Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A new universal, standardized implant database for product identification: a unique tool for arthroplasty registries

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Qualiätsreport 2013 (2014). AQUA—Institut für angewandte Qualitätsförderung und Forschung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH, Göttingen, https://www.sqg.de/themen/qualitaetsreport/index.html

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pitto RP, Lang I, Kienapfel H, Willert HG (2002) The German arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 73(305):30–33

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hassenpflug J (2012) The German arthroplasty register EPRD. Structure, procedures and organisation. Paper presented at the EFFORT Congress, Berlin

  22. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

  24. The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2010 (2011) Department of Orthopedics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden

  25. 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

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CeramTec GmbH, Plochingen, Germany

    Wilhelm Blömer

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital of Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany

    Arnd Steinbrück, Christian Schröder & Volkmar Jansson

  3. BQS-Institute for Quality and Patient Safety, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Franz-Josef Grothaus & Oliver Melsheimer

  4. Biomet GmbH, Berlin, Germany

    Henrich Mannel

  5. Stryker GmbH, Duisburg, Germany

    Gerhard Forkel

  6. Smith & Nephew, Marl, Germany

    Thomas Eilers

  7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Schleswig, Holstein Medical Center, Kiel, Germany

    Thoralf R. Liebs & Joachim Hassenpflug

  8. German Arthroplasty Registry (Endoprothesenregister Deutschland, EPRD), Deutschland, Germany

    Joachim Hassenpflug

Authors
  1. Wilhelm Blömer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arnd Steinbrück
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Schröder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Franz-Josef Grothaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Oliver Melsheimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Henrich Mannel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gerhard Forkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Thomas Eilers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Thoralf R. Liebs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Joachim Hassenpflug
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Volkmar Jansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnd Steinbrück.

Additional information

For the German Arthroplasty Registry Implant Library Task Force.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2238-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation