Continuous monitoring of the performance of hip prostheses

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - Series B

Volumn 88, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 716-720

  Hardoon, S L ^a   Lewsey, J D ^a   Gregg, P J ^b   Reeves, B C ^c   Van der Meulen, J H P ^a  

^a ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^b JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMAN; JOINT PROSTHESIS; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; METHODOLOGY; MONITORING; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REGISTER; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; FEMALE; HIP PROSTHESIS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 33745650895     PISSN: 0301620X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.88B6.17334     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Rogers CA, Reeves BC, Caputo M, et al. Control chart methods for monitoring cardiac surgical performance and their interpretation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2004; 128:811-19.
2. Grigg OA, Farewell VT, Spiegelhalter DJ. Use of risk-adjusted CUSUM and RSPRT charts for monitoring in medical contexts. Stat Methods Med Res 2003;12: 147-70.
3. Poloniecki J, Sismanidis C, Bland M, Jones P. Retrospective cohort study of false alarm rates associated with a series of heart operations: the case for hospital mortality monitoring groups. BMJ 2004;328:375.
4. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Morton A, Robinson MB, Hall A. Real-time monitoring of coronary care mortality: a comparison and combination of two monitoring tools. Int J Cardiol 2005;100:301-7.
5. Burns CM, Bennett CJ, Myers CT, Ward M. The use of CUSUM analysis in the early detection and management of hospital bed occupancy crises. Med J Aust 2005; 183:291-4.
6. National Joint Registry for England and Wales 2nd Annual Report. 2005. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk (accessed 21/09/05).
7. Council Directive 93/42/EEC concerning medical devices. Official Journal L169 of 12 July 1993. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/index.htm (accessed 01/03/05).
8. Post-market surveillance of CE marked joint replacement implants including guidance to manufacturers on post-marked clinical studies. 2000. http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/dts-bi/documents/publication/ con007529.pdf (accessed 01/03/05).
9. Steiner SH, Cook RJ, Farewell VT. Risk-adjusted monitoring of binary surgical outcomes. Med Decis Making 2001;21:163-9.
10. Massoud SN, HunterJB, Holdsworth BJ, Wallace WA, Juliusson R. Early femoral loosening in one design of cemented hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1997;79-B:603-8.
11. The Royal College of Surgeons of England. An investigation of the performance of the 3M Capital Hip System. 2001. (The full report can also be accessed at http://www.rcseng.ac.uk/publications/docs/ investigation_3m_capital_hip.html).
12. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Guidance on the selection of prostheses for primary total hip replacement (Technology appraisal guidance No 2). NICE; 2000. http://www.nice.org.uk/pdf/ Guidance_on_the_selection_of_hip_prostheses.pdf (accessed 25/10/2004).
13. Nizard RS, Porcher R, Ravaud P, et al. Use of the CUSUM technique for evaluation of a CT-based navigation system for total knee replacement. Clin Orthop 2004;425: 180-8.
14. Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Annual Report 2002: The Swedish National Hip Arthroplasty Register. 2003. http://www.jru.orthop.gu.se/ (accessed 23/10/2004).