Advertisement

Creation, Advantages, and Limits of Registries: The Herniamed Experience

  • F. Köckerling
Chapter

Abstract

Several developments in healthcare, such as progress in information technology and increasing demands for accountability, have led to an increase in the number of medical registries over the recent years [1]. A medical registry is defined as a systematic collection of a clearly defined set of health and demographic data for patients with specific health characteristics, held in a central database for a predefined purpose [1]. Medical registries can serve different purposes—for instance, as a tool to monitor and improve quality of care and as a resource for outcome research [1]. The ultimate aim of the noncommercial project Herniamed, founded in 2009, is to improve quality standards across the entire spectrum of hernia surgery and to implement outcome research projects in hernia surgery [2]. With widespread recognition that surgical outcomes vary by provider, surgeons and hospitals are increasingly being asked to provide evidence of the quality of care that they deliver [3].

References

  1. 1.
    Arts DGT, de Keizer NF, Scheffer GJ. Defining and improving data quality in medical registries: a literature review, case study, and generic framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9:600–11.  https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1087.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stechemesser B, Jacob DA, Schug-Paß C, Köckerling F. Herniamed: an internet-based registry for outcome research in hernia surgery. Hernia. 2012;16:269–76.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-012-0908-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer NJO. Measuring the quality of surgical care: structure, process, or outcomes? J Am Coll Surg. 2004;198(4):626–32.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2003.11.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans SM, Scott IA, Johnson NP, Cameron PA, McNeil JJ. Development of clinical-quality registries in Australia: the way forward. MJA. 2011;194:360–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Köckerling F, Berger D, Jost JO. What is a certified hernia center? The example of the German hernia society and German Society of General Frontiers of surgery. Front Surg. 2014;1:26.  https://doi.org/10.3389/sfurg.2014.00026.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Landro L. How to make surgery safer. Wall Street J. 2015.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McNeil JJ, Evans SM, Johnson NP, Cameron PA. Clinical-quality registries: their role in quality improvement. MJA. 2010;192:244–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kehlet H, Bay-Nielsen M. For the Danish hernia database collaboration Nationwide quality improvement of groin hernia repair from the Danish hernia database of 87,840 patients from 1998 to 2005. Hernia. 2008;12:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-007-0285-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bay-Nielsen M, Kehlet M, Strand L, Malmstrøm J, Andersen FH, Wara P, Juul P, Callesen T. Danish Herniamed database collaboration quality assessment of 26,304 herniorrhapies in Denmark: a prospective nationwide study. Lancet. 2001;358(9288):1124–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee MJ. Safety in surgery: the role for registries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:2743–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3093-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demange MK, Fregni F. Limits of clinical trials in surgical areas. Clinics. 2011;66(1):159–61.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-59322011000100027.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Booth CM, Tannock IF. Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence. BJC. 2014;110:551–5.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.725.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1878–86.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200006223422506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nilsson E, Haapaniemi S. The Swedish hernia register: an eight year experience. Hernia. 2000;4:286–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Friis-Andersen H, Bisgaard T. The Danish inguinal hernia database clinical. Epidemiology. 2016;8:521–4.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Helgstrand F, Jorgensen LN. The Danish ventral hernia database—a valuable tool for quality assessment and research clinical. Epidemiology. 2016;8:719–23.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Helgstrand F, Rosenberg J, Bay-Nielsen M, Friis-Andersen H, Wara P, Jorgensen LN, Kehlet H, Bisgaard T. Establishment and initial experiences from the Danish ventral hernia database. Hernia. 2010;14:131–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-009-0592-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gillion JF, Fromont G, Lepère M, Letoux N, Dabrowski A, Zaranis C, Barrat C. The hernia-Club members laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using a novel intraperitoneal lightweight coated with hyaluronic acid: 1-year follow-up from a case-control study using the hernia-Club registry. Hernia. 2016;20:711–22.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1501-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pereira JA, López-Cano M, Hernndezgranados P, Filiu X, on behalf of the EVEREG group. Initial results of the National Registry of Incisional Hernia. CIR ESP. 2016;94(10):595–602.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ciresp.2016.09.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Muysoms F, Campanelli G, Champault GG, DeBeaux AC, Dietz UA, Jeekel J, Klinge U, Köckerling F, Mandala V, Montgomery A, Morales Conde S, Puppe F, Simmermacher RKJ, Smietanski M, Miserez M. EuraHS: the development of an international online platform for registration and outcome measurement of ventral abdominal wall hernia repair. Hernia. 2012;16:239–50.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-012-0912-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Poulose BK, Roll S, Murphy JW, Matthews BD, Todd Heniford B, Voeller G, Hope WW, Goldblatt MI, Adrales GL, Rosen MJ. Design and implementation of the Americans hernia society quality collaborative (AHSQC): improving value in hernia care. Hernia. 2016;20:177–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-016-1477-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Köckerling F. Data and outcome of inguinal hernia repair in hernia registers—a review of the literature. Innov Surg Sci. 2017;2(2).  https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2016-0206.
  23. 23.
    Muysoms FE, Deerenberg EB, Peeters E, Agresta F, Berrevoet F, Campanelli G, Ceelen W, Champault GG, Corcione F, Cuccurullo D, DeBeaux AC, Dietz UA, Fitzgibbons jr RJ, Gillion JF, Hilgers RD, Jeekel J, Kyle-Leinhase I, Köckerling F, Mandala V, Montgomery A, Morales-Conde S, Simmermacher RKJ, Schumpelick V, Smietanski M, Walgenbach M, Miserez M. Recommendations for reporting outcome results in abdominal wall repair. Hernia. 2013;17:423–33.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-013-1108-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McCulloch P, Altman DG, Campell WB, Flum DR, Glasziou P, Marshall JC, Nicholl J. For the Balliol collaboration surgical innovation and evaluation 3. 2009;374:Lancet, 1105–12.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Köckerling F. The need for registries in the early scientific evaluation of surgical innovations. Front Surg. 2014;1:12.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2014.00012.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shore BJ, Nasreddine AY, Kocher MS. Overcoming the funding challenge: the cost of randomized controlled trials in the next decade. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(Supplement 1):101–6.  https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00193.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rangel SJ, Efron B, Moss RL. Recent trends in National Institutes of Health funding of surgical research. Ann Surg. 2002;236(3):277–87.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.SAL.0000026721.64592.F4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Royal College of Surgeons of England. Brifing of House of Lords short debate on the impact of NHS innovation and research strategies. Accessed 11 Mar 2013.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Köckerling F, Simon T, Hukauf M, Hellinger A, Fortelny R, Reinpold W, Bittner R. The importance of registries in the Postmarketing surveillance of surgical meshes. Ann Surg. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.10907/SLA.0000000000002326.
  30. 30.
    Simons MP, Aufenacker TJ, Berrevoet F, Bingener J, Bisgaard T, Bittner R, Bonjer HJ, Bury K, Campanelli G, Chen DC, Chowbey PK, Conze J, Cuccurullo D, de Beaux AC, Eker HH, Fitzgibbons RJ, Fortelny RH, Gillion JF, van den Heuvel BJ, Hope WW, Jorgensen LN, Klinge U, Köckerling F, Kukleta JF, Konate I, Liem AL, Lomanto D, MJA L, Lopez-Cano M, Miserez M, Misra MC, Montgomery A, Morales-Conde S, Muysoms FE, Niebuhr H, Nordin P, Pawlak M, van Ramshorst GH, WMJ R, Sanders DL, Sani R, Schouten N, Smedberg S, Smietanski M, RKJ S, Tran HM, Tumtavitikul S, van Veenendaal N, Weyhe D, Wijsmuller AR. International guidelines for groin hernia management hernia. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-017-1668-x.
  31. 31.
    Jacob DA, Hackl JA, Bittner R, Kraft B, Köckerling F. Perioperative outcome of unilateral versus bilateral inguinal hernia repairs in TAPP technique: analysis of 15,176 cases from the Herniamed registry. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(12):3733–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4146-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Köckerling F, Schug-Pass C, Adolf D, Keller T, Kuthe A. Bilateral and unilateral total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair (TEP) have equivalent early outcomes: analysis of 9395 cases. World J Surg. 2015;39(8):1887–94.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3055-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Köckerling F, Bittner R, Jacob DA, Seidelmann L, Keller T, Adolf D, Kraft B, Kuthe A. TEP versus TAPP: comparison of the perioperative outcome in 17,587 patients with a primary unilateral inguinal hernia. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(12):3750–60.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4150-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Köckerling F, Bittner R, Jacob D, Schug-Pass C, Laurenz C, Adolf D, Keller T, Stechemesser B. Do we need antibiotic prophylaxis in endoscopic inguinal hernia repair? Results of the herniamed registry. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(12):3741–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4149-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Köckerling F, Roessing C, Adolf D, Schug-Pass C, Jacob D. Has endoscopic (TEP, TAPP) or open inguinal hernia repair a higher risk of bleeding in patients with coagulopathy or antithrombotic therapy? Data from the Herniamed registry. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(5):2073–81.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4456-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Köckerling F, Schug-Paß C, Adolf D, Reinpold W, Stechemesser D. Is pooled data analysis of ventral and incisional hernia repair acceptable? Front Surg. 2015;2:15.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2015-00015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Köckerling F, Koch A, Lorenz R, Schug-Pass C, Stechemesser B, Reinpold W. How long do we need to follow-up our hernia patients to find the real recurrence rate? Front Surg. 2015;2:24.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2015.00024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Köckerling F, Jacob D, Wiegank W, Hukauf M, Schug-Pass C, Kuthe A, Bittner R. Endoscopic repair of primary versus recurrent male unilateral inguinal hernias: are there differences in the outcome? Surg Endosc. 2016;30(3):1146–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4318-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Köckerling F, Koch A, Lorenz R, Reinpold W, Hukauf M, Schug-Pass C. Open repair of primary versus recurrent male unilateral inguinal hernias: perioperative complications and 1-year follow-up. World J Surg. 2016;40(4):813–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3325-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Köckerling F, Bittner R, Kuthe A, Stechemesser B, Lorenz R, Koch A, Reinpold W, Niebuhr H, Hukauf M, Schug-Pass C. Laparo-endoscopic versus open recurrent inguinal hernia repair: should we follow the guidelines? Surg Endosc. 2016;31(8):3168–85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5342-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Mayer F, Lechner M, Adolf D, Öfner D, Köhler G, Fortelny R, Bittner R, Köckerling F. Is the age of >65 years a risk factor for endoscopic treatment of primary inguinal hernia? Analysis of 24,571 patients from the Herniamed registry. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(1):296–306.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4209-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Köckerling F, Bittner R, Kraft B, Hukauf M, Kuthe A, Schug-Pass C. Does surgeon volume matter in the outcome of endoscopic inguinal hernia repair? Surg Endosc. 2017;31(2):573–85.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5001-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Köckerling F, Stechemesser B, Hukauf M, Kuthe A, Schug-Pass C. TEP versus Lichtenstein: which technique is better for the repair of primary unilateral inguinal hernias in men? Surg Endosc. 2016;30(8):3304–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-015-4603-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Köhler G, Lechner M, Mayer F, Köckerling F, Schrittwieser R, Fortelny RH, Adolf D, Emmanuel K. Self-gripping meshes for Lichtenstein repair. Do we need additional suture fixation? World J Surg. 2016;40(2):298–308.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3313-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mayer F, Niebuhr H, Lechner M, Dinnewitzer A, Köhler G, Hukauf M, Fortelny RH, Bittner R, Köckerling F. When is mesh fixation in TAPP-repair of primary inguinal hernia repair necessary? The register-based analysis of 11,230 cases. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(10):4363–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4754-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Köckerling F, Bittner R, Kuthe A, Hukauf M, Mayer F, Fortelny R, Schug-Pass C. TEP or TAPP for recurrent inguinal hernia repair—register-based comparison of the outcome. Surg Endosc. 2017;31(10):3872–82.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5416-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Köckerling F, Trommer Y, Zarras K, Adolf D, Kraft B, Weyhe D, Fortelny R, Schug-Paß C. What are the differences in the outcome of laparoscopic axial (I) versus paraesophageal (II-IV) hiatal hernia repair? Surg Endosc. 2017;31(12):5327–41.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5612-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hannan EL, Cozzens K, King SB III, Walford G, Shah NR. The New York State cardiac registries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59(25):2309–16.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.12.051.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Surgery and Center for Minimally Invasive SurgeryAcademic Teaching Hospital of Charité Medical School, Vivantes HospitalBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations