COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY REGISTERS (REVIEW)

Cover Page


Cite item

Abstract

The rapid growth the number of joint replacements in the second half of the XX century required the creation of a system for monitoring the results of these operations. The most promising organizational structure that takes into account the number of performed surgeries and evaluates its results, is a national arthroplasty register. Followed by Sweden, where the first time the National Register of knee arthroplasty was created in 1975, many countries in Europe and North America began to develop own registers in the field of traumatology and orthopedics. By publishing annual reports and scientific papers, as well as through participation in national and international conferences, register distributes information to doctors, health care administrators, manufacturers and other interested bodies, allowing to track the results of arthroplasty at all levels, from the certain hospital to the international level. The authors of this review provide the analysis of the structure of existing registers of knee replacement and compare it with randomized clinical trials.

About the authors

R. M. Tikhilov

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics; Mechnikov North Western State Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: info@rniito.org
Russian Federation

N. N. Komilov

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics; Mechnikov North Western State Medical University

Email: drkornilov@hotmail.com
Russian Federation

T. A. Kulyba

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: taraskulyaba@hotmail.com
Russian Federation

A. S. Fil

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: filalekse@yandex.ru
Russian Federation

P. V. Drozdova

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: mapol@inbox.ru
Russian Federation

A. I. Petukhov

Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics

Email: drpetukhov@yandex.ru
Russian Federation

References

  1. Воронцова Т.Н. Научное обоснование системы управ ления организацией высокотехнологичных методов лечения [дис. ... д-ра мед. наук]. СПб.: РНИИТО им. P.P. Вредена; 2004
  2. Дроздова П.В. Совершенствование регистра эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава и изучение возможностей его влияния на лечебную тактику у профильных Больных [автореф. дис. ... канд. мед. наук]. СПб.: РНИИТО им. P.P. Вредена; 2011
  3. Тихилов P.M. 3 составляющие концепции НИИТО им. P.P. Вредена. CeraNews. 2013; (2): 2-5
  4. Тихилов P.M., Шубняков И.И., Коваленко А.Н., Чёрный А.Ж., Муравьёва Ю.В., Гончаров М.Ю. Данные регистра эндопротезирования тазобедренного сустава РНИИТО им. P.P. Вредена за 2007-2012 годы. Травматология и ортопедия России 2013; (3): 167-190
  5. Audigé L., Hanson B., Kopjar B. Issues in the planning and conduct of non-randomised studies. Injury. 2006; 37(4): 340-348.
  6. Cochrane A.L. Archie Cochrane in his own words. Selections arranged from his 1972 introduction to "Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on the Health Services” 1972. Control Clin. Trials. 1989; 10(4): 428-433.
  7. Freeman M.A., Lewack B. British contribution to knee arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. 1986; (210): 69-79.
  8. Fritzell P., Strömqvist B., Hägg О. A practical approach to spine registers in Europe: the Swedish experience. Eur. Spine J. 2006; 15 (Suppl. і): 57-63.
  9. Furnes O.N. Hip and knee replacement in Norway, 1987 - 2000. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. 2002/ Рєжим доступа: www.ear.efort.org.
  10. Giacometti R. Documentation and methods of assessment of the result of hip arthroplasty. In: European instructional course lectures. London; 1997. P. 1-5.
  11. Gluck T. Die Invaginationsmethode der Osteo- und Arthroplastik. Berl. Klin. Wschr. 1890; 19: 732 P.
  12. Gunston F.H. Polycentric knee arthroplasty. Prosthetic simulation of normal knee movement. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1971; 53: 272-277.
  13. Harbour R., Miller J. A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ. 2001; 323(7308): ЗЗ4-ЗЗ6.
  14. Hassenpflug J., The German Arthroplasty Register EPRD, Structure, Procedures and Organisation. 2012; 6-14.
  15. Havelin L.I., Engesaeter L.B., Espehaug B., Furnes О., Lie S.A., Vollset S.E. The Norwegian arthroplasty register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2000; (71): ЗЗ7-З5З.
  16. Havelin L.I. The Nordic arthroplasty register association. A unigue collaboration between З national hip arthroplasty registers with 280,201 THRs. Acta Orthop. 2009; 80 (4): 393-401.
  17. Herberts P., Malchau H. Long-term registration has improved the guality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR register comparing 160000 cases. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2000; 71 (2): 111-121.
  18. Insall J., Ranawat C.S., Scott W.N., Walker P. Total condylar knee replacment: preliminary report. Clin. Orthop. 1976; (120): 149-154.
  19. Kolling C., Simmen B.R., Labek G., Goldhahn J. Key factors for a successful National Arthroplasty Register. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2007; 89-B:1567-1573.
  20. Labek G., Stoica C.I., Bohler N. Comparison of the information in arthroplasty registers from different countries. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2008; 90-B: 288-291.
  21. Lilford R.J., Jackson J. Eguipoise and the ethics of randomization. J.R.Soc. Med. 1995; 88(10): 552-559.
  22. Lucht U. The Danish hip arthroplasty register. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2000; 71 (5): 4ЗЗ-4З9.
  23. Malchau H., Herberts P., Ahnfelt L. Prognosis of total hip replacement in Sweden. Follow-up of 92675 operations performed 1978-1990. Acta Orthop. Scand. 1993; 64: 497-506.
  24. Malchau H., Herberts P., Eisler T. et al. The Swedish total hip replacement register. J. Bone Joint Surg. 2002; 84-A, Suppl. 2: 2-20.
  25. Marmor L. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Ten-to 13-year follow-up study. Clin. Orthop. 1988; (226): 14-20.
  26. McCulloch P., Taylor I., Sasako M., Lovett B., Griffin D. Randomised trials in surgery: problems and possible solutions. BMJ. 2002; 324(7351): 1448-1451.
  27. Melloh M., Staub L., Aghayev E. et al. The international spine registry SPINE TANGO: status quo and first results. Eur. Spine J. 2008; 17(9): 1201-1209.
  28. Puolakka T.J., Pajamaki K.J., Halonen P.J., Pulkkinen P.O., Paavolainen P., Nevalainen J.K. The Finnish Arthroplasty Register: report of the hip register. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2001; (72): 433-441.
  29. Ranstam J., Wagner P., Robertsson О., Lidgren L. Health-care guality registers. Outcome-oriented ranking of hospitals is unreliable. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2008; 90: 1556-1561.
  30. Ranstam J., Kärrholm J., Pulkkinen P. et al. Statistycal analysis of arthroplasty data. Acta Orthop. 2011; 82 (З): 25З-257.
  31. Röder C., El-Kerdi A., Grob D., Aebi M. A European spine registry. Eur. Spine J. 2ОО2; 11(4): ЗОЗ-ЗО7.
  32. Röder C., El-Kerdi A., Eggli S., Aebi M. A centralized total joint replacement registry using web-based technologies. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2ОО4; 86(9): 2077-2079.
  33. Röder C., El-Kerdi A., Frigg A. et al. The Swiss Orthopaedic Registry. Bull. Hosp. Jt. Dis. 2005; 63(1-2): 15-19.
  34. Röder C., Müller U., Aebi M. The rationale for a spine registry. Eur. Spine J. 2ОО6; 15, Suppl. 1: 52-56.
  35. Röder C., Staub L., Dietrich D., Zweig T., Melloh M., Aebi M. Benchmarking with Spine Tango: potentials and pitfalls. Eur. Spine J. 2ОО9; 18, Suppl. З: 305-311.
  36. Robertson О., Lewold S., Knutson K., Lidgren L. The Swidish Knee Arthoplasty Progect. Acta Orthop. Scand. 2000; 71 (1):7-18.
  37. Rothwell P.M. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "to whom do the results of this trial apply?” Lancet. 2ОО5; 365(9453): 82-93.
  38. Rothwell P.M. Factors that can affect the external validity of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Clin. Trials. 2006; 1(1):e9.
  39. Serra-Sutton V., Allepuz A., Espallargues M., Labek G., Pons J.M. Arthroplasty registers: a review of international experiences. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care 2009; 25(1): 63-72.
  40. Shiers L.G. Arthoplasty of knee. Preliminary report of new method. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 1954; 36: 553-560.
  41. Schluessmann E., Diel P., Aghayev E. et al. SWISSspine: a nationwide registry for health technology assessment of lumbar disc prostheses. Eur. Spine J. 2009; 18(6): 851-861.
  42. Schulz K.F. Subverting randomization in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995; 274(18): 1456-1458.
  43. Stiller C.A. Centralised treatment, entry to trials and survival. Br. J. Cancer. 1994; 70(2): 352-362.
  44. Swedish Knee Arthoplasty Registry: Ann. Report. 2012.
  45. Tunis S.R., Stryer D.B., Clancy C.M. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003; 290(12): 1624-1632.
  46. Walldius B. Arthroplasty of the knee using an endoprosthesis. Acta Orthop. Scand. Suppl. 1957; 24:1-112.
  47. Ward L.C., Fielding J.W., Dunn J.A., Kelly K.A The selection of cases for randomised trials: a registry survey of concurrent trial and non-trial patients. The British Stomach Cancer Group. Br. J. Cancer. 1992; 66(5): 943-950.
  48. Zweig T., Mannion A.F., Grob D. et al. How to Tango: a manual for implementing Spine Tango. Eur. Spine J. 2009; 18, Suppl. 3: 312-320.

Copyright (c) 2014



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies