Background

The results of primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) after pediatric hip diseases such as developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH), slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE), or Perthes’ disease have been reported to be inferior to the results after primary osteoarthritis of the hip (OA).

Materials and methods

We compared the survival of primary THAs performed during the period 1995–2009 due to previous DDH, SCFE, Perthes’ disease, or primary OA, using merged individual-based data from the Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish arthroplasty registers, called the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA). Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for age, sex, and type of fixation of the prosthesis was used to calculate the survival of the prostheses and the relative revision risks.

Results

370,630 primary THAs were reported to these national registers for 1995–2009. Of these, 14,403 THAs (3.9%) were operated due to pediatric hip diseases (3.1% for Denmark, 8.8% for Norway, and 1.9% for Sweden) and 288,435 THAs (77.8%) were operated due to OA. Unadjusted 10-year Kaplan-Meier survival of THAs after pediatric hip diseases (94.7% survival) was inferior to that after OA (96.6% survival). Consequently, an increased risk of revision for hips with a previous pediatric hip disease was seen (risk ratio (RR) 1.4, 95% CI: 1.3–1.5). However, after adjustment for differences in sex and age of the patients, and in fixation of the prostheses, no difference in survival was found (93.6% after pediatric hip diseases and 93.8% after OA) (RR 1.0, CI: 1.0–1.1). Nevertheless, during the first 6 postoperative months more revisions were reported for THAs secondary to pediatric hip diseases (RR 1.2, CI: 1.0–1.5), mainly due to there being more revisions for dislocations (RR 1.8, CI: 1.4–2.3). Comparison between the different diagnosis groups showed that the overall risk of revision after DDH was higher than after OA (RR 1.1, CI: 1.0–1.2), whereas the combined group Perthes’ disease/SCFE did not have a significantly different risk of revision to that of OA (RR 0.9, CI: 0.7–1.0), but had a lower risk than after DDH (RR 0.8, CI: 0.7–1.0).

Interpretation

After adjustment for differences in age, sex, and type of fixation of the prosthesis, no difference in risk of revision was found for primary THAs performed due to pediatric hip diseases and those performed due to primary OA.

Background and purpose

The reported outcomes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) vary. The frequency of this procedure in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden is low. We therefore determined the outcome of HRA in the NARA database, which is common to all 3 countries, and compared it to the outcome of conventional total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

The risk of non-septic revision within 2 years was analyzed in 1,638 HRAs and compared to that for 172,554 conventional total hip arthroplasties (THAs), using Cox regression models. We calculated relative risk (RR) of revision and 95% confidence interval.

Results

HRA had an almost 3-fold increased revision risk compared to THA (RR = 2.7, 95% CI: 1.9–3.7). The difference was even greater when HRA was compared to the THA subgroup of cemented THAs (RR = 3.8, CI: 2.7–5.3). For men below 50 years of age, this difference was less pronounced (HRA vs. THA: RR = 1.9, CI: 1.0–3.9; HRA vs. cemented THA: RR = 2.4, CI: 1.1–5.3), but it was even more pronounced in women of the same age group (HRA vs. THA: RR = 4.7, CI: 2.6–8.5; HRA vs. cemented THA: RR = 7.4, CI: 3.7–15). Within the HRA group, risk of non-septic revision was reduced in hospitals performing ≥ 70 HRAs annually (RR = 0.3, CI: 0.1–0.7) and with use of Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) rather than the other designs as a group (RR = 0.3, CI: 0.1–0.7). Risk of early revision was also reduced in males (RR = 0.5, CI: 0.2–0.9). The femoral head diameter alone had no statistically significant influence on the early revision rate, but it eliminated the significance of male sex in a combined analysis.

Interpretation

In general, our results do not support continued use of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Men had a lower early revision rate, which was still higher than observed for all-cemented hips. Further follow-up is necessary to determine whether HRA might be useful as an alternative in males.

Background and purpose

The number of national arthroplasty registries is increasing. However, the methods of registration, classification, and analysis often differ.

Methods

We combined data from 3 Nordic knee arthroplasty registers, comparing demographics, methods, and overall results. Primary arthroplasties during the period 1997–2007 were included. Each register produced a dataset of predefined variables, after which the data were combined and descriptive and survival statistics produced.

Results

The incidence of knee arthroplasty increased in all 3 countries, but most in Denmark. Norway had the lowest number of procedures per hospital—less than half that of Sweden and Denmark. The preference for implant brands varied and only 3 total brands and 1 unicompartmental brand were common in all 3 countries. Use of patellar button for total knee arthroplasty was popular in Denmark (76%) but not in Norway (11%) or Sweden (14%). Uncemented or hybrid fixation of components was also more frequent in Denmark (22%) than in Norway (14%) and Sweden (2%).

After total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, the cumulative revision rate (CRR) was lowest in Sweden, with Denmark and Norway having a relative risk (RR) of 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3–1.6) and 1.6 (CI: 1.4–1.7) times higher. The result was similar when only including brands used in more than 200 cases in all 3 countries (AGC, Duracon, and NexGen). After unicompartmental arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, the CRR for all models was also lowest in Sweden, with Denmark and Norway having RRs of 1.7 (CI: 1.4–2.0) and 1.5 (CI: 1.3–1.8), respectively. When only the Oxford implant was analyzed, however, the CRRs were similar and the RRs were 1.2 (CI: 0.9–1.7) and 1.3 (CI: 1.0–1.7).

Interpretation

We found considerable differences between the 3 countries, with Sweden having a lower revision rate than Denmark and Norway. Further classification and standardization work is needed to permit more elaborate studies.