Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Joints 2017; 05(02): 070-078
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1603899
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Monitoring Outcome of Joint Arthroplasty in Italy: Implementation of the National Registry

Marina Torre
1   National Center for Clinical Excellence, Healthcare Quality & Safety, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
,
Emilio Romanini
2   Casa di Cura San Feliciano, Rome, Italy
,
Gustavo Zanoli
3   Dipartimento di Ortopedia, Casa di Cura Santa Maria Maddalena, Occhiobello (RO), Italy
,
Eugenio Carrani
1   National Center for Clinical Excellence, Healthcare Quality & Safety, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
,
Ilaria Luzi
1   National Center for Clinical Excellence, Healthcare Quality & Safety, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
,
Luisa Leone   †
4   National Center of Epidemiology, Surveillance and Health Promotion, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
,
Stefania Bellino
5   Department of Infectious Diseases, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
28 July 2017 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose Arthroplasty registries have an important role in improving outcomes in joint surgery. As the demand for joint arthroplasty continues to increase, growing attention is being paid to the establishment of national registries, which contribute to the enhancement of the quality of patients' care. Indeed, providing postmarketing surveillance data in terms of safety and effectiveness of medical devices, registries contribute to the best orthopaedic practice and support public health decision making. In this context, a project aimed at implementing a national arthroplasty registry in Italy has appeared to be essential, and the activities performed in the last years have consolidated data collection of hip and knee replacements.

Methods Based on a close cooperation among public health institutions, clinicians, and involved stakeholders, the architecture of the registry is built on three pillars: (1) data collected using Hospital Discharge Records (HDRs) integrated by an additional dataset, (2) implants identified and characterized in a dedicated medical devices library, and (3) a federation of regional registries coordinated by a public health institution, the Italian National Institute of Health.

Results Besides the organizational structure, statistical analyses on joint arthroplasty from national HDR database (2001–2014) and Italian registry data (2014) are presented. Currently, the institutions participating in the registry on a voluntary basis show 80% of completeness for hip and 58% for knee, and represent approximately 18% of the national volume.

Conclusion To make data collection effective, participation should be mandatory and ruled by a national law.

Level of Study Level III, observational analytic study.

Keywords

arthroplasty registry - hip arthroplasty - knee arthroplasty - medical device

† Luisa Leone passed away on October 16th, 2014.


 

  • References

  • 1 Huiskes R. Failed innovation in total hip replacement. Diagnosis and proposals for a cure. Acta Orthop Scand 1993; 64 (06) 699-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Harris WH. Last decade in THA: unsettling and disappointing. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (03) 648 . Doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.10.011
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Anand R, Graves SE, de Steiger RN. , et al. What is the benefit of introducing new hip and knee prostheses?. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (Suppl. 03) 51-54
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Havelin LI, Fenstad AM, Salomonsson R. , et al. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association: a unique collaboration between 3 national hip arthroplasty registries with 280,201 THRs. Acta Orthop 2009; 80 (04) 393-401
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Herberts P, Malchau H. Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71 (02) 111-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Serra-Sutton V, Allepuz A, Espallargues M, Labek G, Pons JM. Arthroplasty registers: a review of international experiences. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2009; 25 (01) 63-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Niethard FU, Weise K. The German endoprosthesis register - a never-ending story?[in German]. Z Orthop Unfall 2009; 147 (02) 149-150
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Maloney WJ. The role of orthopaedic device registries in improving patient outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (24) 2241 . Doi: 10.2106/JBJS.9323edit
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Graves SE. The value of arthroplasty registry data. Acta Orthop 2010; 81 (01) 8-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Horan FT. Joint registries. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (06) 749-750
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on medical devices, and amending Directive 2001/83/EC, Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 and Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. Brussels, June 27, 2016
    PubMed
  • 12 Toni A, Stea S, Bordini B, Traina F. Lost to follow-up in a hip prosthesis register. Experience of R.I.P.O. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 2002; 73 (305) 49-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Germinario C, Torre M, Palmieri S, Lo Palco PL, Prato R. Regione Puglia. Registro regionale delle protesi d'anca [Apulia Region. The hip arthroplasty regional registry]. In: Progetto per l'istituzione del Registro nazionale degli interventi di protesi di anca [Design of the Italian National Hip Arthroplasty Register]. Torre M. (Ed). Roma: Istituto Superiore di Sanità; 2005. . (Rapporti ISTISAN 05/18)
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Zagra L. Regione Lombardia. Registro Ortopedico Protesico Lombardo [Lombardy Region. The Orthopaedic Registry of Lombardy]. In: Progetto per l'istituzione del Registro nazionale degli interventi di protesi di anca [Design of the Italian National Hip Arthroplasty Register]. Torre M. (Ed). Roma: Istituto Superiore di Sanità; 2005. . (Rapporti ISTISAN 05/18)
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Romanini E, Torre M, Manno V, Baglio G, Conti S. Chirurgia protesica dell'anca: la mobilità interregionale [Total hip replacement: the interregional mobility]. Giornale italiano di ortopedia e traumatologia. Ital J Orthop Traumatol 2008; 34: 129-134
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Romanini E, Manno V, Conti S. , et al. Mobilità interregionale e chirurgia protesica del ginocchio [Interregional mobility and total knee arthroplasty]. Annali di Igiene. Ann Hyg 2009; 21 (04) 329-366
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Malchau H, Graves SE, Porter M, Harris WH, Troelsen A. The next critical role of orthopedic registries. Acta Orthop 2015; 86 (01) 3-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 European Commission: Commission Recommendation 2013/172/EU of 5 April 2013 on a common framework for a unique device identification system of medical devices in the Union (Text with EEA relevance). OJEU 2013, L 99/17
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kolling C, Simmen BR, Labek G, Goldhahn J. Key factors for a successful National Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89 (12) 1567-1573
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hip and Knee Replacements in Canada. Canadian Joint Replacement Registry 2015 Annual Report. Available at: https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/CJRR_2015_Annual_Report_EN.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Singh JA. Epidemiology of knee and hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. Open Orthop J 2011; 5: 80-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Badley EM, Davis AM. Meeting the challenge of the ageing of the population: issues in access to specialist care for arthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2012; 26 (05) 599-609
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89 (04) 780-785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Nemes S, Rolfson O, W-Dahl A. , et al. Historical view and future demand for knee arthroplasty in Sweden. Acta Orthop 2015; 86 (04) 426-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Torre M, Tucci G, Luzi I, Del Manso M. Joint arthroplasty in high functional demanding patients: epidemiologic data. Giornale Italiano di Ortopedia e Traumatologia 2015; 41 (Suppl. 01) S1-S8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Amato L, Colais P, Davoli M. , et al. Volume and health outcomes: evidence from systematic reviews and from evaluation of Italian hospital data [in Italian]. Epidemiol Prev 2013; 37 (2–3, Suppl 2): 1-100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Glassou EN, Hansen TB, Mäkelä K. , et al. Association between hospital procedure volume and risk of revision after total hip arthroplasty: a population-based study within the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2016; 24 (03) 419-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Singh JA, Ramachandran R. Does hospital volume predict outcomes and complications after total shoulder arthroplasty in the US?. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2015; 67 (06) 885-890
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Inacio MC, Paxton EW, Dillon MT. Understanding orthopaedic registry studies: a comparison with clinical studies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (01) e3 . Doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lacny S, Bohm E, Hawker G, Powell J, Marshall DA. Assessing the comparability of hip arthroplasty registries in order to improve the recording and monitoring of outcome. Bone Joint J 2016; 98-B (04) 442-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar