Efficacy and safety of modular versus monoblock stems in revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Both modular and monoblock tapered fluted titanium (TFT) stems are increasingly being used for revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). However, the differences between the two designs in clinical outcomes and complications are not yet clear. Here, we intend to compare the efficacy and safety of modular versus monoblock TFT stems in rTHA. Methods PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to include studies comparing modular and monoblock implants in rTHA. Data on the survivorship of stems, postoperative hip function, and complications were extracted following inclusion criteria. Inverse variance and Mantel–Haenszel methods in Review Manager (version 5.3 from Cochrane Collaboration) were used to evaluate differences between the two groups. Results Ten studies with a total of 2188 hips (1430 modular and 758 monoblock stems) were finally included. The main reason for the revision was aseptic loosening. Paprosky type III was the most common type in both groups. Both stems showed similar re-revision rates (modular vs monoblock: 10.3% vs 9.5%, P = 0.80) and Harris Hip Scores (WMD = 0.43, P = 0.46) for hip function. The intraoperative fracture rate was 11.6% and 5.0% (P = 0.0004) for modular and monoblock stems, respectively. The rate of subsidence > 10 mm was significantly higher in the monoblock group (4.5% vs 1.0%, P = 0.003). The application of extended trochanteric osteotomy was more popular in monoblock stems (22.7% vs 17.5%, P = 0.003). The incidence of postoperative complications such as periprosthetic femoral fracture and dislocation was similar between both stems. Conclusions No significant difference was found between modular and monoblock tapered stems as regards postoperative hip function, re-revision rates, and complications. Severe subsidence was more frequent in monoblock stems while modular ones were at higher risk of intraoperative fracture. Level of evidence: Level III, systematic review of randomized control and non-randomized studies. Trial Registration: We registered our study in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42020213642).

Mid-term results of a cementless hip stem in femoral revision: how much diaphyseal press-fit do we need?

“…Significant differences were only detected in rates of subsidence (in favor of modular stems) and rates of periprosthetic fracture (where monobloc stems showed better results). Similar results were also observed from a more recent systematic review including a total of 2188 hips [ 5 ].…”

Mid-Term Outcomes of a Modern Zweymüller Monolithic Femoral Stem in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty

“…On the other hand, the limitations of monobloc stems include limitations in the adjustment of anteversion, offset, and length. In addition, the lack of proximal modularity may influence implant stability and prevent the restoration of the center of rotation [6].…”