Shoulder instability surgery in Norway: The first report from a multicenter register, with 1-year follow-up

Background and purpose. In January 2008, we established the Norwegian Register for Shoulder Instability Surgery. We report on the establishment, the baseline data, and the results at 1-year follow-up. Methods. Primary and revision shoulder stabilization is reported by the surgeon on a 1-page paper form containing the patient's history of shoulder injury, clinical findings, and perioperative findings. The WOSI questionnaire for self-assessment of shoulder function is completed at baseline and at follow-up after 1, 2, and 5 years. To evaluate the completeness of registration, we compared our data with those in the Norwegian Patient Registry (NPR). Results. The NPR reported 39 hospitals performing shoulder stabilizations. 20 of these started to report to our register during 2009, and 464 procedures (404 primary, 59 revisions) were included up to December 31, 2009, which represented 54% of the procedures reported to NPR. Of the 404 primary procedures, 83% were operations due to anterior instability, 10% were operations due to posterior instability, and 7% were operations due to multidirectional instability. Arthroscopic soft tissue techniques were used in 88% of the patients treated for primary anterior instability and open coracoid transfer was used in 10% of such patients. At 1-year follow-up of 213 patients, we found a statistically significantly improved WOSI score in all types of instability. 10% of the patients treated with arthroscopic anterior labral repair and 16% treated with arthroscopic posterior labral repair reported recurrent instability. No statistically significant difference in functional improvement or rate of recurrence was found between these groups. Interpretation. The functional results are in accordance with those in previous studies. However, the incidence of recurrent instability 1 year after arthroscopic labral repair is higher than expected.publishedVersio

The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association: A unique collaboration between 3 national hip arthroplasty registries with 280,201 THRs

Background and purpose The possibility of comparing results and of pooling the data has been limited for the Nordic arthroplasty registries, because of different registration systems and questionnaires. We have established a common Nordic database, in order to compare demographics and the results of total hip replacement surgery between countries. In addition, we plan to study results in patient groups in which the numbers are too small to be studied in the individual countries

Outcome in design-specific comparisons between highly crosslinked and conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty

<p>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.</p> <p>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).</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p

Short-term outcome of 1,465 computer-navigated primary total knee replacements 2005–2008: A report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Background and purpose: Improvement of positioning and alignment by the use of computer-assisted surgery (CAS) might improve longevity and function in total knee replacements, but there is little evidence. In this study, we evaluated the short-term results of computer-navigated knee replacements based on data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty 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 5 most common implants and the 3 most common navigation systems were selected. Cemented, uncemented, and hybrid knees were included. With the risk of revision for any cause as the primary endpoint and intraoperative complications and operating time as secondary outcomes, 1,465 computer-navigated knee replacements (CAS) and 8,214 conventionally operated knee replacements (CON) were compared. 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 2 years was 98% (95% CI: 97.5–98.3) in the CON group and 96% (95% CI: 95.0– 97.8) in the CAS group. The adjusted Cox regression analysis showed a higher risk of revision in the CAS group (RR = 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1–2.5; p = 0.02). The LCS Complete knee had a higher risk of revision with CAS than with CON (RR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.3–3.4; p = 0.004)). The differences were not statistically significant for the other prosthesis brands. Mean operating time was 15 min longer in the CAS group. Interpretation: With the introduction of computer-navigated knee replacement surgery in Norway, the short-term risk of revision has increased for computer-navigated replacement with the LCS Complete. The mechanisms of failure of these implantations should be explored in greater depth, and in this study we have not been able to draw conclusions regarding causation

Hydroxyapatite coating does not improve uncemented stem survival after total hip arthroplasty!: An analysis of 116,069 THAs in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database

Background and purpose — It is still being debated whether HA coating of uncemented stems used in total hip arthroplasty (THA) improves implant survival. We therefore investigated different uncemented stem brands, with and without HA coating, regarding early and long-term survival. Patients and methods — We identified 152,410 THA procedures using uncemented stems that were performed between 1995 and 2011 and registered in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database. We excluded 19,446 procedures that used stem brands less than 500 times in each country, procedures performed due to diagnoses other than osteoarthritis or pediatric hip disease, and procedures with missing information on the type of coating. 22 stem brands remained (which were used in 116,069 procedures) for analysis of revision of any component. 79,192 procedures from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were analyzed for the endpoint stem revision. Unadjusted survival rates were calculated according to Kaplan-Meier, and Cox proportional hazards models were fitted in order to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for the risk of revision with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results — Unadjusted 10-year survival with the endpoint revision of any component for any reason was 92.1% (CI: 91.8–92.4). Unadjusted 10-year survival with the endpoint stem revision due to aseptic loosening varied between the stem brands investigated and ranged from 96.7% (CI: 94.4–99.0) to 99.9% (CI: 99.6–100). Of the stem brands with the best survival, stems with and without HA coating were found. The presence of HA coating was not associated with statistically significant effects on the adjusted risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening, with an HR of 0.8 (CI: 0.5–1.3; p = 0.4). The adjusted risk of revision due to infection was similar in the groups of THAs using HA-coated and non-HA-coated stems, with an HR of 0.9 (CI: 0.8–1.1; p = 0.6) for the presence of HA coating. The commonly used Bimetric stem (n = 25,329) was available both with and without HA coating, and the adjusted risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening was similar for the 2 variants, with an HR of 0.9 (CI: 0.5–1.4; p = 0.5) for the HA-coated Bimetric stem. Interpretation — Uncemented HA-coated stems had similar results to those of uncemented stems with porous coating or rough sand-blasted stems. The use of HA coating on stems available both with and without this surface treatment had no clinically relevant effect on their outcome, and we thus question whether HA coating adds any value to well-functioning stem designs.publishedVersio

Results after 562 total elbow replacements: A report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Background: The aim of this study was to give results of elbow arthroplasty for a relatively large population and compare different prosthesis brands and different patient subgroups. Methods: Between 1994 and 2006, 562 total elbow replacement operations were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Revisions of prostheses were shown using Kaplan-Meier failure curves, and risk of revision was calculated using Cox regression analysis. Results: The overall 5-and 10-year failure rates were 8% and 15%, respectively. There were only minor differences between the different implants. Patients who developed traumatic arthritis after fracture had the worst prognosis compared with inflammatory arthritis (P ¼ .005). Risk of revision was also increased when the ulnar component was inserted without cement (P ¼ .02.) Conclusions: Good results in terms of prosthesis survival were obtained with total elbow arthroplasty, although results were worse than for knee-and hip arthroplasties. The best results were achieved in patients with inflammatory arthritis. Level of evidence: Level 2; prospective cohort study

Countrywise results of total hip replacement. An analysis of 438,733 hips based on the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database

Background and purpose: An earlier Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) report on 280,201 total hip replacements (THRs) based on data from 1995–2006, from Sweden, Norway, and Denmark, was published in 2009. The present study assessed THR survival according to country, based on the NARA database with the Finnish data included. Material and methods: 438,733 THRs performed during the period 1995–2011 in Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Finland were included. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate survival probabilities with 95% confidence interval (CI). Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for age, sex, and diagnosis, was used to analyze implant survival with revision for any reason as endpoint. Results: The 15-year survival, with any revision as an endpoint, for all THRs was 86% (CI: 85.7–86.9) in Denmark, 88% (CI: 87.6–88.3) in Sweden, 87% (CI: 86.4–87.4) in Norway, and 84% (CI: 82.9–84.1) in Finland. Revision risk for all THRs was less in Sweden than in the 3 other countries during the first 5 years. However, revision risk for uncemented THR was less in Denmark than in Sweden during the sixth (HR = 0.53, CI: 0.34–0.82), seventh (HR = 0.60, CI: 0.37–0.97), and ninth (HR = 0.59, CI: 0.36–0.98) year of follow-up. Interpretation: The differences in THR survival rates were considerable, with inferior results in Finland. Brand-level comparison of THRs in Nordic countries will be required