Registries in orthopaedics

被引:40
作者
Delaunay, C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Clin Yvette, F-91160 Longjumeau, France
关键词
Implantable medical devices; Arthroplasty; Registry; TOTAL HIP-REPLACEMENT; SURGEON PROCEDURE VOLUME; UNITED-STATES; ARTHROPLASTIES; ASSOCIATION; OUTCOMES; FAILURE; RATES;
D O I
10.1016/j.otsr.2014.06.029
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
The first nationwide orthopaedic registry was created in Sweden in 1975 to collect data on total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Since then, several countries have established registries, with varying degrees of success. Managing a registry requires time and money. Factors that contribute to successful registry management include the use of a single identifier for each patient to ensure full traceability of all procedures related to a given implant; a long-term funding source; a contemporary, rapid, Internet-based data collection method; and the collection of exhaustive data, at least for innovative implants. The effects of registries on practice patterns should be evaluated. The high cost of registries raises issues of independence and content ownership. Scandinavian countries have been maintaining orthopaedic registries for nearly four decades (since 1975). The first English-language orthopaedic registry was not created until 1998 (in New Zealand), and both the US and many European countries are still struggling to establish orthopaedic registries. To date, there are 11 registered nationwide registries on total knee and total hip replacement. The data they contain are often consistent, although contradictions occur in some cases due to major variations in cultural and market factors. The future of registries will depend on the willingness of health authorities and healthcare professionals to support the creation and maintenance of these tools. Surgeons feel that registries should serve merely to compare implants. Health authorities, in contrast, have a strong interest in practice patterns and healthcare institution performances. Striking a balance between these objectives should allow advances in registry development in the near future. (C) 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:S69 / S75
页数:7
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] Anand Rajan, 2011, J Bone Joint Surg Am, V93 Suppl 3, P51, DOI 10.2106/JBJS.K.00867
  • [2] Cazeau B, 2012, Rapport d'information N653 au nom de la mission commune d'information portant sur les dispositifs medicaux implantables et les interventions a visee esthetique
  • [4] Quality and reproducibility of French publications on total hip arthroplasty
    Delaunay, C.
    Iovanescu, L.
    Necas, L.
    Hochgatterer, R.
    Labeke, G.
    [J]. ORTHOPAEDICS & TRAUMATOLOGY-SURGERY & RESEARCH, 2013, 99 (03) : 257 - 262
  • [5] Delaunay C, 2005, Prothese totale de hanche: les choix, P36
  • [6] What Are the Causes for Failures of Primary Hip Arthroplasties in France?
    Delaunay, Christian
    Hamadouche, Moussa
    Girard, Julien
    Duhamel, Alain
    [J]. CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2013, 471 (12) : 3863 - 3869
  • [7] Relationship between outcome and annual surgical experience for the Charnley total hip replacement - Results from a regional hip register
    Fender, D
    van der Meulen, JHP
    Gregg, PJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME, 2003, 85B (02): : 187 - 190
  • [8] Exeter and Charnley arthroplasties with Boneloc or high viscosity cement - Comparison of 1,127 arthroplasties followed for 5 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register
    Furnes, O
    Lie, SA
    Havelin, LI
    Vollset, SE
    Engesaeter, LB
    [J]. ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA SCANDINAVICA, 1997, 68 (06): : 515 - 520
  • [9] Havelin Leif I, 2011, J Bone Joint Surg Am, V93 Suppl 3, P13, DOI 10.2106/JBJS.K.00951
  • [10] HERBERTS P, 1989, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P48