Hemiarthroplasties after hip fractures in Norway and Sweden: a collaboration between the Norwegian and Swedish national registries
Forskningsoutput: Tidskriftsbidrag › Artikel i vetenskaplig tidskrift
Standard
Hemiarthroplasties after hip fractures in Norway and Sweden: a collaboration between the Norwegian and Swedish national registries. / Gjertsen, Jan-Erik; Fenstad, Anne Marie; Leonardsson, Olof; Engesaeter, Lars Birger; Karrholm, Johan; Furnes, Ove; Garellick, Goran; Rogmark, Cecilia.
I: HIP International, Vol. 24, Nr. 3, 2014, s. 223-230.Forskningsoutput: Tidskriftsbidrag › Artikel i vetenskaplig tidskrift
Harvard
APA
CBE
MLA
Vancouver
Author
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Hemiarthroplasties after hip fractures in Norway and Sweden: a collaboration between the Norwegian and Swedish national registries
AU - Gjertsen, Jan-Erik
AU - Fenstad, Anne Marie
AU - Leonardsson, Olof
AU - Engesaeter, Lars Birger
AU - Karrholm, Johan
AU - Furnes, Ove
AU - Garellick, Goran
AU - Rogmark, Cecilia
PY - 2014
Y1 - 2014
N2 - National registration of hemiarthroplasties after hip fractures has been established in both Norway and Sweden. We aimed to investigate differences in demographics, choice of implant selection, surgical approaches, and reoperations between the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR) and the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR). As part of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) project a common hemiarthroplasty dataset has been established. 36,989 primary hemiarthroplasties (HAs) for acute hip fractures reported to NHFR (n = 12,761) and SHAR (n = 24,228) for the period 2005-2010 were included. Cemented prostheses were used in 78% of the operations in Norway and in 95% of the patients in Sweden. In Norway HAs almost exclusively had bipolar design (98%), whereas in Sweden HAs with unipolar design were used in 42% of the cases. Monoblock (non-modular) prostheses were uncommon, but still more frequently used in Sweden than in Norway (6.9% and 2.1% respectively). The lateral approach was more common in Norway (83%) than in Sweden (52%), where the posterior approach was used in 42% of the cases. The five-year survival of all HAs was 95.5% (95% CI: 94.8-96.2) in Norway and 94.8% (95% CI: 94.4-95.3) in Sweden. We concluded that surprisingly large differences between the two countries in demographics, implant design, and surgical technique had been revealed. This common dataset enables further investigations of the impact of these differences on revision rates and mortality.
AB - National registration of hemiarthroplasties after hip fractures has been established in both Norway and Sweden. We aimed to investigate differences in demographics, choice of implant selection, surgical approaches, and reoperations between the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR) and the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (SHAR). As part of the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) project a common hemiarthroplasty dataset has been established. 36,989 primary hemiarthroplasties (HAs) for acute hip fractures reported to NHFR (n = 12,761) and SHAR (n = 24,228) for the period 2005-2010 were included. Cemented prostheses were used in 78% of the operations in Norway and in 95% of the patients in Sweden. In Norway HAs almost exclusively had bipolar design (98%), whereas in Sweden HAs with unipolar design were used in 42% of the cases. Monoblock (non-modular) prostheses were uncommon, but still more frequently used in Sweden than in Norway (6.9% and 2.1% respectively). The lateral approach was more common in Norway (83%) than in Sweden (52%), where the posterior approach was used in 42% of the cases. The five-year survival of all HAs was 95.5% (95% CI: 94.8-96.2) in Norway and 94.8% (95% CI: 94.4-95.3) in Sweden. We concluded that surprisingly large differences between the two countries in demographics, implant design, and surgical technique had been revealed. This common dataset enables further investigations of the impact of these differences on revision rates and mortality.
KW - Hip fractures
KW - Hemiarthroplasty
KW - Registries
KW - Reoperation
U2 - 10.5301/hipint.5000105
DO - 10.5301/hipint.5000105
M3 - Article
C2 - 24500828
VL - 24
SP - 223
EP - 230
JO - HIP International
JF - HIP International
SN - 1724-6067
IS - 3
ER -