Survival rates and causes of revision in cemented primary total knee replacement

Author:

Gøthesen Ø.1,Espehaug B.2,Havelin L.2,Petursson G.3,Lygre S.4,Ellison P.5,Hallan G.2,Furnes O.2

Affiliation:

1. Haugesund Hospital, Helse Fonna HF, Orthopaedic Department, Karmsundsgate 120, 5521 Haugesund, Norway.

2. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Haukeland University Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Jonas Lies vei 65, 5021 Bergen, Norway.

3. Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital, Lovisenberggata 17, N-0440 Oslo, Norway.

4. Haukeland University Hospital, Department of Occupational Medicine, Jonas Lies vei 65, 5021 Bergen, Norway.

5. University of Bergen, Department of Surgical Sciences, Institute of Medicine and Dentistry, Jonas Lies vei 65, 5021 Bergen, Norway.

Abstract

We evaluated the rates of survival and cause of revision of seven different brands of cemented primary total knee replacement (TKR) in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the years 1994 to 2009. Revision for any cause, including resurfacing of the patella, was the primary endpoint. Specific causes of revision were secondary outcomes. Three posterior cruciate-retaining (PCR) fixed modular-bearing TKRs, two fixed non-modular bearing PCR TKRs and two mobile-bearing posterior cruciate-sacrificing TKRs were investigated in a total of 17 782 primary TKRs. The median follow-up for the implants ranged from 1.8 to 6.9 years. Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival ranged from 89.5% to 95.3%. Cox’s relative risk (RR) was calculated relative to the fixed modular-bearing Profix knee (the most frequently used TKR in Norway), and ranged from 1.1 to 2.6. The risk of revision for aseptic tibial loosening was higher in the mobile-bearing LCS Classic (RR 6.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8 to 12.1)), the LCS Complete (RR 7.7 (95% CI 4.1 to 14.4)), the fixed modular-bearing Duracon (RR 4.5 (95% CI 1.8 to 11.1)) and the fixed non-modular bearing AGC Universal TKR (RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 5.1)), compared with the Profix. These implants (except AGC Universal) also had an increased risk of revision for femoral loosening (RR 2.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.8), RR 3.7 (95% CI 1.6 to 8.9), and RR 3.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 11.0), respectively). These results suggest that aseptic loosening is related to design in TKR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:636–42.

Publisher

British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery

Subject

Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery

Reference34 articles.

1. Engesaeter L, Furnes O, Havelin LI, Fenstad AMAnnual report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2010. http://nrlweb.ihelse.net/eng/Report_2010.pdf (date last accessed 5 March 2013).

2. Graves S, Davidson D, Tomkins A, et al.

3. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties

4. Early failures among 7,174 primary total knee replacements: A follow-up study from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994-2000

5. Registration completeness in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3