Patient-reported outcome and risk of revision after shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis

Figures & data

Figure 1. Implants used from January 2006 through December 2010.

Table 1. The reasons for not responding, with number and percentage of all arthroplasties included

	No.	Percentage of all arthroplasties
Continuing non-responders	131	11
Incomplete questionnaires	40	3.3
Revision within 1 year	41	3.4
Dead within 1 year	19	1.6
Unknown civil registration number	3	0.2
Responders	975	81
Total	1,209	100

Table 2. The differences in demographics between TSA and HA

	Total shoulder arthroplasty	Hemiarthroplasty	p-value
Total no. of patients	113	1,096
Women	72 (64%)	637 (58%)	0.5 ^a
Previous surgery	13 (12%)	226 (21%)	0.2 ^a
Non-responders	20 (18%)	214 (20%)	0.6 ^a
Primary osteoarthritis	100 (89%)	923 (84%)	0.2 ^a
Mean age (SD)	69 (9)	67 (11)	0.06 ^b

^a Chi-square test.

^b Student’s t-test.

Figure 2. The unadjusted cumulative revision rate for hemiarthroplasty (grey) and total shoulder arthroplasty (red) showing no significant difference between arthroplasty designs (p = 1.0, Kaplan-Meier method).

Table 3. The differences in demographics between SHA and RHA

	Stemmed hemiarthroplasty	Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty	p-value
Total no. of patients	259	837
Women	170 (66%)	467 (56%)	0.02 ^a
Previous surgery	55 (21%)	171 (20%)	0.8 ^a
Non-responders	65 (25%)	149 (18%)	0.01 ^a
Primary osteoarthritis	208 (80%)	715 (85%)	0.1 ^a
Mean age (SD)	71 (11)	65 (11)	< 0.01 ^b

^a Chi-square test.

^b Student’s t-test.

Figure 3. The unadjusted cumulative revision rate of stemmed hemiarthroplasty (blue) and resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (green) showing no difference between arthroplasty designs (p = 0.9, Kaplan-Meier method).