Table 8.
shows biomedical devices listed in Table 7 and case studies on patient follow up range, reason for failure and recalls. Most cases failed due to implant infection while some also resulted in femoral fractures288.
| Complications | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | Follow-up (range) | Aseptic failure (%) | Septic failure (%) | Infection (%) | Femoral Fracture (%) | ||
| OPRA | Hagberg et al368 | 18 | 24 mo | 5.6 | 0 | Superficial: 11.2 | 0 |
| Tillander et al369 | 39 | 39 mo | 2.6 | 2.6 | Superficial: 19.5 | 0 | |
| Branemark et al370 | 51 | 24 mo | 5.9 | 2.0 | Superficial: 54.9 Deep: 2 |
5.9 | |
| Branemark et al371 | 51 | 60 mo | 5.9 | 2.0 | Superficial: 66.7 Deep: 21.6 |
NR | |
| ILP | Aschoff (2010)372 | 37 | NR | 7.7 | 2.6 | Superficial: 36 | 0 |
| Van de Meent at al373 | 22 | 12 mo | 0 | 0 | Superficial: 36.4 | 0 | |
| Juhnke et al374 | 1st and 2nd gen: 30 3rd gen: 39 |
32.4 mo | 3.3 | 3.3 | Superficial: 76.7 Deep: 3.3 |
10 3rd gen: 5.6 |
|
| Al Muderis at al375 | 86 | 34 mo | 3.5 | 0 | Superficial: 33.7 | 3.5 | |
| OPL | Al Muderis at al376 | 51 | 21.5 mo | 3.9 | 0 | Superficial: 35.3 Deep: 5.9 |
7.8 |
| Al Muderis at al376 | 22 | 12 mo | 0 | 0 | Superficial: 54.5 | 0 | |
| POP | Agarwal (2018)377 | 10 | 12 mo | 10 | 0 | Superficial: 20 | 10 |