A Scandinavian experience of register collaboration: the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA).

5.00
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/2336/225313
Title:
A Scandinavian experience of register collaboration: the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA).
Authors:
Havelin, Leif I; Robertsson, Otto; Fenstad, Anne M; Overgaard, Søren; Garellick, Göran; Furnes, Ove
Citation:
J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011, 93 Suppl 3:13-9
Issue Date:
21-Dec-2011
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: The Nordic (Scandinavian) countries have had working arthroplasty registers for several years. However, the small numbers of inhabitants and the conformity within each country with respect to preferred prosthesis brands and techniques have limited register research. METHODS: A collaboration called NARA (Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association) was started in 2007, resulting in a common database for Denmark, Norway, and Sweden with regard to hip replacements in 2008 and primary knee replacements in 2009. Finland joined the project in 2010. A code set was defined for the parameters that all registers had in common, and data were re-coded, within each national register, according to the common definitions. After de-identification of the patients, the anonymous data were merged into a common database. The first study based on this common database included 280,201 hip arthroplasties and the second, 151,814 knee arthroplasties. Kaplan-Meier and Cox multiple regression analyses, with adjustment for age, sex, and diagnosis, were used to calculate prosthesis survival, with any revision as the end point. In later studies, specific reasons for revision were also used as end points. RESULTS: We found differences among the countries concerning patient demographics, preferred surgical approaches, fixation methods, and prosthesis brands. Prosthesis survival was best in Sweden, where cement implant fixation was used more commonly than it was in the other countries. CONCLUSIONS: As the comparison of national results was one of the main initial aims of this collaboration, only parameters and data that all three registers could deliver were included in the database. Compared with each separate register, this combined register resulted in reduced numbers of parameters and details. In future collaborations of registers with a focus on comparing the performances of prostheses and articulations, we should probably include only the data needed specifically for the predetermined purposes, from registers that can deliver these data, rather than compiling all data from all registers that are willing to participate.
Description:
To access publisher full text version of this article. Please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field.
Additional Links:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.00951
Rights:
Archived with thanks to The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorHavelin, Leif Ien_GB
dc.contributor.authorRobertsson, Ottoen_GB
dc.contributor.authorFenstad, Anne Men_GB
dc.contributor.authorOvergaard, Sørenen_GB
dc.contributor.authorGarellick, Göranen_GB
dc.contributor.authorFurnes, Oveen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2012-05-22T14:29:12Z-
dc.date.available2012-05-22T14:29:12Z-
dc.date.issued2011-12-21-
dc.identifier.citationJ Bone Joint Surg Am 2011, 93 Suppl 3:13-9en_GB
dc.identifier.issn1535-1386-
dc.identifier.pmid22262418-
dc.identifier.doi10.2106/JBJS.K.00951-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2336/225313-
dc.descriptionTo access publisher full text version of this article. Please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field.en_GB
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: The Nordic (Scandinavian) countries have had working arthroplasty registers for several years. However, the small numbers of inhabitants and the conformity within each country with respect to preferred prosthesis brands and techniques have limited register research. METHODS: A collaboration called NARA (Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association) was started in 2007, resulting in a common database for Denmark, Norway, and Sweden with regard to hip replacements in 2008 and primary knee replacements in 2009. Finland joined the project in 2010. A code set was defined for the parameters that all registers had in common, and data were re-coded, within each national register, according to the common definitions. After de-identification of the patients, the anonymous data were merged into a common database. The first study based on this common database included 280,201 hip arthroplasties and the second, 151,814 knee arthroplasties. Kaplan-Meier and Cox multiple regression analyses, with adjustment for age, sex, and diagnosis, were used to calculate prosthesis survival, with any revision as the end point. In later studies, specific reasons for revision were also used as end points. RESULTS: We found differences among the countries concerning patient demographics, preferred surgical approaches, fixation methods, and prosthesis brands. Prosthesis survival was best in Sweden, where cement implant fixation was used more commonly than it was in the other countries. CONCLUSIONS: As the comparison of national results was one of the main initial aims of this collaboration, only parameters and data that all three registers could deliver were included in the database. Compared with each separate register, this combined register resulted in reduced numbers of parameters and details. In future collaborations of registers with a focus on comparing the performances of prostheses and articulations, we should probably include only the data needed specifically for the predetermined purposes, from registers that can deliver these data, rather than compiling all data from all registers that are willing to participate.en_GB
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherJournal of Bone and Joint Surgeryen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.K.00951en_GB
dc.rightsArchived with thanks to The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volumeen_GB
dc.subject.meshArthroplasty, Replacement, Hipen_GB
dc.subject.meshArthroplasty, Replacement, Kneeen_GB
dc.subject.meshDatabases, Factualen_GB
dc.subject.meshFinlanden_GB
dc.subject.meshHip Prosthesisen_GB
dc.subject.meshHumansen_GB
dc.subject.meshInternational Cooperationen_GB
dc.subject.meshKaplan-Meier Estimateen_GB
dc.subject.meshKnee Prosthesisen_GB
dc.subject.meshProduct Surveillance, Postmarketingen_GB
dc.subject.meshProportional Hazards Modelsen_GB
dc.subject.meshProsthesis Failureen_GB
dc.subject.meshReference Standardsen_GB
dc.subject.meshRegistriesen_GB
dc.subject.meshReoperationen_GB
dc.subject.meshScandinaviaen_GB
dc.titleA Scandinavian experience of register collaboration: the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA).en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, 5021 Bergen, Norway. leif.havelin@helse-bergen.noen_GB
dc.identifier.journalJournal of bone and joint surgery. American volumeen_GB

Related articles on PubMed

All Items in Hirsla are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.