Medizinische Universität Graz Austria/Österreich - Forschungsportal - Medical University of Graz
Gewählte Publikation:
SHR Neuro Krebs Kardio Lipid Stoffw Microb
Pabinger, C; Berghold, A; Boehler, N; Labek, G.
Revision rates after knee replacement. Cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies versus joint registers.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013; 21(2): 263-268.
Doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.11.014
[OPEN ACCESS]
Web of Science
PubMed
FullText
FullText_MUG
- Führende Autor*innen der Med Uni Graz
- Pabinger Christoph
- Co-Autor*innen der Med Uni Graz
- Berghold Andrea
- Altmetrics:
- Dimensions Citations:
- Plum Analytics:
- Scite (citation analytics):
- Abstract:
- Objective: To assess revision rates after knee arthroplasty by comparing the cumulative results from worldwide clinical studies and arthroplasty registers. We hypothesised that the revision rate of all clinical studies of a given implant and register data would not differ significantly. Methods: A systematic review of clinical studies in indexed peer-reviewed journals was performed followed by internal and external validation. Parameters for measurement of revision were applied (Revision for any reason, Revisions per 100 observed component years). Register data served as control group. Results: Thirty-six knee arthroplasty systems were identified to meet the inclusion criteria: 21 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) systems, 14 unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) systems, one patello-femoral implant system. For 13 systems (36%), no published study was available that contained revision data. For 17 implants (47%), publications were available dealing with radiographic, surgical or technical details, but power was too weak to compare revision rates at a significant level. Six implant systems (17%) had a significant number of revisions published and were finally analysed. In general, developers report better results than independent users. Studies from developers represent an overproportional share of all observed component years. Register data report overall 10-year revision rates of TKA of 6.2% (range: 4.9-7.8%), rates for UKA are 16.5% (range: 9.7-19.6%). Conclusion: Revision rates of all clinical studies of a given implant do not differ significantly from register data. However, significant differences were found between the revision rates published by developers and register data. Therefore the different data need to be interpreted in the context of the source of the information. (C) 2012 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
- Find related publications in this database (using NLM MeSH Indexing)
- Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - classification Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - instrumentation Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee - statistics & numerical data
- Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data
- Humans -
- Outcome Assessment (Health Care) -
- Prosthesis Failure -
- Publishing - statistics & numerical data
- Registries - statistics & numerical data
- Reoperation - statistics & numerical data
- World Health -
- Find related publications in this database (Keywords)
- Total knee arthroplasty
- Unicondylar knee arthroplasty
- Arthroplasty register
- Survival
- Revision
- Revision rate