No abstract

Introduction The survival of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) has been considered to be poor in young patients. We evaluated the population-based survival of uncemented THA for primary osteoarthritis (OA) in patients under 55 years of age and the factors affecting survival.Methods The Finnish Arthroplasty Register was established in 1980. Between that year and 2003, 92,083 primary THAs were entered in the register, 5,607 of which were performed for primary OA in patients under 55 years of age. Using records from these 5,607 THAs, we selected uncemented femoral and acetabular components that had been used in more than 100 operations during the study period. Survival of both components (cup/stem) and their combinations were analyzed separately with the Kaplan-Meier analysis and the Cox regression model.Results All uncemented stems studied showed a survival rate of over 90% at 10 years. The Biomet Bi-Metric stem had a 95% (95% CI 93-97) survival rate even at 15 years. Overall survival of the extendedly porous-coated Lord Madréporique stem (p = 0.003) and the proximally porous-coated Anatomic Mesh stem (p = 0.0008) were poorer than that of the Biomet Bi-Metric stem. When endpoint was defined as stem revision for any reason, results were generally similar; there was no difference, however, between the survival rates of the Lord Madréporique stem and the Bi-Metric stem.

One year after a displaced midshaft clavicular fracture, nonoperative treatment resulted in a higher nonunion rate but similar function and disability compared with operative treatment.

Modern uncemented stems seem to have better resistance to aseptic loosening than cemented stems in younger patients. Thus, for younger patients, uncemented proximally circumferentially porous- and HA-coated stems are the implants of choice. Press-fit porous- and HA-coated uncemented cups may have better endurance against aseptic loosening than cemented cups in younger patients. However, when all revisions (including exchange of liner) are taken into account, the survival of modern uncemented cups is no better than that of all-poly cemented cups.

No abstract

Background The choice and use of unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA) has gone through a nation wide resurgence at the start of the 21st century in Finland. We evaluated the population-based survival of UKA in patients with primary osteoarthritis (OA) in Finland, and the factors affecting their survival.Method The Finnish Arthroplasty Register was established in 1980. During the years 1985-2003, 1,928 primary UKAs were recorded in the register; 1,819 of these were performed for primary OA. Of these 1,819 UKAs, we selected for further analysis implants that had been used in more than 100 operations during the study period. The survival rates of UKAs were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the Cox regression model.Results Analysis of the whole study period showed that UKAs had a 73% (95% CI: 70-76) survival rate at 10 years, with revision for any reason as the end point. Those patients who received the Oxford menisceal bearing unicondylar (n = 1145) had a survival rate of 81% (95% CI: 72-89) at 10 years. The group that received the Miller-Galante II unicondylar (n = 330) had a 79% survival rate (95% CI: 71-87) at 10 years, whereas the Duracon (n = 196) had a survival rate of 78% (95% CI: 72-84) and the PCA (n = 146) had a survival rate of 53% (95% CI: 45-60) at 10 years. The number of UKA operations in Finland has increased markedly in recent years. At the time of operation, the mean age of the patients was 65 (38-91) years. Younger patients (≤ 65 years of age) were found to have a 1.5-fold (95% CI:

Background Balancing the relative advantages and disadvantages of unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) against those for TKAs can be challenging. Survivorship is one important end point; arthroplasty registers repeatedly report inferior midterm survival rates, but longer-term data are sparse. Comparing survival directly by using arthroplasty register survival reports also may be inadequate because of differences in indications, implant designs, and patient demographics in patients having UKAs and TKAs. Questions/purposes The aims of this study were to assess the survivorship of UKA in the context of one large, northern European registry, and to compare the rates of survivorship with those of cemented TKAs performed for primary knee osteoarthritis during the same 27-year period. Methods From the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, we obtained the data for 4713 patients undergoing UKAs for primary osteoarthritis (mean age, 63.5 years; minimum followup, 0 years; mean, 6.0 years; range, 0-24 years) who had surgical revision between 1985 and 2011. From this cohort, we calculated the Kaplan-Meier survivorship for revision performed for any reason and compared it with the survivorship of 83,511 patients (mean age, 69.5 years; minimum followup 0 years; mean, 6.4 years; range, 0-27 years) with TKAs treated for primary osteoarthritis during the same period. Data were adjusted for age and sex in a comparative analysis.

The fusion in situ group seems to perform better in almost all clinical parameters measured. These findings suggest that fusion in situ should be considered as a method of choice in severe L5 isthmic spondylolisthesis.