Search for other papers by Keijo T. Mäkelä in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ove Furnes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Geir Hallan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Anne Marie Fenstad in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ola Rolfson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Johan Kärrholm in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Cecilia Rogmark in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Alma Becic Pedersen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Otto Robertsson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Annette W-Dahl in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Antti Eskelinen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Henrik M. Schrøder in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ville Äärimaa in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jeppe V. Rasmussen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Björn Salomonsson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Randi Hole in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Søren Overgaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction The Nordic countries, including Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway, all have a long and successful tradition of arthroplasty registers. These registers are characterized by high research activity with a focus on improving the
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
Search for other papers by Claus Varnum in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Alma Bečić Pedersen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
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
Lund University, Skåne University Hospital, Department of Orthopedics, Malmö, Sweden
Search for other papers by Cecilia Rogmark in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Search for other papers by Ove Furnes in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Search for other papers by Geir Hallan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland
Search for other papers by Keijo Mäkelä in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Surgery, Epworth HealthCare, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
Search for other papers by Richard de Steiger in
Google Scholar
PubMed
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
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
Background The establishment of total hip arthroplasty (THA) registers started in the Scandinavian countries in 1979. 1 Later on, several countries outside Scandinavia followed with the establishment of nationwide or regional THA
Search for other papers by Geke A. W. Denissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Liza N. van Steenbergen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Wouter T. Lollinga in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Biomechanical Engineering, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Nico J. J. Verdonschot in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Dept. of Orthopaedics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Berend W. Schreurs in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Dept. of Orthopaedics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Rob G. H. H. Nelissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction The Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI) was initiated by the Netherlands Orthopaedic Association (NOV) in 2007 in order to evaluate outcome of arthroplasty procedures. For that purpose, patient, surgical procedure and implant
Search for other papers by Clemens Clar in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Lukas Leitner in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Amir Koutp in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Georg Hauer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Laura Rasic in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Andreas Leithner in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Patrick Sadoghi in
Google Scholar
PubMed
, survival rates of implants have improved over the last decades ( 22 ). In the past, the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, in particular, has provided data that significantly reduced revision rates by offering annual feedback on outcome data from the
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
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
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
Finnish Arthroplasty Register, Helsinki, Finland
Search for other papers by Antti Eskelinen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
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
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
current use of different head sizes in various arthroplasty registers across the world 1 – 7 Fig. 2 The current use of different bearing surfaces in various arthroplasty registers across the world 1 – 8 The benefits and
Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
Search for other papers by Peter van Schie in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Shaho Hasan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Leti van Bodegom-Vos in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jan W Schoones in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Rob G H H Nelissen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Perla J Marang-van de Mheen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
most recent arthroplasty registry reports from the Network of Orthopedic Registries of Europe (NORE). Methods This systematic review was registered at inception with PROSPERO (CRD42019122779) and conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 statements
Search for other papers by Ian Wilson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Eric Bohm in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Anne Lübbeke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Stephen Lyman in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Søren Overgaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Ola Rolfson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Annette W-Dahl in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mark Wilkinson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Michael Dunbar in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction Traditionally, revision surgery was the endpoint reported by joint arthroplasty registries. Since data collection began in 1975 and 1979 in the Swedish Knee and Hip Arthroplasty Registers (SKAR, SHAR), respectively, significant
Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Orthopaedics, Gothenburg, Sweden
Search for other papers by Georgios Tsikandylakis in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Search for other papers by Soren Overgaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Luigi Zagra in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Orthopaedics, Gothenburg, Sweden
The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register, Gothenburg, Sweden
Search for other papers by Johan Kärrholm in
Google Scholar
PubMed
cemented and cementless cups of the same design, but with use of either conventional or highly cross-linked polyethylene reported in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) database. Femoral head sizes of 28 and 32 mm were included, as were both
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark
Search for other papers by Claus Varnum in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Alma Bečić Pedersen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Per Hviid Gundtoft in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Orthopaedic Research Unit, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
Search for other papers by Søren Overgaard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Introduction Established in 1975, the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register was the first nationwide orthopaedic register and during the following 20 years, arthroplasty registers were established in other Nordic countries. 1 - 5 The
Search for other papers by Richard N de Steiger in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Brian R Hallstrom in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Anne Lübbeke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Elizabeth W Paxton in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Liza N van Steenbergen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
National Joint Replacement for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey (NJR)
Search for other papers by Mark Wilkinson in
Google Scholar
PubMed
) that identified prostheses in their report and the methods by which this was performed. There were three registries that identified prostheses internally without the information being publicly available. These were the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI