Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Organisation, data evaluation, interpretation and effect of arthroplasty register data on the outcome in terms of revision rate in total hip arthroplasty

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Originally developed in Scandinavia, national arthroplasty registers have spread worldwide during the last decade. The value of registers for quality improvement in arthroplasty has frequently been documented. However, for the development of a successful register a few key points should be taken into account. Uncontrolled loss of patients from the registry area should be avoided. Registers should form an integral part of a country’s medical system. To realise the potential for improvement, it is crucial that physicians deal with the results in detail. Thus it is absolutely essential to involve the specialty societies in the interpretation and dissemination of results. With respect to revision rates, register data are usually more valid than meta-analyses of clinical studies. For every physician the most valuable data are those coming from a register in his own country; the development of national arthroplasty registers should therefore be continued.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Robertsson O, Lewold S, Knutson K, Lidgren L (2000) The Swedish knee arthroplasty project. Acta Orthop Scand 71(1):7–18

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Furnes A, Lie SA, Havelin LI, Engesæter LB, Vollset SE (1996) The economic impact of failures in total hip replacement surgery. The Norwegian arthroplasty register 1987–1993. Acta Orthop Scand 67:115–121

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Herberts P, Malchau H (1997) How outcome studies have changed total hip arthroplasty practices in Sweden. Clin Orthop 344:44–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Robertsson O, Dunbar MJ, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (1999) The Swedish knee arthroplasty register. 25 years experience. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 58–3:133–138

    Google Scholar 

  5. Herberts P, Malchau H (2000) Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 71–2:111–121

    Google Scholar 

  6. Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Lie SA, Vollset SE (2000) The Norwegian arthroplasty register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand 71–4:337–353

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lucht U (2000) The Danish hip arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop Scand 71–5:433–439

    Google Scholar 

  8. Puolakka TJ, Pajamaki KJ, Halonen PJ, Pulkinen PO, Paavolainen P, Nevelainen JK (2001) The Finnish arthroplasty register: report of the hip register. Acta Orthop Scand 72(5):433–441

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Malchau H, Garrellick G, Eisler T, Karrholm J, Herberts P (2005) Presidential guest address: the Swedish hip registry: increasing the sensitivity by patient outcome data. Clin Orthop 441:19–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Robertsson O (2007) Knee arthroplasty registers. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89-B:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Robertsson O (2010) The Swedish knee arthroplasty register—The inside story. Acta Orthop 81(1):5–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Labek G (2009) Handbook for the development and operation of an outcome register for medical devices. www.ear.efort.org. Accessed 29 July 2010

  13. No authors listed (2009) Position statement in support of National Joint Registries. J Bone Joint Surg A 91:2983

    Google Scholar 

  14. Horan FT (2010) Joint registries. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(6):749–750

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (2003) Annual Report 2002. Available at: http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/. Accessed 30 July 2010

  16. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (2008) Annual Report 2007. Available at: http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/. Accessed 30 July 2010

  17. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (2009) Annual Report 2008. Available at: http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/. Accessed 30 July 2010

  18. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (1999) Validation of the Swedish knee arthroplasty register: a postal survey regarding 30,376 knees operated on between 1975 and 1995. Acta Orthop Scand 70–5:467–472

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sodermann P, Malchau H, Herberts P, Johnell O (2000) Are the findings in the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register valid? A comparison between the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register, the National Discharge Register, and the National Death Register. J Arthroplasty 15(7):884–889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pedersen AB, Johnsen SP, Overgaard S, Soballe K, Sorensen HT, Lucht U (2004) Registration in the Danish hip arthroplasty registry: completeness of total hip arthroplasties and positive predictive value of registered diagnosis and postoperative complications. Acta Orthop Scand 75–4:434–441

    Google Scholar 

  21. Arthursson AJ, Furnes O, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Soreide JA (2005) Validation of data in the Norwegian arthroplasty register and the Norwegian patient register: 5,134 primary total hip arthroplasties and revisions operated at a single hospital between 1987 and 2003. Acta Orthop 76(6):823–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Espehaug B, Furnes O, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Vollset SE, Kindseth O (2006) Registration completeness in the Norwegian arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop 77(1):49–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stea S, Bordini B, De Clerico M, Petropulacos K, Toni A (2009) First hip arthroplasty register in Italy: 55,000 cases and 7 year follow up. Int Orthop 33(2):339–346

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. No authors listed. EFORT EAR Minimal datasets. www.ear.efort.org. Accessed 30 July 2010

  25. Robertsson O, Ranstam JP (2003) No bias of ignored bilaterality when analysing the revision risk of knee prostheses: Analysis of a population based sample of 44,590 patients with 55,298 knee prostheses from the national Swedish knee arthroplasty register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 4:1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Labek G, Stoica CI, Böhler N (2008) Comparison of information in arthroplasty registers from different countries. J Bone Joint Surg Br 90-B:288–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ranstam J, Robertsson O (2010) Statistical analyses of arthroplasty register data. Acta Orthop 81(1):10–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (2010) Annual Report 2009. Available at: http://www.knee.se. Accessed 30 July 2010

  29. Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register (2010) Annual Report 2009. Available at: http://www.dhr.dk/ENGLISH.htm. Accessed 30 July 2010

  30. Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register (Danish) (2010) Annual Report 2009. http://www.knee.dk/groups/dkr/login_dkr.php. Accessed 30 July 2010

  31. Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB, Mehnert F, Johnsen SP, Søballe K (2010) The risk of revision after primary total hip arthroplasty among statin users: a nationwide population-based nested case-control study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(5):1063–1072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Labek G, the QoLA Project Group (2010) Quality of publications regarding the outcome of revision rate after arthroplasty. http:/www.ear.efort.org. Accessed 30 July 2010

  33. Havelin LI (1995) Hip arthroplasty in Norway 1987–1994. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Bergen, Norway. Thesis, University of Bergen

  34. No authors listed (2010) Levels of evidence for primary research questions. http://www2.ejbjs.org/misc/instrux.dtl#levels. Accessed 30 July 2010

Download references

Acknowledgement

Without the voluntary commitment of a great number of collaborators in expert groups and the cooperation of all surgeons who transfer data, the successful operation of registers would not be possible.

Special thanks are due to the experienced members of registers that are already well-established who share their know-how to support the development of new registers, and to the scientific societies providing their facilities for this exchange of knowledge.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Gerold Labek, Wolfgang Janda, Mark Agreiter & Reinhard Schuh

  2. Orthopaedic Department, AKH Linz, Krankenhausstr. 9, 4021, Linz, Austria

    Nikolaus Böhler

Authors
  1. Gerold Labek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wolfgang Janda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark Agreiter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Reinhard Schuh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nikolaus Böhler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerold Labek.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Labek, G., Janda, W., Agreiter, M. et al. Organisation, data evaluation, interpretation and effect of arthroplasty register data on the outcome in terms of revision rate in total hip arthroplasty. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 35, 157–163 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1131-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1131-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation