Leif Ivar Havelin

Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty

A recent analysis of historical procedure data indicated that the prevalence of primary and revision total hip and total knee arthroplasty increased steadily between 1990 and 20021. A massive demand for primary and revision surgeries is also expected in the next two decades2. Similarly, the overall incidence of deep infection also has increased substantially between 1990 and 2003 for both total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty3. In 2003, approximately 1.2% of the total hip arthroplasties performed in the United States were associated with deep infection, which was similar to the rate seen for total knee arthroplasties3. Deep infection is a catastrophic complication of both total hip and total knee arthroplasty, and it also represents a tremendous economic burden4,5. The implications for a growing incidence of infections, coupled with accelerating demand for arthroplasty, remain unexplored. Long-term survival of total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty implants has been investigated by Scandinavian arthroplasty registries6-8. However, in the United States, national hip and knee registries have not been established9,10. Medicare claims data have been used effectively in longitudinal analysis of mortality and morbidity following joint replacement11, but the feasibility of using this data as a registry substitute is unclear. Along with the projected increase in the utilization of total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty2, retrospective studies have shown increasing disparity between Medicare reimbursement and hospital charges, with higher charges for revision than for primary procedures12-14. The economic consequences of the projected demand for total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty are still unknown. The goals of our study were to (1) quantify the future number of infections at the site of arthroplasties done …

Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty: effects of antibiotic prophylaxis systemically and in bone cement on the revision rate of 22,170 primary hip replacements followed 0-14 years in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

We studied the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis, systemically and in bone cement, on the revision rate of cemented total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the period 1987-2001. To have comparable groups, only THAs performed because of primary osteoarthritis, using cemented implants with documented good results, and high-viscosity cement were included. If systemic antibiotic prophylaxis had been given, only operations with cephalosporin or penicillin were selected. Cox-estimated survival relative revision risks (RR) are presented with adjustment for differences among groups in gender, age, cement brand, type of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, type of prosthesis, type of operating room, and duration of the operation. Of 22,170 THAs studied, 696 THAs (3.1%) were revised, 440 (2.0%) for aseptic loosening and 102 (0.5%) for deep infection. We found the lowest risk of revision when the antibiotic prophylaxis was given both systemically and in the cement (15,676 THAs). Compared to this combined regime, patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis only systemically (5,960 THAs) had a 1.4 times higher revision rate with all reasons for revision as endpoint (p= 0.001), 1.3 times higher with aseptic loosening (p= 0.02) and 1.8 times higher with infection as the endpoint (p= 0.01). With the combined antibiotic regime, the results were better if antibiotics were given 4 times on the day of surgery (2,194 THAs), as compared to once (1,424 THAs) (p<0.001), twice (2,680 THAs) (p<0.001), or 3 times (5,522 THAs) (p= 0.02). Those who received systemic prophylaxis a single day 1, 2 or 3 times, as compared to 4 times, had a revision rate 1.8-3.5 times higher with all reasons for revision as endpoint, 1.5-3.1 times higher with aseptic loosening, and 2.7-6.8 times higher with infection. When we compared systemic prophylaxis 4 times in 1 day, no further improvement resulted in those given systemic prophylaxis for 2 days (1,928 THAs) or 3 days (717 THAs). In a subset of data including only the Charnley prosthesis, we obtained similar results. This observational study shows that the best results were recorded when antibiotic prophylaxis was given both systemically and in the bone cement, and if the systemic antibiotic was given 4 times on the day of surgery.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in total hip arthroplasty

We have assessed the effect of different regimes of antibiotic prophylaxis on the survival of total hip implants, comparing antibiotics administered both systemically and in the bone cement, systemically only, in the bone cement only and with no antibiotics given. We studied 10 905 primary cemented total hip replacements, performed for osteoarthritis of the hip and reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register between 1987 and 1995. Cox-estimated failure-rate ratios (FRR) are presented with adjustment for gender, age, the brand of cement, the prosthesis, the type of operating theatre and the operating time. For revisions performed for infection (39 operations), the lowest rate of revision was found among patients receiving antibiotic-containing cement plus systemic antibiotics (n = 5804). The revision rate for the 4586 patients receiving systemic antibiotics only was 4.3 times greater (95% CI 1.7 to 11.0, p = 0.001); in 239 with antibiotics in the bone cement only it was 6.3 times greater (CI 1.6 to 25.0, p = 0.003); and in the 276 who did not receive antibiotics it was by 11.5 times greater (CI 2.1 to 63.0, p = 0.002). Adjustment for the total amount of systemic antibiotic administered did not change the results. We also observed an increased revision rate for aseptic loosening (109 operations) comparing the systemic-only (FRR = 1.8, CI 1.1 to 2.9, p = 0.01) and the cement-only regimes (FRR = 2.6, CI 1.2 to 5.9, p = 0.02) with the combined dosage. Our findings show that systemic antibiotics combined with antibiotic-containing bone cement led to fewer revisions than the other methods.

Early failures among 7,174 primary total knee replacements: A follow-up study from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994-2000

We studied primary total knee replacements (TKRs), reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, operated on between 1994 and 2000. A Cox multiple regression model was used to evaluate differences in survival among the prosthesis brands, their types of fixation, and whether or not the patella was resurfaced. In Norway in 1999, the incidence of knee prosthesis operations was 35 per 100,000 inhabitants. Cement was used as fixation in 87% of the knees, 10% were hybrid and 2% uncemented implants. Bicompartmental (not resurfaced patella) prostheses were used in 65% of the knees. With all revisions as endpoint, no statistically significant differences in the 5-year survival were found among the cemented tricompartmental prostheses brands: AGC 97% (n 279), Duracon 99% (n 101), Genesis I 95% (n 654), Kinemax 98% (n 213) and Tricon 96% (n 454). The bicompartmental LCS prostheses had a 5-year survival of 97% (n 476). The type of meniscal bearing in LCS knees had no effect on survival. Survival with revision for all causes as endpoint showed no differences among types of fixation, or bi- or tricompartmental prostheses. Pain alone was the commonest reason for revision of cemented bicompartmental prostheses. The risk of revision because of pain was 5.7 times higher (p < 0.001) in cemented bicompartmental prostheses than cemented tricompartmental ones, but the revisions mainly involved insertion of a patellar component. In tricompartmental prostheses the risk of revision because of infection was 2.5 times higher than in bicompartmental ones (p = 0.03). Young age (< 60) and the sequelae after a fracture increased the risk of revision. The 5-year survival of the 6 most used cemented tricompartmental knee prostheses brands varied between 95% and 99%, but the differences were not statistically significant. There were more revisions because of pain in bicompartmental than in tricompartmental knees. In tricompartmental knees, however, there were more revisions because of an infection. The relatively few patients with uncemented and hybrid implants showed no improvements in results compared to cemented knee prostheses.

Registration completeness in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Introduction A high degree of registration completeness is necessary in order to obtain unbiased and accurate register-based study results. We investigated the completeness of registration in the national Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR). Material and methods Registration completeness for the years 1999–2002 was calculated as a percentage, with the number of joint replacements reported to the NAR as numerator and those reported to the Norwegian Patient Register (NPR) as denominator. While the NAR received information directly from the orthopedic surgeons on a voluntary basis, the NPR, which is mandatory, received information from the electronic administrative patient records of the hospitals. Results Registration completeness in the NAR was 97% (97% for primary operations; 101% for revisions). Completeness was 98% (97%; 106%) for hip replacements, and for knee replacements it was 99% (99%; 97%). Hip and knee replacements represented 95% of all operations. However, completeness was poorer for less common joint replacements and poorest for ankle implants (82%; 40%) and wrist implants (52%; 14%). In the NAR, completeness of registration of revisions involving only removal of one or more prosthetic parts was lower than for exchange revisions for all types of joint replacement. For hip implants, 76% of the removal revisions (80% of Girdlestone procedures) were reported, and for knee implants the figure was 62%. According to NPR statistics, removal procedures accounted for 9% of all revisions of hip and knee replacements. Interpretation In the NAR, registration completeness of hip and knee replacements was high both for primary operations and exchange revisions. For some of the less common joint replacements, completeness was low and may—if not improved—compromise prosthesis survival studies. The lower registration completeness of removal revisions also needs to be improved. ▪

257 ankle arthroplasties performed in Norway between 1994 and 2005

Background and purpose There have been few reports on the long-term outcome of ankle replacements. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register has been registering ankle replacements since 1994, but no analysis of these data has been published to date. Here we report data on the use of total ankle replacements and the revision rate in the Norwegian population over a 12-year period. Methods We used the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register to find ankle arthroplasties performed between 1994 and 2005. Patient demographics, diagnoses, brands of prosthesis, revisions, and time trends were investigated. Results There were 257 primary ankle replacements, 32 of which were cemented TPR prostheses and 212 of which were cementless STAR prostheses. The overall 5- year and 10-year survival was 89% and 76%, respectively. Prosthesis survival was the same for the cementless STAR prosthesis and the cemented TPR prosthesis. There was no significant influence of age, sex, type of prosthesis, diagnosis, or year of operation on the risk of revision. The incidence of ankle replacements due to osteoarthritis, but not due to inflammatory arthritis, increased over the years. Interpretation The revision rate was acceptable compared to other studies of ankle arthroplasties, but high compared to total knee and hip arthroplasties. The overall incidence of ankle replacements increased during the study period.

Knee arthroplasty in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. A pilot study from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association.

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.

Failure Mechanisms After Unicompartmental and Tricompartmental Primary Knee Replacement with Cement

BACKGROUND Concern exists regarding the durability of unicompartmental knee replacements. The purpose of the present study was to compare the early failure rates and failure mechanisms of primary cemented unicompartmental knee replacements with those of primary cemented tricompartmental total knee replacements. METHODS The rates of failure of primary cemented unicompartmental knee replacements (n = 2288) and tricompartmental total knee replacements (n = 3032) as reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from January 1994 through December 2004 were compared with use of Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rates and Cox multiple regression. RESULTS The ten-year survival probability was 80.1% (95% confidence interval, 76.0% to 84.2%) for unicompartmental knee replacements, compared with 92.0% (95% confidence interval, 90.4 to 93.6%) for total knee replacements, with a relative risk of revision of 2.0 (95% confidence interval, 1.6 to 2.5) (p < 0.001). This increased risk of revision following unicompartmental knee replacement was seen in all age-categories. Unicompartmental knee replacement was associated with an increased risk of revision due to pain (relative risk, 11.3 [95% confidence interval, 4.8 to 26.8]; p < 0.001), aseptic loosening of the tibial component (relative risk, 1.9 [95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 3.0]; p = 0.01) and of the femoral component (relative risk, 4.8 [95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 10.3]; p < 0.001), and periprosthetic fracture (relative risk, 3.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 8.9]; p = 0.02) as compared with total knee replacement. Unicompartmental knee replacement was associated with a lower risk of infection compared with total knee replacement (relative risk, 0.28 [95% confidence interval, 0.10 to 0.74]; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS The survival of cemented unicompartmental knee replacements is inferior to that of cemented tricompartmental total knee replacements in all age-categories.

The effect of the type of cement on early revision of Charnley total hip prostheses. A review of eight thousand five hundred and seventy-nine primary arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.

We studied the survival of 8579 Charnley prostheses, in 7922 patients, according to the different types of cement that had been used. All of the patients had had a primary total hip replacement for primary coxarthrosis. The mean duration of follow-up was 3.2 years (range, zero to 6.4 years). The data were collected from the national Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The duration of survival was defined as the time to revision due to aseptic loosening. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of survival at 5.5 years for the 1226 femoral components that had been implanted with low-viscosity cement was 94.1 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval, 92.1 to 96.2 per cent), compared with 98.1 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval, 97.5 to 98.6 per cent) for the 6589 components that had been implanted with high-viscosity cement (p < 0.0001). The remaining 764 femoral components had been implanted with Boneloc cement, which was classified as neither high nor low-viscosity, and these components were considered as a separate group in the analyses. The Boneloc cement had been used for only three years, and the two-year survival rate of these prostheses was 95.5 per cent (p < 0.0001). The cement contained an antibiotic in 2801 (42 per cent of the hips in which the femoral component had been implanted with high-viscosity cement, compared with only thirty (2 per cent) of those in which it had been implanted with low-viscosity cement.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Femoral head size is a risk factor for total hip luxation A study of 42,987 primary hip arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

On the basis of the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, which has recorded nearly all primary hip prostheses and revisions in Norway since 1987, we studied risk factors for prosthesis luxation leading to revision. 7 prosthesis brand combinations used in 42,987 primary operations were included from 1987-2000. We found that femoral head size was an important risk factor; 28 mm heads led to revision more often than 32 mm ones (failure rate ratio (FRR) 4.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2-7.3). Charnley (22 mm head) performed equally well or better than the 28 mm heads. The Exeter stem and cup is the type of prosthesis on the Norwegian market with more than two femoral head sizes (26, 28, 30, 32 mm) and 26 mm heads led to revision due to luxation significantly more often than 30 mm heads (FRR 4.1, 95%CI 2.2-8.1). Old age, preoperative diagnosis, and choice of prosthesis brand combination were also important factors affecting the revision rate due to luxation. A posterior approach increased the risk of revision more than a lateral one (FRR 1.9, 95%CI 1.4-2.5). Gender, trochanteric osteotomy and duration of the operation did not affect the results.