Table 4.
Cox-adjusted survival of different total elbow replacement designs used in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from 1982 through 2006 in Finland
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NES/Norway | 63 | 3.5 (0–10) | 29 | 92 (85–100) | 0 | – | 0 | – | 0 | – | 1.1 (0.4–2.7) | 0.9 |
| Coonrad-Morrey | 164 | 4.6 (0–10) | 108 | 96 (92–99) | 36 | 89 (83–96) | 3 | – | 0 | – | 0.7 (0.3–1.3) | 0.2 |
| i.B.P./Kudo | 218 | 6.5 (0–13) | 173 | 93 (90–97) | 110 | 89 (84–94) | 46 | 83 (76–90) | 0 | – | 0.9 (0.3–1.3) | 0.5 |
| Souter-Strathclyde | 912 | 8.8 (0–25) | 771 | 93 (91–94) | 612 | 88 (86–90) | 419 | 82 (80–85) | 97 | 75 (70–79) | 1.0 | – |
A Brand of implant
B n
C Mean follow (range), years
D Number of elbows at risk at 4 years
E 4-year survival (95% CI), percent
F Number of elbows at risk at 7 years
G 7-year survival (95% CI), percent
H Number of elbows at risk at 10 years
I 10-year survival (95% CI), percent
J Number of elbows at risk at 15 years
K 15-year survival (95% CI), percent
L Adjusted RR for revision (95% CI) from the Cox regression analysis (other TEA designs compared to the Souter-Strathclyde prosthesis; adjustment was made for age and sex).
M p-value