Knee arthroplasty in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. A pilot study from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association
- PMID: 20180723
- PMCID: PMC2856209
- DOI: 10.3109/17453671003685442
Knee arthroplasty in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. A pilot study from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association
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.
Figures









References
-
- AOANJRR (Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry) http://www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr/index.jsp Annual report. Adelaide:AOA; 2008. ISSN 1445-3665.
-
- CIHI (Canadian Institute for Health Information) http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_25oct2006_e News October 25, 2006 no author listed. CIHI: 87% increase in hip and knee replacements in Canada.
-
- DKR (Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register) www.dkar.dk Annual Report 2009. Aarhus, Denmark. ISBN 978-87-993364-0-1.
-
- Dorey F, Nasser S, Amstutz H. The need for confidence intervals in the presentation of orthopaedic data—current concepts review. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 1993;75:1844. - PubMed
-
- Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Langeland N, Vollset SE. Patient satisfaction and function after primary and revision total hip replacement. Clin Orthop. 1998;((351)):135–48. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical