PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-4 (4)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  A randomized study on migration of the Spectron EF and the Charnley flanged 40 cemented femoral components using radiostereometric analysis at 2 years 
Acta Orthopaedica  2011;82(5):538-544.
Background and purpose
We performed a randomized study to determine the migration patterns of the Spectron EF femoral stem and to compare them with those of the Charnley stem, which is regarded by many as the gold standard for comparison of implants due to its extensive documentation.
Patients and methods
150 patients with a mean age of 70 years were randomized, single-blinded, to receive either a cemented Charnley flanged 40 monoblock, stainless steel, vaquasheen surface femoral stem with a 22.2-mm head (n = 30) or a cemented Spectron EF modular, matte, straight, collared, cobalt-chrome femoral stem with a 28-mm femoral head and a roughened proximal third of the stem (n = 120). The patients were followed with repeated radiostereometric analysis for 2 years to assess migration.
Results
At 2 years, stem retroversion was 2.3° and 0.7° (p < 0.001) and posterior translation was 0.44 mm and 0.17 mm (p = 0.002) for the Charnley group (n = 26) and the Spectron EF group (n = 74), respectively. Subsidence was 0.26 mm for the Charnley and 0.20 mm for the Spectron EF (p = 0.5).
Interpretation
The Spectron EF femoral stem was more stable than the Charnley flanged 40 stem in our study when evaluated at 2 years. In a report from the Norwegian arthroplasty register, the Spectron EF stem had a higher revision rate due to aseptic loosening beyond 5 years than the Charnley. Initial stability is not invariably related to good long-term results. Our results emphasize the importance of prospective long-term follow-up of prosthetic implants in clinical trials and national registries and a stepwise introduction of implants.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.618914
PMCID: PMC3242949  PMID: 21895504
2.  Failure of total knee arthroplasty with or without patella resurfacing 
Acta Orthopaedica  2011;82(3):282-292.
Background and purpose
Patella resurfacing during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is disputed and new prosthesis designs have been introduced without documentation of their survival. We assessed the impact on prosthesis survival of patella resurfacing and of prosthesis brand, based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.
Patients and methods
5 prosthesis brands in common use with and without patella resurfacing from 1994 through 2009 were included n = 11,887. The median follow-up times were 9 years for patella-resurfaced implants and 7 years for implants without patella resurfacing. For comparison of prosthesis brands, also brands in common use with only one of the two treatment options were included in the study population (n = 25,590). Cox regression analyses were performed with different reasons for revision as endpoints with adjustment for potential confounders.
Results
We observed a reduced overall risk of revision for patella resurfaced (PR) TKAs, but the statistical significance was borderline (RR = 0.84, p = 0.05). At 15 years, 92% of PR and 91% of patella non resurfaced (NR) prostheses were still unrevised. However, PR implants had a lower risk of revision due to pain alone (RR = 0.1, p < 0.001), but a higher risk of revision due to loosening of the tibial component (RR = 1.4, p = 0.03) and due to a defective polyethylene insert (RR = 3.2, p < 0.001).
At 10 years, the survival for the reference NR brand AGC Universal was 93%. The NR brands Genesis I, Duracon, and Tricon (RR = 1.4–1.7) performed statistically significantly worse than NR AGC Universal, while the NR prostheses e.motion, Profix, and AGC Anatomic (RR = 0.1–0.7), and the PR prostheses NexGen and AGC Universal (RR = 0.4–0.5) performed statistically significantly better. LCS, NexGen, LCS Complete (all NR), and Tricon, Genesis I, LCS, and Kinemax (all PR) showed no differences in this respect from the reference brand. A lower risk of revision (crude) was found for TKAs performed after 2000 as compared to those performed earlier (RR = 0.8, p = 0.001).
Interpretation
Although revision risk was similar for PR and NR TKAs, we found important differences in reasons for revision. Our results also indicate that survivorship of TKAs has improved.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.570672
PMCID: PMC3235305  PMID: 21619502
3.  Knee arthroplasty in Denmark, Norway and Sweden 
Acta Orthopaedica  2010;81(1):82-89.
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.
doi:10.3109/17453671003685442
PMCID: PMC2856209  PMID: 20180723
4.  Does patella resurfacing really matter? Pain and function in 972 patients after primary total knee arthroplasty 
Acta Orthopaedica  2010;81(1):99-107.
Background and purpose
Resurfacing of the patella during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is often recommended based on higher revision rates in non-resurfaced knees. As many of these revisions are insertions of a patella component due to pain, and since only patients with a non-resurfaced patella have the option of secondary resurfacing, we do not really know whether these patients have more pain and poorer function. The main purpose of the present paper was therefore to assess pain and function at least 2 years after surgery for unrevised primary non-resurfaced and resurfaced TKA, and secondary among prosthesis brands.
Methods
Information needed to calculate subscales from the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) was collected in a questionnaire given to 972 osteoarthritis patients with intact primary TKAs that had been reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Pain and satisfaction on visual analog scales and improvement in EQ-5D index score ΔEQ-5D) were also used as outcomes. Outcomes were measured on a scale from 0 to 100 units (worst to best). To estimate differences in mean scores, we used multiple linear regression with adjustment for possible confounders.
Results
We did not observe any differences between resurfacing and non-resurfacing in any outcome, with estimated differences of ≤ 1.4 units and p-values of > 0.4. There was, however, a tendency of better results for the NexGen implant as compared to the reference brand AGC for symptoms (difference = 4.9, p = 0.05), pain (VAS) (difference = 8.3, p = 0.004), and satisfaction (VAS) (difference = 7.9, p = 0.02). However, none of these differences reached the stated level of minimal perceptible clinical difference.
Interpretation
Resurfacing of the patella has no clinical effect on pain and function after TKA. Differences between the brands investigated were small and they were assumed to be of minor importance.
doi:10.3109/17453671003587069
PMCID: PMC2856212  PMID: 20158405

Results 1-4 (4)