Arthroplasty Registries at a Glance: an Initiative of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) to Facilitate Access, Understanding, and Reporting of Registry Data from an International Perspective

Overview

Journal Acta Orthop

Date 2025 Jan 30

PMID 39881617

Authors

Anne Lubbeke

Lotje A Hoogervorst

Perla J Marang-van de Mheen

Heather A Prentice

Ola Rolfson

Rob G H H Nelissen

Arnd Steinbruck

Gearoid McGauran

Christophe Barea

Kajsa Erikson

Alma B Pedersen

Martyn Porter

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Purpose: The amount of information publicly available from arthroplasty registries is large but could be used more effectively. This project aims to improve the knowledge concerning existing registries to facilitate access, transparency, harmonization, and reporting.

Methods: Within the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) we aimed at developing, testing, adopting, and making publicly available a short, standardized registry description with items considered relevant for stakeholders using a cross-sectional study survey. Items were chosen based on a literature review and expert advice, selected by 9 ISAR working group members, tested iteratively in 3 registries, and commented upon by 4 external experts. All 29 ISAR member registries as of July 2023 were invited to participate in the project.

Results: Included items covered general descriptive information regarding registries, information related to governance, outcomes, data quality, data access, and registry production. The template was adopted, completed, and made publicly available by 25 of the 29 registries. Of those, 2/3 were national registries. 23 captured both hip and knee arthroplasties and 10 captured shoulder arthroplasties. Most registries had public reporting of data quality, methods, and results. Data was accessible in all but 2 registries, mainly as aggregated data. Important items relevant to registry quality for researchers to consistently indicate in scientific papers include scope, inclusion criteria, outcomes definitions, coverage/completeness, and validation processes.

Conclusion: This ISAR initiative implemented a short, standardized description to facilitate appropriate use of orthopedic registry data worldwide relevant for a diverse group of stakeholders including researchers, industry, public health and regulatory agencies.

References

Niederlander C, Kriza C, Kolominsky-Rabas P . Quality criteria for medical device registries: best practice approaches for improving patient safety - a systematic review of international experiences. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2016; 14(1):49-64. DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2017.1268911. View

Hoogervorst L, Geurkink T, Lubbeke A, Buccheri S, Schoones J, Torre M . Quality and Utility of European Cardiovascular and Orthopaedic Registries for the Regulatory Evaluation of Medical Device Safety and Performance Across the Implant Lifecycle: A Systematic Review. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2023; 12:7648. PMC: 10702370. DOI: 10.34172/ijhpm.2023.7648. View

Galea V, Rojanasopondist P, Matuszak S, Connelly J, Bragdon C, Paxton L . The Benefits of National and Regional Arthroplasty Registries. Instr Course Lect. 2020; 68:681-694. View

Lubbeke A, Silman A, Barea C, Prieto-Alhambra D, Carr A . Mapping existing hip and knee replacement registries in Europe. Health Policy. 2018; 122(5):548-557. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.010. View

Prentice H, Harris J, Sucher K, Fasig B, Navarro R, Okike K . Improvements in Quality, Safety and Costs Associated with Use of Implant Registries Within a Health System. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2024; 50(6):404-415. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.01.011. View

Benchimol E, Smeeth L, Guttmann A, Harron K, Moher D, Petersen I . The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLoS Med. 2015; 12(10):e1001885. PMC: 4595218. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001885. View

Wilson I, Bohm E, Lubbeke A, Lyman S, Overgaard S, Rolfson O . Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev. 2019; 4(6):357-367. PMC: 6549110. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180080. View

Romanini E, Schettini I, Torre M, Venosa M, Tarantino A, Calvisi V . The rise of registry-based research: a bibliometric analysis. Acta Orthop. 2021; 92(5):628-632. PMC: 8522812. DOI: 10.1080/17453674.2021.1937459. View

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(2):111-21. DOI: 10.1080/000164700317413067 . View

10.

de Steiger R, Hallstrom B, Lubbeke A, Paxton E, Van Steenbergen L, Wilkinson M . Identification of implant outliers in joint replacement registries. EFORT Open Rev. 2023; 8(1):11-17. PMC: 9969008. DOI: 10.1530/EOR-22-0058. View

11.

Okafor C, Nghiem S, Byrnes J . Are joint replacement registries associated with burden of revision changes? A real-world panel data regression analysis. BMJ Open. 2023; 13(1):e063472. PMC: 9843180. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-063472. View

12.

Zippel C, Bohnet-Joschko S . Post market surveillance in the german medical device sector - current state and future perspectives. Health Policy. 2017; 121(8):880-886. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.06.005. View

13.

von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Gotzsche P, Vandenbroucke J . The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Epidemiology. 2007; 18(6):800-4. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577654. View

14.

Pijls B . The value of hip and knee arthroplasty registries. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2023; 20(12):1005-1008. DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2023.2282747. View

15.

Makela K, Furnes O, Hallan G, Fenstad A, Rolfson O, Karrholm J . The benefits of collaboration: the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association. EFORT Open Rev. 2019; 4(6):391-400. PMC: 6598612. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180058. View

16.

Malchau H, Garellick G, Berry D, Harris W, Robertson O, Karrlholm J . Arthroplasty implant registries over the past five decades: Development, current, and future impact. J Orthop Res. 2018; 36(9):2319-2330. DOI: 10.1002/jor.24014. View

17.

Graves S . The value of arthroplasty registry data. Acta Orthop. 2010; 81(1):8-9. PMC: 2856198. DOI: 10.3109/17453671003667184. View