ArticleActa orthopaedica2026
Assessing the value for money of a registry: an exploratory analysis of the Dutch Arthroplasty Register.
Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editorial: The value of arthroplasty registries: from surveillance to societal impact.Acta orthopaedica · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeIt 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionPreventing 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.