In Support of a Joint Registry
29/07/08 17:12
The New York TImes recently published an article in support of a joint registry. You can read the article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/business/29hip.html?ex=1375070400&en=a6ca5d07261da3b3&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
A joint registry is a mandated list of all joint replacements done in a country so that there can be a record of how joints perform in comparison to each other and to help define and solve any problems with implants. Currently only a few countries such as Sweden and Australia have these types of records available. The creation of new implants or improvements on existing implants is a huge industry in the USA. In many ways it benefits the patient by providing the newest technology, but in some ways, it can harm patients. Just because a technology or implant is “new” does not mean it is better. Newer implants have no track record and can often be associatied with early failures as the technique is developed or flaws are found in their design. Currently only your surgeon reviews the implants available and makes a decision about which implant is appropriate for each patient.
If you are considering joint replacement, ask your surgeon what implant he or she uses and why? Does the implant have a proven track record, and are there any reports of failures? Having a joint registry in place would help you and your surgeon find that information more easily.
Patients are always in search of something new. Just remember that new implants often do not live up the their hype.
A joint registry is a mandated list of all joint replacements done in a country so that there can be a record of how joints perform in comparison to each other and to help define and solve any problems with implants. Currently only a few countries such as Sweden and Australia have these types of records available. The creation of new implants or improvements on existing implants is a huge industry in the USA. In many ways it benefits the patient by providing the newest technology, but in some ways, it can harm patients. Just because a technology or implant is “new” does not mean it is better. Newer implants have no track record and can often be associatied with early failures as the technique is developed or flaws are found in their design. Currently only your surgeon reviews the implants available and makes a decision about which implant is appropriate for each patient.
If you are considering joint replacement, ask your surgeon what implant he or she uses and why? Does the implant have a proven track record, and are there any reports of failures? Having a joint registry in place would help you and your surgeon find that information more easily.
Patients are always in search of something new. Just remember that new implants often do not live up the their hype.
