And there's always the chance of rejection, which means revisions, more applications, and more costs.
Where there were inconsistent results, we calculated revision rates and the mean revision rate per 100 observed component years of the group with and without the outlier.
In contrast, mean revision rates per 100 observed component years of TKA were comparable in non-registry studies and registry data (0.5 and 0.6, respectively).
Although survival varied among Mayo stem studies, the majority of the larger case series had a survival rate exceeding the benchmark, reflected by a mean revision rate per 100 observed component years of 0.8 (Table 2).
Figure 2 panels I and II show a survival rate above the benchmark for most partial collum stems, with a mean revision rate per 100 observed component years of 0.64 (CI: 0.60 0.68) (Table 2).
Data from the developing hospital show mean revision rates that are 4 times lower than those based on worldwide register data, and 3 times lower than the ones quoted in independent studies.
The mean revision rate per 100 observed component years for collum stems was 2.0 (CI: 1.8 2.2) (Table 2). 3 out of 5 CUT studies showed a survival rate below the projected 90% survival at 10 years of follow-up.
All remaining trochanter-sparing stems had excellent survival rates with revision rate per 100 observed component years at or below the benchmark of 1, resulting in a mean revision rate per 100 observed component years of 0.8 (CI: 0.77 0.83) (Table 2).
Moreover, a systematic review of reports from worldwide registry datasets showed a mean revision rate per 100 observed component years of 1.29 after primary total hip arthroplasty, which corresponds to a revision rate of 12.9% after 10 years (Labek et al. 2011).
Yet the conversations in Washington and Brussels are all about spending cuts (and maybe tax increases, I mean revisions).
