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.

Abstract

BackgroundIn 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.MethodsRelevant 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.ResultsSixteen 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.ConclusionsThe 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.