Affiliation:
1. Botnar Research Centre, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK.
Abstract
National registers compare implants by their revision rates, but the validity of the method has never been assessed. The New Zealand Joint Registry publishes clinical outcomes (Oxford knee scores, OKS) alongside revision rates, allowing comparison of the two measurements. In the two types of knee replacement, unicompartmental (UKR) had a better knee score than total replacement (TKR), but the revision rate of the former was nearly three times higher than that of the latter. This was because the sensitivity of the revision rate to clinical failure was different for the two implants. For example, of knees with a very poor outcome (OKS < 20 points), only about 12% of TKRs were revised compared with about 63% of UKRs with similar scores. Revision therefore is not an objective measurement and should not be used to compare these two types of implant. Furthermore, revision is much less sensitive than the OKS to clinical failure in both types and therefore exaggerates the success of knee replacements, particularly of TKR.
Publisher
British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery
Reference18 articles.
1. The Swedish knee arthroplasty register: A nation-wide study of 30,003 knees 1976-1992
2. Knee arthroplasty registers
3. No authors listed. New Zealand Orthopaedic Association. The New Zealand Joint Registry. Ten year report: January 1999 – December 2008. http://www.cdhb.govt.nz/njr/reports/A2D65CA3.pdf (date last accessed 29 July 2010).
4. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement
5. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores
Cited by
146 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献