Assessing the value for money of a registry: an exploratory analysis of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2026.45553Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Arthroplasty Register, Value for moneyAbstract
Background and purpose: It is unclear whether arthroplasty registries provide value for money. We aimed to provide insight into this value for money by relating the costs of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) to potential benefits from preventing revisions.
Methods: We included all primary total hip (n = 276,252) and knee (n = 217,901) arthroplasties (THA/TKA), and all first revisions of these THAs (n = 8,604) and TKAs (n = 8,745) from the LROI between 2014 and 2022. Threshold analyses estimated at which number of prevented revisions the benefits (i.e., savings and increased quality of life) outweighed the LROI costs. Scenario analyses explored whether the required revision reductions were feasible, including the minimum revision reduction required per hospital, revision reduction at outlier hospitals only, and the potential impact of temporal changes in national 1-year revision rates.
Results: The LROI costs were €5,697,120 for THA registration and €4,532,920 for TKA registration between 2014 and 2022. Preventing 119 to 145 THA revisions and 106 to 134 TKA revisions would be required in the current patient population over 30 years for the benefits to outweigh these LROI costs between 2014 and 2022, depending on revision costs. Each Dutch hospital should prevent 1.2 to 1.5 THA revisions and 1.1 to 1.3 TKA revisions to achieve the required revision reduction. Moreover, 306 THA revisions and 140 TKA revisions could be prevented if outlier hospitals improved their 1-year overall revision rate to the upper 99% control limit. Compared with the calendar years showing the highest revision rates, applying 2022 1-year revision rates to 2023 procedure volumes resulted in reductions of 1.5% for THAs and 0.3% for TKAs.
Conclusion: Preventing approximately 1–2 revisions per hospital over 30 years would offset the LROI’s registration costs. Although causality cannot be established, these findings suggest that national arthroplasty registries may provide good value for money when actively used to reduce revision rates.
Downloads
References
Daigle M E, Weinstein A M, Katz J N, Losina E. The cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review of published literature. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2012; 26(5): 64958. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2012.07.013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2012.07.013
Wilson R A, Gwynne-Jones D P, Sullivan T A, Abbott J H. Total hip and knee arthroplasties are highly cost-effective procedures: the importance of duration of follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36(6): 1864-72 e1810. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.01.038. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.01.038
Malchau H, Garellick G, Berry D, Harris W H, Robertson O, Karrlholm J, et al. Arthroplasty implant registries over the past five decades: development, current, and future impact. J Orthop Res 2018; 36(9): 2319-30. doi: 10.1002/jor.24014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.24014
Lubbeke A, Silman A J, Barea C, Prieto-Alhambra D, Carr A J. Mapping existing hip and knee replacement registries in Europe. Health Policy 2018; 122(5): 548-57. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.03.010
Varnum C, Pedersen A B, Gundtoft P H, Overgaard S. The what, when and how of orthopaedic registers: an introduction into register-based research. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4(6): 337-43. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180097. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180097
Baker P N, Jeyapalan R, Jameson S S. The value of national arthroplasty registry data in 2023. Bone Joint J 2023; 105-B(4): 356-60. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.105B4.BJJ-2022-1190.R2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.105B4.BJJ-2022-1190.R2
Lee P, Chin K, Liew D, Stub D, Brennan A L, Lefkovits J, et al. Economic evaluation of clinical quality registries: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2019; 9(12): e030984. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030984
ACSQHC. Economic evaluation of clinical quality registries: final report. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; 2016. Available from: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/Economic-evaluation-of-clinical-quality-registries-Final-report-Nov-2016.pdf
Prentice H A, Harris J E, Sucher K, Fasig B H, Navarro R A, Okike K M, et al. Improvements in quality, safety and costs associated with use of implant registries within a health system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2024; 10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.01.011. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.01.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjq.2024.01.011
Gerbers J G, Nelissen R G H H. Arthroplasty registries: a valuable tool to orthopaedic surgeons, manufacturers, patients and regulators? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2024; 38(3): 118-23. doi: 10.1016/j.mporth.2024.03.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mporth.2024.03.001
LROI. Annual report 2024. Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Interventies; 2024. Available from: https://www.lroi.nl/media/prqogokg/pdf-lroi-report-2024.pdf
Zorginstituut Nederland. Richtlijn voor het uitvoeren van economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Zorginstituut Nederland; 2024. Available from: https://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publicaties/publicatie/2024/01/16/richtlijn-voor-het-uitvoeren-van-economische-evaluaties-in-de-gezondheidszorg
Zorgverzekeraars Nederland. DBC-inkoopgids 2009 Segment B; Kwaliteit als kompas bij de inkoop van zorg. Houten: Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2008.
Vijgen S, Van Heesch F, Obradovic M. Ziektelast in de praktijk: de theorie en praktijk van het berekenen van ziektelast bij pakketbeoordelingen. Zorginstituut Nederland; 2018. Available from: https://www.zorginstituutnederland.nl/publicaties/rapport/2018/05/07/ziektelast-in-de-praktijk
Klouche S, Sariali E, Mamoudy P. Total hip arthroplasty revision due to infection: a cost analysis approach. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2010; 96(2): 124-32. doi: 10.1016/j.rcot.2010.02.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2009.11.004
Kallala R F, Vanhegan I S, Ibrahim M S, Sarmah S, Haddad F S. Financial analysis of revision knee surgery based on NHS tariffs and hospital costs: does it pay to provide a revision service? Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B(2): 197-201. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.33707. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B2.33707
Denissen G A, van Steenbergen L N, Burgers A M, Nelissen R G. Evidence-based hip prostheses: more high-quality prostheses used after introduction of a classification system. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2015; 160(A9532. PMID: 27007926.
NOV & LROI. Procedure Uitkomstanalyse. Nederlandse Orthopaedische Vereniging & Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Interventies; 2020. Available from: https://www.orthopeden.org/media/izapumoz/proces-kwaliteitsinformatie-uitschieters.pdf
de Steiger R N, Hallstrom B R, Lubbeke A, Paxton E W, van Steenbergen L N, Wilkinson M. Identification of implant outliers in joint replacement registries. EFORT Open Rev 2023; 8(1): 11-17. doi: 10.1530/EOR-22-0058. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-22-0058
van Schie P, van Bodegom-Vos L, Zijdeman T M, Nelissen R, Marang-van de Mheen P J, IQ Joint study group. Effectiveness of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention to improve patient outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a registry nested cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Qual Saf 2023; 32(1): 34-46. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014472. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-014472
Hoque D M E, Kumari V, Hoque M, Ruseckaite R, Romero L, Evans S M. Impact of clinical registries on quality of patient care and clinical outcomes: a systematic review. PLoS One 2017; 12(9): e0183667. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183667. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183667
Havelin L I, Espehaug B, Vollset S E, Engesaeter L B. The effect of the type of cement on early revision of Charnley total hip prostheses: a review of eight thousand five hundred and seventy-nine primary arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1995; 77(10): 1543-50. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199510000-00009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-199510000-00009
Havelin L I, Engesaeter L B, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Lie S A, Vollset S E. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71(4): 337-53. doi: 10.1080/000164700317393321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/000164700317393321
de Steiger R N, Graves S E. Orthopaedic registries: the Australian experience. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4(6): 409-15. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180071. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180071
CBS. Levensverwachting; geslacht, leeftijd (per jaar en periode van vijf jaren). Den Haag: Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek: 2024.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mirthe H W van Veghel, Gerjon Hannink, B Willem Schreurs, Janneke P C Grutters
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
