Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for

  • Author: Ola Rolfson x
Clear All Modify Search
Konrad Sebastian Wronka Department Of Orthopaedics, Prince Philip Hospital, Hywel Dda University Healthboard, Llanelli, UK

Search for other papers by Konrad Sebastian Wronka in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Michell Gerard-Wilson Department Of Orthopaedics, Prince Philip Hospital, Hywel Dda University Healthboard, Llanelli, UK

Search for other papers by Michell Gerard-Wilson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Elizabeth Peel Department Of Orthopaedics, Prince Philip Hospital, Hywel Dda University Healthboard, Llanelli, UK

Search for other papers by Elizabeth Peel in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ola Rolfson Department Of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden

Search for other papers by Ola Rolfson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Peter Herman Johan Cnudde Department Of Orthopaedics, Prince Philip Hospital, Hywel Dda University Healthboard, Llanelli, UK
Department Of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden

Search for other papers by Peter Herman Johan Cnudde in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

  • This review article presents a comprehensive literature review regarding extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO).

  • The history, rationale, biomechanical considerations as well as indications are discussed.

  • The outcomes and complications as reported in the literature are presented, discussed and compared with our own practice.

  • Based on the available evidence, we present our preferred technique for performing ETO, its fixation, as well as post-operative rehabilitation.

  • The ETO aids implant removal and enhanced access. Reported union rate of ETO is high. The complications related to ETO are much less frequent than in cases when accidental intra-operative femoral fracture occurred that required fixation.

  • Based on the literature and our own experience we recommend ETO as a useful adjunct in the arsenal of the revision hip specialist.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:104-112. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190005

Open access
Georgios Tsikandylakis Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden

Search for other papers by Georgios Tsikandylakis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Maziar Mohaddes Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden

Search for other papers by Maziar Mohaddes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Peter Cnudde Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden
Department of Orthopaedics, Prince Philip Hospital, HDUHB, Wales

Search for other papers by Peter Cnudde in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Antti Eskelinen Coxa Hospital for Joint Replacement, Tampere, Finland
Finnish Arthroplasty Register, Helsinki, Finland

Search for other papers by Antti Eskelinen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Johan Kärrholm Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden

Search for other papers by Johan Kärrholm in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Ola Rolfson Department of Orthopaedics, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden

Search for other papers by Ola Rolfson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

  • The use of larger femoral head size in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has increased during the past decade; 32 mm and 36 mm are the most commonly used femoral head sizes, as reported by several arthroplasty registries.

  • The use of large femoral heads seems to be a trade-off between increased stability and decreased THA survivorship.

  • We reviewed the literature, mainly focussing on the past 5 years, identifying benefits and complications associated with the trend of using larger femoral heads in THA.

  • We found that there is no benefit in hip range of movement or hip function when head sizes > 36 mm are used.

  • The risk of revision due to dislocation is lower for 36 mm or larger bearings compared with 28 mm or smaller and probably even with 32 mm.

  • Volumetric wear and frictional torque are increased in bearings bigger than 32 mm compared with 32 mm or smaller in metal-on-cross-linked polyethylene (MoXLPE) THA, but not in ceramic-on-XLPE (CoXLPE).

  • Long-term THA survivorship is improved for 32 mm MoXLPE bearings compared with both larger and smaller ones.

  • We recommend a 32 mm femoral head if MoXLPE bearings are used. In hips operated on with larger bearings the use of ceramic heads on XLPE appears to be safer.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2018;3 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.170061.

Open access
Ian Wilson Concordia Joint Replacement Group, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Search for other papers by Ian Wilson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Eric Bohm Canadian Joint Replacement Registry, University of Manitoba, Concordia Joint Replacement Group, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Search for other papers by Eric Bohm in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Anne Lübbeke Geneva Arthroplasty Registry, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland

Search for other papers by Anne Lübbeke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Stephen Lyman Hospital for Special Surgery and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA

Search for other papers by Stephen Lyman in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Søren Overgaard Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Search for other papers by Søren Overgaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ola Rolfson Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register and Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

Search for other papers by Ola Rolfson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Annette W-Dahl Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden

Search for other papers by Annette W-Dahl in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Mark Wilkinson University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Mark Wilkinson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Michael Dunbar Canadian Joint Replacement Registry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Search for other papers by Michael Dunbar in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

  • Total joint arthroplasty is performed to decreased pain, restore function and productivity and improve quality of life.

  • One-year implant survivorship following surgery is nearly 100%; however, self-reported satisfaction is 80% after total knee arthroplasty and 90% after total hip arthroplasty.

  • Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are produced by patients reporting on their own health status directly without interpretation from a surgeon or other medical professional; a PRO measure (PROM) is a tool, often a questionnaire, that measures different aspects of patient-related outcomes.

  • Generic PROs are related to a patient’s general health and quality of life, whereas a specific PRO is focused on a particular disease, symptom or anatomical region.

  • While revision surgery is the traditional endpoint of registries, it is blunt and likely insufficient as a measure of success; PROMs address this shortcoming by expanding beyond survival and measuring outcomes that are relevant to patients – relief of pain, restoration of function and improvement in quality of life.

  • PROMs are increasing in use in many national and regional orthopaedic arthroplasty registries.

  • PROMs data can provide important information on value-based care, support quality assurance and improvement initiatives, help refine surgical indications and may improve shared decision-making and surgical timing.

  • There are several practical considerations that need to be considered when implementing PROMs collection, as the undertaking itself may be expensive, a burden to the patient, as well as being time and labour intensive.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180080

Open access
Claus Varnum The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark

Search for other papers by Claus Varnum in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Alma Bečić Pedersen Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

Search for other papers by Alma Bečić Pedersen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ola Rolfson The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register
Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

Search for other papers by Ola Rolfson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Cecilia Rogmark The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register
Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Department of Orthopedics, Malmö, Sweden

Search for other papers by Cecilia Rogmark in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ove Furnes The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Search for other papers by Ove Furnes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Geir Hallan The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Search for other papers by Geir Hallan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Keijo Mäkelä The Finnish Arthroplasty Register
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland

Search for other papers by Keijo Mäkelä in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Richard de Steiger Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), Adelaide, Australia
Department of Surgery, Epworth HealthCare, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Search for other papers by Richard de Steiger in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Martyn Porter The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man
Centre for Hip Surgery, Wrightington Hospital, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust, Lancashire, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Martyn Porter in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Søren Overgaard The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register
Orthopaedic Research Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

Search for other papers by Søren Overgaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

  • Total hip arthroplasty (THA) registers are established in several countries to collect data aiming to improve the results after THA. Monitoring of adverse outcomes after THA has focused mainly on revision surgery, but patient-reported outcomes have also been investigated.

  • Several surgery-related factors influencing the survival of the THA have been thoroughly investigated and have changed clinical practice. These factors include surgical approach, specific implants, the size of the components, type of fixation and different bone cements.

  • Register data have been used to examine the risk of venous thromboembolism and bleeding after THA. These investigations have resulted in shorter duration of thromboprophylaxis and a reduced frequency of blood transfusion.

  • Registers may provide specific information to surgeons on the outcome of all THAs that they have performed with a detailed analysis of revisions rates and reasons for the revisions.

  • A number of other stakeholders can use register data to provide benchmarks. The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man supplies data to the Orthopaedic Device Evaluation Panel (ODEP), which provides benchmarks at 3, 5, 7, 10, and 13 years graded from A*, A, B and C.

  • Future perspectives: National registers have to play a major role in documenting the quality of THA in order to describe best practice and report implant outliers. The registers have to be used for research and post-market surveillance and register data may be a source for intelligent decision tools.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180091

Open access
Bart G. Pijls Department of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Bart G. Pijls in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jennifer M. T. A. Meessen Department of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Jennifer M. T. A. Meessen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Keith Tucker Implant Performance Committee, England and Wales National Joint Registry, ODEP, Beyond Compliance and MHRA Expert Advisory Group for MoM Prostheses, London, UK

Search for other papers by Keith Tucker in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Susanna Stea Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy

Search for other papers by Susanna Stea in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Liza Steenbergen Dutch Arthroplasty Register (Landelijke Registratie Orthopedische Implantaten, LROI), 's- Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Liza Steenbergen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Anne Marie Fenstad The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway

Search for other papers by Anne Marie Fenstad in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Keijo Mäkelä Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland

Search for other papers by Keijo Mäkelä in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ioan Cristian Stoica Foisor Orthopaedics Clinical Hospital, Bucharest, Romania

Search for other papers by Ioan Cristian Stoica in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Maxim Goncharov VJRR, Russian Scientific Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics, St Petersburg, Russia

Search for other papers by Maxim Goncharov in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Søren Overgaard Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

Search for other papers by Søren Overgaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jorge Arias de la Torre Departament de Salut, Agència de Qualitat i Avaluació Sanitàries de Catalunya (AQuAS), Barcelona, Spain
CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
Instituto de Biomedicina (IBIOMED). Universidad de León, León, Spain

Search for other papers by Jorge Arias de la Torre in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Anne Lübbeke Division of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Search for other papers by Anne Lübbeke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ola Rolfson Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

Search for other papers by Ola Rolfson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Rob G. H. H. Nelissen Department of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Rob G. H. H. Nelissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

  • The purpose of this paper is to determine the prevalence of metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip replacement (THR) in European registries, to assess the incidence of revision surgery and to describe the national follow-up guidelines for patients with MoM THR including resurfacings.

  • Eleven registries of the Network of Orthopaedic Registries of Europe (NORE) participated totalling 54 434 resurfacings and 58 498 large stemmed MoM THRs.

  • The resurfacings and stemmed large head MoM had higher pooled revision rates at five years than the standard total hip arthroplasties (THA): 6.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.3 to 6.8 for resurfacings; 6.9%, 95% CI 4.4 to 9.4 for stemmed large head MoM; and 3.0%, 95% CI 2.5 to 3.6 for conventional THA.

  • The resurfacings and stemmed large head MoM had higher pooled revision rates at ten years than the standard THAs: 12.1%, 95% CI 11.0 to 13.3 for resurfacings; 15.5%, 95% CI 9.0 to 22 for stemmed large head MoM; and 5.1%, 95% CI 3.8 to 6.4 for conventional THA.

  • Although every national registry reports slightly different protocols for follow-up, these mostly consist of annual assessments of cobalt and chromium levels in blood and MRI (MARS) imaging.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180078

Open access
Keijo T. Mäkelä Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Finland, and the Finnish Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Keijo T. Mäkelä in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ove Furnes Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, and the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Ove Furnes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Geir Hallan Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, and the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Geir Hallan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Anne Marie Fenstad Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, and the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Anne Marie Fenstad in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ola Rolfson Sahlgrenska University Hospital and University of Gothenburg, Sweden, and the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Ola Rolfson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Johan Kärrholm Sahlgrenska University Hospital and University of Gothenburg, Sweden, and the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Johan Kärrholm in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Cecilia Rogmark Department of Orthopedics, Skåne University Hospital, Department of Clinical Sciences Malmö, Lund University, and the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Sweden

Search for other papers by Cecilia Rogmark in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Alma Becic Pedersen Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark, and the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Alma Becic Pedersen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Otto Robertsson The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedics, Skåne University Hospital, and Department of Clinical Sciences, Orthopedics, Lund University, Sweden

Search for other papers by Otto Robertsson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Annette W-Dahl The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopedics, Skåne University Hospital, and Department of Clinical Sciences, Orthopedics, Lund University, Sweden

Search for other papers by Annette W-Dahl in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Antti Eskelinen Coxa Hospital for Joint Replacement, Tampere, Finland, and the Finnish Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Antti Eskelinen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Henrik M. Schrøder Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Naestved Hospital, Denmark, and the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Henrik M. Schrøder in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Ville Äärimaa Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, Finland, and the Finnish Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Ville Äärimaa in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jeppe V. Rasmussen Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, and the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Jeppe V. Rasmussen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Björn Salomonsson Department of Orthopedics, Karolinska Institutet, Danderyds Sjukhus AB, Sweden, and the Swedish Shoulder Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Björn Salomonsson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Randi Hole Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway, and the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Randi Hole in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Søren Overgaard Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, and the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register

Search for other papers by Søren Overgaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close

  • The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) was established in 2007 by arthroplasty register representatives from Sweden, Norway and Denmark with the overall aim to improve the quality of research and thereby enhance the possibility for quality improvement with arthroplasty surgery. Finland joined the NARA collaboration in 2010.

  • NARA minimal hip, knee and shoulder datasets were created with variables that all countries can deliver. They are dynamic datasets, currently with 25 variables for hip arthroplasty, 20 for knee arthroplasty and 20 for shoulder arthroplasty.

  • NARA has published statistical guidelines for the analysis of arthroplasty register data. The association is continuously working on the improvement of statistical methods and the application of new ones.

  • There are 31 published peer-reviewed papers based on the NARA databases and 20 ongoing projects in different phases. Several NARA publications have significantly affected clinical practice. For example, metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and resurfacing arthroplasty have been abandoned due to increased revision risk based on i.a. NARA reports. Further, the use of uncemented total hip arthroplasty in elderly patients has decreased significantly, especially in Finland, based on the NARA data.

  • The NARA collaboration has been successful because the countries were able to agree on a common dataset and variable definitions. The collaboration was also successful because the group was able to initiate a number of research projects and provide answers to clinically relevant questions. A number of specific goals, set up in 2007, have been achieved and new one has emerged in the process.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180058

Open access