Results of 189 wrist replacements

Figures & data

Table 1. Demography

A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J
Biax	90	89%	57 (28–77)	6	84	5	18 (1–46)	18	9.3 (0–11.6)
Elos	23	39%	55 (23–79)	23	0	2	12 (2–21)	10	4.6 (0.4–8.6)
Gibbon	76	58%	52 (17–79)	44	32	3	25 (9–49)	11	2.6 (0.1–4.0)
Total	189	71%	55 (17–79)	73	116	7	27 (1–70)	39	5.4 (0–11.6)

A Type of prosthesis

B No. of primary prostheses

C Proportion of females

D Mean age (range)

E Non-inflammatory group (n)

F Inflammatory group (n)

G No. of hospitals

H Mean operations per hospital (range)

I No. of revisions

J Median follow-up in years (range)

Figure 1. A. The Biax prosthesis. B. The Gibbon prosthesis.

Figure 2. Number of replacements over time, by diagnosis group.

Figure 3. Total and prosthesis-specific survival (Kaplan-Meier) with 95% CI shown in red.

Table 2. Reasons for revision (more than one reason could be given)

Brand	Biax	Elos	Gibbon	Total
Loosening of proximal component	3	2		5
Loosening of distal component	8	8	5	21
Dislocation	2	—	—	2
Instability	3	—	—	3
Axis problems	7	—	1	8
Deep infection	1	—	3	4
Pain	7	1	2	10
Wear of liner	1	—	—	1
Total number of revisions	18	10	11	39