PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-5 (5)
 

Clipboard (0)
None
Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Hydroxyapatite coating does not improve uncemented stem survival after total hip arthroplasty! 
Acta Orthopaedica  2015;86(1):18-25.
Background and purpose
It is still being debated whether HA coating of uncemented stems used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) improves implant survival. We therefore investigated different uncemented stem brands, with and without HA coating, regarding early and long-term survival.
Patients and methods
We identified 152,410 THA procedures using uncemented stems that were performed between 1995 and 2011 and registered in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database. We excluded 19,446 procedures that used stem brands less than 500 times in each country, procedures performed due to diagnoses other than osteoarthritis or pediatric hip disease, and procedures with missing information on the type of coating. 22 stem brands remained (which were used in 116,069 procedures) for analysis of revision of any component. 79,192 procedures from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were analyzed for the endpoint stem revision. Unadjusted survival rates were calculated according to Kaplan-Meier, and Cox proportional hazards models were fitted in order to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for the risk of revision with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
Unadjusted 10-year survival with the endpoint revision of any component for any reason was 92.1% (CI: 91.8–92.4). Unadjusted 10-year survival with the endpoint stem revision due to aseptic loosening varied between the stem brands investigated and ranged from 96.7% (CI: 94.4–99.0) to 99.9% (CI: 99.6–100). Of the stem brands with the best survival, stems with and without HA coating were found. The presence of HA coating was not associated with statistically significant effects on the adjusted risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening, with an HR of 0.8 (CI: 0.5–1.3; p = 0.4). The adjusted risk of revision due to infection was similar in the groups of THAs using HA-coated and non-HA-coated stems, with an HR of 0.9 (CI: 0.8–1.1; p = 0.6) for the presence of HA coating. The commonly used Bimetric stem (n = 25,329) was available both with and without HA coating, and the adjusted risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening was similar for the 2 variants, with an HR of 0.9 (CI: 0.5–1.4; p = 0.5) for the HA-coated Bimetric stem.
Interpretation
Uncemented HA-coated stems had similar results to those of uncemented stems with porous coating or rough sand-blasted stems. The use of HA coating on stems available both with and without this surface treatment had no clinically relevant effect on their outcome, and we thus question whether HA coating adds any value to well-functioning stem designs.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2014.957088
PMCID: PMC4366665  PMID: 25175664
2.  Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data 
Acta Orthopaedica  2011;82(3):253-257.
It is envisaged that guidelines for statistical analysis and presentation of results will improve the quality and value of research. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) has therefore developed guidelines for the statistical analysis of arthroplasty register data. The guidelines are divided into two parts, this one with an introduction and a discussion of the background to the guidelines, and the second one with a more technical statistical discussion on how specific problems can be handled (Ranstam et al. 2011b, see pages x-y in this issue). This first part contains an overview of implant survival analysis and statistical methods used to evaluate factors with a potential influence on this outcome.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.588862
PMCID: PMC3235301  PMID: 21619499
3.  Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data 
Acta Orthopaedica  2011;82(3):258-267.
It is envisaged that guidelines for statistical analysis and presentation of results will improve the quality and value of research. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) has therefore developed guidelines for the statistical analysis of arthroplasty register data. The guidelines are divided into two parts, one with an introduction and a discussion of the background to the guidelines (Ranstam et al. 2011a, see pages x-y in this issue), and this one with a more technical statistical discussion on how specific problems can be handled. This second part contains (1) recommendations for the interpretation of methods used to calculate survival, (2) recommendations on howto deal with bilateral observations, and (3) a discussion of problems and pitfalls associated with analysis of factors that influence survival or comparisons between outcomes extracted from different hospitals.
doi:10.3109/17453674.2011.588863
PMCID: PMC3235302  PMID: 21619500
4.  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
5.  The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association 
Acta Orthopaedica  2009;80(4):393-401.
Background and purpose The possibility of comparing results and of pooling the data has been limited for the Nordic arthroplasty registries, because of different registration systems and questionnaires. We have established a common Nordic database, in order to compare demographics and the results of total hip replacement surgery between countries. In addition, we plan to study results in patient groups in which the numbers are too small to be studied in the individual countries.
Material and methods Primary total hip replacements (THRs) from 1995–2006 were selected for the study. Denmark, Sweden, and Norway contributed data. A common code set was made and Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for age, sex, and diagnosis was used to calculate prosthesis survival with any revision as endpoint.
Results 280,201 operations were included (69,242 from Denmark, 140,821 from Sweden, and 70,138 from Norway). Females accounted for 60% of the patients in Denmark and Sweden, and 70% in Norway. Childhood disease was the cause of 3.1%, 1.8%, and 8.7% of the operations in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, respectively. Resurfacing of hips accounted for 0.5% or less in all countries. The posterior approach was used in 91% of cases in Denmark, 60% in Sweden, and 24% in Norway. Cemented THRs were used in 46% of patients in Denmark, in 89% of patients in Sweden, and in 79% of patients in Norway.
Of the 280,201 primary THRs, 9,596 (3.4%) had been revised. 10-year survival was 92% (95% CI: 91.6–92.4) in Denmark, 94% (95% CI: 93.6–94.1) in Sweden, and 93% (95% CI: 92.3–93.0) in Norway. In Denmark, 34% of the revisions were due to dislocation, as compared to 23% in Sweden and Norway. Replacement of only cup or liner constituted 44% of the revisions in Denmark, 29% in Sweden, and 33% in Norway.
Interpretation This unique common Nordic collaboration has shown differences between the countries concerning demographics, prosthesis fixation, and survival. The large number of patients in this database significantly widens our horizons for future research.
doi:10.3109/17453670903039544
PMCID: PMC2823198  PMID: 19513887

Results 1-5 (5)