Table 1.
Study results
| Authors | Study design | Implant | Number of hips | Percent (%) males | Mean age | % OA primary/ OA secondary/Other | Mean follow-up (years) | Percent (%) lost to follow-up | Number of revisions | Survival rate % (95 % CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amstutz et al. [10] | Series of cases | Conserve plus | 1107 | 74 | 50 | NS | 6.8 | 0.2 | 44 | 96 |
| Aulakh et al. [11] | Series of cases | BHR | 202 | 75 | 42 | 50/0/50 | 7.5 | 0 | 6 | 97.7 AVN; 95 OA |
| Baker et al. [8] | Comparative study BHR vs THA | BHR | 54 BHR vs 54 THA | 74 | 50 | 100/0/0 | 9 | NR | 5 BHR vs 9 THA | NR |
| Beaulé et al. [12] | Series of cases | Conserve plus | 116 | 81 | 47 | 81/9/10 | 3.2 | 1.9 | 2 | 98.1 |
| Bergeron et al. [13] | Series of cases | ASR | 228 | 80 | 54 | 97/0/3 | 4.6 | 3 | 8 | 94.8 |
| Bose et al. [14] | Series of cases | BHR | 96 | 84 | 39 | 0/100/0 | 5.4 | 0 | 3 | 95.4 |
| Carrothers et al. [15] | Multicentric study | BHR | 5000 | 67 | 53 | NS | 7.1 | NR | 182 | 96.3 |
| Costa et al. [16] | Comparative study Cormet vs THA | Cormet | 73 Cormet vs 137 THA | 86 (cormet) vs 47(THA) | 53 | NS | 2.4 | NR | 0 Cormet vs 3 THA | NR |
| Daniel et al. [17] | Series of cases | McMinn et BHR | 446 | 79 | 48 | 100/0/0 | 3.3 | 0 | 1 | 99.8 |
| Daniel et al. [18] | Series of cases | McMinn 2nde generation | 184 | 59 | 54 | 82/0/18 | 10.5 | 0.5 | 30 | 84 |
| De Smet et al. [19] | Series of cases | BHR | 252 | 69 | 50 | 81/6/13 | 5 | 1.5 | 3 | 98.9 |
| De Steiger et al. [9] | Comparative study ASR vs THA | ASR | 1167 ASR | 95 | 53 | NR | 5 | NR | 89.1 | |
| Della Valle et al. [20] | Series of cases | BHR | 537 | 71 | 52 | 89/6/5 | 0.87 | NR | 14 | NR |
| Delport et al. [21] | Comparative study BHR vs Recap | BHR et Recap | 56 | 82 | 52 | NS | 4.8 | NR | 0 | NR |
| Fowble et al. [22] | Comparative study Conserve plus vs THA | Conserve plus | 50 Conserve plus vs 44 THA | 62 | 50 | 98/1/1 | 3.2 | NR | 1 Conserve plus vs 0 THA | NR |
| Giannini et al. [23] | Series of cases | BHR | 350 | 52 | 51 | 52/22/26 | 2 | NS | 4 | 98.8 |
| Gravius et al. [24] | Series of cases | Durom | 82 | 56 | 53 | 93/7/0 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 2 | 97.6 |
| Gross et al. [25] | Series of cases | Cormet | 100 | 8 | NR | 21 | 93 | |||
| Heilpern et al. [26] | Series of cases | BHR | 113 | 58 | 54 | 88/4/8 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 96.3 (92.8–99.8) |
| Hing et al. [27] | Series of cases | BHR | 230 | 66 | 52 | NS | 5 | 0.5 | 2 | 97.8 (97.1–100) |
| Hulst et al. [28] | Series of cases | Conserve plus | 643 | 67 | 49 | 65/15/20 | 10.4 | NR | 45 | 98.3 |
| Jameson et al. [29] | Series of cases | ASR | 214 | 60 | 56 | 68/5/27 | 3.6 | 0 | 12 | 93 (80–98) |
| Khan et al. [30] | Series of cases | BHR | 679 | 60 | 51 | NS | 6 | 2 | 29 | 95.7 (94.4–97.4) |
| Killampalli et al. [31] | Series of cases | Cormet | 100 | 61 | 56 | 97/1/2 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Kim et al. [32] | Series of cases | Conserve plus | 200 | 78 | 49 | 86/4/10 | 2.6 | 0 | 14 | 93 |
| Klein et al. [33] | Series of cases | ASR | 115 | 47 | 58 | 100/0/0 | 1 | 0 | 13 | 88.7 |
| Langton et al. [34] | Comparative study BHR vs ASR | BHR et ASR | 155 BHR vs 505 ASR | 54 | 56 | NS | 2.9 | NR | 17 ASR vs 0 BHR | NR |
| Larbpaiboonpong et al. [35] | Series of cases | BHR | 40 | 58 | 41.3 | 35/52/13 | 1.4 | 0 | 1 | 97.5 |
| Lei et al. [36] | Series of cases | Durom | 90 | 52 | 47 | 50/0/50 | 2.3 | 0 | 1 | 98.9 |
| Mackenzie et al. [37] | Comparative study BHR vs THA | BHR | 499 | 75.5 | 49.1 | 100/0/0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Madadi et al. [38] | Comparative study ON vs OA | Cormet | 52 | 52 | 35 | 50/0/50 | 3.4 | NR | 6 | 88.4 |
| Madhu et al. [39] | Series of cases | BHR | 117 | 58 | 54 | 56/44/0 | 7 | 1 | 8 | 91.5 (85.4–97.6) |
| Malhotra et al. [40] | Series of cases | ASR | 32 | 70 | 33 | 0/0/100 | 3.6 | 0 | 1 | 96.8 |
| Marker et al. [41] | Series of cases | Conserve plus | 361 | 71 | 50 | 74/15/11 | 4.9 | NR | 23 | 93.6 |
| Marulanda et al. [42] | Series of cases | BHR | 230 | 73 | 55 | 87/0/13 | 1.3 | NS | 3 | 98.7 |
| McAndrew et al. [43] | Series of cases | BHR | 180 | NS | 56 | 94/0/6 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 98.3 |
| McBryde [44] | Series of cases | BHR | 2123 | 62 | 55 | 100/0/0 | 3.46 | 0 | 48 | 97.5 (96.3–98.3) |
| McMinn et al. [45] | Series of cases | BHR | 3095 | NS | 53 | 8 | 0 | 68 | 98 | |
| Mont et al. [46] | Comparative study Conserve plus vs THA | Conserve plus | 54 Conserve plus vs 54 THA | 75 | 52 | 100/0/0 | 3.5 | 0 | 2 Conserve plus vs 2 THA | NR |
| Mont et al. [47] | Series of cases | Conserve plus | 1016 | 28 | 50 | 77/11/12 | 2.8 | 6.3 | 54 | 94.2 (90–96.7) |
| Naal et al. [48] | Series of cases | Durom | 100 | 66 | 52 | 79/6/15 | 5 | NR | 11 | 88.2 |
| Ollivere et al. [49] | Series of cases | BHR | 463 | 66 | 56 | NS | 5 | 0.6 | 13 | 95.8 (94.1–96.8) |
| Sandiford et al. [50] | Comparative study BHR vs THA | BHR | 141 BHR vs 141 THA | 66 | 54 | 100/0/0 | 1.6 | NS | 0 | NS |
| Siebel et al. [51] | Series of cases | ASR | 300 | 64 | 57 | NS | 0.6 | 0 | 8 | 97.2 |
| Smolders et al. [52] | Clinical randomised trial | Conserve plus | 38 conserve plus vs 33 THA | 55 | 58 | 90/0/10 | 1.7 | NS | 1 Conserve plus vs 2 THA | NS |
| Steffen et al. [53] | Series of cases | BHR | 610 | 59 | 52 | 85/9/6 | 7 | 0.33 | 23 | 95 (95.3–99.2) |
| Stulberg et al. [54] | Series of cases | Cormet | 337 | 68 | 50 | 86/0/14 | 2 | 8.3 | 24 | 92.9 |
| Swank and Alkire [55] | Comparative study BHR vs THA | BHR | 128 BHR vs 106 THA | 62 | 51 | 71/5/24 | 1 | 0 | 2 BHR vs 0 THA | 98.1 |
| Takamura et al. [56] | Comparative study | Conserve plus | 500 | 63 | 48 | 63/18/19 | 8 | NR | 34 without FNN vs 7 with FNN | 86.7 with FNN vs93.6 without FNN |
| Treacy et al. [57] | Series of cases | BHR | 144 | 55 | 100/0/0 | 3.5 | 10 | 48 | 97.5 (96.3–98.3) | |
| Vendittoli et al. [58] | Randomised controlled trial | Durom | 109 Durom vs 100 THA | 63 | 49 | 31/9/60 | 4.7 | 0 | 4 vs 2 | 96.3 |
| Wang et al. [59] | Randomised controlled trial | Conserve plus | 37 Conserve vs 39 THA | 14 | 45.7 | 0/0/100 | 4.9 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Witzleb et al. [60] | Series of cases | BHR | 300 | 57 | 49 | 19/63/18 | 2 | 0.7 | 6 | 98 |