Cemented versus uncemented stems for revision total hip replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 2 Study characteristics

Ref.	Country	Journal	Study type	Centres	Level of evidence	Number of stems	Stem brand for cemented	Stem brand for uncemented
Tyson et al[39], 2021	Sweden	Acta Orthopaedica	Observational study	Multi	III	266 cemented, 601 uncemented	Lubinus SPII 123 (46%), exeter 94 (35%), spectron 49 (18%)	MP 291 (48%), restoration 162 (27%), wagner 78 (13%), revitan 70 (12%)
Weiss et al[38], 2011	Sweden	Acta Orthopaedica	Observational study	Multi	III	1073 cemented, 812 uncemented	Lubinus SPII 610 (57%), exeter long stem 248 (23%), spectron revision hip system 215 (20%)	MP stem 812 (100%)
Iorio et al[6], 2008	United States	Journal of arthroplasty	Prospective cohort study	Single	II	43 cemented, 43 uncemented	13 premise, 6 precision, 5 reliance (stryker), 3 re cemented, 2 charnley elite plus, 2 ultima, 1 PFC (depuy), 4 calcar replacing, 7 extra long	S-ROM modular metaphyseal femoral stem 31 (72%), calcar replacing 9 (23%), extra long 3 (7.7%)

Study characteristic for the studies included in the MA.