Literature DB >> 23632673

Survival rates and causes of revision in cemented primary total knee replacement: a report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994-2009.

O Gøthesen1, B Espehaug, L Havelin, G Petursson, S Lygre, P Ellison, G Hallan, O Furnes.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23632673     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B5.30271

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint J        ISSN: 2049-4394            Impact factor:   5.082


  40 in total

1.  Persistent post-surgical pain and neuropathic pain after total knee replacement.

Authors:  Georgios I Drosos; Triantafilia Triantafilidou; Athanasios Ververidis; Cristina Agelopoulou; Theodosia Vogiatzaki; Konstantinos Kazakos
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-08-18

2.  International comparative evaluation of knee replacement with fixed or mobile-bearing posterior-stabilized prostheses.

Authors:  Stephen Graves; Art Sedrakyan; Valborg Baste; Terence J Gioe; Robert Namba; Olga Martínez Cruz; Susanna Stea; Elizabeth Paxton; Samprit Banerjee; Abby J Isaacs; Otto Robertsson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  International comparative evaluation of knee replacement with fixed or mobile non-posterior-stabilized implants.

Authors:  Robert Namba; Stephen Graves; Otto Robertsson; Ove Furnes; Susanna Stea; Lluis Puig-Verdié; Daniel Hoeffel; Guy Cafri; Elizabeth Paxton; Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  [Tumor prostheses : Important in modern revision arthroplasty].

Authors:  A Hillmann; I Ipach
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 1.087

5.  Factors affecting the osteolysis around the components after posterior-stabilized total knee replacement arthroplasty.

Authors:  Chang Wan Kim; Seung Suk Seo; Jung Han Kim; Hyeong Joo Lee; Chang Rack Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 6.  No differences between fixed- and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  B L Fransen; D C van Duijvenbode; M J M Hoozemans; B J Burger
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-06-20       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 7.  Common controversies in total knee replacement surgery: Current evidence.

Authors:  Vasileios S Nikolaou; Dimitrios Chytas; George C Babis
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2014-09-18

8.  Local infiltration analgesia combined with a standardized multimodal approach including an adductor canal block in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded clinical trial.

Authors:  Dimitra Tziona; Marianna Papaioannou; Argyro Mela; Styliani Potamianou; Alexandros Makris
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 2.078

9.  International comparative evaluation of fixed-bearing non-posterior-stabilized and posterior-stabilized total knee replacements.

Authors:  Thomas Comfort; Valborg Baste; Miquel Angel Froufe; Robert Namba; Barbara Bordini; Otto Robertsson; Guy Cafri; Elizabeth Paxton; Art Sedrakyan; Stephen Graves
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Have the Causes of Revision for Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties Changed During the Past Two Decades?

Authors:  Gro S Dyrhovden; Stein Håkon L Lygre; Mona Badawy; Øystein Gøthesen; Ove Furnes
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-03-15       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.