Modular versus monoblock stem in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is estimated to grow in the following decades with a consequent increase of THA revisions (rTHA). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare modular and monoblock stem in rTHA surgery, focusing on clinical and radiological outcomes and complication rates.

Methods

A literature search was performed using the following search strategy: ((Modular stem) OR (monolithic stem)) AND (hip review) on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OS) compared clinical and radiological outcomes, and complication rates for monoblock and modular revision femoral stem were included. The risk of bias was assessed through the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score. The Review Manager (RevMan) software was used for the meta-analysis. The rate of complications was assessed using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

The authors included 11 OS and one RCT with 3,671 participants (mean age: 68.4 years old). The mean follow-up was 46.9 months. There was no prevalence of subsidence for one type of stem. Mean subsidence was from 0.92 to 10 mm for modular stem and from 1 to 15 mm for monoblock stem. Postoperative Harris Hip Score (HHS) showed better results with modular stems without statistical significance [mean difference (MD) =1.32; 95% CI: -1.62 to 4.27; P=0.38]. No statistically significant difference was found for dislocations (OR =2.48; 95% CI: 0.67 to 9.14; P=0.17), infections (OR =1.07; 95% CI: 0.51 to 2.23; P=0.86), intraoperative fractures (OR =1.62; 95% CI: 0.42 to 6.21; P=0.48), and postoperative fractures (OR =1.60; 95% CI: 0.55 to 4.64; P=0.39).

Conclusions

Modular and monoblock stems show comparable and satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes for rTHA. Both stems are valid and effective options for managing femoral bone deficit in hip revision surgery. The main limitation of this study is the small number and low quality of enclosed studies that compared the two stems. Moreover, the modular stem is usually used for more complex cases with lower quality femoral bone stock.

Informations de copyright

2023 Annals of Joint. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://aoj.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/aoj-23-33/coif). The series “Modular Implants for Revision Arthroplasty in Orthopedics” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. GM served as the unpaid Guest Editor of the special series. RP serves as an unpaid editorial board member of Annals of Joint from June 2016 to November 2024. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.