header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 6 | Pages 702 - 707
1 Jun 2019
Moeini S Rasmussen JV Salomonsson B Domeij-Arverud E Fenstad AM Hole R Jensen SL Brorson S

Aims

The aim of this study was to use national registry database information to estimate cumulative rates and relative risk of revision due to infection after reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Patients and Methods

We included 17 730 primary shoulder arthroplasties recorded between 2004 and 2013 in The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) data set. With the Kaplan–Meier method, we illustrated the ten-year cumulative rates of revision due to infection and with the Cox regression model, we reported the hazard ratios as a measure of the relative risk of revision due to infection.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 4 | Pages 519 - 525
1 Apr 2014
Rasmussen JV Polk A Sorensen AK Olsen BS Brorson S

In this study, we evaluated patient-reported outcomes, the rate of revision and the indications for revision following resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in patients with osteoarthritis.

All patients with osteoarthritis who underwent primary resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR), between January 2006 and December 2010 were included. There were 772 patients (837 arthroplasties) in the study. The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index was used to evaluate patient-reported outcome 12 months (10 to 14) post-operatively. The rates of revision were calculated from the revisions reported to the DSR up to December 2011 and by checking deaths with the Danish National Register of Persons.

A complete questionnaire was returned by 688 patients (82.2%). The mean WOOS was 67 (0 to 100). A total of 63 hemiarthroplasties (7.5%) required revision; the cumulative five-year rate of revision was 9.9%. Patients aged < 55 years had a statistically significant inferior WOOS score, which exceeded the minimal clinically important difference, compared with older patients (mean difference 14.2 (8.8; 95% CI 19.6; p < 0.001), but with no increased risk of revision. There was no significant difference in the mean WOOS or the risk of revision between designs of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:519–25.