Skip to main content
. 2021 Oct 28;23:101674. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2021.101674

Table 2.

Study Characteristics and Demographic data. Order of listing: CFR PEEK sample vs Metal sample.

Lead author Year & Country Journal Sample Mean Age Male Sex Dominant Limb Affected BMI Fracture Type
Ziegler10 2019, Germany Deutsches Arzteblatt International 63 (32 vs 31) 61.8 ± 12.4 vs 60.9 ± 12.4 6/32 vs 7/31 15/32 vs 14/31 26.4 ± 5.7 vs 26.2 ± 4.7 Proximal Humerus Fractures
Neer 2 part: 6 vs 5
Neer 3 part: 22 vs 13
Neer 4 part: 4 vs 13
Padolino11 2018, Italy Musculoskeletal Surgery 42 (21 vs 21) 57.4 (41–78) vs 55.8 (22–78) 9/21 vs 7/21 8/21 vs 13/21 27.5 (21.5–38.9) vs 26.8 (17.5–38.1) Proximal Humerus Fractures
Neer 3 part: 14 vs 17
Neer 4 part: 7 vs 4
Katthagen12 2017, Germany Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 42 (21 vs 21) 66.8 ± 9.9 vs 67.4 ± 9.7 7/21 vs 7/21 NR NR Proximal Humerus Fractures
Neer 2 part: 2 vs 2
Neer 3 part: 9 vs 12
Neer 4 part: 10 vs 7
Schliemann13 2015, Germany J Shoulder Elbow Surg 58 (29 vs 29) 66.4 (23–87) vs NR 7/29 vs NR NR NR Proximal Humerus Fractures (Neer parts 3 and 4)
Perugia14 2017, Italy Injury 30 (15 vs 15) 56.8 ± 7.1 vs 52.6 ± 8.4 5/15 vs 4/15 4/15 vs 6/15 NR Distal radius fractures
Mitchell15 2018, USA J Orthopaedic Trauma 22 (11 vs 11) 71.7 (51–89) vs 57.3 (27–86) p = 0.03 3/11 vs 3/11 NA NR Distal femur fractures
Byun16 2020, USA Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 31 (10 vs 21) 49.8 (23–80) vs 54.9 (18–89) 6/10 vs 10/21 NA 28.8 (19.1–44.1) vs 27.1 (18.9–47.5) Distal femur fractures
Guzzini17 2017, Italy Injury 87 (46 vs 41) 56.8 ± 2.34 vs 58.3 ± 3.55 14/46 vs 11/41 NR (but groups reported as homogenous) NR (but groups reported as homogenous) Ankle fractures
AO class A: 4.3% vs 4.9%
AO class B: 73.9% vs 75.6%
AO class C: 21.7% vs 19.5%
Ziran18 2020, USA J Orthopaedic Trauma 56 (26 vs 30) 36 (20–79) vs 39 (15–74) 24/26 vs 18/30 NA NR Diaphyseal Tibial fractures
AO class A: 5 vs 13
AO class B: 10 vs 9
AO class C: 11 vs 8

KEY.

NR: not recorded.

NA: not applicable.