Skip to main content

Table 4 Subgroup analysis of the included studies by different influential factors

From: Does hydroxyapatite coating have no advantage over porous coating in primary total hip arthroplasty? A meta-analysis

Factors

Harris hip score

Survival

Incidence of thigh pain

Radiolucent lines

Femoral osteolysis

Polyethylene wear

 

Subgroups (numbers)

WMD (95% CI)

Subgroups (numbers)

RR (95% CI)

Subgroups (numbers)

OR (95% CI)

Subgroups (numbers)

OR (95% CI)

Subgroups (numbers)

OR (95% CI)

Subgroups (numbers)

WMD (95% CI)

Study design

RCT (10)

1.41 (0.30, 2.52)

RCT (10)

1.01 (0.99, 1.02)

RCT (4)

0.73 (0.42, 1.28)

RCT (4)

0.95 (0.65, 1.39)

RCT (2)

1.37 (0.45, 4.17)

RCT (4)

N.A.

Non-RCT (5)

2.29 (0.50, 4.07)

Non-RCT (6)

1.00 (0.99, 1.00)

Non-RCT (2)

0.14 (0.04, 0.49)

Non-RCT (2)

0.96 (0.41, 2.24)

Non-RCT (3)

0.39 (0.22, 0.70)

Non-RCT (0)

 

p = 0.42

 

p = 0.27

 

p = 0.02

 

p = 0.98

 

p = 0.05

 

Study quality

High (9)

1.41 (0.30, 2.52)

High (8)

1.01 (0.99, 1.02)

High (3)

1.29 (0.57, 2.88)

High (4)

0.95 (0.65, 1.39)

High (2)

1.24 (0.38, 4.13)

High (4)

N.A.

Moderate (6)

2.28 (0.50, 4.07)

Moderate (8)

1.00 (0.99, 1.00)

Moderate (3)

0.30 (0.15, 0.57)

Moderate (2)

0.96 (0.41, 2.24)

Moderate (2)

0.42 (0.24, 0.74)

Moderate (0)

 

p = 0.42

 

p = 0.27

 

p = 0.006

 

p = 0.98

 

p = 0.11

 

Thickness of HA

50–80 μm (8)

0.76 (−0.63, 2.15)

50–80 μm (10)

1.00 (0.99, 1.00)

50–80 μm (3)

0.71 (0.40, 1.27)

50–80 μm (5)

N.A.

50–80 μm (3)

N.A.

50–80 μm (2)

0.00 (−0.01, 0.01)

<50 μm or >80 μm (3)

2.03 (0.41, 3.64)

<50 μm or >80 μm (4)

1.02 (0.98, 1.06)

<50 μm or >80 μm (2)

0.19 (0.06, 0.58)

<50 μm or >80 μm (0)

<50 μm or >80 μm (0)

<50 μm or >80 μm (2)

−0.03 (−0.03, −0.03)

 

p = 0.24

 

p = 0.23

 

p = 0.04

   

p < 0.00001

Purity of HA

>90% (4)

−0.09 (−3.04, 2.86)

>90% (7)

1.00 (0.99, 1.00)

>90% (2)

0.68 (0.36, 1.26)

>90% (3)

0.73 (0.31, 1.71)

>90% (2)

0.66 (0.27, 1.62)

>90% (1)

0.01 (−0.06, 0.08)

<90% (3)

0.82 (−0.77, 2.42)

<90% (3)

1.00 (0.98, 1.02)

<90% (3)

0.23 (0.08, 0.65)

<90% (2)

0.93 (0.61, 1.40)

<90% (1)

1.24 (0.38, 4.13)

<90% (1)

0.00 (−0.01, 0.01)

 

p = 0.59

 

p = 0.72

 

p = 0.08

 

p = 0.63

 

p = 0.4

 

p = 0.79

Implant design

Anatomic (5)

1.65 (0.15, 3.16)

Anatomic (4)

1.02 (0.99, 1.05)

Anatomic (2)

0.19 (0.06, 0.58)

Anatomic (1)

0.32 (0.07, 1.47

Anatomic (2)

0.66 (0.27, 1.62)

Anatomic (2)

−0.03 (−0.03, −0.03)

Non-anatomic (10)

1.66 (0.44, 2.87)

Non-anatomic (12)

1.00 (1.00, 1.00)

Non-anatomic (4)

0.72 (0.41, 1.28)

Non-anatomic (5)

1.01 (0.71, 1.45)

Non-anatomic (3)

0.46 (0.25, 0.85

Non-anatomic (2)

0.00 (−0.01, 0.01)

 

p = 1.00

 

p = 0.24

 

p = 0.04

 

p = 0.15

 

p = 0.52

 

p < 0.00001

Follow-up duration

>6 years (9)

2.21 (1.05, 3.37)

>6 years (10)

1.01 (0.99, 1.03)

>6 years (4)

0.56 (0.29, 1.08)

>6 years (2)

0.58 (0.24, 1.43)

>6 years (4)

0.44 (0.24, 0.77)

>6 years (3)

−0.02 (−0.02, −0.01)

<6 years (6)

0.58 (−1.04, 2.20)

<6 years (6)

1.00 (0.99, 1.00)

<6 years (2)

0.50 (0.24, 1.05)

<6 years (4)

1.04 (0.71, 1.52)

<6 years (1)

1.00 (0.32, 3.15)

<6 years (1)

0.01 (−0.06, 0.08)

 

p = 0.11

 

p = 0.11

 

p = 0.82

 

p = 0.25

 

p = 0.2

 

p = 0.46

  1. Study design and study quality would affect the incidence of thigh pain and study design has influence on femoral osteolysis. When the thickness of HA is <50 or >80 μm, it has less thigh pain incidence and polyethylene wear. The anatomic implant has less incidence of thigh pain and polyethylene wear.
  2. WMD weighted mean difference, N.A. not available. HA hydroxyapatite.
Back to article page

Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

ISSN: 1749-799X