In 1985, the Norwegian Orthopaedic Association decided to establish a national hip register, and the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register was started in 1987. In January 1994, it was extended to include all artificial joints. The main purpose of the register is to detect inferior results of implants as early as possible. All hospitals participate, and the orthopedic surgeons are supposed to report all primary operations and all revisions. Using the patient's unique national social security number, the revision can be linked to the primary operation, and survival analyses of the implants are done. In general, the survival analyses are performed with the Kaplan-Meier method or using Cox multiple regression analysis with adjustment for possible confounding factors such as age, gender, and diagnosis. Survival probabilities can be calculated for each of the prosthetic components. The end-point in the analyses is revision surgery, and we can assess the rate of revision due to specific causes like aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. Not only survival, but also pain, function, and satisfaction have been registered for subgroups of patients.We receive reports about more than 95% of the prosthesis operations. The register has detected inferior implants 3 years after their introduction, and several uncemented prostheses were abandoned during the early 1990s due to our documentation of poor performance. Further, our results also contributed to withdrawal of the Boneloc cement. The register has published papers on economy, prophylactic use of antibiotics, patients' satisfaction and function, mortality, and results for different hospital categories.In the analyses presented here, we have compared the results of primary cemented and uncemented hip prostheses in patients less than 60 years of age, with 0-11 years' follow-up. The uncemented circumferentially porous-or hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated femoral stems had better survival rates than the cemented ones. In young patients, we found that cemented cups had better survival than uncemented porous-coated cups, mainly because of higher rates of revision from wear and osteolysis among the latter. The uncemented HA-coated cups with more than 6 years of follow-up had an increased revision rate, compared to cemented cups due to aseptic loosening as well as wear and osteolysis.We now present new findings about the six commonest cemented acetabular and femoral components. Generally, the results were good, with a prosthesis survival of 95% or better at 10 years, and the differences among the prosthesis brands were small.Since the practice of using undocumented implants has not changed, the register will continue to survey these implants. We plan to assess the mid-and long-term results of implants that have so far had good short-term results.n

BackgroundHaving a positive attitude towards evidence-based practice and being able to see the value of evidence-based practice for patients have been reported as important for the implementation of evidence-based practice among nurses.The aim of this study was to map self-reported beliefs towards EBP and EBP implementation among nurses, and to investigate whether there was a positive correlation between EBP beliefs and EBP implementation.MethodWe carried out a cross-sectional study among 356 nurses at a specialist hospital for the treatment of cancer in Norway. The Norwegian translations of the Evidence-based Practice Belief Scale and the Evidence-based Practice Implementation Scale were used.ResultsIn total, 185 nurses participated in the study (response rate 52%). The results showed that nurses were positive towards evidence-based practice, but only practised it to a small extent. There was a positive correlation (r) between beliefs towards evidence-based practice and implementation of evidence-based practice (r = 0.59, p = 0.001).There was a statistical significant positive, but moderate correlation between all the four subscales of the EBP Beliefs Scale (beliefs related to: 1) knowledge, 2) resources, 3) the value of EBP and 4) difficulty and time) and the EBP Implementation Scale, with the highest correlation observed for beliefs related to knowledge (r = 0.38, p < .0001). Participants who had learned about evidence-based practice had significantly higher scores on the Evidence-based Practice Belief Scale than participants who were unfamiliar with evidence-based practice. Those involved in evidence-based practice working groups also reported significantly higher scores on the Evidence-based Practice Belief Scale than participants not involved in these groups.ConclusionThis study shows that nurses have a positive attitude towards evidence-based practice, but practise it to a lesser extent. There was a positive correlation between beliefs about evidence-based practice and implementation of evidence-based practice. Beliefs related to knowledge appear to have the greatest effect on implementation of evidence-based practice. Having knowledge and taking part in evidence-based practice working groups seem important.

BackgroundThere has been an increasing interest in reablement in Norway recently and many municipalities have implemented this form of rehabilitation despite a lack of robust evidence of its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of reablement in home-dwelling older adults compared with usual care in relation to daily activities, physical functioning, and health-related quality of life.MethodsThis is a parallel-group randomised controlled trial conducted in a rural municipality in Norway. Sixty-one home-dwelling older adults with functional decline were randomised to an intervention group (n = 31) or a control group (n = 30). The intervention group received ten weeks of multicomponent home-based rehabilitation. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was used to measure self-perceived activity performance and satisfaction with performance. In addition, physical capacity and health-related quality of life were measured. The participants were assessed at baseline and at 3- and 9-month follow-ups.ResultsThere were significant improvements in mean scores favouring reablement in COPM performance at 3 months with a score of 1.5 points (p = 0.02), at 9 months 1.4 points (p = 0.03) and overall treatment 1.5 points (p = 0.01), and for COPM satisfaction at 9 months 1.4 points (p = 0.03) and overall treatment 1.2 points (p = 0.04). No significant group differences were found concerning COPM satisfaction at 3 months, physical capacity or health-related quality of life.ConclusionA 10-week reablement program resulted in better activity performance and satisfaction with performance on a long-term basis, but not the other outcomes measured.Trial registrationThe trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov November 20, 2012, identifier NCT02043262.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-015-0142-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We studied the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis, systemically and in bone cement, on the revision rate of cemented total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the period 1987-2001. To have comparable groups, only THAs performed because of primary osteoarthritis, using cemented implants with documented good results, and high-viscosity cement were included. If systemic antibiotic prophylaxis had been given, only operations with cephalosporin or penicillin were selected. Cox-estimated survival relative revision risks (RR) are presented with adjustment for differences among groups in gender, age, cement brand, type of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, type of prosthesis, type of operating room, and duration of the operation. Of 22,170 THAs studied, 696 THAs (3.1%) were revised, 440 (2.0%) for aseptic loosening and 102 (0.5%) for deep infection. We found the lowest risk of revision when the antibiotic prophylaxis was given both systemically and in the cement (15,676 THAs). Compared to this combined regime, patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis only systemically (5,960 THAs) had a 1.4 times higher revision rate with all reasons for revision as endpoint (p = 0.001), 1.3 times higher with aseptic loosening (p = 0.02) and 1.8 times higher with infection as the endpoint (p = 0.01). With the combined antibiotic regime, the results were better if antibiotics were given 4 times on the day of surgery (2,194 THAs), as compared to once (1,424 THAs) (p < 0.001), twice (2,680 THAs) (p < 0.001), or 3 times (5,522 THAs) (p = 0.02). Those who received systemic prophylaxis a single day 1, 2 or 3 times, as compared to 4 times, had a revision rate 1.8-3.5 times higher with all reasons for revision as endpoint, 1.5-3.1 times higher with aseptic loosening, and 2.7-6.8 times higher with infection. When we compared systemic prophylaxis 4 times in 1 day, no further improvement resulted in those given systemic prophylaxis for 2 days (1,928 THAs) or 3 days (717 THAs). In a subset of data including only the Charnley prosthesis, we obtained similar results. This observational study shows that the best results were recorded when antibiotic prophylaxis was given both systemically and in the bone cement, and if the systemic antibiotic was given 4 times on the day of surgery.

Introduction A high degree of registration completeness is necessary in order to obtain unbiased and accurate register-based study results. We investigated the completeness of registration in the national Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR).Material and methods Registration completeness for the years 1999-2002 was calculated as a percentage, with the number of joint replacements reported to the NAR as numerator and those reported to the Norwegian Patient Register (NPR) as denominator. While the NAR received information directly from the orthopedic surgeons on a voluntary basis, the NPR, which is mandatory, received information from the electronic administrative patient records of the hospitals.Results Registration completeness in the NAR was 97% (97% for primary operations; 101% for revisions). Completeness was 98% (97%; 106%) for hip replacements, and for knee replacements it was 99% (99%; 97%). Hip and knee replacements represented 95% of all operations. However, completeness was poorer for less common joint replacements and poorest for ankle implants (82%; 40%) and wrist implants (52%; 14%). In the NAR, completeness of registration of revisions involving only removal of one or more prosthetic parts was lower than for exchange revisions for all types of joint replacement. For hip implants, 76% of the removal revisions (80% of Girdlestone procedures) were reported, and for knee implants the figure was 62%. According to NPR statistics, removal procedures accounted for 9% of all revisions of hip and knee replacements.Interpretation In the NAR, registration completeness of hip and knee replacements was high both for