TY - JOUR
T1 - The Mandatory German Breast Implant Registry Law
T2 - A Model for Sustainable Implant Registries
AU - Von Fritschen, Uwe
AU - Rakhorst, Hinne A.
AU - Stark, Birgit
AU - Ahern, Susannah
AU - Prantl, Lukas
AU - Fricke, Alba
N1 - Funding Information:
One of the main reasons why registries fail to maintain a high quality of data is insufficient funding. An estimated 80% of all breast implants in Germany are for aesthetic indications. This would have posed a challenge to a funding system based solely on health insurance or public money. The developmental phase of the German registry was financed by the Ministry of Health. To be sustainable, a long-term funding system including all stakeholders is enshrined in law. It requires that all parties who take an interest in sound data should contribute to the cost, including health providers, product manufacturers, and recipients of registry data. Running costs are presently subject to evaluation. The Ministry of Health will issue a price list for specific demands.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/11
Y1 - 2023/11
N2 - Background: Recurrent scandals involving breast implants have revealed that scientific evidence on the performance of these devices is lacking, and passive monitoring systems are not capable of detecting problems at an early stage. The German health authorities therefore decided to implement a prospective, mandatory registry. Objectives: The aim of this article was to provide information about the advantages of implementing a mandatory registry, the potential hurdles involved, and to establish structural requirements that future registries can use. Methods: Since 2018, the authors have assisted the German Ministry of Health in refining the Implant Law and its implementation. They adapted an internationally consented dataset, promoted international data amplification and conducted monthly trial inputs for over 2 years. By identifying several key issues they were able to assist in developing solutions. Results: The cooperation with the authorities was characterized by appreciation of the authors' expertise and previous international work. Challenges included data privacy issues, federal competence, longitudinal follow-up, and contact data; as well as associated costs and technical solutions for data inclusion and the use of information technology to communicate with stakeholders. Addressing these challenges required considerable interference with personal rights and complementary measures for all stakeholders. Extensive structural precautions were taken to safeguard personal data privacy as far as possible. Conclusions: The authors' experience and lessons learned can guide registries seeking to engage in high levels of evidence data. The authors describe their approach, the obstacles they encountered, and the strategies employed to overcome the setbacks of other registries.
AB - Background: Recurrent scandals involving breast implants have revealed that scientific evidence on the performance of these devices is lacking, and passive monitoring systems are not capable of detecting problems at an early stage. The German health authorities therefore decided to implement a prospective, mandatory registry. Objectives: The aim of this article was to provide information about the advantages of implementing a mandatory registry, the potential hurdles involved, and to establish structural requirements that future registries can use. Methods: Since 2018, the authors have assisted the German Ministry of Health in refining the Implant Law and its implementation. They adapted an internationally consented dataset, promoted international data amplification and conducted monthly trial inputs for over 2 years. By identifying several key issues they were able to assist in developing solutions. Results: The cooperation with the authorities was characterized by appreciation of the authors' expertise and previous international work. Challenges included data privacy issues, federal competence, longitudinal follow-up, and contact data; as well as associated costs and technical solutions for data inclusion and the use of information technology to communicate with stakeholders. Addressing these challenges required considerable interference with personal rights and complementary measures for all stakeholders. Extensive structural precautions were taken to safeguard personal data privacy as far as possible. Conclusions: The authors' experience and lessons learned can guide registries seeking to engage in high levels of evidence data. The authors describe their approach, the obstacles they encountered, and the strategies employed to overcome the setbacks of other registries.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85174906952&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/asj/sjad242
DO - 10.1093/asj/sjad242
M3 - Article
C2 - 37490755
AN - SCOPUS:85174906952
SN - 1090-820X
VL - 43
SP - NP858-NP865
JO - Aesthetic Surgery Journal
JF - Aesthetic Surgery Journal
IS - 11
ER -