A national population-based cruciate ligament registry has been developed, implemented, and maintained in Norway. The registry will each year enroll approximately 1500 primary cruciate ligament reconstruction cases. It is expected that inadequate procedures and devices can be identified, as well as prognostic factors associated with good and poor outcomes, at least for the most frequent categories.

In 1985, the Norwegian Orthopaedic Association decided to establish a national hip register, and the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register was started in 1987. In January 1994, it was extended to include all artificial joints. The main purpose of the register is to detect inferior results of implants as early as possible. All hospitals participate, and the orthopedic surgeons are supposed to report all primary operations and all revisions. Using the patient's unique national social security number, the revision can be linked to the primary operation, and survival analyses of the implants are done. In general, the survival analyses are performed with the Kaplan-Meier method or using Cox multiple regression analysis with adjustment for possible confounding factors such as age, gender, and diagnosis. Survival probabilities can be calculated for each of the prosthetic components. The end-point in the analyses is revision surgery, and we can assess the rate of revision due to specific causes like aseptic loosening, infection, or dislocation. Not only survival, but also pain, function, and satisfaction have been registered for subgroups of patients.We receive reports about more than 95% of the prosthesis operations. The register has detected inferior implants 3 years after their introduction, and several uncemented prostheses were abandoned during the early 1990s due to our documentation of poor performance. Further, our results also contributed to withdrawal of the Boneloc cement. The register has published papers on economy, prophylactic use of antibiotics, patients' satisfaction and function, mortality, and results for different hospital categories.In the analyses presented here, we have compared the results of primary cemented and uncemented hip prostheses in patients less than 60 years of age, with 0-11 years' follow-up. The uncemented circumferentially porous-or hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated femoral stems had better survival rates than the cemented ones. In young patients, we found that cemented cups had better survival than uncemented porous-coated cups, mainly because of higher rates of revision from wear and osteolysis among the latter. The uncemented HA-coated cups with more than 6 years of follow-up had an increased revision rate, compared to cemented cups due to aseptic loosening as well as wear and osteolysis.We now present new findings about the six commonest cemented acetabular and femoral components. Generally, the results were good, with a prosthesis survival of 95% or better at 10 years, and the differences among the prosthesis brands were small.Since the practice of using undocumented implants has not changed, the register will continue to survey these implants. We plan to assess the mid-and long-term results of implants that have so far had good short-term results.n

No abstract

Background and purpose The risk of revision due to infection after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be increasing in Norway. We investigated whether this increase is a common feature in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden).Materials and methods The study was based on the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) dataset. 432,168 primary THAs from 1995 to 2009 were included (Denmark: 83,853, Finland 78,106, Norway 88,455, and Sweden 181,754). Adjusted survival analyses were performed using Cox regression models with revision due to infection as the endpoint. The effect of risk factors such as the year of surgery, age, sex, diagnosis, type of prosthesis, and fixation were assessed.Results 2,778 (0.6%) of the primary THAs were revised due to infection. Compared to the period 1995–1999, the relative risk (with 95% CI) of revision due to infection was 1.1 (1.0–1.2) in 2000–2004 and 1.6 (1.4–1.7) in 2005–2009. Adjusted cumulative 5–year revision rates due to infection were 0.46% (0.42–0.50) in 1995–1999, 0.54% (0.50–0.58) in 2000–2004, and 0.71% (0.66–0.76) in 2005–2009. The entire increase in risk of revision due to infection was within 1 year of primary surgery, and most notably in the first 3 months. The risk of revision due to infection increased in all 4 countries. Risk factors for revision due to infection were male sex, hybrid fixation, cement without antibiotics, and THA performed due to inflammatory disease, hip fracture, or femoral head necrosis. None of these risk factors increased in incidence during the study period.Interpretation We found increased relative risk of revision and increased cumulative 5–year revision rates due to infection after primary THA during the period 1995–2009. No change in risk factors in the NARA dataset could explain this increase. We believe that there has been an actual increase in the incidence of prosthetic joint infections after THA.

We studied the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis, systemically and in bone cement, on the revision rate of cemented total hip arthroplasties (THAs) in data from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register during the period 1987-2001. To have comparable groups, only THAs performed because of primary osteoarthritis, using cemented implants with documented good results, and high-viscosity cement were included. If systemic antibiotic prophylaxis had been given, only operations with cephalosporin or penicillin were selected. Cox-estimated survival relative revision risks (RR) are presented with adjustment for differences among groups in gender, age, cement brand, type of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis, type of prosthesis, type of operating room, and duration of the operation. Of 22,170 THAs studied, 696 THAs (3.1%) were revised, 440 (2.0%) for aseptic loosening and 102 (0.5%) for deep infection. We found the lowest risk of revision when the antibiotic prophylaxis was given both systemically and in the cement (15,676 THAs). Compared to this combined regime, patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis only systemically (5,960 THAs) had a 1.4 times higher revision rate with all reasons for revision as endpoint (p = 0.001), 1.3 times higher with aseptic loosening (p = 0.02) and 1.8 times higher with infection as the endpoint (p = 0.01). With the combined antibiotic regime, the results were better if antibiotics were given 4 times on the day of surgery (2,194 THAs), as compared to once (1,424 THAs) (p < 0.001), twice (2,680 THAs) (p < 0.001), or 3 times (5,522 THAs) (p = 0.02). Those who received systemic prophylaxis a single day 1, 2 or 3 times, as compared to 4 times, had a revision rate 1.8-3.5 times higher with all reasons for revision as endpoint, 1.5-3.1 times higher with aseptic loosening, and 2.7-6.8 times higher with infection. When we compared systemic prophylaxis 4 times in 1 day, no further improvement resulted in those given systemic prophylaxis for 2 days (1,928 THAs) or 3 days (717 THAs). In a subset of data including only the Charnley prosthesis, we obtained similar results. This observational study shows that the best results were recorded when antibiotic prophylaxis was given both systemically and in the bone cement, and if the systemic antibiotic was given 4 times on the day of surgery.

Introduction A high degree of registration completeness is necessary in order to obtain unbiased and accurate register-based study results. We investigated the completeness of registration in the national Norwegian Arthroplasty Register (NAR).Material and methods Registration completeness for the years 1999-2002 was calculated as a percentage, with the number of joint replacements reported to the NAR as numerator and those reported to the Norwegian Patient Register (NPR) as denominator. While the NAR received information directly from the orthopedic surgeons on a voluntary basis, the NPR, which is mandatory, received information from the electronic administrative patient records of the hospitals.Results Registration completeness in the NAR was 97% (97% for primary operations; 101% for revisions). Completeness was 98% (97%; 106%) for hip replacements, and for knee replacements it was 99% (99%; 97%). Hip and knee replacements represented 95% of all operations. However, completeness was poorer for less common joint replacements and poorest for ankle implants (82%; 40%) and wrist implants (52%; 14%). In the NAR, completeness of registration of revisions involving only removal of one or more prosthetic parts was lower than for exchange revisions for all types of joint replacement. For hip implants, 76% of the removal revisions (80% of Girdlestone procedures) were reported, and for knee implants the figure was 62%. According to NPR statistics, removal procedures accounted for 9% of all revisions of hip and knee replacements.Interpretation In the NAR, registration completeness of hip and knee replacements was high both for

No abstract

Displaced femoral neck fractures in the elderly should be treated with hemiarthroplasty.