Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary OF studies included

From: A systematic review and meta-analysis of hybrid vs. cemented stems – which method is more optimal for revision total knee arthroplasty?

Study

Year

Country

Implant Type

Mean Age

Gender

Number of Cases

Mean FU (months)

Indication for revision

C

H

C

H

Total

C

H

Lost to FU

Lachiewicz PF et al.

2020

USA

LCCK, Zimmer, Warsaw, IN

68.0

68.0

M 13

F 21

M 19

F 31

105

45

60

21

72

- Loosening

- Infection

- Instability

- Osteolysis/ polywear

- Pain/ stiffness

- Pain/ malposition

Gómez-Vallejo J et al.

2018

Spain

Cemented: Natural Knee II, Centerpulse Warsaw, IN, USA

Hybrid: P.F.C. TC-3 Sigma, DePuy Raynham, MA, USA

79.2

78.4

Collected, but not reported

134

134

58

76

0

- Aseptic loosening

Andrew N Fleischman et al.

2017

USA

Not Specified

65.8

63.9

M 33

F 75

M 135

F 181

424

108

316

0

62

- Aseptic loosening

- Infection

- Instability

- Arthrofibrosis

- Component wear

- Periprosthetic fracture

Jeremy M Gililland et al.

2014

USA

Not Specified

65.0

64.0

M 24

F 25

M 11

F 21

160

98

62

0

96

- Aseptic loosening

Edwards PK et al.

2014

USA

Not Specified

65.0

65.0

M 26

F 25

M 32

F 31

228

102

126

49

45

- Septic TKA

Jacquet C et al.

2021

France

NexGen RHK Knee, Zimmer-Biomet)

72.9

72.6

Collected, but not reported

117

198

66

132

0

- Implant loosening

- Pain

- Polywear/osteolysis

- Instability/ dislocation

Mills K et al.

2022

Netherlands

Condylar Legion revision TKA (Smith & Nephew, USA)

74.9

72.2

M 5

F 5

M 1

F 9

40

20

20

2

120

- Instability

- Aseptic loosening

- Component malposition/ malrotation

- Patellar subluxation after malrotation

- Infection

- Polyethylene wear

Kemker BP et al.

2022

USA

Not Specified

63.8

63.8

M 13

F 27

M 34

F 59

266

80

186

0

25.8

- Aseptic loosening

- Infection

- Malalignment

- Instability

- Femoral fracture

- Persistent pain

  1. M = Male, F = Females, C = Cemented, H = Hybrid