An electronic database for outcome studies that includes digital radiographs

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II-IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II-IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data.

METHODS

Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II-IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications' number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs.

RESULTS

One hundred five Level II-IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case-control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study mapping all Level II-IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

Big Data, Big Research: Implementing Population Health-Based Research Models and Integrating Care to Reduce Cost and Improve Outcomes

Recent trends in clinical research have moved attention toward reporting clinical outcomes and resource consumption associated with various care processes. This change is the result of technological advancement and a national effort to critically assess health care delivery. As orthopedic surgeons traverse an unchartered health care environment, a more complete understanding of how clinical research is conducted using large data sets is necessary. The purpose of this article is to review various advantages and disadvantages of large data sets available for orthopaedic use, examine their ideal use, and report how they are being implemented nationwide.

Quality measurement in orthopaedics: the purchasers' view

While all of medicine is under pressure to increase transparency and accountability, joint replacement subspecialists will face special scrutiny. Disclosures of questionable consulting fees, a demographic shift to younger patients, and uncertainty about the marginal benefits of product innovation in a time of great cost pressure invite a serious and progressive response from the profession. Current efforts to standardize measures by the National Quality Forum and PQRI will not address the concerns of purchasers, payors, or policy makers. Instead, they will ask the profession to document its commitment to appropriateness, stewardship of resources, coordination of care, and patient-centeredness. One mechanism for addressing these expectations is voluntary development of a uniform national registry for joint replacements that includes capture of preoperative appropriateness indicators, device monitoring information, revision rates, and structured postoperative patient followup. A national registry should support performance feedback and quality improvement activity, but it must also be designed to satisfy payor, purchaser, policymaker, and patient needs for information. Professional societies in orthopaedics should lead a collaborative process to develop metrics, infrastructure, and reporting formats that support continuous improvement and public accountability.

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: the Australasian experience

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this project was to establish and maintain an internet-based database of all ileal pouch procedures performed in major centres in Australasia.

METHOD

The initial three colorectal units contributing data are Auckland, northern Brisbane and Central Sydney Area Health Service. A web-based database was designed. The data collection method was tested on a subgroup of 20 patients to ensure functionality. Data were collected in five main categories: patient demographics, preoperative data, operative details, postoperative complications and functional results.

RESULTS

Initial data are presented for 516 patients [363 J, (70%), 133 W (26%), 16 S pouches (3%)]. There were two deaths within 30 days (0.4%). The anastomotic leak rate overall, in handsewn (HSA) and stapled anastomoses (SA) respectively was 5.0%, 8.5% and 3.3% (P=0.02 for difference HSA vs SA). Incidence of pouchitis was 20% (ulcerative colitis 23%, Crohn's disease 20%, indeterminate colitis 22%, familial adenomatous polyposis 9%). Incidence of anal stricture requiring intervention (11% overall) was significantly greater in HSAs than in SAs (16%vs 9%, P=0.02). Incidence of small bowel obstruction at any time postoperatively was 16%. Functional data were available for 234 patients. The median frequency of bowel actions during waking hours was significantly less in W pouches than in J pouches (four vs five, P=0.0005).

CONCLUSION

A national web-based database has been developed for access by all Australasian colorectal units. Initial Australasian data compare favourably with other international studies. Pouchitis continues to be a long-term problem. The leak rate and rate of late anal stricture requiring a procedure are higher if the anastomosis is handsewn rather than stapled. Functional results are better with the W pouch than with the J pouch.