Skip to main content
Log in

Verwendungsraten von Prothesen der unteren Extremität in Deutschland und der Schweiz

Ein Vergleich der Jahre 2005–2008

Utilization rates of lower extremity prostheses in Germany and Switzerland

A comparison of the years 2005–2008

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Orthopäde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

In den USA hat die Verwendung der totalen Hüftprothese innerhalb der letzten Dekade stark zugenommen. Es ist jedoch nicht bekannt, ob sich dieser Trend auf andere Länder übertragen lässt. Ziel dieser Untersuchung war daher der detaillierte Vergleich der Verwendungsraten von Hüft-, Knie- und OSG-Prothesen in der BRD und der Schweiz im Zeitraum 2005–2008 und ein Sekundärvergleich mit den USA.

Patienten und Methoden

Aus Daten der beiden statistischen Bundesämter wurden die Einwohnerzahl, Geschlechts- und Altersverteilung sowie die Anzahl von Primär- und Revisionseingriffen ermittelt. Aus diesen Kennzahlen konnte die Anzahl von Primär-, Revisions- und Gesamteingriffen, der Revisionslast, von Primär- und Revisionsraten pro 100.000 Einwohner und Jahr sowie geschlechts- und altersspezifische Primär- und Revisionsraten berechnet werden. Ein im Vergleich dazu reduzierter Datensatz aus den USA stammt direkt vom Autor der entsprechenden Auswertungen.

Ergebnisse

In Deutschland, der Schweiz und den USA stieg die Anzahl der Voll- und Teilhüftprothesenimplantationen pro 100.000 Personen von 235,8, 238,2 und 116,8 im Jahr 2005 auf 254,7, 262,7 und 127,3 an. Für Voll- und Teilknieprothesen lagen die Raten bei 156,3, 140,1 und 178,2 Implantationen in 2005 und 188,3, 176,8 und 213,6 in 2008. Die Revisionslast für Hüftprothesen lag in der BRD in 2005 mit 13,6% um 3,6% höher als in der Schweiz und betrug 11,2% in den USA. In 2008 lag sie mit 15,1% um 4,6% höher als in der Schweiz und betrug wiederum 11,2% in den USA. Für Knieprothesen lag die Last in der BRD in 2005 bei 11,1% und damit 3,5% höher als in der Schweiz; in den USA betrug sie 7,4%. In 2008 lag sie bei 12,8% und somit 4,2% höher als in der Schweiz und betrug 8,9% in den USA. In allen 3 Ländern lag die Revisionslast für Knieprothesen stets unter derjenigen für Hüftprothesen.

Schlussfolgerung

In allen 3 Ländern stiegen die Primärraten für Hüft- und Knieprothesen an, diejenigen für Knieprothesen stärker. Die Revisionslasten lagen in 2008 für beide Prothesentypen in der BRD am höchsten. In der Schweiz gab es eine vorübergehende Senkung der Revisionslasten und erst ab 2007 wieder einen Anstieg. Die Verwendungsrate von Hüftprothesen pro 100.000 Einwohner lag in den USA stark unter den Raten der BRD und der Schweiz, für Knieprothesen lag sie leicht darüber.

Abstract

Background

In the United States the use of total hip arthroplasty (THA) has substantially increased over the last decade. It is not known, however, if this trend can be applied to other countries as well. The aim of the current study was therefore a detailed comparison of hip, knee, and ankle arthroplasty utilization rates in Germany and Switzerland in the years 2005–2008 and a secondary comparison with the United States.

Patients and methods

Based on datasets from the national statistical offices the number of inhabitants, gender and age distributions and the number of primary and revision surgeries were determined. These figures served for calculating primary, revision and overall surgical volumes, revision burden, primary and revision rates per 100,000 inhabitants, gender and age-specific primary and revision rates. A comparably smaller dataset was provided for the respective US analyses.

Results

In Germany, Switzerland and the US the number of implanted total and partial hip arthroplasties per 100,000 inhabitants rose from 235.8, 238.2 and 116.8 in 2005 to 254.7, 262.7 and 127.3 in 2008, respectively. For total and partial knee arthroplasty the rates were 156.3, 140.1 and 178.2 implantations in 2005 and 188.3, 176.8 and 213.6 in 2008, respectively. With 13.6% the revision burden in Germany was 3.6% higher than in Switzerland and accounted for 11.2% in the US. In 2008 it was 15.1% in Germany, was hence 4.6% higher than in Switzerland and remained stable at 11.2% in the US. For knee replacements the 2005 German revision burden was 11.1% which was 3.5% higher than in Switzerland and was 7.4% in the US. In 2008 it was 12.8% in Germany and 4.2% lower in Switzerland and in the US it accounted for 8.9%. In all three countries the revision burden for knee arthroplasty was constantly lower than for hip arthroplasty.

Conclusion

In all three countries the primary rates for hip and knee replacements rose over the years but those for knee arthroplasty to a higher extent. The 2008 revision burden was highest in Germany for both types of arthroplasty. In Switzerland there was a transient revision burden decrease with a new increase from the year 2007 onwards. The US hip replacement utilization rates per 100,000 inhabitants were considerably lower than those in Germany and Switzerland and for knee replacements they were slightly higher.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Sculco T, Martucci E (eds) (2002) Total knee arthroplasty, chapter 16. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

  2. Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Cabanela ME et al (2002) Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 84-A:171–177

  3. Crowninshield RD, Rosenberg AG, Sporer SM (2006) Changing demographics of patients with total joint replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 443:266–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Culliford DJ, Maskell J, Beard DJ et al (2010) Temporal trends in hip and knee replacement in the United Kingdom: 1991 to 2006. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 92:130–135

    Google Scholar 

  5. Foran JR, Mont MA, Rajadhyaksha AD et al (2004) Total knee arthroplasty in obese patients: a comparison with a matched control group. J Arthroplasty 19:817–824

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Katz JN, Mahomed NN, Baron JA et al (2007) Association of hospital and surgeon procedure volume with patient-centered outcomes of total knee replacement in a population-based cohort of patients age 65 years and older. Arthritis Rheum 56:568–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kelly MP, Bozic KJ (2009) Cost drivers in total hip arthroplasty: effects of procedure volume and implant selling price. Am J Orthop 38:E1–E4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Khatod M, Inacio M, Paxton EW et al (2008) Knee replacement: epidemiology, outcomes, and trends in Southern California: 17,080 replacements from 1995 through 2004. Acta Orthop 79:812–819

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K et al (2005) Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 87:1487–1497

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E et al (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 89:780–785

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kurtz S, Röder C, Lau E et al (2010) International survey of primary and revision total hip replacement. 56th annual meeting of the orthopaedic research society. New Orleans, USA

  12. Kurtz SM, Ong KL, Schmier J et al (2007) Future clinical and economic impact of revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 89(Suppl 3):144–151

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mahomed NN, Barrett JA, Katz JN et al (2003) Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 85-A:27–32

    Google Scholar 

  14. Malchau H, Herberts P, Eisler T et al (2002) The Swedish total hip replacement register. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 84-A(Suppl 2):2–20

  15. Manley M, Ong K, Lau E et al (2008) Effect of volume on total hip arthroplasty revision rates in the United States medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 90:2446–2451

    Google Scholar 

  16. Münger P, Röder C, Ackermann-Liebrich U et al (2006) Patient-related risk factors leading to aseptic stem loosening in total hip arthroplasty: a case-control study of 5,035 patients. Acta Orthop 77:567–574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Röder C, Bach B, Berry DJ et al (2010) Obesity, age, sex, diagnosis, and fixation mode differently affect early cup failure in total hip arthroplasty: a matched case-control study of 4420 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:1954–1963

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schräder P, Grouven U, Bender R (2007) Is it possible to calculate minimum provider volumes for total knee replacement using routine data? Results of a threshold value analysis of German quality assurance data for inpatient treatment. Orthopade 36:570–576

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schräder P, Rath T (2007) Volume-outcome-relationship in total hip replacement–literature review and model calculation of the health care situation. Z Orthop Unfall 145:281–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Shervin N, Rubash HE, Katz JN (2007) Orthopaedic procedure volume and patient outcomes: a systematic literature review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 457:35–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Young NL, Cheah D, Waddell JP et al (1998) Patient characteristics that affect the outcome of total hip arthroplasty: a review. Can J Surg 41:188–195

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Röder MPH.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Falbrede, I., Widmer, M., Kurtz, S. et al. Verwendungsraten von Prothesen der unteren Extremität in Deutschland und der Schweiz. Orthopäde 40, 793–801 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-011-1787-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-011-1787-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation