Background
Methods
Data sources and search strategies
Study selection
Quality assessment
Results
Author(s), year | Duration of follow-up (yrs) | Index procedure (n) | Revision (n) | Survival rate (%, CI) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Badawy M. et al., 2013 [42] | 10 | 26,698 | 1169 | Low hospital volumeb: 92.5 %, 95 % CI 91.5 to 93.4 High hospital volume: 95.5 %, 95 % CI 94.1 to 97.0 |
Gothesen, Ø. et al., 2013 [17] | 10 | 17,782 | NR | 89.5 to 95.3 %, CI- NR |
Himanen, A. et al., 2007 [20] | 10 | 751 | 37 | Prosthetic moulded component: 94.4 %, 95 % CI 90.4 to 96.7 Prosthetic modular component: 93.6 %, 95 % CI 89.7 to 96.0 |
Jämsen, E. et al., 2013 [21] | 10 | 53,007 | 1919 | 94.5 %, 95 % CI 94.1 to 94.8 |
Rand, J. et al., 2003 [19] | 10 | 11,606 | NR | 91 %, 95 % CI 90 to 91 % |
Vessely, M. et al., 2006 [18] | 10 | 1000 | 45 | 98.6 %, 95 % CI 97.8 to 99.4 |
Fang, D. et al., 2009 [23] | 20 | 6070 | 51 | 99 %, CI - NR |
Rand, J. et al., 2003 [19] | 20 | 11,606 | NR | 78 %, 95 % CI 74 to 81 % |
Demographic risk factors
Sex
Author(s)/year | Control | Hazard ratio (CI) |
---|---|---|
Blum, M. et al., 2013 [29] | Female | 0.81, 95 % CI 0.71 - 0.92, p < 0.01 |
Fehring, T. et al., 2004 [52] | Male | 2.771, 99 % CI 1.662 - 4.620, p < 0.0001 |
Harrysson, O. et al., 2004 [43] | Male | 1.64, 95 % CI 1.23 - 2.18, p = 0.0007 |
Rand, J. et al., 2003 [19] | Male | 1.6, 95 % CI 1.4 - 2.0, p < 0.0001 |
Schrama, J. et al., 2010 [30] | Female | 0.67, 95 % C I 0.47 - 0.88 |
Stiehl, J. et al., 2006 [24] | Female | 1.513, 95 % CI 1.116 - 2.051 |
Age
Author(s)/Year | Age | Hazard ratio (95 % CI) unless otherwise stated |
---|---|---|
Bini, S. et al., 2013 [31] | >55 years | 0.43, 95 % CI 0.27 to 0.67, p < 0.001 |
Blum, M. et al., 2013 [29] | 18–64 years vs. 65+ yrs | 2.30, 95 % CI 1.96 to 2.69, p < 0.0001 |
Bordini, B. et al., 2009 [32] | Age at surgery (per year) | 1.05, 95 % CI 1.03 to 1.06, p = 0.0001 |
Fehring, T. et al., 2004 [52] | Age at surgery (per year) | 0.953, 99 % CI 0.932 to 0.975, p < 0.0001 |
Gioe, T. et al., 2004 [53] | Age <70 year | 0.46, 95 % CI.0.33 to 0.64, p < 0.001 |
Harrysson, O. et al., 2004 [43] | Older patients (≥60 year) Revision Attributable to Any Reason Revision Attributable to Loosening of Components | 0.49, 95 % CI 0.38 to 0.62, p < 0.0001 0.41, 95 % CI 0.27 to 0.62, p < 0.0001 |
Julin, J. et al., 2010 [35] | Age ≤ 55 years: Revision for reasons other than infection Revision for any reason | 2.9, 95 % CI 2.3 to 3.6 2.4, 95 % CI 2.0 to 3.0 Age 56–65 years |
Age 56–65 years: Revision for reasons other than infection Revision for any reason : | 1.7 95 % CI 1.4 to 2.0 1.5, 95 % CI 1.3 to 1.7 | |
Kreder, H. et al., 2003 [25] | Younger age per 10 year: At 1 year after revision At 3 years after revision | OR 0.77, 95 % CI 0.67 to 0.89 OR 0.70, 95 % CI 0.66 to 0.81 |
Lygre, S. et al., 2011 [37] | Age >70 year vs. <60 year | 0.4, 95 % CI 0.3–0.4, 0 < 0.001 |
Namba, R. et al., 2013 [28] | Age (increasing 10 year increments) | 0.62, 95 % CI 0.57 to 0.67, p < 0.001 |
Namba, R. et al., 2012 [27] | Age (increasing 10 year increments) | 0.64, 95 % CI 0.58 to 0.70, p < 0.001 |
Rand, J. et al., 2003 [19] | Age 56–70 year vs. ≤55 years Age >70 year vs. ≤55 years | 0.7, 95 % CI 0.5 to 0.9, p < 0.01 0.5, 95 % CI 0.3 to 0.6, p < 0.0001 |
Stiehl, J. et al., 2006 [24] | Younger patients (for every yr increase) | 0.979, 95 % CI 0.968 to 0.989 |
Race
Medical risk factors
Primary diagnosis
Comorbidities
Joint implant factors
Fixation
Cruciate retaining implants
Author(s)/year | Implant type/technique | Reference | Hazard ratio (95 % CI) unless otherwise stated |
---|---|---|---|
Abdel, M. et al., 2011 [36] | Cruciate Status: | ||
Posterior cruciate-retaining | Posterior cruciate-stabilizing | 0.5, 95 % CI 0.4 - 0.6, p < 0.001 | |
Rand, J. et al., 2003 [19] | Cruciate Status: | ||
Posterior Stabilized | Posterior cruciate-retaining | 2.6, 95 % CI 2.1 - 3.5, p < 0.0001 | |
Constrained condylar | Posterior cruciate-retaining | 2.1, 95 % CI 0.9 - 4.9, p = 0.08 | |
Stiehl J. et al., 2006 [24] | Cruciate Status | ||
PCRs | Rotating platform | 1.552, 95 % CI 1.157 - 2.081 | |
BCRs | 2.188, 95 % CI 1.454 - 3.294 | ||
Gøthesen, O. et al., 2013 [17] | Implant Type: | ||
Duracon | Profix | 2.6, 95 % CI 1.9 - 3.4, p < 0.001 | |
LCS Classic HR | 1.3, 95 % CI 1.0 - 1.6, p = 0.017 | ||
LCS Complete | 1.5, 95 % CI 1.1 - 1.9, p = 0.002 | ||
AGC Universal | 1.6, 95 % CI 1.3 - 2.0, p < 0.001 | ||
Lygre, S. et al., 2010 [37] | Implant Type: | Relative Risk = | |
NR Tricon | NR AGC Universal | 1.67, 95 % CI 1.24–2.24, p = 0.001, | |
NR Genesis 1 | 1.43, 95 % CI 1.14–1.79, p = 0.002, | ||
NR Duracon | 1.45, 95 % CI 1.05–1.99, p = 002. | ||
NR Profix | 0.66, 95 % CI 0.52–0.82, p < 0.001, | ||
NR e.motion | 0.09, 95 % CI 0.02–0.37, p = 0.001, | ||
NR AGC anatomic | 0.66, 95 % CI 0.45–0.99, p = 0.04, | ||
PR AGC universal | 0.48, 95 % CI 0.27–0.83, p = 0.009, | ||
PR NexGen | 0.40, 95 % CI 0.22–0.74, p = 0.004. | ||
Namba R. et al., 2013 [28] | Implant Type: | ||
Rotate LCS | Fixed PS | 2.07, 95 % CI 1.53 - 2.80, p < 0.001 | |
High flexion | Yes versus No | 1.76, 95 % CI 1.29 - 2.41, p < 0.001 | |
Namba R. et al., 2012 [27] | Implant Type: | ||
LCS | Fixed | 2.01, 95 % CI 1.41 - 2.86, p < 0.001 | |
Inacio M. et al., 2013 [54] | Bearing or inserts: | ||
CoCr-HXLPE | CoCr-CPE | NS 1.2, 95 % CI 0.9 - 1.5, p > 0.05 | |
OZ-CPE | C0Cr-CPE | NS 1.4, 95 % CI 0.3 - 5.9, p > 0.05 |