Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On the basis of the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, which has recorded nearly all primary hip prostheses and revisions in Norway since 1987, we studied risk factors for prosthesis luxation leading to revision. 7 prosthesis brand combinations used in 42,987 primary operations were included from 1987-2000. We found that femoral head size was an important risk factor; 28 mm heads led to revision more often than 32 mm ones (failure rate ratio (FRR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-7.3). Charnley (22 mm head) performed equally well or better than the 28 mm heads. The Exeter stem and cup is the type of prosthesis on the Norwegian market with more than two femoral head sizes (26, 28, 30, 32 mm) and 26 mm heads led to revision due to luxation significantly more often than 30 mm heads (FRR 4.1, 95%CI 2.2-8.1). Old age, preoperative diagnosis, and choice of prosthesis brand combination were also important factors affecting the revision rate due to luxation. A posterior approach increased the risk of revision more than a lateral one (FRR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4-2.5). Gender, trochanteric osteotomy and duration of the operation did not affect the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated associations between the survival of total hip replacements (THRs), type of hospital and annual number of THRs per hospital. The study was based on 39,505 primary THRs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 45 local (n 20,756), 15 central (n 12,455) and 10 university hospitals (n 6,294) during 1988-1996. The annual number of THRs was highest at central and university hospitals, both of which are training hospitals. University hospitals were further characterized by the lowest mean annual number of THRs performed per surgeon. For cemented THRs, with adjustment for gender, age, diagnosis, surgical procedure, and annual hospital volume, the revision rates at central and university hospitals were 0.8 (95% confidence interval: 0.67-0.95) and 1.2 (CI: 1.02-1.47) times that of local hospitals, respectively. A high annual number of cemented THRs per hospital was not associated with lower revision rates. In uncemented THRs, survival results were similar in central and local hospitals, whereas the adjusted revision rate at university hospitals was 1.6 (CI: 1.13-2.19) times that of local hospitals. The adjusted 6.5 year revision probability was 12% in hospitals performing < or = 10 uncemented THRs per year (n 606), 8% in hospitals performing from 18-28 operations (n 1,378) and 5% in hospitals performing > 84 operations (n 526). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]