25dkou370 10.3205/25dkou370 urn:nbn:de:0183-25dkou3702 Meeting Abstract Leitner Leitner Lukas L

Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), LMU University Hospital, Munich, Deutschland

author Postruznik Postruznik Magdalena M

Department of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Österreich

author Koutp Koutp Amir A

Department of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Österreich

author Holzapfel Holzapfel Boris B

Department of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Musculoskeletal University Center Munich (MUM), LMU University Hospital, Munich, Deutschland

author Leithner Leithner Andreas A

Department of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Österreich

author Sadoghi Sadoghi Patrick P

Department of Orthopedics and Trauma, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Österreich

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 20251031 engl This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). M0634 370 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie Berufsverband für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Deutscher Kongress für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie (DKOU 2025) Abstracts | Gelenkersatz – Revisionen & Komplikationen Berlin 20251028 20251031 AB56-4556 TextObjectives and questions: The mix and match (stem and cup from different manufacturers/systems, MM) approach in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) involves combining components from different manufacturers. Despite various configurations discussed in literature and evidence supporting the safety of MM, controversy persists regarding safety and long term outcomes compared to matched components. Our study aimed to compare the revision rates of MM versus matched components.Material and methods: Two databases were searched for English full-text articles published until January, 2024 that evaluated revision rates after primary MM THA. Additionally, MM revision rates data was extracted from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies was used for quality assessment.Results: Three national and one hospital registry studies were included, of which three demonstrate MM as a common practice (19–24%). All studies found comparable revision rates for MM cohorts, or even slightly improved survival rates in MM cohorts concerning revision rate and PROMs, mostly lacking clinical relevance. These findings align with the data reported in the EPRD, with revision rates of approximately 3.6% after 6 years in both MM and matched THA.Discussion and conclusions: Employing MM in primary THA presents a feasible and safe approach, capable of providing custom fit tailored to individual patients with revision rates comparable to those of matched THA. 0 0 0 0