Jeppe V. Rasmussen
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Previous Organizations / Institutes
The organizations / institutes from the scholar's other articles in the past ten years
Research Subjects
Jeppe V. Rasmussen has a total of 33 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Stig Brorson
Centre for Evidence-Based Orthopaedics, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zealand University Hospital, Køge, Denmark
7 shared publications Bo S. Olsen
Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen
5 shared publicationsBjörn Salomonsson
Department of Orthopedics, Karolinska Institutet, Danderyds Sjukhus AB, Danderyd, Stockholm, Sweden
2 shared publicationsBo S Olsen
2 shared publicationsJohn Jakobsen
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Thisted, Denmark
2 shared publicationsSteen L. Jensen
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark
2 shared publications
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 5 June 2019
- Published by Springer Nature in Obere Extremität
- Vol. 14 (3) , 173-178
The Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry
- 5 June 2019
- Published by Springer Nature in Obere Extremität
- Vol. 14 (3) , 173-178
Open AccessThe Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry
- 1 May 2018
- Published by Elsevier in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
- Vol. 26 (5) , 659-665
Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty used for glenohumeral osteoarthritis has higher survival rates than hemiarthroplasty: a Nordic registry-based study
- 1 May 2018
- Published by Elsevier in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
- Vol. 26 (5) , 659-665
Anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty used for glenohumeral osteoarthritis has higher survival rates than hemiarthroplasty: a Nordic registry-based study
- 1 December 2016
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
- Vol. 25 (12) , e369-e377
Is it feasible to merge data from national shoulder registries? A new collaboration within the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association
- 1 December 2016
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
- Vol. 25 (12) , e369-e377
Is it feasible to merge data from national shoulder registries? A new collaboration within the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association
- 5 October 2016
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
- Vol. 98 (19) , 1631-1637
Outcome of Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty After Resurfacing Hemiarthroplasty in Patients with Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis
Underwent revision shoulder arthroplasty after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty. Methods: We reviewed all patients with osteoarthritis reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry from 2006 to 2013. There were 1,210 primary resurfacing hemiarthroplasties, of which 107 cases (9%) required a revision surgical procedure, defined as the removal or exchange of the humeral component or the addition of a glenoid component. The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index was used to evaluate outcome at 1 year. Results: The median WOOS of revision arthroplasty after failed resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was 62 points (interquartile range, 40 to 88 points). Of the 80 cases that had follow-up, 33 (41%) had an unacceptable outcome, defined as a WOOS of ≤50 points. Of the 107 cases that required a revision surgical procedure, 11 arthroplasties (10%) required a further revision surgical procedure. The resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was revised to a stemmed hemiarthroplasty (n = 39), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 31), or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (n = 30). In 7 cases, the revision arthroplasty design was unknown. The median WOOS of patients who underwent revision stemmed hemiarthroplasty (48 points) was significantly inferior (p = 0.002) to that of patients who underwent primary stemmed hemiarthroplasty (75 points); the median WOOS of patients who underwent revision anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (74 points) was also significantly inferior (p = 0.007) to that of patients who underwent primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (93 points). However, the median WOOS of patients who underwent revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (68 points) was not significantly different (p = 0.66) from that of patients who underwent primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (77 points) used in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Conclusions: The outcome of revision shoulder arthroplasty after failed resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was variable and, in many cases, disappointing. It is important that resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is used for the correct indications and with adequate technique and skill. When resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is used in the treatment of osteoarthritis, revision cannot be counted upon as a fallback. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence....
- 5 October 2016
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
- Vol. 98 (19) , 1631-1637
Outcome of Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty After Resurfacing Hemiarthroplasty in Patients with Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis
Underwent revision shoulder arthroplasty after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty. Methods: We reviewed all patients with osteoarthritis reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry from 2006 to 2013. There were 1,210 primary resurfacing hemiarthroplasties, of which 107 cases (9%) required a revision surgical procedure, defined as the removal or exchange of the humeral component or the addition of a glenoid component. The Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index was used to evaluate outcome at 1 year. Results: The median WOOS of revision arthroplasty after failed resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was 62 points (interquartile range, 40 to 88 points). Of the 80 cases that had follow-up, 33 (41%) had an unacceptable outcome, defined as a WOOS of ≤50 points. Of the 107 cases that required a revision surgical procedure, 11 arthroplasties (10%) required a further revision surgical procedure. The resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was revised to a stemmed hemiarthroplasty (n = 39), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (n = 31), or reverse shoulder arthroplasty (n = 30). In 7 cases, the revision arthroplasty design was unknown. The median WOOS of patients who underwent revision stemmed hemiarthroplasty (48 points) was significantly inferior (p = 0.002) to that of patients who underwent primary stemmed hemiarthroplasty (75 points); the median WOOS of patients who underwent revision anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (74 points) was also significantly inferior (p = 0.007) to that of patients who underwent primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (93 points). However, the median WOOS of patients who underwent revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (68 points) was not significantly different (p = 0.66) from that of patients who underwent primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty (77 points) used in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Conclusions: The outcome of revision shoulder arthroplasty after failed resurfacing hemiarthroplasty was variable and, in many cases, disappointing. It is important that resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is used for the correct indications and with adequate technique and skill. When resurfacing hemiarthroplasty is used in the treatment of osteoarthritis, revision cannot be counted upon as a fallback. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence....
- 27 August 2014
- Published by Springer Nature in International Orthopaedics
- Vol. 39 (2) , 263-269
Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty compared to stemmed hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a randomised clinical trial
The aim of this study was to conduct a randomised, clinical trial comparing stemmed hemiarthroplasty and resurfacing hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. A total of 40 shoulders (35 patients) were randomised to stemmed hemiarthroplasty or resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and evaluated three and 12 months postoperatively using the Constant-Murley score (CMS) and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index. There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender or pre-operative scores except for WOOS at baseline. Two patients were lost to follow-up. Significant improvements in CMS and WOOS were observed at one year after both arthroplasty designs. At one year, the mean CMS was 48.9 (range 6–80) after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and 59.1 (range 0–88) after stemmed hemiarthroplasty {mean difference 10.2 [95 % confidence interval (CI) −3.3 to 23.6], P = 0.14}. The mean WOOS was 59.2 (range 5.2–100.0) and 79.4 (range 12.8–98.6), respectively [mean difference 20.2 (95 % CI 3.4–36.9), P = 0.02]. No major complications occurred and there were no revisions. The effects of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty tended to be inferior to those of stemmed hemiarthroplasty. It is unclear whether this reflects a real difference in effect or baseline differences due to the limited number of randomised patients. We suggest there is a need for a larger, more definitive trial.
- 27 August 2014
- Published by Springer Nature in International Orthopaedics
- Vol. 39 (2) , 263-269
Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty compared to stemmed hemiarthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a randomised clinical trial
The aim of this study was to conduct a randomised, clinical trial comparing stemmed hemiarthroplasty and resurfacing hemiarthroplasty in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. A total of 40 shoulders (35 patients) were randomised to stemmed hemiarthroplasty or resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and evaluated three and 12 months postoperatively using the Constant-Murley score (CMS) and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index. There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender or pre-operative scores except for WOOS at baseline. Two patients were lost to follow-up. Significant improvements in CMS and WOOS were observed at one year after both arthroplasty designs. At one year, the mean CMS was 48.9 (range 6–80) after resurfacing hemiarthroplasty and 59.1 (range 0–88) after stemmed hemiarthroplasty {mean difference 10.2 [95 % confidence interval (CI) −3.3 to 23.6], P = 0.14}. The mean WOOS was 59.2 (range 5.2–100.0) and 79.4 (range 12.8–98.6), respectively [mean difference 20.2 (95 % CI 3.4–36.9), P = 0.02]. No major complications occurred and there were no revisions. The effects of resurfacing hemiarthroplasty tended to be inferior to those of stemmed hemiarthroplasty. It is unclear whether this reflects a real difference in effect or baseline differences due to the limited number of randomised patients. We suggest there is a need for a larger, more definitive trial.
- Open Access
- 16 June 2014
- Published by Medical Journals Sweden AB in Acta Orthopaedica
- Vol. 85 (sup355) , 1-23
Outcome and risk of revision following shoulder replacement in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis
ADL Activity of Daily Living ANCOVA Analysis of Covariance ASA American Society of Anaesthesiologists (Physical status classification system) ASES American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (shoulder sco...
- 16 June 2014
- Published by Medical Journals Sweden AB in Acta Orthopaedica
- Vol. 85 (sup355) , 1-23
Open AccessOutcome and risk of revision following shoulder replacement in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis
ADL Activity of Daily Living ANCOVA Analysis of Covariance ASA American Society of Anaesthesiologists (Physical status classification system) ASES American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (shoulder sco...
- Open Access
- 20 March 2014
- Published by Medical Journals Sweden AB in Acta Orthopaedica
- Vol. 85 (2) , 117-122
Patient-reported outcome and risk of revision after shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis
We used patient-reported outcome and risk of revision to compare hemiarthroplasty (HA) with total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) with resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA) in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. We included all patients reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR) between January 2006 and December 2010. 1,209 arthroplasties in 1,109 patients were eligible. Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index (WOOS) was used to evaluate patient-reported outcome 1 year postoperatively. For simplicity of presentation, the raw scores were converted to a percentage of the maximum score. Revision rates were calculated by checking reported revisions to the DSR until December 2011. WOOS and risk of revision were adjusted for age, sex, previous surgery, and type of osteoarthritis. There were 113 TSAs and 1096 HAs (837 RHAs and 259 SHAs). Patients treated with TSA generally had a better WOOS, exceeding the predefined minimal clinically important difference, at 1 year (mean difference 10, p < 0.001). RHA had a better WOOS than SHA (mean difference 5, p = 0.02), but the difference did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference. There were no statistically significant differences in revision rate or in adjusted risk of revision between any of the groups. Our results are in accordance with the results from other national shoulder registries and the results published in systematic reviews favoring TSA in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Nonetheless, this registry study had certain limitations and the results should be interpreted carefully.
- 20 March 2014
- Published by Medical Journals Sweden AB in Acta Orthopaedica
- Vol. 85 (2) , 117-122
Open AccessPatient-reported outcome and risk of revision after shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis
We used patient-reported outcome and risk of revision to compare hemiarthroplasty (HA) with total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and stemmed hemiarthroplasty (SHA) with resurfacing hemiarthroplasty (RHA) in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis. We included all patients reported to the Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR) between January 2006 and December 2010. 1,209 arthroplasties in 1,109 patients were eligible. Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index (WOOS) was used to evaluate patient-reported outcome 1 year postoperatively. For simplicity of presentation, the raw scores were converted to a percentage of the maximum score. Revision rates were calculated by checking reported revisions to the DSR until December 2011. WOOS and risk of revision were adjusted for age, sex, previous surgery, and type of osteoarthritis. There were 113 TSAs and 1096 HAs (837 RHAs and 259 SHAs). Patients treated with TSA generally had a better WOOS, exceeding the predefined minimal clinically important difference, at 1 year (mean difference 10, p < 0.001). RHA had a better WOOS than SHA (mean difference 5, p = 0.02), but the difference did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference. There were no statistically significant differences in revision rate or in adjusted risk of revision between any of the groups. Our results are in accordance with the results from other national shoulder registries and the results published in systematic reviews favoring TSA in the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Nonetheless, this registry study had certain limitations and the results should be interpreted carefully.
- Open Access
- 1 September 2013
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Patient Related Outcome Measures
- Vol. 4, 49-54
Translation and validation of the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index – the Danish version
Peer reviewed article authored by (Rasmussen JV, Jakobsen J, Olsen BS, Brorson S). Read article or submit your manuscript for publishing.
- 1 September 2013
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Patient Related Outcome Measures
- Vol. 4, 49-54
Open AccessTranslation and validation of the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index – the Danish version
Peer reviewed article authored by (Rasmussen JV, Jakobsen J, Olsen BS, Brorson S). Read article or submit your manuscript for publishing.
- 1 October 2012
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
- Vol. 21 (10) , 1328-1335
A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries
- 1 October 2012
- Published by Elsevier in Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
- Vol. 21 (10) , 1328-1335
A review of national shoulder and elbow joint replacement registries
- Open Access
- 13 February 2012
- Published by Medical Journals Sweden AB in Acta Orthopaedica
- Vol. 83 (2) , 171-173
The Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry: clinical outcome and short-term survival of 2,137 primary shoulder replacements
The Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR) was established in 2004. Data are reported electronically by the surgeons. Patient-reported outcome is collected 10-14 months postoperatively using the Western Ontario osteoarthritis of the shoulder index (WOOS). 2,137 primary shoulder arthroplasties (70% women) were reported to the registry between January 2006 and December 2008. Mean age at surgery was 69 years (SD 12). The most common indications were a displaced proximal humeral fracture (54%) or osteoarthritis (30%). 61% were stemmed hemiarthroplasties, 28% resurfacing hemiarthroplasties, 8% reverse shoulder arthroplasties, and 3% total arthroplasties. Median WOOS was 59% (IQR: 37-82). 5% had been revised by the end of June 2010. The most frequent indications for revision were dislocation or glenoid attrition.
- 13 February 2012
- Published by Medical Journals Sweden AB in Acta Orthopaedica
- Vol. 83 (2) , 171-173
Open AccessThe Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry: clinical outcome and short-term survival of 2,137 primary shoulder replacements
The Danish Shoulder Arthroplasty Registry (DSR) was established in 2004. Data are reported electronically by the surgeons. Patient-reported outcome is collected 10-14 months postoperatively using the Western Ontario osteoarthritis of the shoulder index (WOOS). 2,137 primary shoulder arthroplasties (70% women) were reported to the registry between January 2006 and December 2008. Mean age at surgery was 69 years (SD 12). The most common indications were a displaced proximal humeral fracture (54%) or osteoarthritis (30%). 61% were stemmed hemiarthroplasties, 28% resurfacing hemiarthroplasties, 8% reverse shoulder arthroplasties, and 3% total arthroplasties. Median WOOS was 59% (IQR: 37-82). 5% had been revised by the end of June 2010. The most frequent indications for revision were dislocation or glenoid attrition.