Survival rates and causes of revision in cemented primary total knee replacement: A report from the Norwegian arthroplasty register 1994-2009

Bone and Joint Journal

Volumn 95 B, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 636-642

  Gothesen O ^a,b   Espehaug, B ^a   Havelin, L ^a   Petursson, G ^a,c   Lygre, S ^a   Ellison, P ^a,d   Hallan, G ^a   Furnes, O ^a  

^a HAUKELAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b HAUGESUND HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c LOVISENBERG DIAKONALE HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY; CLINICAL EVALUATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; KNEE IMPLANT; KNEE LIGAMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NORWAY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATELLA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS LOOSENING; REOPERATION; REVIEW; RISK FACTOR; SURVIVAL RATE; SURVIVAL TIME; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84877866723     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20494408     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B5.30271     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Engesaeter L, Furnes O, Havelin LI, Fenstad AM. Annual report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 2010. http://nrlweb.ihelse.net/eng/Report-2010. pdf (date last accessed 5 March 2013).
2. Graves S, Davidson D, Tomkins A, et al. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry: annual report 2011. http://www.dmac.adelaide. edu.au/aoanjrr (date last accessed 15 January 2013).
3. Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Espehaug B, et al. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand 2000;71: 337-353.
4. Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie SA, et al. Early failures among 7,174 primary total knee replacements: a follow-up study from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994-2000. Acta Orthop Scand 2002;73: 117-129. (Pubitemid 34557050)
5. Espehaug B, Furnes O, Havelin LI, et al. Registration completeness to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2006;77: 49-56. (Pubitemid 43879154)
6. Schemper M, Smith TL. A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials 1996;17: 343-346. (Pubitemid 26342716)
7. Grambsch PM. Goodness-of-fit and diagnostics for proportional hazards regression models. Cancer Treat Res 1995;75: 95-112.
8. Ranstam J, Kärrholm J, Pulkkinen P, et al. Statistical analysis of arthroplasty data. Acta Orthop 2011;82: 258-267.
9. Lie SA, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI, Gjessing HK, Vollset SE. Dependency issues in survival analyses of 55,782 primary hip replacements from 47,355 patients. Stat Med 2004;23: 3227-3240. (Pubitemid 39334909)
10. Robertsson O, Ranstam J. No bias of ignored bilaterality when analysing the revision risk of knee prostheses: analysis of a population based sample of 44,590 patients with 55,298 knee prostheses from the national Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003;4: 1.
11. Callaghan JJ, Squire MW, Goetz DD, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Cemented rotating-platform total knee replacement: a nine to twelve-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2000;82-A: 705-711. (Pubitemid 30307872)
12. Sorrells RB, Voorhorst PE, Murphy JA, Bauschka MP, Greenwald AS. Uncemented rotating-platform total knee replacement: a five to twelve-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2004;86-A: 2156-2162. (Pubitemid 39349948)
13. Callaghan JJ, Wells CW, Liu SS, Goetz DD, Johnston RC. Cemented rotatingplatform total knee replacement: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of twenty years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2010;92-A: 1635-1639.
14. Kim YH, Kim JS, Park JW, Joo JH. Comparison of the low contact stress and press fit condylar rotating-platform mobile-bearing prostheses in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2011;93-A: 1001-1007.
15. Paxton EW, Namba RS, et al. A prospective study of 80,000 total joint and 5000 anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedures in a community-based registry in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2010;92-A(Suppl): 117-132.
16. Namba RS, Inacio MC, Paxton EW, et al. Risk of revision for fixed versus mobilebearing primary total knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 2012;94-A: 1929-1935.
17. Buechel FF, Pappas MJ. The New Jersey Low-Contact-Stress Knee Replacement System: biomechanical rationale and review of the first 123 cemented cases. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1986;105: 197-204. (Pubitemid 17055578)
18. O'Connor JJ, Goodfellow JW. Theory and practice of meniscal knee replacement: designing against wear. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 1996;210: 217-222. (Pubitemid 126759516)
19. Buechel FF Sr. Long-term followup after mobile-bearing total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;404: 40-50. (Pubitemid 35351047)
20. Oh KJ, Pandher DS, Lee SH, Sung Joon SDJ, Lee ST. Meta-analysis comparing outcomes of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing prostheses in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009;24: 873-884.
21. Kim YH, Kook HK, Kim JS. Comparison of fixed-bearing and mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001;392: 101-115.
22. Kelly NH, Fu RH, Wright TM, Padgett DE. Wear damage in mobile-bearing TKA is as severe as that in fixed-bearing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469: 123-130.
23. Ingram JH, Stone M, Fisher J, Ingham E. The influence of molecular weight, crosslinking and counterface roughness on TNF-alpha production by macrophages in response to ultra high molecular weight polyethylene particles. Biomaterials 2004;25: 3511-3522. (Pubitemid 38327040)
24. Ritter MA, Meneghini RM. Twenty-year survivorship of cementless anatomic graduated component total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010;25: 507-513.
25. Worland RL, Johnson GV, Alemparte J, et al. Ten to fourteen year survival and functional analysis of the AGC total knee replacement system. Knee 2002;9: 133-137. (Pubitemid 34266220)
26. Gill GS, Joshi AB. Long-term results of cemented, posterior cruciate ligamentretaining total knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. Am J Knee Surg 2001;14: 209-214.
27. Himanen AK, Belt E, Nevalainen J, Hamalainen M, Lehto MU. Survival of the AGC total knee arthroplasty is similar for arthrosis and rheumatoid arthritis: Finnish Arthroplasty Register report on 8,467 operations carried out between 1985 and 1999. Acta Orthop 2005;76: 85-88.
28. Kelly NH, Fu RH, Wright TM, Padgett DE. Wear damage in mobile-bearing TKA is as severe as that in fixed-bearing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469: 123-130.
29. Haider H, Garvin K. Rotating platform versus fixed-bearing total knees: an in vitro study of wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466: 2677-2685.
30. Delport HP, Sloten JV, Bellemans J. Comparative gravimetric wear analysis in mobile versus fixed-bearing posterior stabilized total knee prostheses. Acta Orthop Belg 2010;76: 367-373.
31. Smith TO, Ejtehadi F, Nichols R, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of fixedversus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010;18: 325-340.
32. Lygre SH, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Vollset SE, Furnes O. Failure of total knee arthroplasty with or without patella resurfacing. Acta Orthop 2011;82: 282-292.
33. Lygre SH, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Vollset SE, Furnes O. Does patella resurfacing really matter?: pain and function in 972 patients after primary total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2010;81: 99-107.
34. Crossett L. Evolution of the low contact stress (LCS) complete knee system. Orthopedics 2006;29:S17-S22. (Pubitemid 44468681)