The first nationwide orthopaedic registry was created in Sweden in 1975 to collect data on total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Since then, several countries have established registries, with varying degrees of success. Managing a registry requires time and money. Factors that contribute to successful registry management include the use of a single identifier for each patient to ensure full traceability of all procedures related to a given implant; a long-term funding source; a contemporary, rapid, Internet-based data collection method; and the collection of exhaustive data, at least for innovative implants. The effects of registries on practice patterns should be evaluated. The high cost of registries raises issues of independence and content ownership. Scandinavian countries have been maintaining orthopaedic registries for nearly four decades (since 1975). The first English-language orthopaedic registry was not created until 1998 (in New Zealand), and both the US and many European countries are still struggling to establish orthopaedic registries. To date, there are 11 registered nationwide registries on total knee and total hip replacement. The data they contain are often consistent, although contradictions occur in some cases due to major variations in cultural and market factors. The future of registries will depend on the willingness of health authorities and healthcare professionals to support the creation and maintenance of these tools. Surgeons feel that registries should serve merely to compare implants. Health authorities, in contrast, have a strong interest in practice patterns and healthcare institution performances. Striking a balance between these objectives should allow advances in registry development in the near future.Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.
Keywords : Implantable medical devices, Arthroplasty, Registry