One language for the world’s spinal data. Every registry, collecting the same core the same way.
The world’s national spine registries are collaborating on a shared minimum data set, common patient-reported outcomes and a unified implant library, so that every patient’s data can speak to every other patient’s, across every border.
- 01Minimum data set
- Agreed core fields, collected under the same headings in every registry
- 02PROMs
- Agreed patient-reported outcome measures and timepoints
- 03Implant data
- Every implant recorded against a shared implant library
Consistent core, so any two registries can be compared. Anything beyond the core stays each registry’s own.
- 14
- Member registries
- 12
- Countries represented
- 3
- Position statements
- 4
- Meetings since 2023
Why this exists
Spinal implants outlast borders
A patient receives a device in one country, retires to another, returns to a clinic in a third. Their device is the same. Their data isn’t.
National registries have collected meticulous outcomes data for over twenty years. But each captures different fields, in different formats, against different implant taxonomies, making cross-border analysis nearly impossible. Regulators cannot see signals across markets. Manufacturers cannot prove device performance at scale. Surgeons cannot learn from each other’s patients.
ISR exists to end that fragmentation. It brings surgeons, registries, MedTech companies and regulators into one room to agree what every spine registry should record, so the data being so carefully collected around the world is useful for the benefit of patients.
What we agreed
Three standards. One outcome.
Agreed at Frankfurt in 2023 and ratified as position statements at Vienna in 2024.
A shared minimum data set
Every participating registry collects the same core fields, in the same format, against the same definitions, so a record from one country means the same thing as a record from another.
Common patient-reported outcomes
A consensus set of PROMs adopted across all member registries. Patient voice, captured consistently, so recovery experience can be compared, not just reoperation rates.
A unified implant library
A single canonical reference for every device tracked across all member registries, so the same rod or cage shares one identity wherever it is implanted.
Since then, representatives of the major registries have formed an Agenda Setting Group that works on future developments and organises the meetings.
Member organisations
14 registries, 12 countries, one way of counting
Membership is unlimited and open to any organisation that runs a spine registry or is thinking about creating one.
| Registry | Country | Type |
|---|---|---|
| Spine Tango | International | International registry |
| American Spine Registry | United States | National registry |
| Australian Spine Registry | Australia | National registry |
| British Spine Registry | United Kingdom | National registry |
| Canadian Spine Registry | Canada | National registry |
| Danish Spinal Registry | Denmark | National registry |
| Finnish Spine Registry | Finland | National registry |
| German Spine Registry | Germany | National registry |
| Hong Kong Spine Registry | Hong Kong | National registry |
| Italian Spine Registry | Italy | National registry |
| Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery | Norway | National registry |
| Swedish Spine Registry | Sweden | National registry |
| Swiss Spine Registry | Switzerland | National registry |
| Kaiser Permanente | United States | Non-national registry |
History
Born out of necessity
Conceived by ODEP, the Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel, when it became clear that spinal implant data barely existed.
British spine surgeons approach ODEP
They cannot get the registry data they need to support implant submissions to the Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel. Almost no one can.
The EU Medical Device Regulation comes into force
Manufacturers will now need long-term registry data to keep selling their products in Europe. The shortage becomes a crisis.
ODEP convenes the world’s registries
Representatives from spine registries around the world meet for the first time, at the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital. The will to collaborate is unanimous.
ISR becomes an association
Six months later at EUROSPINE the group reconvenes, joined by industry, regulators and national associations. By the end of two days the three standards are agreed.
The first three position statements
The Agenda Setting Group ratifies the minimum data set, the PROMs consensus and the implant library.
Fourth meeting at EUROSPINE
Gothenburg follows in October 2026.
Position statements
Three documents that set out how to collect the core data
Ratified by the Agenda Setting Group. Citation-ready and versioned, for established registries to align with and new registries to build on.
The documents
Consistency with the minimum data set
Presented at Vienna 2024 by Jarkko Halme.
Consistency with PROMs
Presented at Vienna 2024 by Peter Fritzell.
Consistency with implant collection
Presented at Vienna 2024 by Emin Aghayev.
What consistency gives
- Comparing data between registries becomes eminently possible.
- Manufacturers can obtain data from more than one registry, knowing it was collected under the same headings.
- Research and audit are facilitated.
- Developing registries can design their data collection along the ISR recommended method from the start.
This does not restrict what registries collect. It means the core data collection is the same in every registry that adopts these recommendations.