Literature DB >> 8553813

Early revision among 12,179 hip prostheses. A comparison of 10 different brands reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, 1987-1993.

B Espehaug1, L I Havelin, L B Engesaeter, S E Vollset, N Langeland.   

Abstract

On the basis of data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the period 1987-1993, we have compared times to revision for 10 different cemented total hip prostheses. A total of 11,169 patients, with 12,179 primary total hip replacements (THRs), performed with high viscosity cement for primary arthrosis and followed for a maximum of 6.4 years, were included in this study. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the overall percentage revised after 5 years was 2.5 (95% Confidence Interval: 2.1-3.0). For the Charnley prosthesis (n 6,694), 2.9% were revised after 5 years (95% CI: 2.3-3.4). Using Cox regression to adjust for gender, age, type of cement and use of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, the Charnley prosthesis was compared with the 9 other brands. The revision rate for the Spectron/ITH combination (Spectron acetabulum, ITH femur) (n 1,034) was only 0.35 (p 0.04) times that of the Charnley prostheses. The Elite/Charnley combination (Elite acetabulum, Charnley femur) (n 507) and the Müller Type prosthesis (n 116) showed poorer results with failure rates 2.3 (p 0.01) and 2.7 times (p 0.04) that of Charnley, respectively. Although the overall results for cemented THRs in general were good, clinically important differences in revision rates were demonstrated among the cemented prosthesis brands. Our findings underline the need for careful evaluation of different total hip replacements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8553813     DOI: 10.3109/17453679509002300

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand        ISSN: 0001-6470


  6 in total

1.  Coordinating retrieval and register studies improves postmarket surveillance.

Authors:  Peter Ellison; Geir Hallan; Paul Johan Høl; Nils Roar Gjerdet; Leif I Havelin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Early subsidence of shape-closed hip arthroplasty stems is associated with late revision. A systematic review and meta-analysis of 24 RSA studies and 56 survival studies.

Authors:  Paul van der Voort; Bart G Pijls; Marc J Nieuwenhuijse; Jorrit Jasper; Marta Fiocco; Josepha W M Plevier; Saskia Middeldorp; Edward R Valstar; Rob G H H Nelissen
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 3.717

3.  A prospective study of hip revision surgery using the Exeter long-stem prosthesis: function, subsidence, and complications for 57 patients.

Authors:  K Randhawa; F S Hossain; B Smith; Cyril Mauffrey; T Lawrence
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2009-10-24

4.  18 years of results with cemented primary hip prostheses in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: concerns about some newer implants.

Authors:  Birgitte Espehaug; Ove Furnes; Lars B Engesaeter; Leif I Havelin
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 3.717

5.  Advantages and limitations of national arthroplasty registries. The need for multicenter registries: the Rempro-SBQ.

Authors:  Luiz Sérgio Marcelino Gomes; Milton Valdomiro Roos; Edmilson Takehiro Takata; Ademir Antônio Schuroff; Sérgio Delmonte Alves; Antero Camisa Júnior; Ricardo Horta Miranda
Journal:  Rev Bras Ortop       Date:  2017-08-30

6.  Restoring global offset and lower limb length with a 3 offset option double-tapered stem.

Authors:  Stefano Biggi; Lorenzo Banci; Riccardo Tedino; Andrea Capuzzo; Gabriele Cattaneo; Stefano Tornago; Andrea Camera
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-10-02       Impact factor: 2.362

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.