Arthroplasty Registries: Improving Clinical and Economic Outcomes

Abstract

With renewed focus on achieving value for patients in total hip and knee arthroplasty, payors, hospitals, and physicians strive to provide quality care while minimizing cost. Large registry datasets have gained popularity in the United States to track implant survivorship and outcomes after joint replacement. Partnerships among surgeons, insurers, and health systems have improved on earlier administrative datasets from Medicare to measure quality and outcomes. Participation in state and national registries can help surgeons and hospitals gain a financial advantage in several insurers' quality programs and alternative payment models. Although large dataset analysis has its limitations, all health care stakeholders will become increasingly dependent on arthroplasty registries to improve quality and control costs.

Keywords

total knee arthroplasty - total hip arthroplasty - registry - outcomes

• References

• 1 Rising JP, Reynolds IS, Sedrakyan A. Delays and difficulties in assessing metal-on-metal hip implants. N Engl J Med 2012; 367 (1) e1
• 2 Graves SE, Rothwell A, Tucker K, Jacobs JJ, Sedrakyan A. A multinational assessment of metal-on-metal bearings in hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93 (Suppl. 03) 43-47
• 3 Oberlander J. Through the looking glass: the politics of the Medicare prescription drug, improvement, and modernization act. J Health Polit Policy Law 2007; 32 (2) 187-219
• 4 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Hospital Compare Datasets, 2016. Available at: https://data.medicare.gov/data/hospital-compare . Accessed June 23, 2016
• 5 Fehring TK. AAHKS risk adjustment initiative: why is it important?. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (6) 1148-1150
• 6 Herberts P, Malchau H. Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71 (2) 111-121
• 7 Hammill BG, Hernandez AF, Peterson ED, Fonarow GC, Schulman KA, Curtis LH. Linking inpatient clinical registry data to Medicare claims data using indirect identifiers. Am Heart J 2009; 157 (6) 995-1000
• 8 Schilling PL, Bozic KJ. The big to do about “big data”. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 (11) 3270-3272
• 9 Perry DC, Parsons N, Costa ML. ‘Big data’ reporting guidelines: how to answer big questions, yet avoid big problems. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B (12) 1575-1577
• 10 Simorov A, Bills N, Shostrom V, Boilesen E, Oleynikov D. Can surgical performance benchmarking be generalized across multiple outcomes databases: a comparison of University Health System Consortium and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Am J Surg 2014; 208 (6) 942-948 , discussion 947–948
• 11 Molina CS, Thakore RV, Blumer A, Obremskey WT, Sethi MK. Use of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (5) 1574-1581
• 12 Inacio MC, Paxton EW, Fisher D, Li RA, Barber TC, Singh JA. Bariatric surgery prior to total joint arthroplasty may not provide dramatic improvements in post-arthroplasty surgical outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29 (7) 1359-1364
• 13 Miric A, Inacio MC, Namba RS. Can total knee arthroplasty be safely performed in patients with chronic renal disease?. Acta Orthop 2014; 85 (1) 71-78
• 14 Paxton EW, Inacio MC, Kiley ML. The Kaiser Permanente implant registries: effect on patient safety, quality improvement, cost effectiveness, and research opportunities. Perm J 2012; 16 (2) 36-44
• 15 Paxton EW, Inacio MC, Khatod M, Yue EJ, Namba RS. Kaiser Permanente National Total Joint Replacement Registry: aligning operations with information technology. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (10) 2646-2663
• 16 Franklin PD, Allison JJ, Ayers DC. Beyond joint implant registries: a patient-centered research consortium for comparative effectiveness in total joint replacement. JAMA 2012; 308 (12) 1217-1218
• 17 Ayers DC, Fehring TK, Odum SM, Franklin PD. Using joint registry data from FORCE-TJR to improve the accuracy of risk-adjustment prediction models for thirty-day readmission after total hip replacement and total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 (8) 668-671
• 18 Franklin PD, Lewallen D, Bozic K, Hallstrom B, Jiranek W, Ayers DC. Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in U.S. total joint replacement registries: rationale, status, and plans. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (Suppl. 01) 104-109
• 19 Virginia Joint Registry. Available at: http://vajointregistry.org . Accessed June 25, 2016
• 20 American Joint Replacement Registry. Available at: http://ajrr.net . Accessed June 25, 2016
• 21 Carson JL, Grossman BJ, Kleinman S , et al; Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee of the AABB. Red blood cell transfusion: a clinical practice guideline from the AABB. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157 (1) 49-58
• 22 Markel DC, Allen MW, Zappa NM. Can an arthroplasty registry help decrease transfusions in primary total joint replacement? A quality initiative. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (1) 126-131
• 23 Courtney PM, Huddleston JI, Iorio R, Markel DC. Socioeconomic risk adjustment models for reimbursement are necessary in primary total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; pii: S0883-5403(16)30344-8
• 24 Zarling BJ, Yokhana SS, Herzog DT, Markel DC. Preoperative and postoperative opiate use by the arthroplasty patient. J Arthroplasty 2016; pii: S0883-5403(16)30043-2