Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 5 | Pages 401 - 410
20 May 2024
Bayoumi T Burger JA van der List JP Sierevelt IN Spekenbrink-Spooren A Pearle AD Kerkhoffs GMMJ Zuiderbaan HA

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.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 4, Issue 2 | Pages 110 - 119
21 Feb 2023
Macken AA Prkić A van Oost I Spekenbrink-Spooren A The B Eygendaal D

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.

Methods

All TEAs recorded in the Dutch national registry between 2014 and 2020 were included. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, and a logistic regression model was used to assess the factors associated with revision.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_10 | Pages 68 - 68
1 Oct 2022
Bos K Spekenbrink-Spooren A Reijman M Bierma-Zeinstra S Croughs P v. Oldenrijk J
Full Access

Aim

Aim was to compare revision rates when using single versus dual antibiotic loaded cement (ABLC) in hip fracture arthroplasty and aseptic revision hip or knee arthroplasty using data from the Dutch national joint registry (LROI).

Methods

All primary cemented (hemi-)arthroplasties for acute hip fractures and cemented aseptic hip or knee revision arthroplasties, were incorporated in 3 datasets. All registered implants between 2007 and 2018 were included (minimum 2 years follow-up). Primary end-point was subsequent revision rates for infection and for any reason in the single and dual ABLC groups.

Cumulative crude incidence of revision was calculated using competing risk analysis.