header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

A SCANDINAVIAN HIP ARTHROPLASTY REGISTER COLLABORATION



Abstract

Introduction: Up to now comparisons and pooling of data between the Scandinavian arthroplasty registers have been restrained by use of separate and incompatible data systems.

Purpose: To create a common Scandinavian database for hip arthroplasties and to compare demographics and results between the Scandinavian countries.

Materials and methods: For this study we selected primary total hip prostheses (THR) from 1995–2006. A common code set was made, and after de-identification of the patients’ identity, including deletion of the national civil registration numbers, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway delivered data. Kaplan-Meier and Cox multiple regression, with adjustment for diagnosis, age, and gender, were used to calculate prosthesis survival, with any revision as end-point.

Results: 280,201 operations were included (Denmark 69,242, Sweden 140,821, Norway 70,138). Female patients constituted 60% in Denmark and Sweden and 70% in Norway. In Denmark, Sweden, and Norway childhood disease constituted 3.1%, 1.8%, and 8.7% respectively. The posterior approach was used in 91% of cases in Denmark, 60% in Sweden, and 24% in Norway. Cemented THRs were applied in 46% of patients in Denmark, 89% in Sweden, and in 79% in Norway. Resurfacing hips constituted 0.5% or less in all countries.

9,596 of the 280,201 primary THRs, had been revised. Ten-years survival was 91.9% (95% CI: 91.5 – 92.3) in Denmark, 93.9% (95% CI: 93.6–94.1) in Sweden, and 92.6% (95% CI: 92.3–93.0) in Norway.

In Sweden and Norway 23% of revisions were due to dislocation, compared to 34% in Denmark. Replacement of only cup or liner constituted 29% of the revisions in Sweden, 33% in Norway, and 44% in Denmark.

Conclusion: This unique database is now functioning, and has showed differences among the countries concerning demographics, prosthesis fixation, prosthesis survival, and reasons for revisions. The large number of THRs in this database significantly enhances our perspectives for future research, especially in diagnostic- and treatment groups with too small numbers in each separate

Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: office@efort.org