Homogeneity in prediction of survival probabilities for subcategories of hipprosthesis data: the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association, 2000-2013

Similar early mortality risk after cemented compared with cementless total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis: data from 188,606 surgeries in the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database

Background and purpose - Current literature indicates no difference in 90-day mortality after cemented compared with cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, previous studies are hampered by potential selection bias and suboptimal adjustment for comorbidity confounding. Therefore, we examined the comorbidity-adjusted mortality up to 90 days after cemented compared with cementless THA performed due to osteoarthritis.Patients and methods - Using the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database, 2005-2013, we included 108,572 cemented and 80,034 cementless THA due to osteoarthritis. We calculated the Charlson comorbidity index of each patient based on data from national patient registers. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate unadjusted all-cause mortality. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for 14, 30-, and 90-day mortality comparing cemented with cementless THA, adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity, nation, and year of surgery.Results - Cumulative all-cause mortality within 90 days was 0.41% (CI 0.37-0.46) after cemented and 0.26% (CI 0.22-0.30) after cementless THA. The adjusted HR for cemented vs. cementless fixation was 0.97 (CI 0.79-1.2), and similar risk estimates were obtained for mortality within 14 (adjusted HR 0.91 [CI 0.64-1.3]) and 30 days (adjusted HR 0.94 [CI 0.71-1.3]). We found no clinically relevant differences in mortality between cemented and cementless THA in analyses stratified by age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, or year of surgery.Interpretation - After adjustment for comorbidity as an important confounder, we observed similar early mortality between the 2 fixation techniques.

Osteoarthritis year in review 2020: epidemiology & therapy

This personal choice of research themes and highlights from within the past year (1 May 2019 to 14 April 2020) spans descriptive, analytical-observational, and intervention studies. Descriptive estimates of the burden of osteoarthritis continue to underscore its position as a leading cause of disability worldwide, but whose burden is often felt greatest among disadvantaged and marginalised communities. Many of the major drivers of that burden are known but epidemiological studies continue the important work of elaborating on their timing, dose, specificity, and reversibility and placing them within an appropriate multi-level framework. A similar process of elaboration is seen also in studies (re-)estimating the relative benefits and risks of existing interventions, in some cases helping to identify low-value care, unwarranted variation, and initiating processes of deprescribing and decommissioning. Such research need not engender therapeutic nihilism. Our review closes by highlighting some emerging evidence on the efficacy and safety of novel therapeutic interventions and with a selective roll-call of methodological and meta-research in OA illustrating the continued commitment to improving research quality.