2017 ISAKOS Biennial Congress ePoster #1275

 

Design, Construction & Early Results of a formal Local Revision Knee Arthroplasty Registry

Geraldine Wong, BSc(Pharm) AUSTRALIA
Christopher J. Wilson, MBChB, MRCS, FRACS, PhD, Adelaide, SA AUSTRALIA

Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, AUSTRALIA

FDA Status Not Applicable

Summary

Local registry can be designed and constructed for a revision arthroplasty surgery. Data can be evaluated to a high level of detail by using ongoing collection and comparison with historic and current AOANJRR data trends can be assessed and quality maintained. Our early results suggest our team is ‘ahead of the curve’ in reducing patient complications and risk of re-revision surgery.

Abstract

Introduction

and Aims:

National Registries for hip and knee arthroplasty have been very successful both as a means of quality control and as a powerful research tool in Australia, New Zealand & in Europe. However revision arthroplasty is more heterogeneous and challenging when it comes to gathering registry information. By designing and following a local registry, a very detailed analysis of the type of surgery performed and the outcomes of surgery is possible.

Methods

Using our local patient record system, Enterprise Patient Administration System (EPAS), a comprehensive evaluation was performed on all hip and knee revision cases in our center from April 2014 to January 2016. The data was cross checked with all available electronic and paper records to reduce errors. The system was then activated ongoing to allow long-term prospective collection of this data.

Results

and Discussion:

Data was recorded for 36 revision knee arthroplasties. The data was then analysed to evaluate the reason for revision, type of revision performed and patient factors. Data was available for 100 % of cases. Our results were then compared with our historical Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJJR) figures and the national 2015 report. Our early results for knees have shown a reduction in revisions for pain and a reduction in isolated patellar resurfacings. 47% of our patients undergo ‘minor’ revisions compared to 21% in the national registry.

Conclusions

Our study shows that a local registry can be designed and constructed for a revision arthroplasty surgery. Data can be evaluated to a high level of detail by using ongoing collection and comparison with historic and current AOANJRR data trends can be assessed and quality maintained. Our early results suggest our team is ‘ahead of the curve’ in reducing patient complications and risk of re-revision surgery.