Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33167753›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2021

Total hip arthroplasties in the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) and the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA): comparison of patient and procedure characteristics in 475,685 cases.

Liza N Van Steenbergen, Keijo T Mäkelä, Johan Kärrholm, Ola Rolfson, Søren Overgaard, Ove Furnes, Alma B Pedersen, Antti Eskelinen, Geir Hallan, Berend W Schreurs and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Liza N Van SteenbergenDutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), 's- Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Keijo T MäkeläDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland.
Johan KärrholmDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Ola RolfsonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Søren OvergaardDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Ove FurnesThe Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Alma B PedersenThe Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Aarhus, Denmark.
Antti EskelinenThe Finnish Arthroplasty Register, Helsinki, Finland.
Geir HallanDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Berend W SchreursDutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), 's- Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.
Rob G H H NelissenDutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI), 's- Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose - Collaborations between arthroplasty registries are important in order to create the possibility of detecting inferior implants early and improve our understanding of differences between nations in terms of indications and outcomes. In this registry study we compared patient and procedure characteristics, and revision rates in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database and the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI).Patients and methods - All total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed in 2010-2016 were included from the LROI (n = 184,862) and the NARA database (n = 290,823), which contains data from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses based on all reasons for revision and stratified by fixation were performed and compared between countries.Results - In the Netherlands, the proportion of patients aged < 55 years (9%) and male patients (34%) was lower than in Nordic countries (< 55 years 11-13%; males 35-43%); the proportion of osteoarthritis (OA) (87%) was higher compared with Sweden (81%), Norway (77%), and Denmark (81%) but comparable to Finland (86%). Uncemented fixation was used in 62% of patients in the Netherlands, in 70% of patients in Denmark and Finland, and in 28% and 19% in Norway and Sweden, respectively. The 5-year revision rate for THAs for OA was lower in Sweden (2.3%, 95% CI 2.1-2.5) than in the Netherlands (3.0%, CI 2.9-3.1), Norway (3.8%, CI 3.6-4.0), Denmark (4.6%, CI 4.4-4.8), and Finland (4.4%, CI 4.3-4.5). Revision rates in Denmark, Norway, and Finland were higher for all fixation groups.Interpretation - Patient and THA procedure characteristics as well as revision rates evinced some differences between the Netherlands and the Nordic countries. The Netherlands compared best with Denmark in terms of patient and procedure characteristics, but resembled Sweden more in terms of short-term revision risk. Combining data from registries like LROI and the NARA collaboration is feasible and might possibly enable tracking of potential outlier implants.

Indexed as

AgedArthroplasty, Replacement, HipFemaleHip ProsthesisHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'ReoperationScandinavian and Nordic Countries

Identifiers

PMID33167753
PMCPMC7919880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.