Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Jun;10(2):240-252.
doi: 10.1007/s12178-017-9408-5.

Arthroplasty registries around the world: valuable sources of hip implant revision risk data

Richard E Hughes  1   2 , Aditi Batra  3 , Brian R Hallstrom  4
Affiliations
Review

Arthroplasty registries around the world: valuable sources of hip implant revision risk data

Richard E Hughes et al. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2017 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose of review: National and regional arthroplasty registries have proliferated since the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register was started in 1975. Registry reports typically present implant-specific estimates of revision risk and patient- and technique-related factors that can inform clinical decision-making about implants and techniques. However, annual registry reports are long and it is difficult for clinicians to extract comparable revision risk data. Since implants may appear in multiple registry reports, it is even more difficult to gather relevant data for clinical decision-making about implant selection. The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe arthroplasty registry concepts, international registries around the world, US registries, and provide a parsimonious summary of total hip arthroplasty (THA) implant revision risk reports across registries.

Recent findings: Revision risk data for conventional stem/cup combinations reported by the Australian, R.I.P.O. (Italian), Finnish, and Danish registries are summarized here. These registries were selected because they presented 10-year data on revision risk by stem/cup combination. Four tables of revision risk are presented based on fixation: cemented, uncemented, hybrid, and reverse hybrid. Review of these tables show there is wide variation in revision risk across conventional THA implants. It also demonstrates that some cemented implants have better 10-year risk than the best uncemented implants. Many arthroplasty registries prepare annual reports that include revision risk data for implants and they are posted on the registry websites. Arthroplasty surgeons should stay current with these registry reports on implant performance and potential outliers and keep them in mind when making implant decisions.

Keywords: Arthroplasty; Hip; Implants; Registry; Revision.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest

The authors report financial support for the Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI). The work done that is reported in this manuscript was done as part of MARCQI, so BCBSM/BCN funds were used.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Funding

This work was done as part of the quality improvement work of MARCQI. Support for MARCQI is provided by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships program.

Disclaimer

Although Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and MARCQI work collaboratively, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of BCBSM or any of its employees.

References

    1. Labek G, Neumann D, Agreiter M, Schuh R, Bohler N. Impact of implant developers on published outcome and reproducibility of cohort-based clinical studies in arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(Suppl 3):55–61. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01108. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Robertsson O, Mendenhall S, Paxton EW, Inacio MC, Graves S. Challenges in prosthesis classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(Suppl 3):72–75. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00990. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Knutson K, Lewold S, Robertsson O, Lidgren L. The Swedish knee arthroplasty register. A nation-wide study of 30,003 knees 1976-1992. Acta Ortho Scand. 1994;65:375–386. doi: 10.3109/17453679408995475. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Malchau H, Herberts P, Eilser T, Garellick G, Soderman P. The Swedish total hip replacement register. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:2–20. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200200002-00002. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Macpherson GJ, Brenkel IJ, Smith R, Howie CR. Outlier analysis in orthopaedics: use of CUSUM: the Scottish arthroplasty project: shouldering the burden of improvement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(Suppl 3):81–88. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.01010. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources