Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Liza N van Steenbergen x
Clear All Modify Search
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
Geke A. W. Denissen Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten (Dutch Arthroplasty Register), ’s Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Geke A. W. Denissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Liza N. van Steenbergen Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten (Dutch Arthroplasty Register), ’s Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Liza N. van Steenbergen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Wouter T. Lollinga Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten (Dutch Arthroplasty Register), ’s Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Wouter T. Lollinga in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Nico J. J. Verdonschot Dept. of Biomechanics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Department of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Nico J. J. Verdonschot in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Berend W. Schreurs Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten (Dutch Arthroplasty Register), ’s Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
Dept. of Orthopaedics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Berend W. Schreurs in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Rob G. H. H. Nelissen Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten (Dutch Arthroplasty Register), ’s Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands
Dept. of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Rob G. H. H. Nelissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

  • In the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), the product and batch number of prosthetic components and cement are registered for traceability. Registration of the product number provides opportunities to extend the information about a specific prosthesis. All product numbers used from the beginning of the registration in 2007 were characterized to develop and maintain an implant library.

  • The Scientific Advisory Board developed a core-set that contains the most important characteristics needed to form an implant library. The final core-set contains the brand name, type, coating and material of the prosthesis. In total, 35 676 product numbers were classified, resulting in a complete implant library of all product numbers used in the LROI.

  • To improve quality of the data and increase convenience of registration, the LROI implemented barcode scanning for data entry into the database. In 2017, 82% of prosthetic components and cement stickers had a GS1 barcode. The remaining product stickers used HIBCC barcodes and custom-made barcodes.

  • With this implant library, implants can be grouped for analyses at group level, e.g. evaluation of the effect of a material of a prosthesis on survival of the implant. Apart from that, the implant library can be used for data quality control within the LROI database.

  • The implant library reduces the registration burden and increases accuracy of the database. Such a system will facilitate new designs (learning from the past) and thus improve implant quality and ultimately patient safety.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180063

Open access