Cargando…

A comparison of short-stem prostheses and conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: In total hip arthroplasty (THA), short-stem prostheses (SS) were designed to achieve better preservation of proximal femoral bone stock and stability than conventional stem prostheses (CS), however these effects are controversial. We aimed perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Zhen, Xing, Qiqi, Li, Jingyi, Jiang, Zichao, Pan, Yixiao, Hu, Yihe, Wang, Long
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7940904/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33708858
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-4043
_version_ 1783662042915274752
author Zhang, Zhen
Xing, Qiqi
Li, Jingyi
Jiang, Zichao
Pan, Yixiao
Hu, Yihe
Wang, Long
author_facet Zhang, Zhen
Xing, Qiqi
Li, Jingyi
Jiang, Zichao
Pan, Yixiao
Hu, Yihe
Wang, Long
author_sort Zhang, Zhen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In total hip arthroplasty (THA), short-stem prostheses (SS) were designed to achieve better preservation of proximal femoral bone stock and stability than conventional stem prostheses (CS), however these effects are controversial. We aimed perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of SS and CS in primary THA. METHODS: Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the comparison of SS and CS in primary THA were screened using the electronic databases PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Data were analyzed with the RevMan 5.3 software program and evaluated with mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by random or fixed-effect models. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs involving 1,233 patients (1,486 hips) were included. Compared with CS, the incidence of thigh pain was significantly reduced with Proxima SS (RR 0.13, 95% CI, 0.03–0.51; P=0.004). Bone mineral density (BMD) with femoral neck-preserved SS [SS (I)] showed less decrease in Gruen zone 1 (MD 14.60, 95% CI, 10.67–18.54; P<0.00001) and Gruen zone 7 (MD 9.72, 95% CI, 5.21–14.23; P<0.0001) than CS. However, the changes of BMD were not significantly different between the SS without femoral neck preservation group [SS (II)] and the CS group. In addition, no significant differences were found in the revision rate, Harris Hip Score (HHS), or maximum total point motion (MTPM) between the SS and CS groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that compared with CS, Proxima SS decreased the incidence of thigh pain and that SS (I) provided better proximal bone remodeling than CS. But the revision rates, HHS, and MTPM between SS and CS were similar. However, the findings of this meta-analysis require further verification in high-quality RCTs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7940904
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79409042021-03-10 A comparison of short-stem prostheses and conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Zhang, Zhen Xing, Qiqi Li, Jingyi Jiang, Zichao Pan, Yixiao Hu, Yihe Wang, Long Ann Transl Med Original Article BACKGROUND: In total hip arthroplasty (THA), short-stem prostheses (SS) were designed to achieve better preservation of proximal femoral bone stock and stability than conventional stem prostheses (CS), however these effects are controversial. We aimed perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of SS and CS in primary THA. METHODS: Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the comparison of SS and CS in primary THA were screened using the electronic databases PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Data were analyzed with the RevMan 5.3 software program and evaluated with mean difference (MD), risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) by random or fixed-effect models. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs involving 1,233 patients (1,486 hips) were included. Compared with CS, the incidence of thigh pain was significantly reduced with Proxima SS (RR 0.13, 95% CI, 0.03–0.51; P=0.004). Bone mineral density (BMD) with femoral neck-preserved SS [SS (I)] showed less decrease in Gruen zone 1 (MD 14.60, 95% CI, 10.67–18.54; P<0.00001) and Gruen zone 7 (MD 9.72, 95% CI, 5.21–14.23; P<0.0001) than CS. However, the changes of BMD were not significantly different between the SS without femoral neck preservation group [SS (II)] and the CS group. In addition, no significant differences were found in the revision rate, Harris Hip Score (HHS), or maximum total point motion (MTPM) between the SS and CS groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that compared with CS, Proxima SS decreased the incidence of thigh pain and that SS (I) provided better proximal bone remodeling than CS. But the revision rates, HHS, and MTPM between SS and CS were similar. However, the findings of this meta-analysis require further verification in high-quality RCTs. AME Publishing Company 2021-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7940904/ /pubmed/33708858 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-4043 Text en 2021 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Zhang, Zhen
Xing, Qiqi
Li, Jingyi
Jiang, Zichao
Pan, Yixiao
Hu, Yihe
Wang, Long
A comparison of short-stem prostheses and conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title A comparison of short-stem prostheses and conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full A comparison of short-stem prostheses and conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr A comparison of short-stem prostheses and conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of short-stem prostheses and conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_short A comparison of short-stem prostheses and conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort comparison of short-stem prostheses and conventional stem prostheses in primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7940904/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33708858
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-4043
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangzhen acomparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT xingqiqi acomparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT lijingyi acomparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT jiangzichao acomparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT panyixiao acomparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT huyihe acomparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT wanglong acomparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT zhangzhen comparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT xingqiqi comparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT lijingyi comparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT jiangzichao comparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT panyixiao comparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT huyihe comparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT wanglong comparisonofshortstemprosthesesandconventionalstemprosthesesinprimarytotalhiparthroplastyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials