Skip to main content
. 2023 Jan 4;143(8):4671–4677. doi: 10.1007/s00402-022-04760-3

Table 1.

Demographic characteristics of both study cohorts

Overall (n = 40) HA-coated (n = 20) 3D-printed (n = 20) p value
Female/male, n (%) 17 (42.5) / 23 (57.5) 12 (60) / 8 (40) 5 (25) / 15 (75) 0.054
Age, mean (range) 63 (17–83) 61 (17–83) 65 (19–82) 0.495
Type of implant 0.752
 Proximal femur EPR, n (%) 20 (50) 11 (55) 9 (45)
 Distal femur EPR, n (%) 20 (50) 9 (45) 11 (55)
Follow-up in days, mean (SD) 408 (± 287) 568 (± 315) 248 (± 125)  < 0.001
Cement fixation, n (%) 32 (80) 12 (60) 20 (100)  < 0.01
Previous revision surgery, n (%) 27 (67.5) 12 (60) 15 (75) 0.501
Perioperative chemotherapy, n (%) 4 (10%) 2 (10) 2 (10) 1
Indication 0.7
 Revision arthroplasty, n (%) 13 (32.5) 5 (25) 8 (40)
 Periprosthetic infection, n (%) 14 (35) 7 (35) 7 (35)
 Primary malignancy, n (%) 10 (25) 6 (30) 4 (20)
 Bone metastasis, n (%) 3 (7.5) 2 (10) 1 (5)
Osseointegration yes/no, n (%) 29 (72.5) 13 (65) / 7 (35) 16 (80) / 4 (20) 0.48
Ongrowth score 0.693
 1, n (%) 9 (22.5) 6 (30) 3 (15)
 2, n (%) 2 (5) 1 (5) 1 (5)
 3, n (%) 19 (47.5) 9 (45) 10 (50)
 4, n (%) 10 (25) 4 (20) 6 (30)
Days to final ongrowth, mean (SD) 230 (± 142) 299 (± 165) 173 (± 89)  < 0.05
Stem loosening, n (%) 2 (5) 1 (5) 1 (5) 1

Bold p value < 0.05

EPR endoprosthetic replacement, SD standard deviation