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
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
specific prosthesis information can be used to identify more generic implant characteristics across different implant types (e.g. hip, knee) which are (less) favourable to the outcome of these implants (i.e. implant survival). The importance of a uniform
Search for other papers by Maurizio Calcagni in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Thomas Giesen in
Google Scholar
PubMed
briefly. Implant longevity was primarily evaluated on the basis of papers with a cumulated implant survival of at least five years, and secondarily, on papers with a follow-up of a minimum of two years in each case. Function was evaluated using well
Search for other papers by E. Carlos Rodríguez-Merchán in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Primitivo Gómez-Cardero in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-thickness cartilage loss at surgery, lateral osteophytes did not compromise long-term functional results or implant survival. Knifsund et al analysed the impact of the pre-operative grade of OA on the risk of re-operation after UKA. 15 They suggested that UKA
Search for other papers by Martin Krismer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
literature on sports and THA is sparse. There are two main concerns: the risk of dislocation and periprosthetic fracture and survival of the implant. Recently, a Cochrane review 1 looked at the evidence of precautions taken to avoid dislocation after THA
Search for other papers by Joris Duerinckx in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Frederik Verstreken in
Google Scholar
PubMed
replacement components are only recommended if 5% or fewer need revision at 10 years’ ( 33 ). Long follow-up studies have shown that implant survival decreases steadily after 10 years. At 15 years follow-up, the cumulated survival rate of the ARPE prosthesis
Department of Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
South West of London Orthopaedic Elective Centre, Epsom, UK
Search for other papers by Nicholas D. Clement in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marwan Al-Zibari in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Irrum Afzal in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by David J. Deehan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Deiary Kader in
Google Scholar
PubMed
), type (clinical, cadaver or saw bones), age, number of patients/specimens, follow up (if applicable), the type of implant used, type of tibial prosthesis, and depending on the aims of the study: implant survival, functional outcome, implant alignment and
Academic Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, LGI, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, UK
Search for other papers by Sohail Nisar in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jeya Palan in
Google Scholar
PubMed
The Lister Hospital, Chelsea Bridge, London, UK
Centre de l’Arthrose - Clinique du Sport, Bordeaux-Mérignac, France
Search for other papers by Charles Rivière in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mark Emerton in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, UK
Search for other papers by Hemant Pandit in
Google Scholar
PubMed
of instruments, errors were frequent. Therefore, MA was introduced as a simple, reproducible method to maximize implant survival by creating a neutral limb axis. Although some studies 28 – 30 have suggested that outliers to neutral alignment have
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
. 11 Several underperforming implants associated with worse implant survival were identified resulting in change of practice. This study was among the first to demonstrate the importance of systematic implant surveillance through an arthroplasty
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
survival of implants, where the starting point is the date of the primary operation and the endpoint is the date of revision. Kaplan–Meier survival curves or plots present the proportion of patients who have not experienced the defined event (e.g. death or
