Does size matter? Outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty with long or primary stems: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

backgroundFemoral reconstruction with long stems is widely accepted as the standard in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). However, long stems can be technically challenging to insert and can compromise bone stock for future revision. This study aimed to identify whether there was a difference in outcomes with using a long versus primary or short femoral stem in revision.

methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all articles comparing long and primary stem length in rTHA for Paprosky 1-3B femoral defects. The primary outcome measure was the reoperation rate after rTHA. Secondary outcomes included infection and dislocation rates, periprosthetic fracture, loosening, mortality, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

resultsThe results of 3,102 rTHAs performed in 2,982 patients were reported from 9 eligible studies in the systematic review, of which 6 were included in the meta-analysis. The mean patient age was 67.4 and the mean follow-up lasted 5 years (range, 1-15 years). There was no significant difference in the reoperation rate (odds ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-2.17, P = 0.63). Similarly, there was no significant difference in dislocation or periprosthetic fracture risk. Harris Hip Score was better with primary stems by a mean difference of 14.4 points (P < 0.05). Pooled 5-year stem-related survival was 91.3% ± 3.5% (SD) for primary stems and 89.9% ± 6.7% (SD) for long stems.

conclusionsA primary stem provided non-inferior outcomes compared with long stems in rTHA with Paprosky type 1-3B femoral defects. Primary stems may yield a more straightforward technique and preserve distal bone stock for future revision particularly in younger patients. In older patients with lower functional demands and who would benefit from a decreased risk of complications, a long cemented stem is recommended.