenkersatz: BVMed-Hersteller sagen G-BA Beteiligung am Endoprothesen-register zu. Online SourceGoogle Scholar
  2. Cobb JP, Kannan V, Brust K, Thevendran G (2007) Navigation reduces the learning curve in resurfacing total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 463:90–97PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Comeau P (2004) Crisis in orthopedic care: surgeon and resource shortage. CMAJ 171: 223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. DIMDI (2009) Was sind die medizinischen Vor-und Nachteile von Endoprotheseregistern? Welche internationalen Erfahrungen gibt es? Wie sieht es mit der Kosteneffektivität aus? Welche juristischen, ethischen und sozialen Aspekte spielen mit ein? Available at Scholar
  5. Dowsey MM, Choong PF (2008) Early outcomes and complications following joint arthroplasty in obese patients: a review of the published reports. ANZ J Surg 78:439–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dowsey MM, Choong PF (2008) Obesity is a major risk factor for prosthetic infection after primary hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466: 153–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kim S (2008) Changes in surgical loads and economic burden of hip and knee replacements in the US: 1997–2004. Arthritis Rheum 59: 481–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kolling C, Simmen BR, Labek G, Goldhahn J (2007) Key factors for a successful National Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:1567–1573CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Schmier J et al. (2007) Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89 (Suppl 3):144–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Labek G, Stoica CI, Bohler N (2008) Comparison of the information in arthroplasty registers from different countries. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90: 288–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Patt JC, Mauerhan DR (2005) Outcomes research in total joint replacement: a critical review and commentary. Am J Orthop 34: 167–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Rolfson O, Dahlberg LE, Nilsson JA, Malchau H, Garellick G (2009) Variables determining outcome in total hip replacement surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91: 157–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Schmid O (1984) Genaue Dokumentation erforderlich — Qualitätssicherung bei Gelenkimplantaten. Niedersächsisches Ärzteblatt 23/1984Google Scholar
  14. Weimin YE (2009) Swedish Health Register. Online SourceGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Gaiser
    • 1
  1. 1.Heraeus Medical GmbHWehrheimGermany

Personalised recommendations