Table 3.
Survivorship Analysis of Included Studies in Groups 1, 2, and 3
| Study | Survivorship |
|---|---|
| Group 1 (n=8) | |
| Bernasek et al.30) | Kaplan–Meier survivorship estimate with end point of revision due to any cause was 75% at 14 years (95% CI 55%-97%). |
| Sun et al.9) | Kaplan–Meier survivorship estimate with end point of revision due to any cause was 100% at mean follow-up of 10 years. Kaplan–Meier survivorship estimate with end point of revision for aseptic loosening, nonunion, mechanical failure or wear: was 100% at a mean follow-up of 10 years. |
| Necas et al.13) | Survivorship was not estimated by statistical methods but was reported almost 90% over an average of almost 8 years. |
| Palumbo et al.14) | Cumulative incidence survivorship with endpoint being revision due to any cause was 67% at the mean follow-up of 19±7 years. |
| Takao et al.29) | Kaplan–Meier survivorship estimate with end point of stem revision was 97% (95% CI 80%-99%) at 8 years. Kaplan–Meier survivorship estimate with end point of aseptic loosening of stem 97% (95% CI 80%-99%) at 8 years. |
| Liu et al.15) | Survivorship was not estimated by statistical methods. The 5-year prosthesis survival rate was 100%, and the 10-year prosthesis survival rate was 91.30%. |
| Wang et al.16) | Kaplan–Meier survivorship estimate with end point revision for any reason 97% (95% CI 84-99) at 10 years. Kaplan–Meier survivorship estimate with revision for radiographic loosening of any component 97% (95% CI 84-99) at 10 years. |
| Zeng et al.17) | THA survivorship was not estimated. |
| Group 2 (n=11) | |
| Biçici et al.18) | Survivorship was not estimated using statistical methods however the authors reported a 97.2% survival at mean follow-up of 8.3 years (6-11 years). |
| Desteli et al.19) | Survivorship was not estimated. |
| Erdem et al.10) | Survivorship was not estimated by statistical methods however the authors reported 96% survival at a mean follow-up of 7.1 years. |
| Grappiolo et al.20) | Kaplan–Meier survivorship was estimated for revision of any component due to any cause and represented on a chart. |
| Hasegawa et al.31) | Kaplan–Meier survivorship with a cumulative survival rate and any implant revision as endpoint was 90.0% (95% CI 76.6-100) and 74.6% (95% CI 51.1-98.3) at 5 and 10 years. |
| Karaismailoglu and Karaismailoglu21) | Kaplan–Meier survivorship without endpoint and CIs was reported to be 96.1% at 5 years. |
| Li et al.22) | Survivorship was not estimated by statistical methods; however, the authors reported the radiographic signs of aseptic loosening recognized as the end point the survival rates of the femoral components were 100% at 5- to 10-year follow-up. |
| Caylak et al.24) | Kaplan–Meier survivorship estimate with end point revision for any reason was 94.5% (95% CI 90.5-98.5) at 10 years. |
| Ors et al.23) | Kaplan–Meier survivorship estimate with end point of revision for any reason as was 94.5% (95% CI 90.5-98.5) at 10 years. |
| Ozden et al.25) | With any revision as end point per log rank test 10-year survival rate of Reflection-Ceramic Interfit cup and femoral component was 97.7% (95% CI 85.4%-99.6%) and 91.0% (95% CI 78.0%-96.6%). |
| Reikerås et al.32) | Kaplan–Meier survivorship estimate with end point removal of component was 100% for stem and 75% for cup at 15 years. |
| Group 3 (n=1) | |
| Rollo et al.26) | Survival analysis not estimated. |
| Total (n=20) |
CI: confidence interval.