Insights Into Worldwide Total Joint Arthroplasty Registries: A Review and Analysis of Data Capture and Procedure Volume

Introduction: By tracking joint replacement implants, surgical techniques, and patient-reported outcomes, joint replacement registries are an important research and quality improvement tool. In the recent, history registries have identified early implant failures before government organizations such as the FDA. There is notable variability in the breadth and depth of information collected by joint replacement registries, and the goal of this study was to be the first to compare the major joint replacement registries around the world. Methods: Registries were identified from registry reports, publications, institutional records, and PubMed search. Registries were included in the study if there were publicly available reports summarizing the data contained in the registry. The annual report for each registry was reviewed for joint replacement volume of primary total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, UKA, hip resurfacing, patellofemoral arthroplasty, revision total hip arthroplasty, and revision total knee arthroplasty. The presence or absence of numerous core registry features and additional registry features was identified for each registry. Results: The largest registries in cumulative joint replacement volume in descending order were as follows: National Joint Registry, American Joint Replacement Registry, Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Swedish Arthroplasty Register, Dutch Arthroplasty Register, Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative, Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, and New Zealand Joint Registry. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Swedish Arthroplasty Register, Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative, and New Zealand Joint Registry have complete reporting on core registry features. American Joint Replacement Registry and Norwegian Arthroplasty Register provide near-complete reporting on the core registry features with only one feature partially reported. None of the registries have complete reporting of additional registry features such as use of robotics, surgeon-level data and reports, and external research access. Discussion: Despite the variability and the breadth of information contained in the worldwide registries, the information contained in these registries creates notable opportunities for the improvement of joint replacement surgery.