| 1. |
- Badawy, Mona, et al.
(author)
-
Hospital volume and the risk of revision in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Nordic countries -an observational study of 14,496 cases
- 2017
-
In: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1471-2474. ; 18:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: High procedure volume and dedication to unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been suggested to improve revision rates. This study aimed to quantify the annual hospital volume effect on revision risk in Oxfordu? nicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Nordic countries. Methods: 14,496 cases of cemented medial Oxford III UKA were identified in 126 hospitals in the four countries included in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database from 2000 to 2012. Hospitals were divided by quartiles into 4 annual procedure volume groups (≤11, 12-23, 24-43 and ≥44). The outcome was revision risk after 2 and 10 years calculated using Kaplan Meier method. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to assess the Hazard Ratio (HR) of any revision due to specific reasons with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: The implant survival was 80% at 10 years in the volume group ≤11 procedures per year compared to 83% in other volume groups. The HR adjusted for age category, sex, year of surgery and nation was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.76-0.99, p = 0.036) for the group 12-23 procedures per year, 0.78 (95% CI: 0.68-0.91, p = 0.002) for the group 24-43 procedures per year and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70-0.94, p = 0.006) for the group ≥44 procedures per year compared to the low volume group. Log-rank test was p = 0.003. The risk of revision for unexplained pain was 40-50% higher in the low compared with other volume groups. Conclusion: Low volume hospitals performing ≤11 Oxford III UKAs per year were associated with an increased risk of revision compared to higher volume hospitals, and unexplained pain as revision cause was more common in low volume hospitals.
|
|
| 2. |
- Johanson, Per-Erik, et al.
(author)
-
Outcome in design-specific comparisons between highly crosslinked and conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty.
- 2017
-
In: Acta orthopaedica. - : Medical Journals Sweden AB. - 1745-3682 .- 1745-3674. ; 88:4, s. 363-369
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background and purpose - Most registry studies regarding highly crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) have focused on the overall revision risk. We compared the risk of cup and/or liner revision for specific cup and liner designs made of either XLPE or conventional polyethylene (CPE), regarding revision for any reason and revision due to aseptic loosening and/or osteolysis. Patients and methods - Using the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database, we identified cup and liner designs where either XLPE or CPE had been used in more than 500 THAs performed for primary hip osteoarthritis. We assessed risk of revision for any reason and for aseptic loosening using Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, femoral head material and size, surgical approach, stem fixation, and presence of hydroxyapatite coating (uncemented cups). Results - The CPE version of the ZCA cup had a risk of revision for any reason similar to that of the XLPE version (p = 0.09), but showed a 6-fold higher risk of revision for aseptic loosening (p < 0.001). The CPE version of the Reflection All Poly cup had an 8-fold elevated risk of revision for any reason (p < 0.001) and a 5-fold increased risk of revision for aseptic loosening (p < 0.001). The Charnley Elite Ogee/Marathon cup and the Trilogy cup did not show such differences. Interpretation - Whether XLPE has any advantage over CPE regarding revision risk may depend on the properties of the polyethylene materials being compared, as well as the respective cup designs, fixation type, and follow-up times. Further research is needed to elucidate how cup design factors interact with polyethylene type to affect the risk of revision.
|
|
