Knee registries: state of the art.

ABSTRACT

Sports injuries, trauma and the globally ageing and obese population require increasing levels of knee surgery. Shared decision making has replaced the paternalistic approach to patient management. Evidence-based medicine underpins surgical treatment strategies, from consenting an individual patient to national healthcare system design. The evolution of successful knee-related registries starting from specific arthroplasty registries has given rise to ligament reconstruction, osteotomy and cartilage surgery registries developing as platforms for surgical outcome data collection. Stakeholders include surgeons and their patients, researchers, healthcare systems, as well as the funding insurers and governments. Lately, implant manufacturers have also been mandated to perform postmarket surveillance with some hoping to base that on registry data. Aiming to assess the current status of knee-related registries, we performed a comprehensive literature and web search, which yielded 23 arthroplasty, 8 ligament, 4 osteotomy and 3 articular cartilage registries. Registries were evaluated for their scope, measured variables, impact and limitations. Registries have many advantages as they aim to increase awareness of outcomes; identify trends in practice over time, early failing implants, outlier surgeon or institution performance; and assist postmarketing surveillance. International collaborations have highlighted variations in practice. The limitations of registries are discussed in detail. Inconsistencies are found in collected data and measured variables. Potential measurement and selection biases are outlined. Without mandated data collection and with apparent issues such as unverified patient reporting of complications, registries are not designed to replace adverse event recording in place of a proper safety and efficacy study, as demanded by regulators. Registry 'big data' can provide evidence of associations of problems. However, registries cannot provide evidence of causation. Hence, without careful consideration of the data and its limitations, registry data are at risk of incorrectly drawn conclusions and the potential of misuse of the results. That must be guarded against. Looking at the future, registry operators benefit from a collective experience of running registries as they mature, allowing for improvements across specialties. Large-scale registries are not only of merit, improving with stakeholder acceptance, but also are critical in furthering our understanding of our patients' outcomes. In doing so, they are a critical element for our future scientific discourse.