About the French SoFCOT Total Hip Arthroplasty Registry
Seance of friday 12 october 2018 (DPC - Registres et Cohortes)
DOI number : 10.26299/n7x3-sz43/emem.2018.1.007
Abstract
The first orthopedic registry at a national scale was launched in Sweden in 1975, dedicated to total knee replacement (TKR). Since, many countries have initiated registries with various success.
Registry governance requires a lot of time, money and data exhaustiveness. Solutions included; use of one unique patient identification (Social Security number) as to perfectly trace patient and surgical events related to each device; long-lasting finances; a fast and modern data collection method through internet; and a mandatory compliance, at least for innovating devices. Their effects on professional practices must also be evaluated. Finally, their high cost raises concerns about data and results property.
During the last 4 decades since 1975, Scandinavian countries have progressively developed orthopedic registries. Conversely, the first registry in English language appeared in 1998 (New Zealand), while United-States and many European countries have not yet achieved to run such efficient tools. So far, 11 major national registries dedicated to THR and TKR are listed, either exclusive or included in multi-joint reports. Their results are often in accordance, sometimes in opposition considering some important variations due to both cultures and market rules.
Registries future is depending on commitment conjunction by both the Public Authorities and the involved professionals. Surgeons would like that registries only concentrate on comparative implant bench marking while Public Authorities are mostly interested by health practitioner practice qualities and hospital performances. An equilibrated consensus might promote registry development in a near future.
Registry governance requires a lot of time, money and data exhaustiveness. Solutions included; use of one unique patient identification (Social Security number) as to perfectly trace patient and surgical events related to each device; long-lasting finances; a fast and modern data collection method through internet; and a mandatory compliance, at least for innovating devices. Their effects on professional practices must also be evaluated. Finally, their high cost raises concerns about data and results property.
During the last 4 decades since 1975, Scandinavian countries have progressively developed orthopedic registries. Conversely, the first registry in English language appeared in 1998 (New Zealand), while United-States and many European countries have not yet achieved to run such efficient tools. So far, 11 major national registries dedicated to THR and TKR are listed, either exclusive or included in multi-joint reports. Their results are often in accordance, sometimes in opposition considering some important variations due to both cultures and market rules.
Registries future is depending on commitment conjunction by both the Public Authorities and the involved professionals. Surgeons would like that registries only concentrate on comparative implant bench marking while Public Authorities are mostly interested by health practitioner practice qualities and hospital performances. An equilibrated consensus might promote registry development in a near future.