PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Failure of aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties 
Acta Orthopaedica  2015;86(1):48-57.
Background and purpose
In Norway, the proportion of revision knee arthroplasties increased from 6.9% in 1994 to 8.5% in 2011. However, there is limited information on the epidemiology and causes of subsequent failure of revision knee arthroplasty. We therefore studied survival rate and determined the modes of failure of aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties.
Method
This study was based on 1,016 aseptic revision total knee arthroplasties reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1994 and 2011. Revisions done for infections were not included. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were used to assess the survival rate and the relative risk of re-revision with all causes of re-revision as endpoint.
Results
145 knees failed after revision total knee arthroplasty. Deep infection was the most frequent cause of re-revision (28%), followed by instability (26%), loose tibial component (17%), and pain (10%). The cumulative survival rate for revision total knee arthroplasties was 85% at 5 years, 78% at 10 years, and 71% at 15 years. Revision total knee arthroplasties with exchange of the femoral or tibial component exclusively had a higher risk of re-revision (RR = 1.7) than those with exchange of the whole prosthesis. The risk of re-revision was higher for men (RR = 2.0) and for patients aged less than 60 years (RR = 1.6).
Interpretation
In terms of implant survival, revision of the whole implant was better than revision of 1 component only. Young age and male sex were risk factors for re-revision. Deep infection was the most frequent cause of failure of revision of aseptic total knee arthroplasties.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.964097
PMCID: PMC4366664  PMID: 25267502
2.  Improved survival for anatomic total shoulder prostheses 
Acta Orthopaedica  2015;86(1):63-70.
Background and purpose
Previously, implant survival of total shoulder prostheses was reported to be inferior to that of hemiprostheses. However, the use of total prostheses has increased in Norway due to reported good functional results. On this background, we wanted to study implant survival of 4 major shoulder prosthesis types in Norway between 1994 and 2012.
Patients and methods
The study population comprised 4,173 patients with shoulder replacements reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, including 2,447 hemiprostheses (HPs), 444 anatomic total prostheses (ATPs), 454 resurfacing prostheses (RPs), and 828 reversed total prostheses (RTPs). Three time periods were compared: 1994–1999, 2000–2005, and 2006–2012. Kaplan-Meier failure curves were used to compare implant failure rates for subgroups of patients, and adjusted risks of revision were calculated using Cox regression analysis.
Results
For prostheses inserted from 2006 through 2012, the 5-year survival rates were 95% for HPs (as opposed to 94% in 1994–1999), 95% for ATPs (75% in 1994–1999), 87% for RPs (96% in 1994–1999), and 93% for RTPs (91% in 1994–1999). During the study period, the implant survival improved significantly for ATPs (p < 0.001). A tendency of better results with acute fracture and worse results in sequelae after previous fractures was seen in all time periods.
Interpretation
The 5-year implant survival rates were good with all prosthesis types, and markedly improved for anatomic total prostheses in the last 2 study periods. The better functional results with total shoulder prostheses than with hemiprostheses support the trend towards increased use of total shoulder prostheses.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.984113
PMCID: PMC4366677  PMID: 25386737
3.  Pain and function in eight hundred and fifty nine patients comparing shoulder hemiprostheses, resurfacing prostheses, reversed total and conventional total prostheses 
International Orthopaedics  2012;37(1):59-66.
Purpose
Functional results of reversed total prostheses (RTP) have—to a very limited degree—been compared with those of other shoulder prosthesis types. The aim of our study was to compare results of four different types of shoulder prostheses in terms of function, pain, and quality of life (QoL).
Methods
Questionnaires were completed by 859 patients with shoulder prostheses registered in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Patients with osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or fracture sequela (FS) were included. Symptoms and function were assessed using the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS, scale 0–48), and the EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) was used to assess QoL.
Results
Best functional results were obtained using conventional total prostheses (TPs) and RTPs —mean OSS improvement 18 and 16 units, respectively, vs 11 with hemiprostheses (HPs). For patients with OA, TPs performed best; for those with RA and FS, RTPs performed best; and those with HPs had the worst results in all diagnostic groups. The greatest improvement in QoL was seen in patients with TPs and RTPs.
Conclusions
Conventional TPs provide the best improvement in pain, function and QoL in OA patients; RTPs are superior in patients with RA and FS.
doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1722-3
PMCID: PMC3532636  PMID: 23229798
4.  Good function after shoulder arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2012;83(5):467-473.
Background and purpose
Different results after shoulder arthroplasty have been found for different diagnostic groups. We evaluated function, pain, and quality of life after shoulder arthroplasty in 4 diagnostic groups.
Patients and methods
Patients with shoulder arthroplasties registered in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 1994 through 2008 were posted a questionnaire in 2010. 1,107 patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA), acute fracture (AF), or fracture sequela (FS) returned completed forms (65% response rate). The primary outcome measure was the Oxford shoulder score (OSS), which assesses symptoms and function experienced by the patient on a scale from 0 to 48. A secondary outcome measure was the EQ-5D, which assesses life quality. The patients completed a questionnaire concerning symptoms 1 month before surgery, and another concerning the month before they received the questionnaire.
Results
Patients with RA and OA had the best results with a mean improvement in OSS of 16 units, as opposed to 11 for FS patients. Both shoulder pain and function had improved substantially. The change in OSS for patients with AF was negative (–11), but similar end results were obtained for AF patients as for RA and OA patients. Quality of life had improved in patients with RA, OA, and FS.
Interpretation
Good results in terms of pain relief and improved level of function were obtained after shoulder arthroplasty for patients with RA, OA, and—to a lesser degree—FS. A shoulder arthropathy had a major effect on quality of life, and treatment with shoulder replacement substantially improved it.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2012.720118
PMCID: PMC3488172  PMID: 22950481
5.  Risk factors for revision after shoulder arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2009;80(1):83-91.
Background and purpose Previous studies on shoulder arthroplasty have usually described small patient populations, and few articles have addressed the survival of shoulder implants. We describe the results of shoulder replacement in the Norwegian population (of 4.7 million) during a 12-year period. Trends in the use of shoulder arthroplasty during the study period were also investigated.
Patients and methods 1,531 hemiprostheses (HPs), 69 total shoulder replacements (Neer type TSR), and 225 reversed total shoulder replacement (reversed TSR) operations were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register between 1994 and 2005. Kaplan-Meier failure curves were drawn up for particular subgroups of patients, and revision rates were calculated using Cox regression analysis.
Results The 5- and 10-year failure rates of hemiprostheses were 6% (95% CI: 5–7) and 8% (95% CI: 6–10), and for reversed total shoulder replacements they were 10% (95% CI: 5–15) and 22% (95% CI: 10–33), respectively. For hemiprostheses, the risk of revision for patients who were 70 years or older was half that of those who were younger (RR = 0.47, CI: 0.28–0.77), while the risk of revision was highest for patients with sequelae after fracture compared to those with acute fractures (RR = 3.3, CI: 1.5–7.2). No differences in prosthesis survival were found between the different hemiprosthesis brands. The main reasons for revision of hemiprostheses were pain and luxation. For reversed total prostheses, the risk of revision was less for women than for men (RR = 0.26, CI: 0.11–0.63), and the main cause of revision was aseptic loosening of the glenoid component. During the study period, the incidence of shoulder arthroplasty increased for all diagnostic groups except inflammatory arthritis, for which a decrease was seen.
Interpretation We found good results in terms of 5-year prosthesis failure rate, with the use of hemiarthroplasty for patients with inflammatory arthritis, osteoarthritis, and acute fractures. Reversed total shoulder replacement was associated with a rather poor prognosis.
doi:10.1080/17453670902805098
PMCID: PMC2823234  PMID: 19297791

Results 1-5 (5)