Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 2/2011

01-02-2011 | Original Paper

Estimating implant survival in the presence of competing risks

Authors: David J. Biau, Moussa Hamadouche

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

In medical research, commonly, one is interested in the time to the occurence of a particular event, such as the revision of an implant, and the analysis of these data is referred to as survival analysis. However, for some patients, the event is not observed and their observations are censored. These censored observations are particular to survival data and require specific methods for estimation. The Kaplan and Meier method is a popular method to estimate the probability of being free of the event over time and it is now widely applied in orthopaedics such as to report implant survival. However, one of the assumptions underlying the Kaplan-Meier estimator implies that patients whose observations are censored have the same risk of occurrence of the event than patients remaining in the study. However, because the revision of an implant cannot occur after a patient dies, and that dead patients have their observations censored in the Kaplan-Meier method, another setting must be considered. In the sequel we will demonstrate the inadequacy of the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate implant survival and detail the cumulative incidence estimator.
Literature
1.
Bernoulli D (1760) Essai d’une nouvelle analyse de la mortalité causée par la petite vérole, et des avantages de l’inoculation pour la prévenir. Mémoires de l’académie Royale des Sciences Paris, pp 1–45
2.
Biau D, Faure F, Katsahian S, Jeanrot C, Tomeno B, Anract P (2006) Survival of total knee replacement with a megaprosthesis after bone tumor resection. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1285–1293CrossRefPubMed
3.
Biau DJ, Latouche A, Porcher R (2007) Competing events influence estimated survival probability: when is Kaplan-Meier analysis appropriate? Clin Orthop Relat Res 462:229–233CrossRefPubMed
4.
Biau DJ, Davis A, Vastel L, Tomeno B, Anract P (2008) Function, disability, and health-related quality of life after allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions of the proximal femur. J Surg Oncol 97:210–215CrossRefPubMed
5.
Biau DJ, Larousserie F, Thévenin F, Piperno-Neumann S, Anract P (2009) Results of 32 allograft-prosthesis composite reconstructions of the proximal femur. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:834–845CrossRefPubMed
6.
Biau DJ, Thévenin F, Dumaine V, Babinet A, Tomeno B, Anract P (2009) Ipsilateral femoral autograft reconstruction after resection of a pelvic tumor. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91:142–151CrossRefPubMed
7.
Cox RD (1972) Regression models and life tables (with discussion). J Roy Stat Soc B 74:187–220
8.
Dobbs HS (1980) Survivorship of total hip replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 62:168–173PubMed
9.
Falez F, Favetti F, Casella F, Panegrossi G (2008) Hip resurfacing: why does it fail? Early results and critical analysis of our first 60 cases. Int Orthop 32:209–216CrossRefPubMed
10.
Fennema P, Lubsen J (2010) Survival analysis in total joint replacement. An alternative method of accounting for the presence of competing risk. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92:701–706CrossRefPubMed
11.
Fine JP, Gray RJ (1999) A proportional hazard model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 94:496–509CrossRef
12.
Fuchs B, Hoekzema N, Larson DR, Inwards CY, Sim FH (2009) Osteosarcoma of the pelvis outcome analysis of surgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:510–518CrossRefPubMed
13.
Hamadouche M, Boutin P, Daussange J, Bolander ME, Sedel L (2002) Alumina on alumina total hip arthroplasty. A minimal 18.5 -year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 84:69–77PubMed
14.
Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Non parametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:448–457CrossRef
15.
Prentice RL, Kalbfleisch JD, Peterson AVJ, Flournoy N, Farewell VT, Breslow NE (1978) The analysis of failure times in the presence of competing risks. Biometrics 34:541–554CrossRefPubMed
16.
Putter H, Fiocco M, Geskus RB (2007) Tutorial in biostatistics: Competing risks and multi-state models. Stat Med 26:2389–2430CrossRefPubMed
17.
Wangen H, Lereim P, Holm I, Gunderson R, Reikeras O (2008) Hip arthroplasty in patients younger than 30 years: excellent ten to 16-year follow-up results with a HA-coated stem. Int Orthop 32:203–208CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Estimating implant survival in the presence of competing risks
Authors
David J. Biau
Moussa Hamadouche
Publication date
01-02-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-010-1097-2

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

International Orthopaedics 2/2011 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Cementless acetabular revision: past, present, and future

Letter to the Editor

“Garbage in, garbage out”—the importance of detailing methodological reasoning in orthopaedic meta-analysis

Original Paper

Metal-on-metal: history, state of the art (2010)

Original Paper

The use of fibre-based demineralised bone matrix in major acetabular reconstruction: surgical technique and preliminary results

Editorial

Total Hip Arthroplasty, state of the art for the 21st century

Review

New animal models of wear-particle osteolysis