Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for :

  • Author: Richard N de Steiger x
  • General Orthopaedics x
Clear All Modify Search
Richard N. de Steiger Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, SAHMRI, Adelaide, Australia
School of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Australia

Search for other papers by Richard N. de Steiger in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Stephen E. Graves School of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Australia

Search for other papers by Stephen E. Graves in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

  • 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

Open access
Richard N de Steiger Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, SAHMRI, Adelaide, Australia

Search for other papers by Richard N de Steiger in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Brian R Hallstrom Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative University of Michigan, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Search for other papers by Brian R Hallstrom in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Anne Lübbeke Geneva Arthroplasty Registry, Geneva University Hospitals Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4 CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland

Search for other papers by Anne Lübbeke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Elizabeth W Paxton Surgical Outcomes and Analysis Unit, Kaiser Permanente National Implant Registries 8954 Rio San Diego Drive, Suite, San Diego, California, USA

Search for other papers by Elizabeth W Paxton in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Liza N van Steenbergen Dutch Arthroplasty Register (Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten (LROI)), Bruistensingel 230 | 5232 AD ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Liza N van Steenbergen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Mark Wilkinson Department of Oncology and Metabolism, University of Sheffield, Beech Hill Road, Sheffield, United Kingdom
National Joint Replacement for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey (NJR)

Search for other papers by Mark Wilkinson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

  • Recent concerns surrounding joint replacements that have a higher than expected rate of revision have led to stricter controls by regulatory authorities with regards to the introduction of new devices into the marketplace.

  • Implant post-market surveillance remains important, and joint replacement registries are ideally placed to perform this role. This review examined if and how joint replacement registries identified outlier prostheses, outlined problems and suggested solutions to improve post-market surveillance.

  • A search was performed of all joint replacement registries that had electronic or published reports detailing the outcomes of joint replacement. These reports were examined for registry identification of outlier prostheses. Five registries publicly identified outlier prostheses in their reports and the methods by which this was performed, and three others had internal reports.

  • Identification of outlier prostheses is one area that may improve overall joint replacement outcomes; however, further research is needed to determine the optimum methods for identification, including the threshold, the comparator and the numbers required for notification of devices.

  • Co-operation of registries at a global level may lead to earlier identification of devices and thereby further improve the results of joint replacement.

Open access