To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Monitoring the effectiveness of knee and hip arthroplasties could be useful at the clinical, economic, and patient levels. In Catalonia, there is currently no systematic monitoring of the different prostheses available. The aims of this study were to propose an approach for the systematic identification of knee and hip prostheses with the highest revision rates, and to identify those with the poorest outcomes.
Data recorded from January 2005 to December 2016 were considered from 53 out of the 61 public hospitals in Catalonia included in the Catalonian Arthroplasty Register (RACat). Specific prostheses were classified by joint, type, fixation, and, in total hip prostheses, the bearing surface. Prostheses with the worst outcomes were identified using a three-step approach, based on previous literature: (i) screening using Poisson models; (ii) comparison of prostheses using adjusted Cox models; and (iii) consensus-based review by a panel of orthopedic surgeons to detect possible sources of bias. After this process, selected prostheses were provisionally labeled as having the poorest outcomes. This process will be repeated periodically within the RACat to definitively classify the prostheses.
After first two steps, ten knee prostheses and eight hip prostheses were identified. After the panel discussion (third step), one knee and one hip prosthesis were excluded from the final list. The knee prosthesis was excluded because it was a unicompartmental implant, while the hip prosthesis was excluded because it was a monoblock implant. Finally, nine knee prostheses and seven hip prostheses were provisionally identified as having the worst results relative to other available prostheses. These results await confirmation in subsequent analyses.
This study contributed to the current need to identify hip and knee prostheses whose outcomes might be worse than expected. This identification could have an impact at the patient, surgeon, industry, and stakeholder levels.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.