Table 3 Complications and reoperations of PFR usage

Malkani et al. [17]

50

21 (40%)

16 (32%)

11 (22%) [7 closed reductions, 2 femoral revisions, 2 acetabular revision]

3 (6.3%) [2 DAIR, 1 antibiotic tp]

11 (22.0%) [4 revisions stem, 7 revision cup]

4 (%) [2 hematoma, 1 sciatic nerve palsy, 1 implant fracture - revised]

Haentjens et al. [18]

19

8 (42%)

2 (11%)

7 (36.8%) [5 closed reduction, 2 reoperations]

2 (10.5%) [1 DAIR, 1 revision]

1 (5.26%) [revision cup]

3 (15.8%) [screw loosening]

Parvizi et al. [3]

48

11 (23%)

10 (20%)

8 (16.7%) [6 revisions, 2 closed reductions]

1 (2.1%) [DAIR]

4 (8.3%) [3 revisions cup, 1 resection]

0 (0%)

Shih et al. [19]

12

8 (67%)

7 (58%)

5 (42%) [2 closed reductions, 3 resections]

4 (33%) [1 revision, 3 resections]

1 (8.3%) [revision]

6 (50%) [3 greater trochanter displacement, 1 HO, 2 LLD]

Schoenfeld et a l. [20]

19

3 (16%)

2 (11%)

2 (11%) [closed reductions]

1 (5.2%) [revision]

0 (0%)

5 (26.3%) [2 periprosthetic fractures – 1 osteosynthesis & 1 revision, 1 hardware failure, 2 DVT]

Bertani et al. [21]

8

5 (63%)

4 (50%)

3 (37.5%) [revision]

1 (12.5%) [revision]

0 (0%)

1 (12.5%) [periprosthetic fracture]

Gebert et al. [22]

45

8 (18%)

8 (18%)

1 (2.2%) [revision]

5 (11.1%) [revisions]

2 (4.4%) [revision]

0 (0%)

Sewell et al. [23]

14

3 (21%)

2 (14%)

2 (14.3%) [1 closed reduction, 1 revision]

2 (14.3%) [1 resection, 1 DAIR]

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Al Taki et al. [4]

36

6 (17%)

5 (14%)

3 (8.3%) [revisions]

1 (2.8%) [DAIR]

2 (2.8%) [1 resection, 1 revision]

0 (0%)

McLean et al. [24]

20

4 (20%)

3 (15%)

3 (15.0%) [1 closed reduction, 2 revisions]

2 (10.0%) [1 DAIR, 1 antibiotic tp]

0 (0%)

1 (5.0%) [periprosthetic fracture – revision]

Dean et al. [25]

8

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Colman et al. [26]

21

5 (24%)

5 (24%)

3 (14.3%) [revisions]

2 (19.0%) [revisions]

0 (0%)

N/A

Lundh et al. [27]

5

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

2 (40.0%) [closed reductions]

1 (20.0%) [antibiotic tp]

0 (0%)

0 (0%)

Grammatopoulos et al. [28]

80

17 (21%)

11 (14%)

3 (3.7%) [2 closed reductions, 1 open reduction]

9 (11.2%) [4 DAIR, 4 revisions, 1 antibiotic tp]

3 (3.7%) [1 cup revision, 2 stem revisions]

6 (7.5%) [5 periprosthetic fractures - 2 cup revisions, 2 stem revisions, 1 osteosynthesis, 1 peroneal nerve injury]

Viste et al. [29]

44

9 (20%)

7 (16%)

6 (13.6%) [5 revisions, 1 closed reduction]

2 (5.5%) [1 DAIR, 1 resection]

1 (2.3%) [resection]

1 (2.3%) [wound drainage]

Fenelon et al. [30]

79

4 (5%)

4 (5%)

7 (8.9%) [4 closed reduction, 3 revisions]

3 (3.8%) [antibiotic tp]

1 (1.3%) [revision]

5 (6.3%) [DVT]

De Martino et al. [31]

41

9 (22%)

7 (17%)

2 (4.9%) [revisions]

3 (7.3%) [2 DAIR, 1 revision]

2 (4.9%) [revisions]

2 (4.9%) [periprosthetic fracture - revision]

Dieckmann et al. [32]

49

14 (28.6%)

9 (18.4)

6 (12.2%) [5 open, 1 closed]

2 (4.1%) [revision]

6 (12.2%) [4 cup revision, 2 stem revision]

7 (14.3%) [1 periprosthetic fx – resection, 6 wound complication]

Total

135 (23.4%)

102 (17.6%)

74 (12.8%)

44 (7.6%)

34 (5.9%)

41 (7.1%)