Table II.
Subgroup analysis: monopolar vs. bipolar implants
| Outcome | Pooled estimate across monopolar implants | Pooled estimate across bipolar implants |
|---|---|---|
| Revision | ||
| No. of studies | 22 | 13 |
| Estimate (95% CI), % | 10.0 (6.7-13.4) | 14.5 (7.8-21.2) |
| P value for effect estimate | <.001 | <.001 |
| I2 for heterogeneity, % | 44.33 | 78.92 |
| P value for heterogeneity | .014 | <.001 |
| Arthritis | ||
| No. of studies | 10 | 9 |
| Estimate (95% CI), % | 28.3 (13.0-43.5) | 40.8 (12.6-69.0) |
| P value for effect estimate | <.001 | .005 |
| I2 for heterogeneity, % | 89.8 | 97.66 |
| P value for heterogeneity | <.001 | <.001 |
| Capitellar erosion | ||
| No. of studies | 9 | 11 |
| Estimate (95% CI), % | 18.7 (6.8-30.5) | 20.7 (12.5-28.9) |
| P value for effect estimate | .002 | <.001 |
| I2 for heterogeneity, % | 94.61 | 67.57 |
| P value for heterogeneity | <.001 | <.001 |
| Instability | ||
| No. of studies | 10 | 9 |
| Estimate (95% CI), % | 5.6 (1.5-9.6) | 7.0 (3.4-10.7) |
| P value for effect estimate | .007 | <.001 |
| I2 for heterogeneity, % | 46.89 | 0 |
| P value for heterogeneity | .05 | .879 |
| Osteolysis | ||
| No. of studies | 15 | 9 |
| Estimate (95% CI), % | 36.1 (19.1-53.0) | 46.8 (24.0-69.5) |
| P value for effect estimate | <.001 | <.001 |
| I2 for heterogeneity, % | 96.11 | 95.33 |
| P value for heterogeneity | <.001 | <.001 |
| MEPS | ||
| No. of studies | 17 | 10 |
| Estimate (95% CI), points | 89.48 (87.05-91.92) | 87.03 (84.24-89.81) |
| P value for effect estimate | <.001 | <.001 |
| I2 for heterogeneity, % | 73.64 | 50.98 |
| P value for heterogeneity | <.001 | .031 |
| DASH score | ||
| No. of studies | 12 | 7 |
| Estimate (95% CI), points | 16.17 (12.76-19.59) | 14.57 (11.71-17.42) |
| P value for effect estimate | <.001 | <.001 |
| I2 for heterogeneity, % | 24.6 | 35.93 |
| P value for heterogeneity | .202 | .154 |
CI, confidence interval; MEPS, Mayo Elbow Performance Score; DASH, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand.