Outcome after total hip arthroplasty: Part II. Disease-specific follow-up and the Swedish national total hip arthroplasty register

Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica

Volumn 72, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 113-119

  Soderman P ^a   Malchau, H ^a   Herberts, P ^a   Zugner R ^a   Regner H ^a   Garellick, G ^a  

^a SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HIP RADIOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REGISTER; SCORING SYSTEM; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GRAFT SURVIVAL; HIP JOINT; HUMANS; JOINT DISEASES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; REGISTRIES; SWEDEN; TREATMENT FAILURE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0035039969     PISSN: 00016470     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/000164701317323345     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and the knee
2. Relationship between severity and clinical importance of symptoms in osteoarthritis
3. Double-blind randomized controlled trial of sodium meclofenamate (Meclomen) and diclofenac sodium (Voltaren): Postvalidation reapplication of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index
4. Cemented total hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 50 years of age
5. Demographic biases found in scoring instruments of total hip arthroplasty
6. Assessing the results of hip replacement. A comparison of five different rating systems
7. The Charnley versus the Spectron Hip Prosthesis. Radiographic evaluation of a randomized, prospective study of 2 different hip implants
8. The value of clinical data scoring systems. Are traditional hip scoring systems adequate to use in evaluation after total hip surgery?
9. Revision total hip arthroplasty with titanium ingrowth prosthesis and bone grafting for failed cemented femoral component loosening
10. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: Treatment by mold arthroplasty
11. How outcome studies have changed total hip arthroplasty practices in Sweden
12. Multicenter clinical trials and their value in assessing total joint arthroplasty
13. The correlation between the roentgenographic appearance and operative findings at the bone-cement junction of the socket in Charnley low friction arthroplasties
14. Correspondence
15. The histology of the radiolucent line
16. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life
17. Prognosis of total hip replacement in Sweden. Follow-up of 92,675 operations performed 1978-1990
18. Bone lysis in well-fixed cemented femoral components
19. Comparison of the musculosketal function assessment questionnaire with the Short form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Sickness Impact Profile Health-Status Measures
20. Can the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index be used to evaluate different hip joints in the same patients?
21. Acetabular and femoral fixation 15 years after cemented total hip surgery
22. WOMAC osteoarthritis index - Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically-assessed osteoarthritis
23. Reliability and validity of clinical outcome measurements of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. A review of the literature
24. Validity and reliability of Swedish WOMAC osteoarthritis index. A self-administered disease-specific questionnaire (WOMAC) versus generic instruments (SF-36 and NHP)
25. Is the Harris Hip Score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement?
26. Are the findings in the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register valid? A comparison between the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register, the National Discharge register and the National Death register
27. Total hip replacement with cemented, uncemented and hybrid prostheses. A comparison of clinical and radiographic results at two to four years