Advanced

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 LU ; Engesaeter, Lars Birger; Karrholm, Johan; Furnes, Ove; Garellick, Goran and Rogmark, Cecilia LU (2014) In HIP International 24(3). p.223-230
Abstract
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... (More)
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. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Hip fractures, Hemiarthroplasty, Registries, Reoperation
in
HIP International
volume
24
issue
3
pages
223 - 230
publisher
Wichtig Editore
external identifiers
  • wos:000344640200002
  • scopus:84896822702
ISSN
1724-6067
DOI
10.5301/hipint.5000105
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
7a70f9e3-2dba-4be6-9c36-c5d385232018 (old id 4871855)
date added to LUP
2015-01-07 10:48:50
date last changed
2017-09-17 04:23:33
@article{7a70f9e3-2dba-4be6-9c36-c5d385232018,
  abstract     = {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.},
  author       = {Gjertsen, Jan-Erik and Fenstad, Anne Marie and Leonardsson, Olof and Engesaeter, Lars Birger and Karrholm, Johan and Furnes, Ove and Garellick, Goran and Rogmark, Cecilia},
  issn         = {1724-6067},
  keyword      = {Hip fractures,Hemiarthroplasty,Registries,Reoperation},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {3},
  pages        = {223--230},
  publisher    = {Wichtig Editore},
  series       = {HIP International},
  title        = {Hemiarthroplasties after hip fractures in Norway and Sweden: a collaboration between the Norwegian and Swedish national registries},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000105},
  volume       = {24},
  year         = {2014},
}