Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 36, Issue 11, pp 2197–2203 | Cite as

Application and survival curve of total hip arthroplasties: a systematic comparative analysis using worldwide hip arthroplasty registers

  • Patrick SadoghiEmail author
  • Christian Schröder
  • Andreas Fottner
  • Arnd Steinbrück
  • Oliver Betz
  • Peter E. Müller
  • Volkmar Jansson
  • Andreas Hölzer
Original Paper

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to compare primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) implantations between different countries in terms of THA number per inhabitant, age, and procedure type and to compare the survival curve including all THAs using hip arthroplasty registers.

Methods

THA registers were compared between different countries with respect to the number of primary implantations per inhabitant and age, procedure type and survival curve. We performed a literature search for all national hip arthroplasty registers providing annual reports for 2009 or, if not available, a more recent period. The data from these reports were analysed in terms of number, age distribution and procedure type of primary THAs and survival curves.

Results

We identified nine hip arthroplasty registers, which comprised sufficient data to be included. A large variation was found in the annual number of primary THA implantations per inhabitant. The procedure type varied greatly as well, e.g. in Sweden 67 % are cemented THAs whereas in Emilia-Romagna (Italy) 89 % are cementless THAs.

Conclusions

This study revealed large differences in terms of the annual number of primary THAs per inhabitant and primary THA procedure type across countries. These data can be used to rank local primary THA implantations within an international context.

Keywords

Survival Curve Annual Number Procedure Type Fixation Type Primary THAs 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Conflict of interest

All authors of this manuscript declare that they have no financial and personal relationships with other people or organisations that could inappropriately influence (bias) this work such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/ registrations, and grants or other funding.

References

  1. 1.
    Kolling C, Simmen BR, Labek G, Goldhahn J (2007) Key factors for a successful national arthroplasty register. J Bone Jt Surg Br 89B:1567–1573Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Migliore A, Perrini MR, Romanini E, Fella D, Cavallo A, Cerbo M, Jefferson T (2009) Comparison of the performance of hip implants with data from different arthroplasty registers. J Bone Jt Surg Br 91B:1545–1549Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stea S, Bordini B, De Clerico M, Petropulacos K, Toni A (2009) First hip arthroplasty register in Italy: 55,000 cases and 7 year follow-up. Int Orthop 33(2):339–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Herberts P, Malchau H (2000) Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement—A review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 71:111–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Labek G, Janda W, Agreiter M, Schuh R, Böhler N (2011) Organisation, data evaluation, interpretation and effect of arthroplasty register data on the outcome in terms of revision rate in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 35(2):157–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schuh R, Neumann D, Rauf R, Hofstaetter J, Boehler N, Labek G (2012) Revision rate of Birmingham Hip Resurfacing arthroplasty: comparison of published literature and arthroplasty register data. Int Orthop 36(7):1349–1354Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schuh R, Dorninger G, Agreiter M, Boehler N, Labek G (2012) Validity of published outcome data concerning anatomic graduated component total knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty register data. Int Orthop 36(1):51–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Labek G, Frischhut S, Schlichtherle R, Williams A, Thaler M (2011) Outcome of the cementless Taperloc stem: a comprehensive literature review including arthroplasty register data. Acta Orthop 82(2):143–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Labek G, Klaus H, Schlichtherle R, Williams A, Agreiter M (2011) Revision rates after total ankle arthroplasty in sample-based clinical studies and national registries. Foot Ankle Int 32(8):740–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Labek G, Sekyra K, Pawelka W, Janda W, Stöckl B (2011) Outcome and reproducibility of data concerning the Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a structured literature review including arthroplasty registry data. Acta Orthop 82(2):131–135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Labek G, Kovac S, Levasic V, Janda W, Zagra L (2012) The outcome of the cementless tapered SL-Plus stem: an analysis of arthroplasty register data. Int Orthop 36(6):1149–1154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boyer P, Boutron I, Ravaud P (2011) Scientific production and impact of national registers: the example of orthopaedic national registers. Osteoarthr Cartil 19(7):858–863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    European Arthroplasty Register (2011) EAR European Arthroplasty Register. http://www.ear.efort.org. Accessed 10/28/2011
  14. 14.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (2010) National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report 2010. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. http://www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr. Accessed 10/28/2011
  15. 15.
    Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register (2010) Dansk Hoftealloplastik Register. Årsrapport 2010. Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. http://www.dhr.dk. Accessed 10/28/2011
  16. 16.
    Register of Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implants (2010) Overall data hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty in the Emilia-Romagna Region (Italy). 1st January 2000 - 31st December 2009. Register of Orthopaedic Prosthetic Implants. https://ripo.cineca.it. Accessed 10/28/2011
  17. 17.
    National Joint Registry for England and Wales (2010) National Joint Registry. 7th Annual Report 2010. National Joint Registry for England and Wales. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk. Accessed 10/28/2011
  18. 18.
    New Zealand National Joint Register (2010) The New Zealand Joint Register. Eleven Year Report. New Zealand National Joint Register. http://www.cdhb.govt.nz/njr. Accessed 10/28/2011
  19. 19.
    Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (2010) The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Report June 2010. Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. http://nrlweb.ihelse.net. Accessed 10/28/2011
  20. 20.
    Portuguese Arthroplasty Register (2010) 1st Annual Report. June 2009 - May 2010. Portuguese Arthroplasty Register. http://www.rpa.spot.pt. Accessed 10/28/2011
  21. 21.
    Necas L, Katina S, Kokavec M, Uhlárová J. Slovenský artroplastický register. analýza 2003 - 2008 (2009) Slovak Arthroplasty Register. https://sar.mfn.sk/. Accessed 10/28/2011
  22. 22.
    Garellick G, Kärrholm J, Rogmark C, Herberts P. Swedish (2010) Hip Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2009. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. http://www.shpr.se. Accessed 10/28/2011
  23. 23.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Demographic Statistics (2010) Estimated Resident Population By Single Year Of Age. http://www.abs.gov.au. Accessed 11/01/2011
  24. 24.
    Statistics Denmark (2010) Population at the first day of the quarter by region, sex, age, marital status, ancestry, country of origin and citizenship. http://www.statbank.dk. Accessed 11/01/2011
  25. 25.
    Italian National Institute of Statistics (2010) Resident population by age, sex and marital status on 1st January 2009. http://demo.istat.it. Accessed 11/01/2011
  26. 26.
    Office for UK National Statistics (2010) Mid Year Population Estimates 2009. http://www.ons.gov.uk. Accessed 11/01/2011
  27. 27.
    Statistics New Zealand Tatauranga Aotearoa (2010) National population estimates, mean year ended 31 December 1991-2010. http://www.stats.govt.nz. Accessed 11/01/2011
  28. 28.
    Statistics Norway (2010) Population, by sex and age. In: http://statbank.ssb.no. Accessed 11/01/201.
  29. 29.
    Statistics Portugal (2010) Resident population (No.) by Sex and Age. Annual 2009. http://www.ine.pt. Accessed 11/01/2011
  30. 30.
    Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic (2009) Population Age status of the Slovak Republic by sex and age as of 1st July 2008. http://www.statistics.sk. Accessed 11/01/2011
  31. 31.
    Statistics Sweden (2010) Sweden’s Population by sex and age on 31/12/2009. http://www.scb.se. Accessed 11/01/2011
  32. 32.
    World Health Organization. Global Health Observatory (2010) Per capita total expenditure on health at average exchange rate (US$). http://www.who.int/gho. Accessed 11/02/2011
  33. 33.
    Furnes O, Lie SA, Espehaug B, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB, Havelin LI (2001) Hip disease and the prognosis of total hip replacements - A review of 53 698 primary total hip replacements reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register 1987–99. J Bone Jt Surg Br 83B:579–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Sadoghi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Christian Schröder
    • 1
  • Andreas Fottner
    • 1
  • Arnd Steinbrück
    • 1
  • Oliver Betz
    • 1
  • Peter E. Müller
    • 1
  • Volkmar Jansson
    • 1
  • Andreas Hölzer
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians University MunichMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMedical University of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations