TY - JOUR
T1 - Limited value of current shoulder arthroplasty registries in evidence-based shoulder surgery
T2 - A review of 7 national registries
AU - Karelse, Anne
AU - Van Tongel, Alexander
AU - Gosens, Taco
AU - De Boey, Sara
AU - De Wilde, Lieven F.
AU - Pouliart, Nicole
N1 - This paper was not funded.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - National shoulder arthroplasty registries are currently used to assess incidence, indication, type of prosthesis and revision, but they seem to lack sufficient information to lead to evidence based decision-making in shoulder surgery. There appears to be a large difference in registered parameters and outcome measurement per country. First we investigated whether existing registries have sufficient common datasets to enable pooling of data. Second, we determined whether known risk factors for prosthetic failure are being recorded. Through a non-systematic literature review studies on registries were analyzed for included parameters. Seven national registries were scrutinized for the data collected and these were classified according to categories of risk factors for failure: patient-, implant and surgeon related, and other parameters. This shows a large heterogeneity of registered parameters between countries. The majority of parameters shown to be relevant to outcome and failure of shoulder prostheses are not included in the studied registries. International agreement on parameters and outcome measurement for registries is paramount to enable pooling and comparison of data. If we intend to use the registries to provide us with evidence to improve prosthetic shoulder surgery, we need adjustment of the different parameters to be included.
AB - National shoulder arthroplasty registries are currently used to assess incidence, indication, type of prosthesis and revision, but they seem to lack sufficient information to lead to evidence based decision-making in shoulder surgery. There appears to be a large difference in registered parameters and outcome measurement per country. First we investigated whether existing registries have sufficient common datasets to enable pooling of data. Second, we determined whether known risk factors for prosthetic failure are being recorded. Through a non-systematic literature review studies on registries were analyzed for included parameters. Seven national registries were scrutinized for the data collected and these were classified according to categories of risk factors for failure: patient-, implant and surgeon related, and other parameters. This shows a large heterogeneity of registered parameters between countries. The majority of parameters shown to be relevant to outcome and failure of shoulder prostheses are not included in the studied registries. International agreement on parameters and outcome measurement for registries is paramount to enable pooling and comparison of data. If we intend to use the registries to provide us with evidence to improve prosthetic shoulder surgery, we need adjustment of the different parameters to be included.
U2 - 10.1080/17434440.2021.2014318
DO - 10.1080/17434440.2021.2014318
M3 - Article
SN - 1743-4440
VL - 18
SP - 1189
EP - 1201
JO - Expert Review of Medical Devices
JF - Expert Review of Medical Devices
IS - 12
ER -