Meta-analysis compares femoral stem designs in total hip arthroplasty, showing varied revision and complication risks.
This systematic review and meta-analysis included 18 studies from 2015 to 2025, analyzing 51,375 femoral stems in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty. It compared four stem designs—anatomic, single-taper, single-wedge, and taper wedge—using anatomic stems as the reference for relative risks. The primary outcome was revision risk, with secondary outcomes including periprosthetic joint infection risk, aseptic loosening rate, instability risk, and periprosthetic fracture incidence.
Main results showed anatomic stems had the highest revision rate at 3.9% (95% CI 3.6 to 4.2), with relative risks of 0.38 for single-taper, 0.31 for single-wedge, and 0.52 for taper wedge compared to anatomic (all P=0.0001). For periprosthetic joint infection, anatomic stems had a risk of 0.22% (95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), with higher risks for single-taper (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.5-2.98, P=0.0002) and taper wedge (RR 2.52, 95% CI 1.27-5.01, P=0.004). Aseptic loosening was lower for single wedge (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.92, P=0.014) compared to anatomic's 0.65% (95% CI 0.52 to 0.79). Instability risk was 0.44% for anatomic, with lower risks for single-taper (RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.51-0.94, P=0.025) and single-wedge (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.09-0.25, P=0.0001). Periprosthetic fracture incidence was 1.4% for anatomic, with lower risks for single-taper (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63-0.87, P=0.001) and single-wedge (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.16-0.27, P=0.0001).
Safety and tolerability data were not reported. Key limitations include not reported details on study design, follow-up, and potential biases, with funding and conflicts also not reported. Practice relevance is not specified, but this evidence is observational, so causation is not established, and relative risks are only for comparisons to anatomic stems, with no absolute rates reported for non-anatomic stems except the revision rate for anatomic.