The probability of postherpetic neuralgia in children and adolescents is extremely low. Zoster is seldom associated with undiagnosed malignancy in the primary care setting.

We evaluated the rates of survival and cause of revision of seven different brands of cemented primary total knee replacement (TKR) in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the years 1994 to 2009. Revision for any cause, including resurfacing of the patella, was the primary endpoint. Specific causes of revision were secondary outcomes. Three posterior cruciate-retaining (PCR) fixed modular-bearing TKRs, two fixed non-modular bearing PCR TKRs and two mobilebearing posterior cruciate-sacrificing TKRs were investigated in a total of 17 782 primary TKRs. The median follow-up for the implants ranged from 1.8 to 6.9 years. Kaplan-Meier 10-year survival ranged from 89.5% to 95.3%. Cox's relative risk (RR) was calculated relative to the fixed modularbearing Profix knee (the most frequently used TKR in Norway), and ranged from 1.1 to 2.6. The risk of revision for aseptic tibial loosening was higher in the mobile-bearing LCS Classic (RR 6.8 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.8 to 12.1)), the LCS Complete (RR 7.7 (95% CI 4.1 to 14.4)), the fixed modular-bearing Duracon (RR 4.5 (95% CI 1.8 to 11.1)) and the fixed non-modular bearing AGC Universal TKR (RR 2.5 (95% CI 1.3 to 5.1)), compared with the Profix. These implants (except AGC Universal) also had an increased risk of revision for femoral loosening (RR 2.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.8), RR 3.7 (95% CI1.6 to 8.9), and RR 3.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 11.0), respectively). These results suggest that aseptic loosening is related to design in TKR.The aim of this study was to investigate the rate of survival and causes of revision for seven brands of cemented primary total knee replacement (TKR) registered in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR) between 1994 and 2009. The brands are the currently and historically among the most commonly used both in Norway and around the world 1,2 . The study was limited to cemented implants without patellar resurfacing, and the data reflect the results of the average surgeon. We accept that pooling of data from many surgeons, with different experience, patient volumes and skills, may give good external validity but may also hide the effect of a learning curve and any positive effect that may be related to high volumes undertaken by some surgeons.We also investigated whether survival was brand specific or related to particular types of design. Patients and MethodsData from patients registered in the NAR during this time were evaluated. The registration of hip replacements in the NAR started in 1987 and was expanded to include TKRs and the replacement of other joints in 1994 3,4 . All TKRs were cemented and were inserted without patellar components. Differences between the designs were predominantly on the tibial side; two were mobile-bearing TKRs (LCS Classic and LCS Complete (DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana), both rotating platform), two were non-modular fixed bearing TKRs (AGC Universal and AGC Anatomic; both Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana), and three were modular fixed-bearing TKRs (Duracon; Stryker, Portage, Michigan; NexGen; Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana; and Prof...

We performed a randomised controlled trial comparing computer-assisted surgery (CAS) with conventional surgery (CONV) in total knee replacement (TKR). Between 2009 and 2011 a total of 192 patients with a mean age of 68 years (55 to 85) with osteoarthritis or arthritic disease of the knee were recruited from four Norwegian hospitals. At three months follow-up, functional results were marginally better for the CAS group. Mean differences (MD) in favour of CAS were found for the Knee Society function score (MD: 5.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.3 to 11.4, p = 0.039), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales for 'pain' (MD: 7.7, 95% CI 1.7 to 13.6, p = 0.012), 'sports' (MD: 13.5, 95% CI 5.6 to 21.4, p = 0.001) and 'quality of life' (MD: 7.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 14.3, p = 0.046). At one-year follow-up, differences favouring CAS were found for KOOS 'sports' (MD: 11.0, 95% CI 3.0 to 19.0, p = 0.007) and KOOS 'symptoms' (MD: 6.7, 95% CI 0.5 to 13.0, p = 0.035). The use of CAS resulted in fewer outliers in frontal alignment (> 3° malalignment), both for the entire TKR (37.9% vs. 17.9%, p = 0.042) and for the tibial component separately (28.4% vs 6.3%, p = 0.002). Tibial slope was better achieved with CAS (58.9% vs. 26.3%, p < 0.001). Operation time was 20 minutes longer with CAS. In conclusion, functional results were, statistically, marginally in favour of CAS. Also, CAS was more predictable than CONV for mechanical alignment and positioning of the prosthesis. However, the long-term outcomes must be further investigated.

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.