Exeter and Charnley arthroplasties with Boneloc or high viscosity cement: Comparison of 1, 127 arthroplasties followed for 5 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Furnes, Ove; Lie, Stein Atle; Havelin, Leif Ivar; Vollset, Stein Emil; Engesæter, Lars B.

doi:10.3109/17453679708999017

Cited by 77 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A detailed account of the selection procedures is given in Figure 1. Due to previous reports on inferior results for several cement types (Havelin et al 1995, Furnes et al 1997, Espehaug et al 2002, we included only prostheses where both components had been fixed with either Palacos or Simplex cement. Furthermore, we included only operations with the approaches that had been used in sufficiently high numbers (the lateral or posterolateral surgical approaches, where the lateral approach had been performed either with or without trochanteric osteotomy).…”

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosthesis survival after total hip arthroplasty—does surgical approach matter? Analysis of 19,304 Charnley and 6,002 Exeter primary total hip arthroplasties reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and purposeControversies still exist about whether there is any effect of operative approach on survival of hip prostheses. We compared long-term survival of primary total hip arthroplasties in a welldefined study population from a national prospective population-based registry with regard to the three most commonly used surgical approaches.Methods We assessed prosthesis survival according to surgical approach (the lateral with or without trochanteric osteotomy, and the posterolateral) for 19,304 Charnley and 6,002 Exeter total hip arthroplasties performed from 1987 to 2004.Results For Charnley total hip arthroplasties, lateral approach with trochanteric osteotomy had a lower probability of revision than lateral approach without trochanteric osteotomy (RR = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5-0.8). The lower revision rate was due to fewer revisions for aseptic loosening and dislocation. The differences had declined in the latest time period (1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004). We observed no differences between lateral approach without trochanteric osteotomy and posterolateral approach, except that there were more revisions due to dislocation in the posterolateral approach group (RR = 1.9, 95%CI: 1.1-3.2). No statistically significant differences were observed for Exeter total hip arthroplasties.Interpretation For Charnley prostheses, the lateral approach with trochanteric osteotomy gave a reduced revision risk compared to the other approaches, which was due to fewer revisions for dislocation, and in the

show abstract

Section: Study Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosthesis survival after total hip arthroplasty—does surgical approach matter? Analysis of 19,304 Charnley and 6,002 Exeter primary total hip arthroplasties reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

et al. 2007

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In January 1994, the registration was extended to include information on all types of joint replacement performed in Norway (Furnes et al 1996). In accordance with the main objective of the NAR, the reported data has been used extensively to assess the survival of joint replacements (Engesaeter et al 1992, Havelin et al 1993, 1995a, b, c, 1999, Espehaug et al 1995, 1997a, b, 1998, Havelin 1995, Furnes et al 1996a, b, 1997a, b, Skeide et al 1996, Espehaug 1998a, b, Flugsrud et al 2002, Furnes 2002, Lie 2002, Byström et al 2003, Småbrekke et al 2004). National reports with mainly descriptive statistics are also published annually (http://www.haukeland.no/nrl), and each hospital is given individual information regarding its annual activity and the quality of the surgery performed locally.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Registration completeness in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

et al. 2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

“…Exeter lårbensprotese hadde lavere risiko for revisjon enn Charnley protesen ved bruk av denne sementen (23).…”

Section: Resultaterunclassified

Nasjonalt register for leddproteser: Til beste for pasienter og det norske helsevesenet

m.fl¹

2009

Nor J Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ENGLISH SUMMARY Background:The Norwegian Orthopaedic Association started the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register in 1987. The register was extended to include arthroplasties in all joints in 1994. The aim of the registry was to detect inferior implants, cements and operation techniques as early as possible. Material and methods: All 70 Norwegian hospitals where such operations are performed, and approximately 400 surgeons, report to the register. The prostheses are followed until a revision operation or to the patients dies. Results: Several hip prostheses and cements with inferior results were detected early and are no longer in use. Both the cement type Boneloc and low viscosity cements are removed from the marked after reports from the Norwegian register. With an increasing age in the population and an increasing number of operations on younger patients, the number of prostheses operations, inserting an artificial joint, will increase in the future. Due to the lack of demands for clinical documentation, new products will be introduced to the marked without knowledge on its future qualities. The register will, therefore, continue to be important to survey short term results for new implants and also long term results for established implants.

show abstract

Exeter and Charnley arthroplasties with Boneloc or high viscosity cement: Comparison of 1, 127 arthroplasties followed for 5 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Cited by 77 publications

References 20 publications

Prosthesis survival after total hip arthroplasty—does surgical approach matter? Analysis of 19,304 Charnley and 6,002 Exeter primary total hip arthroplasties reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Prosthesis survival after total hip arthroplasty—does surgical approach matter? Analysis of 19,304 Charnley and 6,002 Exeter primary total hip arthroplasties reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Registration completeness in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Nasjonalt register for leddproteser: Til beste for pasienter og det norske helsevesenet

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About