RESUMO
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate re-revision rates of retained femoral components after revision of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods: Papers were searched in the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases with predetermined keywords from January 2000 to January 2022. The studies reporting the re-revision rates of retained stems after revision THA were identified. Pooled rates of re-revision for any reason and aseptic loosening were calculated using a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model based on the results of heterogeneity assessment after the Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformation. A meta-regression was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Results: There were 20 studies with 1,484 hips that received the isolated cup revision with the femoral component retained. The pooled re-revision rate of retained stems was 1.75% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43%-3.65%]. The re-revision rate of retained stems due to aseptic loosening was 0.62% (95% CI, 0.06%-1.55%). The meta-regression showed that the fixation type (cemented or cementless) was related to the re-revision rate for any reason and the re-revision rate for aseptic loosening. Conclusion: Based on the existing evidence, the isolated cup revision with a stable stem in situ yields low re-revision rates. The cement status of retained stems may influence the survivorship of stems.
RESUMO
Computer-assisted orthopedic system (CAOS) is rapidly gaining popularity in the field of precision medicine. However, the cost-effectiveness of CAOS has not been well clarified. We performed this review to summarize and assess the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) with regard to CAOS. Publications on CEA in CAOS have been searched in PubMed and CEA Registry up to May 31, 2022. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to estimate the quality of studies. Relationships between qualities and potential factors were also examined. There were 15 eligible studies in the present review. Twelve studies evaluated CAOS joint arthroplasties and found that CAOS joint arthroplasties were cost-effective compared to manual methods. Three studies focused on spinal surgery, two of which analyzed the cost-effectiveness of CAOS for patients after spinal fusion, with conflicting results. One study demonstrated that CAOS was cost-effective in spinal pedicle screw insertion. The mean QHES score of CEAs included was 86.1. The potential factors had no significant relationship with the quality of studies. Based on available studies, our review reflected that CAOS was cost-effective in the field of joint arthroplasty. While in spinal surgery, the answer was unclear. Current CEAs represent high qualities, and more CEAs are required in the different disciplines of orthopedics where CAOS is employed.
