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

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.

Perioperative mortality in hip fracture patients treated with cemented and uncemented hemiprosthesis: a register study of 11,210 patients

“…The findings in this study are based on register data and cannot be interpreted as a randomised study [35]. This applies even though the baseline characteristics are similar between the groups and the cohort is large.…”

Application and surgical technique of total knee arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide registers

“…National joint arthroplasty registries facilitate an exchange of experiences concerning new materials and surgical methods, which is beneficial for the evaluation of efficacy and detection of failures and disadvantages as early as possible. Furthermore, national registers play an important role in the comparative analysis of implant performance, the detection of revision rates following total joint arthroplasty, and identification of patients for the purpose of follow-ups and recalls [5][6][7][8][9][10]. This allows a continuous, evidencebased adaptation of implant-choice and surgical technique to achieve improved results.…”

The outcome of the cementless tapered SL-Plus stem: an analysis of arthroplasty register data

“…Arthroplasty register datasets in general show superior quality compared to metanalyses of clinical studies, but some specific requirements should be taken into consideration for interpretation [8,9].…”