Why registries analysing cruciate ligament surgery are important

National quality registries have been used in several medical specialties to improve healthcare worldwide.1–8 Owing to the inferior clinical results associated with some hip prosthesis designs in the early 1980s,6 nationwide Hip Arthroplasty Register (Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, NAR) was established in Sweden, in 1979, and in Norway, in 1987, with implant revision as the main end point.1 The purpose is the early detection of inferior results caused by implants, cements or surgical techniques.1 ,3 ,6 In 1994, the Norwegian registry was expanded to include all joint replacements.3 In 1995, two studies1 ,3 described implant inferiority at an early stage, a finding only possible through registry studies. The Hip Arthroplasty Register is based on a simple reporting system (approximately 1 min to complete a single-page registration form) and hospitals are provided with continuous feedback from the registry.1 ,2 These two factors are believed to explain why the compliance rate of nearly 100% has not declined during 30 years of operation.1 ,2 Immediately after each operation, the surgeon completes the registration form, which is mailed to the NAR office. Patient identification and the different procedures, including the type of implant and cement used, are specified on the registration form. Feedback to the surgeons and recently to the public is given as annual national reports. In addition, each hospital receives a report on its own activities and results, which can be compared to the national average. A wide range of studies have been published based on the NAR database.1 ,3 ,6 To date, national registries have been established in Norway, Sweden (1979), Finland (1980), Denmark (1995), Australia (1999), New Zealand (1999), Canada (2000), Romania …

[1]  M. Hägglund,et al.  Predictors for additional anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: data from the Swedish national ACL register , 2016, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[2]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  How does a combined preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation programme influence the outcome of ACL reconstruction 2 years after surgery? A comparison between patients in the Delaware-Oslo ACL Cohort and the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry , 2014, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[3]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Lower Risk of Revision With Patellar Tendon Autografts Compared With Hamstring Autografts , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[4]  Kristian Samuelsson,et al.  Surgical Predictors of Early Revision Surgery After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[5]  J. Karlsson,et al.  Results from the Swedish national anterior cruciate ligament register. , 2014, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[6]  T. Thillemann,et al.  Comparison of Hamstring Tendon and Patellar Tendon Grafts in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in a Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[7]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Increased Risk of Revision With Hamstring Tendon Grafts Compared With Patellar Tendon Grafts After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2014, The American journal of sports medicine.

[8]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Sport-Specific Injury Pattern Recorded During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2013, The American journal of sports medicine.

[9]  Andrew D. Lynch,et al.  Consensus criteria for defining ‘successful outcome’ after ACL injury and reconstruction: a Delaware-Oslo ACL cohort investigation , 2013, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[10]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Prevalence and Incidence of New Meniscus and Cartilage Injuries After a Nonoperative Treatment Algorithm for ACL Tears in Skeletally Immature Children , 2013, The American journal of sports medicine.

[11]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Effect of Meniscal and Focal Cartilage Lesions on Patient-Reported Outcome After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction , 2013, The American journal of sports medicine.

[12]  T. Thillemann,et al.  Increased risk of revision after anteromedial compared with transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel during primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register. , 2013, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[13]  K. Eriksson,et al.  Functional recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, a study of health-related quality of life based on the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register , 2013, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[14]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Intraoperative findings and procedures in culturally and geographically different patient and surgeon populations , 2012, Acta orthopaedica.

[15]  K. Samuelsson,et al.  The Swedish National Anterior Cruciate Ligament Register , 2012, American Journal of Sports Medicine.

[16]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Registration rate in the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Register , 2012, Acta orthopaedica.

[17]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Intraoperative findings and procedures in culturally and geo- graphically different patient and surgeon populations An anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction registry comparison between Norway and the USA , 2012 .

[18]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Patients with focal full-thickness cartilage lesions benefit less from ACL reconstruction at 2–5 years follow-up , 2012, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[19]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Comparison of community-based ACL reconstruction registries in the U.S. and Norway. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[20]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Effect of Gender and Sports on the Risk of Full-Thickness Articular Cartilage Lesions in Anterior Cruciate Ligament–Injured Knees , 2011, The American journal of sports medicine.

[21]  Karianne Ytterstad,et al.  God rapportering til korsbåndsregisteret , 2011 .

[22]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  [The Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry has a high degree of completeness]. , 2011, Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening : tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke.

[23]  N. Dreyer,et al.  Registries for Evaluating Patient Outcomes: A User’s Guide , 2010 .

[24]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  The Scandinavian ACL registries 2004–2007: baseline epidemiology , 2009, Acta orthopaedica.

[25]  Lars Engebretsen,et al.  Cross-cultural comparison of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction in the United States and Norway , 2009, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy.

[26]  Lars Engebretsen,et al.  Timing of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructive Surgery and Risk of Cartilage Lesions and Meniscal Tears a Cohort Study Based on the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry , 2022 .

[27]  L. Engebretsen,et al.  Development of a National Cruciate Ligament Surgery Registry , 2008, The American journal of sports medicine.

[28]  Birgitte Espehaug,et al.  Registration completeness in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register , 2006, Acta orthopaedica.

[29]  T. Sokka National databases and rheumatology research I: longitudinal databases in Scandinavia. , 2004, Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America.

[30]  P. Herberts,et al.  The Swedish Total Hip Replacement Register , 2002, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[31]  P. Lichtenstein,et al.  The Swedish Twin Registry: a unique resource for clinical, epidemiological and genetic studies , 2002, Journal of internal medicine.

[32]  L. Irgens,et al.  The Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Epidemiological research and surveillance throughout 30 years , 2000, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[33]  B. Espehaug,et al.  The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties , 2000, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.