Search

Background and purpose - Focus on prevention, surveillance, and treatment of infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the last decade has resulted in new knowledge and guidelines. Previous publications have suggested an increased incidence of surgical revisions due to infection after THA. We assessed whether there have been changes in the risk of revision due to deep infection after primary THAs reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) over the period 2005-2019.Patients and methods - Primary THAs reported to the NAR from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2019 were included. Adjusted Cox regression analyses with the first revision due to deep infection after primary THA were performed. We investigated changes in the risk of revision as a function of time of primary THA. Time was stratified into 5-year periods. We studied the whole population of THAs, and the subgroups: all-cemented, all-uncemented, reverse hybrid (cemented cup), and hybrid THAs (cemented stem). In addition, we investigated factors that were associated with the risk of revision, and changes in the time span from primary THA to revision.Results - Of the 108,854 primary THAs that met the inclusion criteria, 1,365 (1.3%) were revised due to deep infection. The risk of revision due to infection, at any time after primary surgery, increased through the period studied. Compared with THAs implanted in 2005-2009, the relative risk of revision due to infection was 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.7) for 2010-2014, and 1.6 (1.1-1.9) for 2015-2019. We found an increased risk for all types of implant fixation. Compared to 2005-2009, for all THAs, the risk of revision due to infection 0-30 days postoperatively was 2.2 (1.8-2.8) for 2010-2014 and 2.3 (1.8-2.9) for 2015-2019, 31-90 days postoperatively 1.0 (0.7-1.6) for 2010-2014 and 1.6 (1.0-2.5) for 2015-2019, and finally 91 days-1 year postoperatively 1.1 (0.7-1.8) for 2010-2014 and 1.6 (1.0-2.6) for 2015-2019. From 1 to 5 years postoperatively, the risk of revision due to infection was similar to 2005-2009 for both the subsequent time periodsInterpretation - The risk of revision due to deep infection after THA increased throughout the period 2005-2019, but appears to have levelled out after 2010. The increase was mainly due to an increased risk of early revisions, and may partly have been caused by a change of practice rather than a change in the incidence of infection.

Background and purpose - About one-fourth of hip fracture patients have cognitive impairment. We investigated whether patients' cognitive function affects surgical treatment, risk of reoperation, and mortality after hip fracture, based on data in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR).Patients and methods - This prospective cohort study included 87,573 hip fractures reported to the NHFR in 2005-2017. Hazard rate ratios (HRRs) for risk of reoperation and mortality were calculated using Cox regression adjusted for sex, age, ASA class, fracture type, and surgical method.Results - Cognitive impairment was reported in 27% of patients. They were older (86 vs. 82 years) and had higher ASA class than non-impaired patients. There were no differences in fracture type or operation methods. Cognitively impaired patients had a lower overall reoperation rate (4.7% vs. 8.9%, HRR 0.71; 95% CI 0.66-0.76) and lower risk of reoperation after osteosynthesis (HRR 0.58; CI 0.53-0.63) than non-impaired patients. Cognitively impaired hip fracture patients had an increased reoperation risk after hemiarthroplasty (HRR 1.2; CI 1.1-1.4), mainly due to dislocations (1.5% vs. 1.0%, HRR 1.7; CI 1.3-2.1). Risk of dislocation was particularly high following the posterior approach (4.7% vs. 2.8%, HRR 1.8; CI 1.2-2.7). Further, they had a higher risk of reoperation due to periprosthetic fracture after uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HRR 1.6; CI 1.0-2.6). Cognitively impaired hip fracture patients had higher 1-year mortality than those without cognitive impairment (38% vs. 16%, HRR 2.1; CI 2.1-2.2).Interpretation - Our findings support giving cognitively impaired patients the same surgical treatment as non-impaired patients. But since the risk of hemiprosthesis dislocation and periprosthetic fracture was higher in cognitively impaired patients, they should probably not have posterior approach surgery or uncemented implants.

Background: The number of total knee replacements has substantially increased worldwide over the past ten years. Several studies have indicated a correlation between high hospital procedure volume and decreased morbidity and mortality following total knee arthroplasty. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether there is a correlation between procedure volume and the risk of revision following total knee arthroplasty with use of hospital volume data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register., Methods: Thirty-seven thousand, three hundred and eighty-one total knee arthroplasties that were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 1994 to 2010 were used to examine the annual procedure volume per hospital. Hospital volume was divided into five categories according to the number of procedures performed annually: one to twenty-four (low volume), twenty-five to forty-nine (medium volume), fifty to ninety-nine (medium volume), 100 to 149 (high volume), and ≥150 (high volume). Cox regression (adjusted for age, sex, and diagnosis) was used to estimate the proportion of procedures without revision and the risk ratio (RR) of revision. Analyses were also performed for two commonly used prosthesis brands combined., Results: The rate of prosthetic survival at ten years was 92.5% (95% confidence interval, 91.5 to 93.4) for hospitals with an annual volume of one to twenty-four procedures and 95.5% (95% confidence interval, 94.1 to 97.0) for hospitals with an annual volume of ≥150 procedures. We found a significantly lower risk of revision for hospitals with an annual volume of 100 to 149 procedures (relative risk = 0.73 [95% confidence interval, 0.56 to 0.96], p = 0.03) and ≥150 procedures (relative risk = 0.73 [95% confidence interval, 0.54 to 1.00], p = 0.05) compared with hospitals with an annual volume of one to twenty-four procedures. Similar results were found when we analyzed two commonly used prosthesis brands., Conclusions: In the present study, there was a significantly higher rate of revision knee arthroplasties at low-volume hospitals as compared with high-volume hospitals.

Background and Purpose: Controversies still exist regarding the best surgical procedure in the treatment of periprosthetic infection after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Based on data in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR), we have compared the risk of re-revision after 4 different surgical procedures: 2-stage with exchange of the whole prosthesis, 1-stage with exchange of the whole prosthesis, major partial 1-stage with exchange of stem or cup, and minor partial 1-stage with exchange of femoral head and/or acetabular liner., Methods: Between 1987 and 2009, 124,759 primary THAs were reported to the NAR, of which 906 (0.7%) were revised due to infection. Included in this study were the 784 revisions that had been performed by 1 of the 4 different surgical procedures. Cox-estimated survival and relative revision risks are presented with adjustment for differences among groups regarding gender, type of fixation, type of prosthesis, and age at revision., Results: 2-stage procedures were used in 283 revisions (36%), 1-stage in 192 revisions (25%), major partial in 129 revisions (17%), and minor partial in 180 revisions (23%). 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival for all revisions was 83%; it was 92% for those re-revised by 2-stage exchange procedure, 88% for those re-revised by 1-stage exchange procedure, 66% for those re-revised by major partial exchange procedure, and it was 76% for those re-revised by minor partial exchange. Compared to the 2-stage procedure and with any reason for revision as endpoint (180 re-revisions), the risk of re-revision increased 1.4 times for 1-stage (p = 0.2), 4.1 times for major partial exchange (p < 0.001), and 1.5 times for minor partial exchange (p = 0.1). With infection as the endpoint (108 re-revisions), the risk of re-revision increased 2.0 times for 1-stage exchange (p = 0.04), 6.0 times for major partial exchange (p < 0.001), and 2.3 times for minor partial exchange (p = 0.02). Similar results were found when the analyses were restricted to the period 2002-2009., Interpretation: In the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, the survival after revision of infected primary THA with 2-stage implant exchange was slightly superior to that for 1-stage exchange of the whole prosthesis. This result is noteworthy, since 2-stage procedures are often used with the most severe infections. However, debridement with exchange of head and/or liner but with retention of the fixed implant (minor revision) meant that there was a 76% chance of not being re-revised within 2 years.

Background: A displaced femoral neck fracture in patients older than 70 years is a serious injury that influences the patient's quality of life and can cause serious complications or death. Previous national guidelines and a Cochrane review have recommended cemented fixation for arthroplasty to treat hip fractures in older patients, but data suggest that these guidelines are inconsistently followed in many parts of the world; the effects of that must be better characterized.Questions/purposes: The purpose of this study was to evaluate a large group of patients in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register to investigate whether the fixation method in hemiarthroplasty is associated with (1) the risk of reoperation; (2) the mortality rate; and (3) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).Methods: Longitudinally maintained registry data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register with high completeness (93%) and near 100% followup of deaths were used for this report. From 2005 to 2017, 104,993 hip fractures were registered in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Fractures other than intracapsular femoral neck fractures and operative methods other than bipolar hemiarthroplasty, such as osteosynthesis or THA, were excluded. The selection bias risk on using cemented or uncemented hemiarthroplasty is small in Norway because the decision is usually regulated by tender processes at each hospital and not by surgeon. A total of 7539 uncemented hemiarthroplasties (70% women, mean age, 84 years [SD 6] years) and 22,639 cemented hemiarthroplasties (72% women, mean age, 84 years [SD 6] years) were eligible for analysis. Hazard risk ratio (HRR) on reoperation and mortality was calculated in a Cox regression model adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities (according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification), cognitive function, surgical approach, and duration of surgery. At 12 months postoperatively, 65% of patients answered questionnaires regarding pain and quality of life, the results of which were compared between the fixation groups.Results: A higher overall risk of reoperation for any reason was found after uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HRR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.4-1.7; p < 0.001) than after cemented hemiarthroplasty. When assessing reoperations for specific causes, higher risks of reoperation because of periprosthetic fracture (HRR, 5.1; 95% CI, 3.5-7.5; p < 0.001) and infection (HRR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.0-1.5; p = 0.037) were found for uncemented hemiarthroplasty than for cemented procedures. No differences were found in the overall mortality rate after 1 year (HRR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.9-1.0; p = 0.12). Hemiarthroplasty fixation type was not associated with differences in patients' pain (19 versus 20 for uncemented and cemented hemiarthroplasties respectively, p = 0.052) or quality of life (EuroQol [EQ]-VAS score 64 versus 64, p = 0.43, EQ5D index score 0.64 versus 0.63, p = 0.061) 1 year after surgery.Conclusions: Our study found that the fixation method was not associated with differences in pain, quality of life, or the 1-year mortality rate after hemiarthroplasty. Uncemented hemiarthroplasties should not be used when treating elderly patients with hip fractures because there is an increased reoperation risk.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose — The literature is scarce on the outcome of the youngest patients with total hip arthroplasties (THAs). We analyzed register data, revision risk, and related factors in patients 21 years or younger with THAs in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA). Patients and methods — We included all THA patients 21 years or younger reported during 1995 through 2016 to the Danish, Finnish, Norwegian, and Swedish hip arthroplasty registers and merged these into the NARA dataset. Primary outcome was any implant revision. Results — We identified 881 THAs in 747 patients. Mean age at primary surgery was 18 years (9–21). The indications for THA were pediatric hip diseases (33%), systemic inflammatory disease (23%), osteoarthritis (4%), avascular necrosis (12%), hip fracture sequelae (7%), and other diagnoses (21%). Unadjusted 10-year survival for all THAs was 86%. Comparison between indications showed no differences in survival. Uncemented implants were used most frequently. Survival for uncemented and cemented implants was the same adjusted for sex, indication, head size, and time period for primary surgery. Aseptic loosening was the main cause of revision. Interpretation — Both cemented and uncemented fixations seem to be a viable option in this age group, but with a lower implant survival than in older patient groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose — Controversies exist regarding thromboprophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. We studied whether the thromboprophylaxis in hip fracture patients treated with osteosynthesis should start preoperatively or postoperatively. Data were extracted from the nationwide Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR). The risks of postoperative deaths, reoperations, and intraoperative bleeding were studied within 6 months after surgery. Patients and methods — After each operation for hip fracture in Norway the surgeon reports information on the patient, the fracture, and the operation to the NHFR. Cox regression analyses were performed with adjustments for age group, ASA score, sex, duration of surgery, and year of surgery. During the period 2005-2016, 96,599 hip fractures were reported to the register. Only osteosyntheses where low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) were given and with known information on preoperative start of the prophylaxis were included in the analyses. Dalteparin and enoxaparin were used in 58% and 42% of the operations respectively (n = 45,913). Results — Mortality (RR =1.01, 95% CI 0.97-1.06) and risk of reoperation (RR =0.99, CI 0.90-1.08) were similar comparing preoperative and postoperative start of LMWH. Postoperative start reduced the risk of intraoperative bleeding complications compared with preoperative start (RR =0.67, CI 0.51-0.90). Interpretation — The initiation of LMWH did not influence the mortality or the risk of reoperation in hip fracture patients treated with osteosynthesis. Postoperative start of LMWH could possibly decrease the risk of intraoperative bleeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported health-related quality of life is an important outcome measure when assessing the quality of hip fracture surgery. The frequently used EQ-5D index score has unfortunately important limitations. One alternative can be to assess the distribution of each of the five dimensions of the patients' descriptive health profile. The objective of this paper was to investigate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after hip fractures.Methods: Data from hip fracture operations from 2005 through 2012 were obtained from The Norwegian Hip Fracture Register. Patient reported HRQoL, (EQ-5D-3L) was collected from patients preoperatively and at four and twelve months postoperatively n = 10325. At each follow-up the distribution of the EQ-5D-3L and mean pain VAS was calculated.Results: Generally, a higher proportion of patients reported problems in all 5 dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L at all follow-ups compared to preoperative. Also a high proportion of patients with no preoperative problems reported problems after surgery; At 4 and 12 months follow-ups 71 % and 58 % of the patients reported walking problems, and 65 % and 59 % of the patients reported pain respectively. Patients with femoral neck fractures and the youngest patients (age < 70 years) reported least problems both preoperatively and at all follow-ups.Conclusions: A hip fracture has a dramatic impact on the patients' HRQoL, and the deterioration in HRQoL sustained also one year after the fracture. Separate use of the descriptive profile of the EQ-5D is informative when assessing quality of life after hip fracture surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose — The operative treatment of hip fractures in Norway has changed considerably during the last decade. We used data in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register to investigate possible effects of these changes on reoperations and 1-year mortality. Patients and methods — 72,741 femoral neck (FFN) fractures and trochanteric fractures in patients 60 years or older were analyzed. The fractures were divided into 5 time periods (2005–2006, 2007–2008, 2009–2010, 2011–2012, 2013–2014). Cox regression models were used to calculate unadjusted and adjusted (age group, sex, and ASA class) relative risks (RRs) of reoperation and of 1-year mortality in the different time periods. Results — For undisplaced FFNs treatment with hemiarthroplasty increased from 2.1% to 9.7% during the study period. For displaced FFNs treatment with arthroplasty increased from 56% to 93%. The use of intramedullary nails increased from 9.1% to 26% for stable 2-fragment (AO/OTA A1) trochanteric fractures, from 15% to 33% for multifragment (AO/OTA A2) trochanteric fractures, and from 27% to 61% for intertrochanteric fractures (AO/OTA A3)/subtrochanteric fractures. Compared with the first time period the adjusted 1-year RR for reoperation was 0.43 (95% CI: 0.37–0.49) for displaced FFNs in the last time period. The adjusted 1-year mortality in the last time period was lower for all fractures (RR: 0.87 (0.83–0.91)), displaced FFNs (RR: 0.86 (0.80–0.93)), AO/OTA A1 trochanteric fractures (RR: 0.79 (0.71–0.88)), and AO/OTA A2 trochanteric fractures (RR: 0.87 (0.77–0.98)) when compared with the first study period. Interpretation — Hip fracture treatment in Norway has improved: The risk of reoperation and the 1-year mortality after displaced femoral neck fractures have decreased over a 10-year period. National registration is useful to monitor trends in treatment and outcomes after hip fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose -- Controversies exist regarding thromboprophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. Using data in the nationwide Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR) with postoperative death and reoperation in the first 6 months after surgery as endpoints in the analyses, we determined whether the thromboprophylaxis in patients who undergo hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture should start preoperatively or postoperatively. Patients and methods -- After each operation for hip fracture in Norway, the surgeon reports information on the patient, the fracture, and the operation to the NHFR. Cox regression analyses were performed with adjustments for age, ASA score, gender, type of implant, length of surgery, and year of surgery. Results -- During the period 2005-2014, 25,019 hemiarthroplasties as treatment for femoral neck fractures were reported to the registry. Antithrombotic medication was given to 99% of the patients. Low-molecular-weight heparin predominated with dalteparin in 57% of the operations and enoxaparin in 41%. Only operations with these 2 drugs and with known information on preoperative or postoperative start of the prophylaxis were included in the analyses (n = 20,241). Compared to preoperative start of thromboprophylaxis, postoperative start of thromboprophylaxis gave a higher risk of death (risk ratio (RR) = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.06- 1.21; p < 0.001) and a higher risk of reoperation for any reason (RR = 1.19, 95% CI: 1.01-1.40; p = 0.04), whereas we found no effect on reported intraoperative bleeding complication or on the risk of postoperative reoperation due to hematoma. The results did not depend on whether the initial dose of prophylaxis was the full dosage or half of the standard dosage. Interpretation -- Postoperative start of thromboprophylaxis increased the mortality and risk of reoperation compared to preoperative start in femoral neck fracture patients operated with hemiprosthesis. The risks of bleeding and of reoperation due to hematoma were similar in patients who received low-molecularweight heparin preoperatively and in those who received it postoperatively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose -- Hemiarthroplasty (HA) is the most common treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures in many countries. In Norway, there has been a tradition of using the direct lateral surgical approach, but worldwide a posterior approach is more often used. Based on data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register, we compared the results of HA operated through the posterior and direct lateral approaches regarding patientreported outcome measures (PROMs) and reoperation rate. Patients and methods -- HAs due to femoral neck fracture in patients aged 60 years and older were included from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (2005-2014). 18,918 procedures were reported with direct lateral approach and 1,990 with posterior approach. PROM data (satisfaction, pain, quality of life (EQ-5D), and walking ability) were reported 4, 12, and 36 months postoperatively. The Cox regression model was used to calculate relative risk (RR) of reoperation. Results -- There were statistically significant differences in PROM data with less pain, better satisfaction, and better quality of life after surgery using the posterior approach than using the direct lateral approach. The risk of reoperation was similar between the approaches. Interpretation -- Hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture performed through a posterior approach rather than a direct lateral approach results in less pain, with better patient satisfaction and better quality of life. The risk of reoperation was similar with both approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose — Total hip replacement (THR) is not recommended for children and very young teenagers because early and repetitive revisions are likely. We investigated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of THR performed in children and teenage patients. Patients and methods — We included 111 patients (132 hips) who underwent THR before 20 years of age. They were identified in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, together with information on the primary diagnosis, types of implants, and any revisions that required implant change. Radiographs and Harris hip score (HHS) were also evaluated. Results — The mean age at primary THR was 17 (11–19) years and the mean follow-up time was 14 (3–26) years. The 10-year survival rate after primary THR (with the endpoint being any revision) was 70%. 39 patients had at least 1 revision and 16 patients had 2 or more revisions. In the latest radiographs, osteolysis and atrophy were observed in 19% and 27% of the acetabulae and 21% and 62% of the femurs, respectively. The mean HHS at the final follow-up was 83 (15–100). Interpretation — The clinical score after THR in these young patients was acceptable, but many revisions had been performed. However, young patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip had lower implant survival. Moreover, the bone stock in these patients was poor, which could complicate future revisions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background and purpose - Medical treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has changed dramatically over the last 15 years, including immune modulation. We investigated the risk of revision for infection after primary total hip replacement (THR) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over a 16-year period, and compared it with that in THR patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Patients and methods - We identified 13,384 THRs in RA patients and 377,287 THRs in OA patients from 1995 through 2010 in a dataset from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA). Kaplan-Meier survival curves, with revision for infection as the endpoint, were constructed. Cox regression analyses were performed to calculate the relative risk (RR) of revision for infection adjusted for age, sex, fixation technique, and year of primary surgery. Results - RA patients had a 1.3 times (95% CI 1.0-1.6) higher risk of revision for infection. After 2001, this risk increased more for RA patients than for OA patients. During the first 3 months and from 8 years postoperatively, the risk of revision for infection was higher in RA patients with THRs fixated with antibiotic-loaded cement than in corresponding OA patients. Interpretation - We found a slightly higher overall risk of revision for infection in RA patients than in OA patients, but this difference was only present after 2001. In THRs with antibiotic-loaded cement, the risk of very early and late infections leading to revision was higher in RA patients than in OA patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

National registration of hemiarthroplasties after hip fractures has been established in both Norway and Sweden. We aimed to investigate differences in demographics, choice of implant selection, surgical approaches, and reoperations between the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR) and the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR). As part of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) project a common hemiarthroplasty dataset has been established. 36,989 primary hemiarthroplasties (HAs) for acute hip fractures reported to NHFR (n = 12,761) and SHAR (n = 24,228) for the period 2005-2010 were included. Cemented prostheses were used in 78% of the operations in Norway and in 95% of the patients in Sweden. In Norway HAs almost exclusively had bipolar design (98%), whereas in Sweden HAs with unipolar design were used in 42% of the cases. Monoblock (non-modular) prostheses were uncommon, but still more frequently used in Sweden than in Norway (6.9% and 2.1% respectively). The lateral approach was more common in Norway (83%) than in Sweden (52%), where the posterior approach was used in 42% of the cases. The five-year survival of all HAs was 95.5% (95% CI: 94.8-96.2) in Norway and 94.8% (95% CI: 94.4-95.3) in Sweden. We concluded that surprisingly large differences between the two countries in demographics, implant design, and surgical technique had been revealed. This common dataset enables further investigations of the impact of these differences on revision rates and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose Little attention has been paid to undisplaced femoral neck fractures. By using data from the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register, we investigated the risk of reoperation and the clinical outcome after treatment of these fractures in patients over 60 years of age. Methods Data on 4,468 patients with undisplaced femoral neck fractures who were operated with screw osteosynthesis were compared to those from 10,289 patients with displaced femoral neck fractures treated with screw osteosynthesis (n == 3,389) or bipolar hemiarthroplasty (n == 6,900). The evaluation was based on number of reoperations and patient assessment at 4 and 12 months of follow-up. Results The 1-year implant survival was 89% after screw fixation for undisplaced fractures, 79% after screw fixation for displaced fractures, and 97% after hemiarthroplasty for displaced fractures. Patients with displaced fractures who were operated with internal fixation had a higher risk of reoperation (RR == 1.9, CI: 1.7--2.2), reported more pain, were less satisfied, and had lower quality of life than patients with undisplaced fractures treated with internal fixation (p < 0.05). Patients with displaced fractures who were operated with hemiarthroplasty had a lower risk of reoperation than patients with undisplaced fractures who were operated with internal fixation (RR == 0.32, CI: 0.27--0.38). Furthermore, they had the lowest degree of pain, were most satisfied, and reported the highest quality of life. Interpretation The differences in clinical outcome found were less than what is considered to be of clinical importance. The results support the use of screw osteosynthesis for undisplaced femoral neck fractures in elderly patients, although even better results were obtained in the hemiarthroplasty group in patients with displaced fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose Over the past 20 years, several changes in treatment policy and treatment options have taken place regarding hip replacement. For this reason, we wanted to investigate the results after hip replacement in terms of revision rate, during a 21-year period among hip replacements reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Methods 110,882 primary total hip replacements were reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from 1987 through 2007. Risk of revision during the time periods 1993-1997, 1998-2002, and 2003-2007 was compared to that of the reference period 1987-1992. Adjusted Cox regression analyses were performed to compare the risk of revision in different time periods and extended analyses were done to investigate revision within the first postoperative year and after the first year. Results There was an overall reduced risk of revision in the time periods 1993-1997, 1998-2002, and 2003-2007 compared to the reference period: RR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.77-0.86), 0.51 (CI 0.47-0.55), and 0.77 (CI 0.68-0.85), respectively. The improved results were due to a marked reduction in aseptic loosening of the femoral and acetabular components in all time periods and in all subgroups of prostheses. A change in the timing of revision took place, with more early revisions and fewer late revisions in the later time periods. Revision due to dislocation and infection increased over time. Interpretation The risk of revision decreased during the study period, due to fewer cases of aseptic loosening of prosthetic components. The best results were obtained with the use of cemented prostheses. Prevention of dislocation and infection should be a major goal in the future, as revision due to these causes increased during the study period. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]