Higher revision risk for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty in low-volume hospitals

Acta Orthopaedica

Volumn 85, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 342-347

  Badawy, Mona ^a   Espehaug, Birgitte ^b,c   Indrekvam, Kari ^a,d   Havelin, Leif I ^b,d   Furnes, Ove ^b,d  

^a Kysthospital in Hagevik ^*  (Norway)

^b HAUKELAND UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^c BERGEN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE   (Norway)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BONE MALFORMATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HIGH VOLUME HOSPITAL; HUMAN; KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; KNEE DISLOCATION; KNEE FRACTURE; KNEE INSTABILITY; LOW VOLUME HOSPITAL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT SELECTION; RISK FACTOR; ROTATING HINGE KNEE PROSTHESIS; SEX RATIO; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; UNICOMPARTMENTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; FEMALE; HOSPITALS, LOW-VOLUME; HUMANS; KNEE PROSTHESIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NORWAY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; REOPERATION; RISK FACTORS;

EID: 84904301119     PISSN: 17453674     EISSN: 17453682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2014.920990     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Argenson J N, Parratte S. The unicompartmental knee: design and technical considerations in minimizing wear. Clin Orthop 2006; 452: 137-42.
2. Badawy M, Espehaug B, Indrekvam K, Engesaeter L B, Havelin L I, Furnes O. Influence of hospital volume on revision rate after total knee arthroplasty with cement. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2013; 95 (18): 1311-6.
3. Baker P N, Petheram T, Avery P J, Gregg P J, Deehan D J. Revision for unexplained pain following unicompartmental and total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2012; 94 (17): e126.
4. Baker P, Jameson S, Critchley R, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan D. Center and surgeon volume influence the revision rate following unicondylar knee replacement. An analysis of 23,400 medial cemented unicondylar knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2013; 95 (8): 702-9.
5. Brown N M, Sheth N P, Davis K, Berend M E, Lombardi A V, Berend K R, Della Valle C J. Total knee arthroplasty has higher postoperative morbidity than unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: A multicenter analysis. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27(8 Suppl): 86-90.
6. Espehaug B, Furnes O, Havelin L I, Engesaeter L B, Vollset S E, Kindseth O. Registration completeness in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2006; 77 (1): 49-56.
7. Furnes O, Espehaug B, Lie S A, Vollset S E, Engesaeter L B, Havelin L I. Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2007; 89 (3): 519-25.
8. Goodfellow J W, O'Connor J J, Murray D W. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2010; 92 (12): 1628-31.
9. Grambsch P M, Therneau T M, Fleming T R. Diagnostic plots to reveal functional form for covariates in multiplicative intensity models. Biometrics 1995; 51 (4): 1469-82.
10. Hamilton W G, Ammeen D, Engh C A Jr, Engh G A. Learning curve with minimally invasive unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009; 25 (5): 735-40.
11. Koskinen E, Eskelinen A, Paavolainen P, Pulkkinen P, Remes V. Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2008; 79 (4): 499-507.
12. Labek G, Sekyra K, Pawelka W, Janda W, Stöckl B. Outcome and reproducibility of data concerning the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty registry data. Acta Orthop 2011; 82 (2): 131-5
13. Lisowski L A, van den Bekerom M P, Pilot P, van Dijk C N, Lisowski A E. Oxford Phase 3 unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: medium-term results of a minimally invasive surgical procedure. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19 (2): 277-84.
14. Lombardi A V, Berend K R, Walter C A, Aziz-Jacobo J, Cheney N A. Is recovery faster for mobile-bearing unicompartmental than total knee arthroplasty? Clin Orthop 2009; (467) (6): 1450-7.
15. Lygre S H, Espehaug B, Havelin L I, Furnes O, Vollset S E. Pain and function in patients after primary unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2010; 92 (18): 2890-7.
16. Lyons M C, MacDonald S J, Somerville L E, Naudie D D, McCalden R W. Unicompartmental versus total knee arthroplasty database analysis: is there a winner? Clin Orthop 2012; (470) (1): 84-90.
17. Mercier N, Wimsey S, Saragaglia D. Long-term clinical results of the Oxford medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2010; 34 (8): 1137-43.
18. Murray D W, Goodfellow J W, O'Connor J J. The Oxford medial unicompartmental arthroplasty: a ten-year survival study. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1998; 80 (6): 983-9.
19. NAR. Norwegian Arthroplasy Register. Annual Report 2013. nrlweb.ihelse.net
20. NZJR. New Zealand Joint Registry. Annual Report 2014.www.nzoa.org.nz/nz- joint-registry
21. Price A J, Svard U. A second decade lifetable survival analysis of the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2011; (469) (1): 174-9.
22. 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.
23. Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L. The routine of surgical management reduces failure after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2001; 83 (1): 45-9.
24. SKAR. Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Annual report 2012. www.knee.Se