Aims

The aim of this study is to report the implant survival and factors associated with revision of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) using data from the Dutch national registry.

Aim. In recent years, many studies on revision for infection after arthroplasty have been published. In national arthroplasty registers, revision for infection is defined as surgical debridement, with or without removal or exchange of the entire or parts of the prosthesis due to deep infection, and should be reported to the register immediately after surgery. The diagnosis of infection is made at the surgeon's discretion, based on pre- and perioperative assessment and evaluation, and is not to be corrected to the register based on peroperative bacterial cultures. Due to this lack of validation, the rate of revision for infection will only be an approximation of the true rate of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Our aim was to validate the reporting of infection after total hip arthroplasty, and to assess if revisions for infection actually represented true PJI. Methods. We investigated the reported revisions for infection and aseptic loosening after total hip arthroplasty from 12 hospitals, representing one region of the country, reported during the period 2010–2020. The electronic patient charts were investigated for information on surgical treatment, use of antibiotics, biochemistry and microbiology findings. PJI was defined as growth of at least two phenotypically identical microbes in perioperative tissue samples. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were calculated. Results. 145 revisions for infection and 137 revisions for aseptic loosening were reported. Of the reported infections, there were 141/145 true positives and 4/145 false positives. Of the reported aseptic loosenings, there were 126/137 true negatives and 11/137 false negatives. This gives a positive predictive value of 0.97, negative predictive value of 0.92, sensitivity of 0.93, specificity of 0.97 and accuracy of 0.95. Interpretation. We found the reporting revision for infection after total hip arthroplasty to the national register accurate. There was high correlation between reported revision for infection and PJI. Studies on revision for infection from arthroplasty registers may therefore be considered as reliable as studies of true PJI

Introduction. This analysis aims to provide an update of the Level-IV Partners Arthroplasty Registry (PAR), a quality-improvement initiative and research data repository. Methods. The Harris Joint Registry was founded in 1969 and has since expanded to become the Partners Arthroplasty Registry (PAR). Today, the PAR captures data on total hip and total knee arthroplasties conducted at seven hospitals in Massachusetts. Over time, data has been sourced through independent collection at a single hospital, retrospective sourcing through the Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR), and currently through the Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW). Various statistical methods analyzed changing trends of care provided to patients across affiliated institutions. PROMs collected in the PAR are the PROMIS Physical Function and Global Health Short Forms, the HOOS and KOOS. The registry is an associate member of ISAR and will incorporate the international implant library. Results. The PAR contains demographic, implant-specifics, and radiographic data for 45,645 primary arthroplasties and 8,400 revision surgeries from 1998 to 2018. The average recorded Charlson Comorbidity Index is 0.98. Average length of stay prior to home or care facility discharge decreased from 5.00 days in 2001 to 3.00 days in 2018. The average 30-day and 90-day mortality rates for 2018 were 0. 18% and 0.28%, respectively. Home discharge increased from 30.1% to 79.0% from 2001–2018. The values for these parameters are varied across the seven sites. Conclusion. The PAR can be used to develop best practices, analyze health-care economics, and promote evidence-based medicine. We are also developing a platform for registry development that can be exported by other hospitals that utilize an Epic-based record system. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) started collecting data on total hip arthroplasty (THA) in 1987. Very long-term results of implants for THA are scarce. We aimed to show long-term results for the three most used femoral stems, operated from 1987. We included the uncemented Corail femoral stem (n=66,309) and the cemented Exeter stem (n=35,050) both of which are currently in frequent use. In addition, we included the Charnley stem (n=32,578, in use until 2014). To ensure comparable conditions, stems fixated with low viscosity cement and stems revised due to infections were excluded. Differences in risk of revision (all reasons and stem revisions) were assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses with adjustment for possible confounding from age, sex and diagnosis (OA, other). Stem revision was defined as a revision caused by loosening of the stem, dislocation, osteolysis in the femur, or periprosthetic femur fracture, and in which the femoral component was removed or exchanged. The median and max follow-up for Corail, Exeter and Charnley were 6.3 (33.1), 8.0 (34.2) and 13.1 (34.3) respectively. Thirty years survival estimates for Corail, Exeter and Charnley stems were 88.6% (CI:85.8–90.9%), 86.7% (83.7–89.2%) and 87.1% (85.4–88.5%) respectively with stem revision as endpoint, and 56.1% (CI:53.1–59.1%), 73.3% (70.5–76.1%) and 80.2% (78.4–82.0%) with all THA revisions as endpoint. Compared to the Corail, the Exeter (HRR=1.3, CI:1.2–1.4) and the Charnley (HRR=1.9, CI:1.7–2.1) had a significant higher risk of stem revision. Women 75 years and older had better results with the cemented stems. Analyses accounting for competing risk from other causes of revision did not alter the findings. The uncemented Corail stem performed well in terms of stem revisions for stem-related revision causes compared to two frequently used cemented stems with very long follow-up. The differences between the three stems were small

Introduction: An arthroplasty database, such as the Swedish Hip Registry, provides a crude means of quality control over the sizable number of prosthetic implants available on the market today. It provides relatively rapid feedback on the performance of orthopaedic devices and surgical techniques, allowing inferior devices and methods to be discontinued. The maintenance of an arthroplasty register is inexpensive and of enormous benefit to the patient. At present, there is no nationwide arthroplasty register in operation in the Republic of Ireland. Aim: To develop an arthroplasty register which prospectively captures all clinical, radiographic and medical outcome data on patients undergoing surgery in our unit. Materials and methods We are using an existing computer software programme (Bluespier Patient Manager) to capture our information, although our database is stored independently of this. Data recorded includes medical outcome scores (WOMAC and MOS SF-36), patient data, operative details (including type of prostheses used and operative technique employed), inpatient course, and any postoperative events. For revision procedures, additional data such as location of bony defects (Gruen zones) and acetabular bone loss (Paprosky classification) are also recorded. Follow up in a special Joint Register Clinic is at six months, two years and every five years thereafter for primary procedures. This is reduced to every two years in the case of revision procedures. To date, a pilot study involving four surgeons has prospectively captured data on 82 patients undergoing both primary and revision procedures in our unit. We aim to enrol all our patients in the register from July 2005, increasing the amount of data collected, which we hope will subsequently benefit patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty in the future

Aims. The primary objective of this registry-based study was to compare patient-reported outcomes of cementless and cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) during the first postoperative year. The secondary objective was to assess one- and three-year implant survival of both fixation techniques. Methods. We analyzed 10,862 cementless and 7,917 cemented UKA cases enrolled in the Dutch Arthroplasty Registry, operated between 2017 and 2021. Pre- to postoperative change in outcomes at six and 12 months’ follow-up were compared using mixed model analyses. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were applied to quantify differences in implant survival. Adjustments were made for patient-specific variables and annual hospital volume. Results. Change from baseline in the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and activity-related pain was comparable between groups. Adjustment for covariates demonstrated a minimally greater decrease in rest-related pain in the cemented group (β = -0.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.16 to -0.01)). Cementless fixation was associated with a higher probability of achieving an excellent OKS outcome (> 41 points) (adjusted odds ratio 1.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 1.3)). The likelihood of one-year implant survival was greater for cemented implants (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.35 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.71)), with higher revision rates for periprosthetic fractures of cementless implants. During two to three years’ follow-up, the likelihood of implant survival was non-significantly greater for cementless UKA (adjusted HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.04)), primarily due to increased revision rates for tibial loosening of cemented implants. Conclusion. Cementless and cemented medial UKA led to comparable improvement in physical function and pain reduction during the initial postoperative year, albeit with a greater likelihood of achieving excellent OKS outcomes after cementless UKA. Anticipated differences in early physical function and pain should not be a decisive factor in the choice of fixation technique. However, surgeons should consider the differences in short- and long-term implant survival when deciding which implant to use. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):401–410

Aim. National Joint Replacement Registries, which are important sources for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) data, report an average PJI incidence ranging from 0.5 to 2.0%. Unfortunately, national registries including the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), are not specifically designed to register PJI. In the Netherlands, the LROI is a nationwide population-based registry with an overall completeness of more than 95%. 3. To ensure usability and reliability of PJI data from the LROI, it is important to evaluate the quality and completeness of these data. From 2013 onwards, eight hospitals in the South-East of the Netherlands, collected their PJI data in a detailed regional infection cohort (RIC), specifically designed for this purpose. This study aimed to determine the accuracy and completeness of PJI registration (hip and knee arthroplasty) in the LROI, by comparing the LROI with the RIC. Method. All patients registered with an acute PJI in the RIC between 2014–2018 were selected for the study and were matched with the LROI. According to the Workgroup of American Musculoskeletal Infections Society (MSIS), an acute PJI was defined as at least two phenotypically identical pathogens, isolated in cultures from at least two separate tissues, obtained from the affected peri-prosthetic tissue during the DAIR treatment (debridement, antibiotics, irrigation, and retention). Only PJI occurring within 90 days after primary hip or knee arthroplasty were included. The LROI data and completeness was based on the entered procedures and documented reason for revision infection, which was not specially based on the MSIS criteria. After checks on missing and incorrectly data, the completeness of registration in the LROI was calculated by comparing the number of registrations in the LROI with data from the RIC (gold standard). Results. Of the 639 primary total hip and knee arthroplasty with a suspected PJI registered in the RIC between 2014–2018, 352 cases met the definition of acute PJI. The overall incidence was 1%. When compared with the LROI, 164 of these cases were also registered in the LROI as PJI revision, resulting in a 53% underestimation of PJI for the LROI. Conclusions. LROI data on acute PJI shows a significant underestimation, which is comparable to scarce other literature sources. To ensure reliability and usability of national PJI data, a specifically part of the LROI has to be designed for registering PJI similar to the regional cohort

Aim. The aim of this investigation was to compare risk of infection in both cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty (HA) as well as total hip arthroplasty (THA) following femoral neck fracture. Methods. Data collection was performed using the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD) In HA and THA following femoral neck fracture fixation method was divided into cemented and cementless protheses and paired according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and the Elixhauser score using Mahalanobis distance matching. Results. Overall in 13,612 cases of intracapsular femoral neck fracture, with 9,110 (66.9 %) HAs and 4502 (33.1 %) THAs were analyzed. Infection rate in HA was significantly reduced in cases with use of antibiotic-loaded cement compared to cementless fixated prosthesis (p=0.013). In patients with THA no statistical difference between cemented and cementless prothesis was registered, however after one year 2.4 % of infections were detected in cementless and 2.1 % in cemented THA. In the subpopulation of HA after one year 1.9 % of infections were registered in cemented and 2.8 % in cementless HA. BMI (p=0.001) and Elixhauser-Comorbidity-Score (p<0.003) were identified as risk factors of PJI, while in THA also cemented prosthesis demonstrated within the first 30 days an increased risk (HR=2.728; p=0.010). Conclusion. The rate of infection after intracapsular femoral neck fracture was significantly reduced in patients treated by antibiotic-loaded cemented hemiarthroplasty. In particular for patients with multiple risk factors for the development of a PJI the usage of antibiotic-loaded bone cement seems to be a reasonable procedure for prevention of infection

Introduction. This community Arthroplasty Register is an individual initiative to document arthroplasty procedures performed from 2007 to date in a sample area in Cairo, Egypt. Currently, there is no published study or official documentation of the indications for arthroplasty, types of implants or the rate of total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA & TKA). Although the population of Egypt reached 80,394,000, the unofficial estimate of the rate of joint replacement is less than 10,000 per year. This rate is less than 10% of what is currently done in UK, a country with similar or even less population than Egypt. This indicates the unmet need for TKA in Egypt, where the knee OA is prevailing and there is a call for documentation and a registry. Methods. The registry sheet is 3 pages; pre-, intra- and post-operative. It is available in printed format and online as demonstrated below . www.knee-hip.com. During the registry period, there were 282 cases collected prospectively and 206 collected retrospectively. This initial analysis included only prospectively collected data of 157 TKA and 125 THA. Results. For THA, the mean age was 48 years ranging from (19–86). Female to male ratio was 1.15:1. The rate of uncemented THA was 84.8%, Cemented was 10.2% and hybrid THA was 5%. We have observed significant growth in the uncemented type of fixation. The rate of primary was 54.4 % (complex primary 26.4%), Conventional THA techniques were done for 56.15%, while computer assisted surgery was used in 43.85% of cases. For TKA, there was 71.33% primary and 19.7% complex primary, 8.97% revision arthroplasty. A female to male ratio was 2.92:1. The main indication for TKA was OA in 87.26%. Preoperative radiographic evaluation showed that 47% had severe varus and 15% had significant bone defect. Conventional TKA techniques were done for 73.2%, while computer assisted surgery was sued in 26.8 % of cases

Data of high quality are critical for the meaningful interpretation of registry information. The National Joint Registry (NJR) was established in 2002 as the result of an unexpectedly high failure rate of a cemented total hip arthroplasty. The NJR began data collection in 2003. In this study we report on the outcomes following the establishment of a formal data quality (DQ) audit process within the NJR, within which each patient episode entry is validated against the hospital unit’s Patient Administration System and vice-versa. This process enables bidirectional validation of every NJR entry and retrospective correction of any errors in the dataset. In 2014/15 baseline average compliance was 92.6% and this increased year-on-year with repeated audit cycles to 96.0% in 2018/19, with 76.4% of units achieving > 95% compliance. Following the closure of the audit cycle, an overall compliance rate of 97.9% was achieved for the 2018/19 period. An automated system was initiated in 2018 to reduce administrative burden and to integrate the DQ process into standard workflows. Our processes and quality improvement results demonstrate that DQ may be implemented successfully at national level, while minimizing the burden on hospitals.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):716–725.

The increasing number of total hip arthroplasty (THA) used in young patients will inevitably lead to more revision procedures at younger ages, especially since the outcome of primary THA in young patients is already inferior compared to older patients. However, these data are lacking in literature. The aim of this study was to determine the survival of both acetabular and femoral components placed during primary and revision hip arthroplasty in patients under 55 years using Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) data. All primary THA registered in the LROI between 2007–2018 in patients under 55 years were selected (n=25,682). Subsequent cup- and stem revision procedures were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to estimate the survival probability of primary and revised cup- and stem components. Mean follow-up of primary cups and stems was 5.8 years (SD 3.2) and 5.9 years (SD 3.2), respectively. In total, 659 cup revision procedures and 532 stem revision procedures were registered. Most common reason for cup revision was acetabular loosening (n=163), most common reason for stem revision was femoral loosening (n=202). Primary cup survival for any reason at 10 years follow-up was 96.1% (95%CI: 95.7–96.4). For primary stems, 10 year survival for any reason was 97.1% (95%CI: 96.7–97.3). Mean follow-up of all revision procedures was 4.1 years (SD 2.9). Out of 659 cup revisions, 113 cup re-revisions were registered. Survival of revised cups, with end-point cup re-revision for any reason was 82.2% (95%CI: 78.8–85.1) at 5 years follow-up. Out of 532 stem revisions, 89 stem re-revisions were registered. For revised stems, survival at 5 year follow-up, with endpoint stem re-revision for any reason was 82.0% (95%CI: 78.2–85.2). The outcome of revised acetabular and femoral components is worrisome, with a survival of 82% at 5 years follow-up. This information is valuable to provide realistic expectations for these young patients at time of primary THA

Aim. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of the true operating room (OR) ventilation on the risk of revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). Method. 40 orthopedic units were included during the period 2005 – 2015. The Unidirectional airflow (UDAF) systems were subdivided into small-area, low-volume, vertical UDAF (lvUDAF) (volume flow rate (VFR) (m. 3. /hour) <=10,000 and diffuser array size (DAS) (m. 2. ) <=10); large-area, high-volume, vertical UDAF (hvUDAF) (VFR >=10,000 and DAS >=10) and Horizontal UDAF (H-UDAF). The systems were compared to conventional, turbulent ventilation (CV) systems. The association between revision due to infection and OR ventilation was assessed using Cox regression models, with adjustments for sex, age, indication for surgery, ASA-classification, method of fixation, modularity of the components, duration of surgery, in addition to year of primary THA. All included THAs received systemic, antibiotic prophylaxis. Results. 51,292 primary THAs were eligible for assessment. 575 (1.1%) of these THAs had been revised due to infection. Compared to CV, there was similar risk of revision due to infection after THA performed in ORs with lvUDAF (RR=0.9, 95 % CI: 0.7–1.1) and with H-UDAF (RR=1.3, 95 % CI: 0.9–1.8). The risk of revision due to infection after THA performed in ORs with large-area hvUDAF-systems was lower (RR=0.8, 95% CI: 0.6–0.9, p=0.01) compared to CV. Conclusions. This study indicates that large-area, high-volume, vertical UDAF systems may be superior to conventional ventilation systems as a prophylactic measure against THA infection. This emphasizes the importance of assessing the big diversity of different ventilation systems when studying effect measures

Background. There are few studies of total knee replacements with cemented tibia and uncemented femur (hybrid). Previous studies have not shown any difference in revision rate between different fixation methods, but these studies had few hybrid prostheses. This study evaluates the results of hybrid knee replacements based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). Patients and Methods. Primary total knee replacements without patella resurfacing, reported to the NAR during the years 1999–2009, were evaluated. Hinged-, posterior stabilized- and tumor prostheses were excluded. LCS- and Profix prostheses with conforming plus bearing were included. With the risk for revision at any cause as the primary end-point, 2945 hybrid knee replacements (HKR) were evaluated against 20838 cemented knee replacements (CKR). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis with adjustment for age, sex and preoperative diagnosis were used. Results. Kaplan-Meier estimated survival at 8 years was 94.0% (95% CI: 93.6–94.4) in the CKR group and 97.0% (95% CI: 96.0–98.0) in the HKR group. The HKR group was made op of three brands of prosthesis, LCS, LCS-complete and Profix. Profix was the only brand with a statistically significant difference between cemented and hybrid fixation. Kaplan-Meier estimated survival at 8 years was 97.7% (95% CI: 96.7–98.7) in hybrid Profix group (HPG) and 95.5% (95% CI: 94.7–96.3) in the cemented Profix group (CPG). The adjusted Cox regression analysis showed a statistically significantly lower risk for revision in the HPG group (relative risk=0.44, 95% CI: 0.39–0.59, p<0.001). Mean operating time was 15 minutes longer in the CKR group. Conclusion. Survivorship at 8 years of the hybrid primary total knee replacements was the same or superior compared to cemented total knee replacements depending on prosthesis brand Hybrid fixation seems to be a safe alternative to cemented fixation in total knee replacement surgery

There is an ongoing discussion on what bearing surfaces to use in different age groups of total hip replacement patients. We report results from uncemented total hip arthroplasty using ceramic on ceramic bearings reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register in the period 1997–2014. Kaplan Meier and Cox regression analysis adjusting for age, gender and diagnosis was used to assess prosthesis survival at 10 and 15 years after primary operation and to report relative risk of revision. Endpoint was any revision. Comparison with the cemented Charnley prosthesis (n=17180), with metal-on-polyethylene articulations from the same time period was done. Results in age groups <55, 55–64, 65–74, >=75 were investigated. The following femur/cup combinations were used; Filler/Igloo (n=2590), Corail/Pinnacle (n=783), Corail/Duraloc (n=467), SCP Unique/Trilogy (n=363), Polar/R3 (n=253), ABGII/ABGII (n=131), other combinations (n=339). Alumina bearing was used in 3807 hips and Alumina-Zirconium composite bearings in 1119 hips. The overall ten and fifteen years unadjusted Kaplan Meier survivals were 94.8 % and 92.0 % respectively with no statistically significant difference between the brands. The cemented Charnley hip arthroplasty had 93.6 % survival at 15 years, and was not statistically significant different from the uncemented ceramic/ceramic group. The 10 years survival in the age groups <55, 55–64, 65–74, >=75 for the uncemented ceramic/ceramic group was 93.7%, 95.3%, 96.0% and 95.4% respectively with no difference between the uncemented brands and the cemented Charnley prosthesis. We found less revisions in patients >=75 in the Charnley group. In the ceramic on ceramic group 11 head fractures and 3 liner fractures were reported. The 15 years result of uncemented hip replacement with ceramic on ceramic bearing was good, and not different from the Charnley cemented arthroplasty in the age groups <75 years

There has been no general agreement about the use of uncemented hip prostheses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the present study we compared the results for the cemented and uncemented stem that most commonly had been used in RA patients in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. MATERIAL AND Methods: All hospitals in the country participate and report their primary and revision operations of RA patients to the register. This group constitutes 3.5% of the patients in the register. For the present study we included primary prosthesis operations in RA patients during 1987–2005, where either the Corail or the Charnley stem, the most commonly used uncemented and cemented stems, had been used. We calculated survival by the Kaplan-Meier method and by Cox multiple regression with adjustment for age and gender. Results: The 10 years survival of the total hip prostheses were 81 % in the uncemented group and 89 % in the cemented group. However, the revisions of the uncemented prostheses were mainly performed due to cup problems. With revision of stem for any reason as end-point, the 10-year survival was 98% for the fully HA-coated uncemented Corail stem and 91% for the cemented Charnley stem. In the Cox regression, the risk for revision of the Charnley stem was 3.4 times increased compared to the Corail (95% CI: 1.43–8.06. P< 0.006). Also revision due to aseptic stem loosening was statistically significant increased for the Charnley stem, whereas there was no significant difference concerning revision due to dislocation or periprosthetic fracture. Conclusions: Both stems had a 10-years survival better than 90%, and the uncemented stem had excellent results in RA patients. However, the uncemented total hip prostheses had inferior results compared to the cemented total hip prostheses due to problems with the uncemented cups that had been used in association with this uncemented stem

Background: Few studies have compared long-term survival for different types of cemented primary total hip arthroplasties, and prostheses are still used without adequate knowledge of their endurance. Patients and Methods:We compared the 10 most used prosthesis brands cemented with Palacos or Simplex in primary THAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register in 1987–2007, totaling 62305 operations. Survival analyses with revision as endpoint (any cause or aseptic loosening) were performed with Kaplan-Meier and multiple Cox regression analyses. Risk estimates were established for different time intervals after the primary operation (0–5 years, 6–10 years, > 10 years). Results: At 20 years, the Kaplan-Meier estimated revision per cent with any revision as endpoint was 15 % (95 % CI: 14–17), and with revision due to aseptic loosening as endpoint, 11 % (9.8–13). The adjusted revision percentage for aseptic loosening at 10 years could be established for 7 of the prostheses and varied from 0.4 % (0.0–0.8) for the Lubinus SP (I, II) to 6.6 % (4.1–9.0) for the Reflection all poly/Spectron-EF (cup/stem) combination. Only Charnley, Exeter, Titan and Spectron/ITH could be compared beyond 10 years. While long-term results were similar for these stems, Exeter (RRcup = 1.7, p = 0.001) and Spectron (RRcup = 2.4, p = 0.001) cups had higher revision rates due to aseptic loosening than Charnley cups. Comparing Charnley with prostheses with shorter follow-up, we observed an increased revision risk for aseptic loosening in the 6–10 year time interval also for Reflection all poly/Spectron-EF (RRcup = 5.5, p< 0.001; RRstem = 2.4, p< 0.001), Elite/Titan (RRcup = 7.5, p< 0.001; RRstem = 5.4, p< 0.001) and for the cup in the Reflection all poly/ITH combination (RRcup = 2.1, p = 0.03). Only the Lubinus SP had statistically significant better results than the Charnley prosthesis (RRcup = 0.2, p = 0.09; RRstem = 0.1, p = 0.01). Since several of the prostheses were introduced in recent years, analyses were also performed on operations from 1998 and onwards. Except for Lubinus SP that now had results similar to that of Charnley, differences in survivorship as compared with Charnley were enhanced. This was mainly due to a marked improvement in results for the Charnley prosthesis. Conclusion: We observed in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register clinically important differences among cemented prosthesis brands and identified inferior results for previously undocumented prostheses. Overall results at 20 years were, however, satisfactory according to international standards

Background and purpose: Development of minimal invasive operation techniques has given unicompartemental knee arthroplasty (UKA) renewed interest. Indications for use of UKA are however debated, and short-term advantages of UKA over total knee arthroplasty (TKA) should be weighed against the higher risk of reoperation. More knowledge on long term results of pain and function after knee arthroplasties is therefore needed and was the purpose of this study. Methods: Patient-reported pain and function were collected at least two years after the operations in postal questionnaires from 1643 osteoarthritis patients reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register with intact primary TKA (n=1271) or UKA (n=372). The questionnaire contained instruments for calculation of the knee specific Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and for quality of life (EQ-5D, post- and pre-operative). 5 subscales from KOOS were used as outcome. To incorporate an outcome for anterior knee pain an additional subscale based on 7 questions from KOOS, clinically accepted to be related to such discomfort, was calculated. Pain and satisfaction from a visual analogue scale (VAS) were also used as outcomes together with improvement in EQ-5D index score. The outcomes were measured on a scale from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) units with an argued minimal perceptible clinical difference of 8–10 units. Group differences were analysed with multiple linear regression, adjusted for confounding by age, gender, Charnley category, time since operation and preoperative EQ-5D index score. Results: UKA performed better than TKA for the KOOS subscales Activity in Daily Living (difference in mean outcome score =−3.4,p=0.02) and Sport and Recreation (difference =−4.4,p=0.02) and for Anterior Pain (difference=−4.5,p< 0.01). The difference was also significant for the outcome Pain(VAS) but now in favour of TKA (difference=3.3,p=0.02). Motivated by the discrepancy in the results of the pain related outcomes, Anterior Pain (UKA best), Pain(VAS) (TKA best) and Pain(KOOS) (no difference) further investigation of the questions (0=best to 4=worst) used for calculation of Pain(KOOS) and Anterior Pain were performed. Patients that had undergone UKA had more often pain from the knee (difference=0.26,p< 0.01), while they had less pain when they were bending the knee fully (difference=−0.37,p< 0.01) and less problems when squatting (difference=−0.25,p< 0.01). Interpretation: Estimated differences did not reach the level of minimal perceptible clinical difference. There are however indication of differences in the way the two treatment groups experience knee related discomfort. Even though UKA offers a lower level of pain and less problems in activities involving bending of the knee, these patients seem to experience pain from the knee more often

Background. Improving positioning and alignment by the use of computer assisted surgery (CAS) might improve longevity and function in total knee replacements. This study evaluates the short term results of computer navigated knee replacements based on data from a national register. Patients and Methods. Primary total knee replacements without patella resurfacing, reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the years 2005–2008, were evaluated. The five most common implants and the three most common navigation systems were selected. Cemented, uncemented and hybrid knees were included. With the risk for revision due to any cause as the primary end-point, 1465 computer navigated knee replacements (CAS) were evaluated against 8214 conventionally operated knee replacements (CON). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis with adjustment for age, sex, prosthesis brand, fixation method, previous knee surgery, preoperative diagnosis and ASA category were used. Results. Kaplan-Meier estimated survival at two years was 97.9% (95% CI: 97.5–98.3) in the CON group and 96.4% (95% CI: 95.0–97.8) in the CAS group. The adjusted Cox regression analysis showed a statistically significantly higher risk for revision in the CAS group (relative risk = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.5, p = 0.019). The LCS complete knees had a significantly higher risk for revision with CAS, compared to CON (relative risk = 2.1 (95% CI 1.3–3.4, p = 0.004)). Mean operating time was 15 minutes longer in the CAS group. Conclusion. Survivorship at two years of computer navigated primary total knee replacements was inferior compared to conventionally operated knees. Therefore, an extensive use of CAS in primary total knee replacement surgery cannot be encouraged until proven superior in long term register studies and clinical trials

Background: According to the mid-term results obtained from the previous registry-based studies, survival of cementless stems for aseptic loosening in younger patients with primary osteoarthritis has been better than the survival of cemented stems. However, it has not been clear if the endurance against aseptic loosening of cementless cups is comparable to that of cemented cups. The aim of the present study was to analyze population-based long-term survival rates of the cemented and cementless total hip replacements in patients under the age of fifty-five years with primary osteoarthritis in Finland. Patients and Methods: Between 1980 and 2006, a total of 7310 primary total hip replacements performed for primary osteoarthritis in patients under the age of fifty-five years were entered in the Finnish Arthroplasty Registry. 4,032 of them fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were subjected to analysis. The implants included were classified in one of the three following groups: implants with a cementless, straight, proximally circumferentially porous-coated stem and a porous-coated press-fit cup (cementless group #1); implants with a cementless, anatomic, proximally circumferentially porous-coated and/ or hydroxyapatite-coated stem with a porous-coated and/or hydroxyapatite-coated press-fit cup (cementless group #2); and a cemented stem combined with a cemented all-polyethylene cup (the cemented group). Results: Cementless total hip replacements, as well as cementless stems and cups analyzed separately, had a significantly reduced risk of revision for aseptic loosening compared with cemented hip replacements. The 15-year survivorship of cementless stem groups for aseptic loosening was higher than that of cemented stems (89% and 90% vs. 72%). The 15-year survivorship of cementless press-fit porous-coated cups for aseptic loosening was higher than that of cemented cups (80% vs. 71%). When revision for any reason was the end point in survival analyses, however, there were no significant differences among the groups. Conclusions: Both cementless stems and cementless cups have better resistance to aseptic loosening than cemented implants in long term follow-up in younger patients. Even if liner-exchange revisions are taken into account, the long-term survival of cementless total hip replacements is comparable to that of cemented implants

Background: In the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register several uncemented femoral stems have proved good or excellent survivorship. The overall results of uncemented total hip arthroplasty however, have been disappointing due to inferior results of the metal backed acetabular cups. In this study we investigated the medium-term performance of primary uncemented metal backed acetabular cups exclusively. Methods: 9 113 primary uncemented acetabular cups in 7 937 patients operated in the period 1987–2007 were included in a prospective, population-based observational study. All were modular, metal-backed uncemented cups with ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene liners and femoral heads made of steel, cobalt chrome, or Alumina ceramics. Thus 7 different cup designs were evaluated with the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses. Results: Most cups performed well up to 7 years. When the end-point was cup revision due to aseptic cup loosening, the cups had a survival of 87 to 100% at 10 years. However, when the end-point was cup revision of any reason, the survival estimates were 81 to 92% for the same cups at 10 years. Aseptic loosening, wear, osteolysis and dislocation were the main reasons for the relatively poor overall performance of the metal backed cups in this study. Prostheses with Alumina heads performed slightly better than those with steel- or cobalt chrome in sub-groups. Conclusions: Whereas most cups performed well at 7 years, the survivorship declined with longer follow-up time. Fixation was generally good. None of the metal-backed uncemented acetabular cups with UHMWPE liners investigated in the present study had satisfactory long-term results due to high rates of wear, osteolysis, aseptic loosening and dislocation. Hopefully cross-linked liner inserts will improve long term outcome in the future