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.

Introduction: Up to now comparisons and pooling of data between the Scandinavian arthroplasty registers have been restrained by use of separate and incompatible data systems.

Purpose: To create a common Scandinavian database for hip arthroplasties and to compare demographics and results between the Scandinavian countries.

Materials and methods: For this study we selected primary total hip prostheses (THR) from 1995–2006. A common code set was made, and after de-identification of the patients’ identity, including deletion of the national civil registration numbers, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway delivered data. Kaplan-Meier and Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for diagnosis, age, and gender, were used to calculate prosthesis survival, with any revision as end-point.

Results: 280,201 operations were included (Denmark 69,242, Sweden 140,821, Norway 70,138). Female patients constituted 60% in Denmark and Sweden and 70% in Norway. In Denmark, Sweden, and Norway childhood disease constituted 3.1%, 1.8%, and 8.7% respectively. The posterior approach was used in 91% of cases in Denmark, 60% in Sweden, and 24% in Norway. Cemented THRs were applied in 46% of patients in Denmark, 89% in Sweden, and in 79% in Norway. Resurfacing hips constituted 0.5% or less in all countries.

9,596 of the 280,201 primary THRs, had been revised. Ten-years survival was 91.9% (95% CI: 91.5 – 92.3) in Denmark, 93.9% (95% CI: 93.6–94.1) in Sweden, and 92.6% (95% CI: 92.3–93.0) in Norway.

In Sweden and Norway 23% of revisions were due to dislocation, compared to 34% in Denmark. Replacement of only cup or liner constituted 29% of the revisions in Sweden, 33% in Norway, and 44% in Denmark.

Conclusion: This unique database is now functioning, and has showed differences among the countries concerning demographics, prosthesis fixation, prosthesis survival, and reasons for revisions. The large number of THRs in this database significantly enhances our perspectives for future research, especially in diagnostic- and treatment groups with too small numbers in each separate

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.