Orthopaedic registries: the Australian experience

Abstract

The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry first began data collection on 1 September 1999 and full nationwide implementation commenced in January 2003. The purpose of the Registry is to improve the quality of care for individuals receiving joint replacement surgery. The Registry enables surgeons, academic institutions, governments and industry to request specific data that are not available in published annual reports. There is an established system for identifying prostheses with a higher than anticipated rate of revision (HTARR) which was introduced in 2004. The higher rate of revision for the ASR Hip Resurfacing System was first identified by this process in 2007. There has been a reduction in revision hip and knee replacement over the years that the Registry has been in operation, and the addition of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and data linkage will enable more extensive analysis of joint replacement surgery in the future. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180071

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Total Knee Replacement in Patients <65 Years of Age—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Research suggests that there is a strong role for the identification of long-term pain, function, and quality of life trajectories following TKR, where strategies targeting the modifiable predictors of poor response to surgery may have the potential to improve longer-term patient-reported outcomes [ 51 , 52 ]. Furthermore, clinical joint replacement registries have been highly effective in monitoring the long-term survivorship of prostheses to inform practice, and are similarly well placed to facilitate the systematic collection and monitoring of quality metrics including patient-reported outcomes over longer periods of sustained follow-up [ 10 , 47 , 53 , 54 ].…”

Cohort profile: the St Vincent’s Melbourne Arthroplasty Outcomes (SMART) Registry, a pragmatic prospective database defining outcomes in total hip and knee replacement patients

“…One of the major differences between the National Registry and SMART Registry is the duration of PROMs data collection, which commenced in 2018 for the National Registry with a preoperative and 6-month postoperative PROM survey, while the SMART Registry has been collecting longitudinal PROMs data comprehensively since 2006 (see online supplemental file 1 ). 49 Individual surgeons at SVHM are also able to use peer benchmarking of their surgical, clinical and patient-reported outcomes, by comparing their own data with aggregate, deidentified data from the other SVHM arthroplasty surgeons. This is performed as part of the annual audit and report of the SMART Registry.…”

Bikondylärer Oberflächenersatz des Kniegelenkes beim jungen Patienten – ein Update

“…Projektionen aus den USA gehen sogar so weit, dass die Nachfrage für Knieprothesen von 2005 bis 2030 um 673 % Prozent steigen könnte [ 28 ]. Aktuell liegt in Deutschland und der Schweiz das Durchschnittsalter für eine Knietotalendoprothese (KTEP) bei knapp 69 Jahren, was auch ungefähr dem internationalen Vergleich entspricht [ 1 , 6 , 15 , 39 ]. Die Ätiologie der Arthrose bei jungen Patienten unterscheidet sich jedoch entscheidend von der anderer Altersgruppen: Bei den jüngeren Patienten < 55 Jahren sind häufig Zustände nach schweren Traumata oder Deformitäten mit begleitenden ligamentären Instabilitäten oder Tumorresektion mit Substanzdefekt zu beobachten [ 13 , 16 ].…”