Skip to main content

Table 1 Clinical characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis

From: Factors affecting the incidence of postoperative periprosthetic fractures following primary and revision hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  Author, year Country Type of study Number of patients Number of periprosthetic fractures Follow-up period (in months) Risk factors
1 Sarvilinna et al. [19] Finland Prospective cohort study 31599 1555 144 Gender, prosthesis type, and age without significance as risk factors, Risk of PF was about the same in patients operated with or without the cemented prosthesis
2 Sarvilinna et al. [20] Finland Cases control study 31 31 N/A* Fracture as the primary diagnosis, Protective factors: cemented prosthesis, Thompson prosthesis, and Biomet prosthesis, and they were associated with increased incidence of loosening of femoral component and reduced incidence of infection and dislocation
3 Sarvilinna et al. [21] Finland Cases control study 48 16 N/A* Young age at the time of the hip fracture and polished wedge type of prosthesis, Protective factors: Thompson prosthesis and Biomet prosthesis
4 Berend et al. [22] USA Prospective cohort study 2551 59 81 Anterolateral approach, uncemented femoral fixation, and female sex, Protective factors: cemented prostheses but they were associated with reduced femoral component survivorship
5 Cook et al. [23] U.K. Case–control study 6334 124 204 Patients older than 70 years, cemented arthroplasties
6 Meek et al. [24] U.K. Prospective cohort study 51628 508 60 Female gender, age > 70 and revision arthroplasty
7 Zhang et al. [25] China Retrospective cohort study 424 26 N/A* Cemented and revision arthroplasties, osteoporosis, and previous fracture
8 Savin et al. [26] Romania Retrospective cohort study 3574 47 N/A* Cementless and revision arthroplasties, Protective factors: cemented prosthesis
9 Singh et al. [27] USA Prospective cohort study 5951 330 67 Female gender, high Deyo-Charlson comorbidity index, and revision arthroplasties
10 Singh et al. [28] USA Prospective cohort study 13760 305 75 Female gender, high Deyo-Charlson comorbidity index, ASA score ≥ 2, and cemented arthroplasties
11 Katz et al. [29] USA Prospective cohort study 31443 215 156 Older age and female gender
12 Thien et al. [30] Sweden Prospective cohort study 436861 768 24 Shape and surface finish of the femoral stem and cemented arthroplasties, Protective factors: cemented prostheses but they were associated with higher risk of FPFs in male compared with female patients
13 Ricioli Jr et al. [31] Brazil Retrospective cohort study 1771 101 180 Female gender aged ≥ 65 years, presence of a previous hip surgery, and revision arthroplasties
14 Gromov et al. [32] Denmark Retrospective cohort study 1550 48 24 Bone morphology (femoral Dorr type C), female gender, and cementless prosthesis
15 Lindberg-Larsen et al. [33] Denmark Prospective cohort study 7019 150 03 Uncemented femoral stem, medically treated osteoporosis, female sex, and older age, Protective factors: cemented prosthesis
16 Tamaki et al. [34] Japan Retrospective cohort study 833 17 03 Short stem length and cementless prosthesis
  1. *Not applicable
  2. FPFs femoral periprosthetic fractures