• Ryan St John, Seth Spicer, Mo Hadaya, Hanna Brancaccio, Seungkyu Park, and Sean McMillan.
• Department of Medicine, Rowan-Virtua University School of Osteopathic Medicine, 1 Medical Center Dr, Stratford, NJ, 08084, USA. stjohn77@rowan.edu.
• Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2024 Dec 27; 145 (1): 9999.

ObjectiveThe primary research aim was to determine if the use of traditional or 3D printed prosthesis resulted in better functional outcome scores in hip arthroplasty.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted utilizing the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Six databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, WebOfScience, and Cochrane Library, Google Scholar) were searched yielding 1117 article titles and abstracts. Rayyan.ai was used to detect duplicates (n = 246) and for manual screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included were controlled studies of any publication time that assessed Harris Hip Score (HHS) at baseline and twelve months. Six papers were sought for full text review of which three studies totaling 195 hips met final inclusion.ResultsMean HHS in the control group went from 38.15 (± 6.02) at baseline to 80.30 (± 4.79) at twelve months follow-up, while the 3D group saw a change from 37.81 (± 5.84) to 90.60 (± 4.49). Significant and large improvements between time points were seen within the control group [p = .02, Cohen's d = 8.57 (1.48, 15.56)] and 3D group [p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 9.18 (3.50, 14.86)]. The HHS score of the 3D group improved by 10.64 points more than the HHS score of the control group, which is a statistically insignificant (p = 0.89) amount.ConclusionGroup differences in pooled mean HHS scores at twelve months follow-up surpassed established minimum differences for clinical importance. High quality research should be further pursued to elucidate these findings.© 2024. The Author(s).

15 keywords...

hide…