Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasingly hip replacements at young age exposes the patient to an increased risk of failure of the implant over the years. In case of failure, revision specific stems were designed to overcome bone loss. Modularity of these devices is an important resource for the surgeon as they allow the new implant to be better adapted to the patient's anatomy. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide data about the outcome at long-term follow-up (>8 years) of hip modular revision femoral stems. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement guidelines. PubMed and Google Scholar databases were systematically and independently searched, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two reviewers performed the data extraction independently. In case of disagreement, the senior authors were sought to resolve the divergences. Quality of the involved studies was evaluated with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines (eight-item list) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Primary and secondary outcomes were evaluated. The statistical analysis of this meta-analysis was performed by using Excel Microsoft and the software STATA. RESULTS: The primary outcome was the re-revision rate of modular revision stems at long-term follow-up. It ranged from 1.4% to 45.6%: random effect pooled estimate was 5.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4% to 7%], with a I(2) of 12.3% (P=0.332). Mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) was 83 [min: 79; max: 87.6; standard deviation (SD): 3.55]. Secondary evaluated outcomes were: subsidence >5 mm, rate of periprosthetic infection or fractures (intra- and post-operative) and dislocations. The mean value for the NICE tool was 5.5 (SD: 1.13) and 7.3 (SD: 0.79) for the NOS tool. The survival rate was >90% at long-term follow-up (min: 60%; max: 97%). CONCLUSIONS: The modular femoral revision stems have demonstrated good long-term reliability and efficacy. This meta-analysis demonstrates that the re-revision rate after 8 years of follow-up is low and 90% of the implants did not fail.