| 1. |
- Irmola, Tero, et al.
(författare)
-
Association between fixation type and revision risk in total knee arthroplasty patients aged 65 years and older : a cohort study of 265,877 patients from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association 2000–2016
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Acta Orthopaedica. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 1745-3674 .- 1745-3682. ; 92:1, s. 91-96
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and purpose — The population of the Nordic countries is aging and the number of elderly patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is also expected to increase. Reliable fixation methods are essential to avoid revisions. We compared the survival of different TKA fixation concepts with cemented fixation as the gold standard. Patients and methods — We used data from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database of 265,877 unconstrained TKAs performed for patients aged ≥ 65 years with primary knee osteoarthritis between 2000 and 2016. Kaplan–Meier (KM) survival analysis with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the Cox multiple-regression model were used to compare the revision risk of the fixation methods. Results — Cemented fixation was used in 243,166 cases, uncemented in 8,000, hybrid (uncemented femur with cemented tibia) in 14,248, and inverse hybrid (cemented femur with uncemented tibia) fixation in 463 cases. The 10-year KM survivorship (95% CI) of cemented TKAs was 96% (96 − 97), uncemented 94% (94 − 95), hybrid 96% (96 − 96), and inverse hybrid 96% (94 − 99), respectively. Uncemented TKA was associated with increased risk of revision compared with the cemented TKA; the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.3 (95% CI 1.1 − 1.4). Interpretation — Cemented, hybrid, and inverse hybrid TKAs showed 10-year survival rates exceeding 95%. Uncemented fixation was associated with an increased risk of revision in comparison with cemented fixation. As both hybrid and inverse hybrid fixation were used in only a limited number of TKAs, indicating possibility of selection bias in their favor, cemented TKA still remains the gold standard, as it works reliably in the hands of many.
|
|
| 2. |
- Irmola, Tero, et al.
(författare)
-
Impact of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) collaboration on demographics, methods and revision rates in knee arthroplasty : a register-based study from NARA 2000–2017
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Acta Orthopaedica. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 1745-3674 .- 1745-3682. ; 93, s. 866-873
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and purpose — We have previously observed differences in treatment and outcome of knee arthroplasties in the Nordic countries. To evaluate the impact of Nordic collaboration in the last 15 years we aimed to compare patient demographics, methods, and revision rates in primary knee arthroplasties among the 4 Nordic countries. Patients and methods — We included 535,051 primary knee arthroplasties reported 2000–2017 from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database. Kaplan–Meier analysis (KM) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis were used to evaluate the cumulative revision rate (CRR) and RMST estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and to compare countries in relation to risk of revision for any reason. Results — After 2010, the increase in incidence of knee arthroplasty plateaued in Sweden and Denmark but contin-ued to increase in Finland and Norway. In 2017 the incidence was highest in Finland with 226 per 105 person-years, while it was less than 150 per 105 in the 3 other Nordic coun-tries. In total knee arthroplasties performed for osteoarthri-tis (OA), overall CRR at 15 years for revision due to any reason was higher in Denmark (CRR 9.6%, 95% CI 9.2−10), Norway (CRR 9.1%, CI 8.7−9.5), and Finland (CRR 7.0%, CI 6.8−7.3) compared with Sweden (CRR 6.6%, CI 6.4−6.8). There were differences among the countries in use of implant brand and type, fixation, patellar component, and use of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Interpretation — We evinced a slowing growth of incidence of knee arthroplasties in the Nordic countries after 2010 with Finland having the highest incidence. We also noted substantial differences among the 4 Nordic countries, with Sweden having a lower risk of revision than the other countries. No impact of NARA could be demonstrated and CRR did not improve over time.
|
|
