Skip to main content

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Table 2 Characteristics of the included articles

From: Efficacy and safety of modular versus monoblock stems in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Article

Stem

Patients

Age

Paprosky classification

Follow-up (years)

Reasons for revision

Feng [19]

Modular

108

69.1 ± 7.5

18I 54II 24IIIA 12IIIB

8.5

96L 6I 6D

Monoblock

110

67.6 ± 7.9

20I 60II 25IIIA 5IIIB

8.5

95L 5I 6D

Huang [20]

Modular

139

61.2 ± 10.9

2I 12II 65IIIA 47IIIB 13IV

6.3

119L 16I 4PFF

Monoblock

114

59.8 ± 13.2

1I 12II 60IIIA 34IIIB 7IV

5.1

96L 13I 5PFF

Cohn [13]

Modular

67

67.2 ± 13.0

11I 14II 26IIIA 9IIIB 5IV

6.3

33L 17I 12PFF 5O

Monoblock

78

60.2 ± 12.1

2I 25II 41IIIA 5IIIB

4.1

26L 34I 12PFF 3O

Yacovelli [14]

Modular

225

65.6 ± 12.6

57II 105IIIA 45IIIB 11IV

3.5

95L 44I 61PFF 5D 20O

Monoblock

63

62.6 ± 14.2

6I 20II 24IIIA 10IIIB 3IV

2.4

6L 26I 8PFF 23O

Chair [21]

Modular

103

NA

30I 44II 17IIIA 12IIIB

2.5

NA

Monoblock

43

NA

5I 19II 12IIIA 7IIIB

2.5

NA

Chair [22]

Modular

106

NA

30I 45II 18IIIA 13IIIB

3.0

NA

Monoblock

80

NA

3I 28II 34IIIA 11IIIB 4IV

3.0

NA

Huang [23]

Modular

160

61.8 ± 10.7

2I 13II 75IIIA 55IIIB 15IV

6.3

139L 17I 4PFF

Monoblock

129

60.2 ± 12.9

1I 12II 66IIIA 41IIIB 9IV

5.0

111L 13I 5PFF

Moreta [24]

Modular

24

78.3 ± 7.1

NA

5.0

24PFF

Monoblock

19

75.7 ± 6.9

NA

5.0

NA

Zeng [25]

Modular

73

62.5

73 III IV

3.9

41L 15I 9PFF 8D

Monoblock

19

NA

19 I II

3.9

11L 4I 4D

Chatziagorou [26]

Modular

425

77.2

NA

3.6

425PFF

Monoblock

103

77.2

NA

4.9

NA

  1. A aseptic loosening, L aseptic loosening, I infection, PFF periprosthetic femoral fracture, D dislocation, O other reasons such as instability, local discomfort, NA not available