Registries collecting level-I through IV Data: institutional and multicenter use: AAOS exhibit selection.

### What Is a TJR Registry? TJR registries represent ongoing prospective observational studies in which primary and revision TJR procedures are recorded1-4. Registries may be local, regional, national, or international. The data set collected must include a patient identifier and details regarding demographic, surgical, and clinical outcome data5. A registry can collect up to four levels of data. Level-I data include patient, surgeon, and hospital identifiers and procedure data, allowing monitoring of revision rates after TJR. Level-II data consist of patient factors, comorbidities, surgical data, perioperative care, and complications. Changes in complication rates over time can be evaluated and compared with changes in care. Level-III data include patient-reported outcome measures, which increase the ability of the registry to detect poor outcomes after TJR by assessing the patient’s perspective. Generic and disease-specific self-administered questionnaires measure general health, symptoms, function, activity level, and patient satisfaction. These allow for identification of risk factors for poor outcomes, assessment of overall health improvement after surgery, and analysis of the cost-effectiveness of TJR. Finally, radiographs are considered level-IV data. Inclusion of level-IV data increases the ability to detect subclinical implant failure. Storage of digital radiographic images in an organized registry framework facilitates analysis of large numbers of patient images for implant wear, osteolysis, alignment, and/or component positioning. Addition of level-V data to registries has been discussed; such data would comprise explanted components and would be used for assessing the relationship between device damage and the reason for revision. National TJR registries aim to capture all TJR procedures performed and are generally maintained by the national orthopaedic society and funded by the government6. Data quality is highly dependent on compliance by the hospitals performing TJRs. Full membership in the International Society of Arthroplasty Registers (ISAR) requires participation of >80% of national hospitals (high compliance) and …

[1]  P. Dieppe,et al.  Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales , 2012, The Lancet.

[2]  B. Morrey.  Prevalence of Primary and Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States From 1990 Through 2002Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, et al (Exponent Inc, Philadelphia) J Bone Joint Surg Am 87-A:1487–1497, 2005§ , 2006 .

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

[4]  H. Malchau.  On the importance of stepwise introduction of new hip implant technology : assessment of total hip replacement using clinical evaluation, radiostereometry, digitised radiography and a national hip registry , 1995 .

[5]  J. Callaghan,et al.  Charnley Total Hip Arthroplasty with Cement: Minimum Twenty-five-Year Follow-up* , 2000, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[6]  D. Pedersen,et al.  The John Charnley Award. Practice surveillance: a practical method to assess outcome and to perform clinical research. , 1999, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[7]  W H Harris,et al.  A novel method of cross-linking ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene to improve wear, reduce oxidation, and retain mechanical properties. Recipient of the 1999 HAP Paul Award. , 2001, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[8]  P. Lachiewicz,et al.  Femoral Head Size and Wear of Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene at 5 to 8 Years , 2009, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[10]  B. Espehaug,et al.  Validation of data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and the Norwegian Patient Register : 5,134 primary total hip arthroplasties and revisions operated at a single hospital between 1987 and 2003 , 2005, Acta orthopaedica.

[11]  G. Garellick,et al.  Variables determining outcome in total hip replacement surgery. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[12]  L. Lidgren,et al.  The Swedish knee arthroplasty register. A nation-wide study of 30,003 knees 1976-1992. , 1994, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[13]  Henrik Malchau,et al.  Large Diameter Femoral Heads on Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene: Minimum 3-year Results , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[14]  T. Wright,et al.  The International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries: overview and summary. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[15]  W. Hozack,et al.  Minimum 10-year results of a tapered cementless hip replacement. , 1999, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[16]  W. Remagen,et al.  [On the problem of osteolysis]. , 1967, Frankfurter Zeitschrift fur Pathologie.

[17]  O Johnell,et al.  Are the findings in the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register valid? A comparison between the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register, the National Discharge Register, and the National Death Register. , 2000, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[18]  H. Malchau,et al.  Total joint registries: a foundation for evidence-based arthroplasty. , 2010, The virtual mentor : VM.

[19]  R. D. de Steiger,et al.  Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. , 2011, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[20]  Elizabeth W Paxton,et al.  Kaiser Permanente National Total Joint Replacement Registry: Aligning Operations With Information Technology , 2010, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[21]  P Herberts,et al.  Survival of Hip Replacements: A Comparison of a Randomized Trial and a Registry , 2000, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[22]  P. Dieppe,et al.  Failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacings: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales , 2012, The Lancet.

[23]  P Herberts,et al.  Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: A review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases , 2000, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

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

[25]  H. Malchau,et al.  Validation of a hospital-based joint registry: quantification of errors and maximizing utility. , 2012, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[26]  Susan M. Odum MEd.  Joint Replacement Access in 2016: A supply side crisis , 2009 .

[27]  S. Kurtz,et al.  The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. , 2009, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[28]  J. Singh,et al.  Age, gender, obesity, and depression are associated with patient-related pain and function outcome after revision total hip arthroplasty , 2009, Clinical Rheumatology.

[29]  V. Tolo.  Interest in Conflicts , 2011 .

[30]  H. Malchau,et al.  The 2012 John Charnley Award: Clinical Multicenter Studies of the Wear Performance of Highly Crosslinked Remelted Polyethylene in THA , 2013, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[31]  Å. Carlsson,et al.  Catastrophic failure of an uncemented acetabular component due to high wear and osteolysisAn analysis of 154 Omnifit prostheses with mean 6-year follow-up , 2004, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[32]  R. Hall.  Wear of polyethylene acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty. An analysis of one hundred and twenty-eight components retrieved at autopsy or revision operations. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[33]  Henrik Malchau,et al.  Steady-state penetration rates of electron beam-irradiated, highly cross-linked polyethylene at an average 45-month follow-up. , 2006, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[34]  F. Horan.  The National Joint Registry for England and Wales. , 2003, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[35]  W. Khan,et al.  The National Joint Registry of England and Wales. , 2011, Orthopedics.

[36]  An electronic database for outcome studies that includes digital radiographs. , 2001, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[37]  H. Sørensen,et al.  Registration in the Danish Hip Arthroplasty RegistryCompleteness of total hip arthroplasties and positive predictive value of registered diagnosis and postoperative complications , 2004, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[38]  H. Bertram,et al.  Osteolysis in alloarthroplasty of the hip. The role of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene wear particles. , 1990, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[39]  P Herberts,et al.  How outcome studies have changed total hip arthroplasty practices in Sweden. , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[40]  P. Paavolainen,et al.  The Finnish Arthroplasty Register: Report of the hip register , 2001, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[41]  P. Jenkins,et al.  Predicting dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty: a study of 850 patients. , 2011, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[42]  J. Goldhahn,et al.  Key factors for a successful National Arthroplasty Register. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[43]  H. Malchau,et al.  Minimum 6-year Followup of Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene in THA , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[44]  W H Harris,et al.  Localized osteolysis in stable, non-septic total hip replacement. , 1986, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[45]  P. Herberts,et al.  PRESIDENTIAL GUEST ADDRESS: The Swedish Hip Registry: Increasing the Sensitivity by Patient Outcome Data , 2005, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research.