Free Content

Knee arthroplasty in Denmark, Norway and Sweden

Authors: Robertsson, Otto1; Bizjajeva, Svetlana2; Fenstad, Anne Marie3; Furnes, Ove; Lidgren, Lars1; Mehnert, Frank4; Odgaard, Anders5; Pedersen, Alma Becic4; Havelin, Leif Ivar

Source: Acta Orthopaedica, Volume 81, Number 1, February 2010 , pp. 82-89(8)

Publisher: Informa Healthcare

Buy & download fulltext article:

Free content The full text is free.

View now:
PDF 1,367.2kb 

Abstract:



Background and purpose The number of national arthroplasty registries is increasing. However, the methods of registration, classification, and analysis often differ.

Methods We combined data from 3 Nordic knee arthroplasty registers, comparing demographics, methods, and overall results. Primary arthroplasties during the period 1997––2007 were included. Each register produced a dataset of predefined variables, after which the data were combined and descriptive and survival statistics produced.

Results The incidence of knee arthroplasty increased in all 3 countries, but most in Denmark. Norway had the lowest number of procedures per hospital——less than half that of Sweden and Denmark. The preference for implant brands varied and only 3 total brands and 1 unicompartmental brand were common in all 3 countries. Use of patellar button for total knee arthroplasty was popular in Denmark (76%) but not in Norway (11%) or Sweden (14%). Uncemented or hybrid fixation of components was also more frequent in Denmark (22%) than in Norway (14%) and Sweden (2%).

After total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, the cumulative revision rate (CRR) was lowest in Sweden, with Denmark and Norway having a relative risk (RR) of 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3––1.6) and 1.6 (CI: 1.4––1.7) times higher. The result was similar when only including brands used in more than 200 cases in all 3 countries (AGC, Duracon, and NexGen). After unicompartmental arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, the CRR for all models was also lowest in Sweden, with Denmark and Norway having RRs of 1.7 (CI: 1.4––2.0) and 1.5 (CI: 1.3––1.8), respectively. When only the Oxford implant was analyzed, however, the CRRs were similar and the RRs were 1.2 (CI: 0.9––1.7) and 1.3 (CI: 1.0––1.7).

Interpretation We found considerable differences between the 3 countries, with Sweden having a lower revision rate than Denmark and Norway. Further classification and standardization work is needed to permit more elaborate studies.

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453671003685442

Affiliations: 1: 1The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Dept of Orthopedics, Clinical Sciences, Lund. Lund University, Sweden 2: 2Swedish National Musculoskeletal Competence Centre (NKO), Lund, Sweden 3: 3The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway 4: 5Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register and Competence Centre North, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark 5: 6The Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register and Department of Orthopaedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark.

Publication date: February 1, 2010

More about this publication?

Key

Free Content
Free content
New Content
New content
Open Access Content
Open access content
Subscribed Content
Subscribed content
Free Trial Content
Free trial content

Text size:

A | A | A | A
Share this item with others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. print icon Print this page