Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association Research Articles

The short-term survival of total stemless shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis is comparable to that of total stemmed shoulder arthroplasty: a Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association study

The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term survival rate of total stemless, metaphyseal fixated, shoulder arthroplasty with that of total stemmed shoulder arthroplasty in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Data were collected by the national arthroplasty registries in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden and merged into 1 dataset under the umbrella of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association. For the present study, we included all patients with osteoarthritis treated with either stemless (n = 761) or stemmed (n = 4398) shoulder arthroplasty from 2011 to2016. A total of 21 (2.8%) stemless and 116 (2.6%) stemmed shoulder arthroplasties were revised. The 6-year unadjusted cumulative survival rates were 0.953 for stemless shoulder arthroplasty and 0.958 for stemmed shoulder arthroplasty, P = .77. The most common indication for revision of both arthroplasty types was infection. Five (0.7%) stemless and 16 (0.4%) stemmed shoulder arthroplasties were revised because of loosening of either the glenoid or the humeral component. In the multivariate cox regression model, which included age, category, gender, year of surgery, previous surgery, and arthroplasty type, the hazard ratio (HR) for revision of the stemless shoulder arthroplasty was 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.61), P = .99, with the stemmed shoulder arthroplasty as reference. Male gender (HR = 1.50 [95% CI, 1.06-2.13], P = .02) and previous surgery (HR = 2.70 [95% CI, 1.82-4.01], P < .001) were associated with increased risk of revision. The short-term survival of total stemless shoulder arthroplasty appears comparable with total stemmed shoulder arthroplasty, but longer observation time is needed to confirm whether they continue to perform equally.

Dual Mobility Cups: Effect on Risk of Revision of Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty Due to Osteoarthritis: A Matched Population-Based Study Using the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association Database.

The dual mobility acetabular cup (DMC) was designed to reduce prosthetic instability and has gained popularity for both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). We compared the risk of revision of primary THA for primary osteoarthritis between patients treated with a DMC and those who received a metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) or ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) bearing. A search of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database identified THAs performed with a DMC during 1995 to 2013. With use of propensity score matching, 2,277 of these patients were matched (1:1), with regard to sex, age, component fixation, and year of surgery, with patients with an MoP or CoP bearing. We estimated the cumulative incidence of revision taking death as a competing risk into consideration and performed competing risk regression with revision or death as end points. There was no difference in the overall risk of revision between the DMC group and the propensity-score-matched MoP/CoP group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.18; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.87 to 1.62). Patients with a DMC bearing had a lower risk of revision due to dislocation (adjusted HR = 0.09; 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.29) but a higher risk of revision caused by infection (adjusted HR = 3.20; 95% CI = 1.49 to 6.85). There was no difference in overall risk of revision between the DMC and MoP/CoP groups. The DMCs protected against revision due to dislocation but THAs performed with this bearing were more commonly revised because of infection. There may have been a selection bias toward placing DMC implants in patients with greater frailty as the mortality rates were higher in the DMC group than in the age and sex-matched MoP/CoP group. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No Increase in Survival for 36-mm versus 32-mm Femoral Heads in Metal-on-polyethylene THA: A Registry Study

During the past decade, the 32-mm head has replaced the 28-mm head as the most common head size used in primary THA in many national registries, and the use of 36-mm heads has also increased. However, it is unclear whether 32-mm and 36-mm heads decrease the revision risk in metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) THA compared with 28-mm heads. (1) In the setting of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database, does the revision risk for any reason differ among 28-, 32-, and 36-mm head sizes in patients undergoing surgery with MoP THA? (2) Does the revision risk resulting from dislocation decrease with increasing head diameter (28-36 mm) in patients undergoing surgery with MoP THA in the same registry? Data were derived from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database, a collaboration among the national arthroplasty registries of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. Patients with primary osteoarthritis who had undergone primary THA with a 28-, 32-, or 36-mm MoP bearing from 2003 to 2014 were included. Patients operated on with dual-mobility cups were excluded. In patients with bilateral THA, only the first operated hip was included. After applying the inclusion criteria, the number of patients and THAs with a complete data set was determined to be 186,231, which accounted for 51% of all hips (366,309) with primary osteoarthritis operated on with THA of any head size and bearing type during the study observation time. Of the included patients, 60% (111,046 of 186,231) were women, the mean age at surgery was 70 (± 10) years, and the median followup was 4.5 years (range, 0-14 years). A total of 101,094 patients had received a 28-mm, 57,853 a 32-mm, and 27,284 a 36-mm head with 32 mm used as the reference group. The revision of any component for any reason was the primary outcome and revision for dislocation was the secondary outcome. Very few patients are estimated to be lost to followup because emigration in the population of interest (older than 65-70 years) is rare. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate THA survival for each group, whereas Cox regression models were fitted to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for THA revision comparing the 28- and 36-mm head diameters with the 32-mm head diameters adjusting for age, sex, year of surgery, type of cup and stem fixation, polyethylene type (crosslinked versus conventional), and surgical approach. In the adjusted Cox regression model, there was no difference in the adjusted risk for revision for any reason between patients with 28-mm (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.97-0.16) and 32-mm heads, whereas the risk of revision was higher for patients with 36-mm heads (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.04-1.26) compared with patients with 32-mm heads. Patients with 28-mm heads had a higher risk of revision for dislocation (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.38-1.98) compared with 32 mm, whereas there was no difference between patients with 36-mm (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02) and 32-mm heads. After adjusting for relevant confounding variables, we found no benefits for 32-mm heads against 28 mm in terms of overall revision risk. However, when dislocation risk is considered, 32-mm heads would be a better option, because they had a lower risk of revision resulting from dislocation. There were no benefits with the use of 36-mm heads over 32 mm, because the transition from 32 to 36 mm was associated with a higher risk of revision for all reasons, which was not accompanied by a decrease in the risk of revision resulting from dislocation. The use of 32-mm heads appears to offer the best compromise between joint stability and other reasons for revision in MoP THA. Further studies with longer followup, especially of 36-mm heads, as well as better balance of confounders across head sizes and better control of patient-related risk factors for THA revision are needed. Level III, therapeutic study.

Risk and risk factors for revision after primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy and osteoarthritis: a Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association study

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has gained increasing popularity in the treatment of rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the survival of RSA and the risk factors for revision following RSA. RSA patients with CTA or osteoarthritis were identified from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association registry data (2004-2013). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate survival probabilities. Cox multiple regression analysis was used to calculate revision rates adjusted for sex, arthroplasty brand, age (<70 years), and year of surgery. The study included 1904 patients with RSA (1904 RSAs) (69% women; mean age, 74 years; age range, 35-97 years). Revision was performed in 95 patients (5%), with a 10-year cumulative revision rate of 0.91. The most common reason for revision was infection (n = 42), followed by loosening (n = 16) and instability (n = 12). Most revisions occurred less than 6 months after the primary operation. Men had a significantly increased risk of revision compared with women (risk ratio, 3.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.4-6.1). The most common implants were the Delta Xtend (n = 1366) and Delta Mark III (n = 246). The risk of revision of the Delta Mark III was 2.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-4.3) compared with the Delta Xtend. Age and year of surgery were not statistically significantly associated with risk of revision. The overall midterm risk of revision after RSA for CTA was low (5%). The most common reason for early revision was infection. Male sex was associated with a significantly increased risk of revision.

Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty used for glenohumeral osteoarthritis has higher survival rates than hemiarthroplasty: a Nordic registry-based study

To report the10-year survival rates of different shoulder arthroplasty types used for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Data from 2004 to 2013 was prospectively collected by the national shoulder arthroplasty registers in Denmark, Norway and Sweden and merged into a harmonized dataset under the umbrella of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association. The common dataset included data that all three registers could deliver and where consensus regarding definitions could be made. Revision was defined as removal or exchange of any component or the addition of a glenoid component. The cumulative survival rates at 10 years after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA) (n=1,923), stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) (n=1,587) and anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) (n=2,340) were 0.85, 0.93 and 0.96 respectively (P<0.001, Log rank test). RHA (HR: 2.5; CI 1.9-3.4, P<0.001) and SHA (HR: 1.4; CI 1.0-2.0, P<0.04) had an increased risk of revision compared to TSA. Gender, age and period of surgery were included in the Cox regression model. For patients below 55 years, the 10-year cumulative survival rates were 0.75 (RHA, n=354), 0.81 (SHA, n=146), and 0.87 (TSA, n=201). Anatomical TSA had the highest implant-survival rate. Young patients had, independently of the arthroplasty type, lower implant-survival rates. The treatment of young patients with end-stage osteoarthritis remains a challenge.

Hospital volume and the risk of revision in Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in the Nordic countries -an observational study of 14,496 cases

BackgroundHigh 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.Methods14,496 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).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionLow 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.

Does hydroxyapatite coating of uncemented cups improve long-term survival? An analysis of 28,605 primary total hip arthroplasty procedures from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA).

It is unclear whether hydroxyapatite (HA) coating of uncemented cups used in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) improves bone ingrowth and reduces the risk of aseptic loosening. We therefore investigated survival of different uncemented cups that were available with or without HA coating. We investigated three different cup types used with or without HA coating registered in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database that were inserted due to osteoarthritis (n=28,605). Cumulative survival rates and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for the risk of revision were calculated. Unadjusted 13-year survival for cup revision due to aseptic loosening was 97.9% (CI: 96.5-99.4) for uncoated and 97.8% (CI: 96.3-99.4) for HA-coated cups. Adjusted HRs were 0.66 (CI 0.42-1.04) for the presence of HA coating during the first 10 years and 0.87 (CI 0.14-5.38) from year 10-13, compared with uncoated cups. When considering the endpoint cup revision for any reason, unadjusted 13-year survival was similar for uncoated (92.5% [CI: 90.1-94.9]) and HA-coated (94.7% [CI: 93.2-96.3]) cups. The risk of revision of any component due to infection was higher in THA with HA-coated cups than in THA with uncoated cups (adjusted HR 1.4 [CI 1.1-1.9]). HA-coated cups have a similar risk of aseptic loosening as uncoated cups, thus the use of HA coating seems to not confer any added value in terms of implant stability. The risk of infection seemed higher in THA with use of HA-coated cups, an observation that must be investigated further.

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

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.

Revision after shoulder replacement for acute fracture of the proximal humerus

Background and purpose — For more than half a century, stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) has been used in the treatment of comminuted and displaced fractures of the proximal humerus. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) has been increasingly popular in cases where it is difficult to obtain satisfactory fixation of the tuberosities. We report revision rates and reasons for revision after shoulder arthroplasty for acute fractures of the proximal humerus.Patients and methods — This study was based on a common dataset from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA), which includes data reported to the national shoulder arthroplasty registries in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. We included 6,756 shoulder arthroplasties performed for acute fractures between 2004 and 2013.Results — There were 6,112 SHAs (90%) and 565 RSAs (8.4%). The cumulative arthroplasty survival rate after 5 years was 0.96 for both SHA and RSA. The relative risk of revision of RSA was 1.4 (95% CI: 0.9–2.2) with SHA as reference. For both types of arthroplasty, the most common reason for revision was infection (SHA 0.8%, RSA 2.1%). The relative risk of revision due to infection was 3.1 (95% CI: 1.6–5.9) for RSA with SHA as reference. The relative risk of revision for patients who were less than 75 years of age was 2.8 (95% CI: 2.0–3.8) compared to older patients.Interpretation — Revision after shoulder arthroplasty for acute fractures was rare. Survival rates were similar between SHA and RSA, but RSA had a statistically significant and clinically relevant higher risk of revision because of infection.

Reverse hybrid total hip arthroplasty

Background and purpose — The use of a cemented cup together with an uncemented stem in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become popular in Norway and Sweden during the last decade. The results of this prosthetic concept, reverse hybrid THA, have been sparsely described. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) has already published 2 papers describing results of reverse hybrid THAs in different age groups. Based on data collected over 2 additional years, we wanted to perform in depth analyses of not only the reverse hybrid concept but also of the different cup/stem combinations used.Patients and methods — From the NARA, we extracted data on reverse hybrid THAs from January 1, 2000 until December 31, 2013. 38,415 such hips were studied and compared with cemented THAs. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses were used to estimate the prosthesis survival and the relative risk of revision. The main endpoint was revision for any reason. We also performed specific analyses regarding the different reasons for revision and analyses regarding the cup/stem combinations used in more than 500 cases.Results — We found a higher rate of revision for reverse hybrids than for cemented THAs, with an adjusted relative risk of revision (RR) of 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3–1.5). At 10 years, the survival rate was 94% (CI: 94–95) for cemented THAs and 92% (95% CI: 92–93) for reverse hybrids. The results for the reverse hybrid THAs were inferior to those for cemented THAs in patients aged 55 years or more (RR =1.1, CI: 1.0–1.3; p < 0.05). We found a higher rate of early revision due to periprosthetic femoral fracture for reverse hybrids than for cemented THAs in patients aged 55 years or more (RR =3.1, CI: 2.2–4.5; p < 0.001).Interpretation — Reverse hybrid THAs had a slightly higher rate of revision than cemented THAs in patients aged 55 or more. The difference in survival was mainly caused by a higher incidence of early revision due to periprosthetic femoral fracture in the reversed hybrid THAs.

Different incidences of knee arthroplasty in the Nordic countries

Background and purpose — The annual number of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) has increased worldwide in recent years. To make projections regarding future needs for primaries and revisions, additional knowledge is important. We analyzed and compared the incidences among 4 Nordic countriesPatients and methods — Using Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) data from 4 countries, we analyzed differences between age and sex groups. We included patients over 30 years of age who were operated with TKA or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) during the period 1997–2012. The negative binomial regression model was used to analyze changes in general trends and in sex and age groups.Results — The average annual increase in the incidence of TKA was statistically significant in all countries. The incidence of TKA was higher in women than in men in all 4 countries. It was highest in Finland in patients aged 65 years or more. At the end of the study period in 2012, Finland’s total incidence was double that of Norway, 1.3 times that of Sweden and 1.4 times that of Denmark. The incidence was lowest in the youngest age groups (< 65 years) in all 4 countries. The proportional increase in incidence was highest in patients who were younger than 65 years.Interpretation — The incidence of knee arthroplasty steadily increased in the 4 countries over the study period. The differences between the countries were considerable, with the highest incidence in Finland. Patients aged 65 years or more contributed to most of the total incidence of knee arthroplasty.

Implant survival of the most common cemented total hip devices from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database

Background and purpose — According to previous Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) data, the 10-year implant survival of cemented total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is 94% in patients aged 65–74 and 96% in patients aged 75 or more. Here we report a brand-level comparison of cemented THA based on the NARA database, which has not been done previously.Patients and methods — We determined the rate of implant survival of the 9 most common cemented THAs in the NARA database. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis with 95% CI to study implant survival at 10 and 15 years, and Cox multiple regression to assess survival and hazard ratios (HRs), with revision for any reason as endpoint and with adjustment for age, sex, diagnosis, and femoral head material.Results — Spectron EF THA (89.9% (CI: 89.3–90.5)) and Elite THA (89.8% (CI: 89.0–90.6)) had the lowest 10-year survivorship. Lubinus (95.7% survival, CI: 95.5–95.9), MS 30 (96.6%, CI: 95.8–97.4), and C-stem THA (95.8%, CI: 94.8–96.8) had a 10-year survivorship of at least 95%. Lubinus (revision risk (RR) = 0.77, CI: 0.73–0.81), Müller (RR =0.83, CI: 0.70–0.99), MS-30 (RR =0.73, CI: 0.63–0.86), C-stem (RR =0.70, CI: 0.55–0.90), and Exeter Duration THA (RR =0.84, CI: 0.77–0.90) had a lower risk of revision than Charnley THA, the reference implant.Interpretation — The Spectron EF THA and the Elite THA had a lower implant survival than the Charnley, Exeter, and Lubinus THAs. Implant survival of the Müller, MS 30, CPT, and C-stem THAs was above the acceptable limit for 10-year survival.

Is it feasible to merge data from national shoulder registries? A new collaboration within the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association

The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association was initiated in 2007, and several papers about hip and knee arthroplasty have been published. Inspired by this, we aimed to examine the feasibility of merging data from the Nordic national shoulder arthroplasty registries by defining a common minimal data set. A group of surgeons met in 2014 to discuss the feasibility of merging data from the national shoulder registries in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Differences in organization, definitions, variables, and outcome measures were discussed. A common minimal data set was defined as a set of variables containing only data that all registries could deliver and where consensus according to definition of the variables could be made. We agreed on a data set containing patient-related data (age, gender, and diagnosis), operative data (date, arthroplasty type and brand), and data in case of revision (date, reason for revision, and new arthroplasty brand). From 2004 to 2013, there were 19,857 primary arthroplasties reported. The most common indications were osteoarthritis (35%) and acute fracture (34%). The number of arthroplasties and especially the number of arthroplasties for osteoarthritis have increased in the study period. The most common arthroplasty type was total shoulder arthroplasty (34%) for osteoarthritis and stemmed hemiarthroplasty (90%) for acute fractures. We were able to merge data from the Nordic national registries into 1 common data set; however, the set of details was reduced. We found considerable differences between the 3 countries regarding incidence of shoulder arthroplasty, age, diagnoses, and choice of arthroplasty type and brand.

Association between hospital procedure volume and risk of revision after total hip arthroplasty: a population-based study within the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database

Outcome after total hip arthroplasty (THA) depends on several factors related to the patient, the surgeon and the implant. It has been suggested that the annual number of procedures per hospital affects the prognosis. We aimed to examine if hospital procedure volume was associated with the risk of revision after primary THA in the Nordic countries from 1995 to 2011. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database provided information about primary THA, revision and annual hospital volume. Hospitals were divided into five volume groups (1-50, 51-100, 101-200, 201-300, >300). The outcome of interest was risk of revision 1, 2, 5, 10 and 15 years after primary THA. Multivariable regression was used to assess the relative risk (RR) of revision. 417,687 THAs were included. For the 263,176 cemented THAs no differences were seen 1 year after primary procedure. At 2, 5, 10 and 15 years the four largest hospital volume groups had a reduced risk of revision compared to group 1-50. After 10 years RR was for volume group 51-100 0.79 (CI 0.65-0.95), group 101-200 0.76 (CI 0.61-0.95), group 201-300 0.74 (CI 0.57-0.96) and group >300 0.57 (CI 0.46-0.71). For the uncemented THAs an association between hospital volume and risk of revision were only present for hospitals producing 201-300 THAs per year, beginning at years 2 through 5 and in all subsequent time intervals to 15 years. Hospital procedure volume was associated with a long term risk of revision after primary cemented THA. Hospitals operating 50 procedures or less per year had an increased risk of revision after 2, 5, 10 and 15 years follow up.

Increased risk of revision for infection in rheumatoid arthritis patients with total hip replacements

Background and purpose — Medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has changed dramatically over the last 15 years, including immune modulation. We investigated the risk of revision for infection after primary total hip replacement (THR) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over a 16-year period, and compared it with that in THR patients with osteoarthritis (OA).Patients and methods — We identified 13,384 THRs in RA patients and 377,287 THRs in OA patients from 1995 through 2010 in a dataset from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA). Kaplan-Meier survival curves, with revision for infection as the endpoint, were constructed. Cox regression analyses were performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) of revision for infection adjusted for age, sex, fixation technique, and year of primary surgery.Results — RA patients had a 1.3 times (95% CI 1.0–1.6) higher risk of revision for infection. After 2001, this risk increased more for RA patients than for OA patients. During the first 3 months and from 8 years postoperatively, the risk of revision for infection was higher in RA patients with THRs fixated with antibiotic-loaded cement than in corresponding OA patients.Interpretation — We found a slightly higher overall risk of revision for infection in RA patients than in OA patients, but this difference was only present after 2001. In THRs with antibiotic-loaded cement, the risk of very early and late infections leading to revision was higher in RA patients than in OA patients.

Increased risk of revision of cementless stemmed total hip arthroplasty with metal-on-metal bearings

Background and purpose — Data from the national joint registries in Australia and England and Wales have revealed inferior medium-term survivorship for metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) than for metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) THA. Based on data from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA), we compared the revision risk of cementless stemmed THA with MoM and MoP bearings and we also compared MoM THA to each other.Patients and methods — We identified 32,678 patients who were operated from 2002 through 2010 with cementless stemmed THA with either MoM bearings (11,567 patients, 35%) or MoP bearings (21,111 patients, 65%). The patients were followed until revision, death, emigration, or the end of the study period (December 31, 2011), and median follow-up was 3.6 (interquartile range (IQR): 2.4–4.8) years for MoM bearings and 3.4 (IQR: 2.0–5.8) years for MoP bearings. Multivariable regression in the presence of competing risk of death was used to assess the relative risk (RR) of revision for any reason (with 95% confidence interval (CI)).Results — The cumulative incidence of revision at 8 years of follow-up was 7.0% (CI: 6.0–8.1) for MoM bearings and 5.1% (CI: 4.7–5.6) for MoP bearings. At 6 years of follow-up, the RR of revision for any reason was 1.5 (CI: 1.3–1.7) for MoM bearings compared to MoP bearings. The RR of revision for any reason was higher for the ASR (adjusted RR = 6.4, CI: 5.0–8.1), the Conserve Plus (adjusted RR = 1.7, CI: 1.1–2.5) and “other” acetabular components (adjusted RR = 2.4, CI: 1.5–3.9) than for MoP THA at 6 years of follow-up.Interpretation — At medium-term follow-up, the survivorship for cementless stemmed MoM THA was inferior to that for MoP THA, and metal-related problems may cause higher revision rates for MoM bearings with longer follow-up.

The next critical role of orthopedic registries

The next critical role of orthopedic registries

The prognosis of total hip replacement in patients younger than 55 years of age. Results of 28,480 primary replacements from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association

Introduction The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient and surgery related risk factors for revision following primary THR in patients younger than 55 years of age using the large population-based NARA dataset. Materials and methods Through the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) dataset we identified all primary THRs due to osteoarthritis in patients younger than 55 years of age performed in four Nordic countries from 1995–2011 ( n = 28,480). We estimated overall risk for revision due to any reason, due to aseptic loosening, and risk for any revision within 2 years. We used Cox regression analyses to calculated crude and adjusted Hazard ratio as a relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) in order to study patient and surgery related risk factors for revision. Results Overall revision risk following primary THR due to any cause was 7.9% (2240 out of 28,480 primary THR), whereas the revision risk due to aseptic loosening was 4.2% (1192 out of 28,480 primary THR). No difference in any revision risk regarding sex and age was evident, but female had lower risk of revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.76–0.76). Uncemented implant had reduced risk for overall revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.45–0.59), whereas hybrid implants had higher risk for overall any revision compared with cemented technique (RR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.13–1.45). However, overall differences were only observed during the period 1997-2003. Sex and age subgroup analyses reviled, that uncemented implants also had higher risk of any revision among females older than 45 years, whereas hybrid implants had particularly high risk for any revision among males older than 45 years. Conclusion Our large population-based study provides evidence that age, sex and calendar year of surgery were not risk factors for either overall any revision or revision due to aseptic loosening. In general, hybrid implant had higher risk for any revision, whereas uncemented implant had lower risk of revision due to aseptic loosening. However, the risk estimates for fixation technique were dependent on calendar year of surgery, as well as on age and gender.

Periprosthetic femoral fracture within two years after total hip replacement: analysis of 437,629 operations in the nordic arthroplasty register association database.

We used the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database to evaluate whether age, sex, preoperative diagnosis, fixation, and implant design influence the risk of revision arthroplasty due to periprosthetic fracture within two years from operation of a primary total hip replacement. Included in the study were 325,730 cemented femoral stems and 111,899 uncemented femoral stems inserted from 1995 to 2009. Seven frequently used stems (two cemented stems [Exeter and Lubinus SP II] and five uncemented stems [Bi-Metric, Corail, CLS Spotorno, ABG I, and ABG II]) were specifically studied. The incidence of revision at two years was low: 0.47% for uncemented stems and 0.07% for cemented stems. Uncemented stems were much more likely to have this complication (relative risk, 8.72 [95% confidence interval, 7.37 to 10.32]; p < 0.0005). Age had no consistent influence on the risk for revision of cemented stems, but revision in the uncemented group increased with increasing age. A cemented stem was associated with a higher risk in male patients compared with female patients (hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% confidence interval, 1.51 to 2.53]; p < 0.0005), whereas an uncemented stem was associated with a reduced risk in male patients compared with female patients (hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.89]; p = 0.001). The risk for revision due to early periprosthetic fracture increased during the 2003 to 2009 period compared with the 1995 to 2002 period both before and after adjustment for demographic factors and fixation (relative risk, 1.44 [95% confidence interval, 1.18 to 1.69]; p < 0.0005). The hazard ratio for the Exeter stem was about five times higher than that for the Lubinus SP II stem (hazard ratio, 5.03 [95% confidence interval, 3.29 to 7.70]; p < 0.0005). Of the five uncemented stems, the ABG II stem showed an increased hazard ratio of 1.63 (95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 2.28) (p = 0.005), whereas the Corail stem showed a decreased hazard ratio of 0.47 (95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.65) (p < 0.0005) compared with the reference Bi-Metric design. The shape and surface finish of the femoral stem and its fixation could be related to the increased risk of some prosthetic designs. Even if the incidence of early periprosthetic fracture in general is low and other reasons for revision must be considered, specific attention should be given to the choice of fixation and stem design in risk groups. Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Hydroxyapatite coating does not improve uncemented stem survival after total hip arthroplasty!

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.