• norsk
    • English
  • English 
    • norsk
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Faculty of Medicine
  • Department of Clinical Medicine
  • Department of Clinical Medicine
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Faculty of Medicine
  • Department of Clinical Medicine
  • Department of Clinical Medicine
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

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

Gøthesen, Øystein Johannes; Espehaug, Birgitte; Havelin, Leif Ivar; Petursson, Gunnar; Lygre, Stein Håkon Låstad; Ellison, Peter; Hallan, Geir; Furnes, Ove
Peer reviewed, Journal article
Accepted version
Thumbnail
View/Open
Accepted version (951.3Kb)
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/1956/7596
Date
2013-05
Metadata
Show full item record
Collections
  • Department of Clinical Medicine [1904]
Original version
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.95b5.30271
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 mobilebearing 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 modularbearing 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% CI1.6 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.
Publisher
British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
Journal
Bone and Joint Journal
Copyright
Copyright 2013 The British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit
 

 

Browse

ArchiveCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournalsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsDocument TypesJournals

My Account

Login

Statistics

View Usage Statistics

Contact Us | Send Feedback

Privacy policy
DSpace software copyright © 2002-2019  DuraSpace

Service from  Unit