Figures & data
Table 1. Illustration of data censoring and estimation of implant failure using the Kaplan-Meier (KM) and cumulative incidence methods
Figure 1. The probability of implant failure after primary total hip arthroplasty plotted against time using Kaplan-Meier estimate.
![Figure 1. The probability of implant failure after primary total hip arthroplasty plotted against time using Kaplan-Meier estimate.](/cms/asset/87661fe3-9fb2-4882-9b3f-20d8771f8f75/iort_a_588863_f0001_b.jpg)
Figure 2. The probability of implant failure after primary total hip arthroplasty plotted against time using cumulative incidence estimate. Death is considered as the / a [authors: please choose one alternative] competing event.
![Figure 2. The probability of implant failure after primary total hip arthroplasty plotted against time using cumulative incidence estimate. Death is considered as the / a [authors: please choose one alternative] competing event.](/cms/asset/8b50fa77-7e7d-4877-a6d5-951e571eddd2/iort_a_588863_f0002_b.jpg)
Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for implants A, B, and C with standard (solid line) and modified (dotted line) 95% confidence limits for implant A at 20 years. follow up.
![Figure 3. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for implants A, B, and C with standard (solid line) and modified (dotted line) 95% confidence limits for implant A at 20 years. follow up.](/cms/asset/c8ac1b10-fcd2-4700-90b0-60aacb02b692/iort_a_588863_f0003_b.jpg)
Figure 5. Smoothed scaled Schoenfeld residuals (solid line) with 95% confidence limits (dotted lines) are given for comparison of implant B with implant A (panel A) and for comparison of implant C with implant A (panel B). The graphs show that while early survival of implant B is better than that of implant A, survival of implant B is inferior with longer follow-up, and that survival of implant C is consistently better than that of implant A. The horizontal red line indicates no difference in hazard rates (ß(t) = 0 for all values of t or equivalent that the relative risk is equal to 1).
![Figure 5. Smoothed scaled Schoenfeld residuals (solid line) with 95% confidence limits (dotted lines) are given for comparison of implant B with implant A (panel A) and for comparison of implant C with implant A (panel B). The graphs show that while early survival of implant B is better than that of implant A, survival of implant B is inferior with longer follow-up, and that survival of implant C is consistently better than that of implant A. The horizontal red line indicates no difference in hazard rates (ß(t) = 0 for all values of t or equivalent that the relative risk is equal to 1).](/cms/asset/e8aeee3f-f9fa-4532-a01e-c9914726abd4/iort_a_588863_f0005_b.jpg)
Table 2. Relative risk (RR) estimates based on Cox regression analyses for all observations (overall) and with restriction on survival times with cutpoints set at 5 and 10 years