Prospective randomized trial comparing alumina ceramic-on-ceramic with ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene bearings in total hip arthroplasty.
ABSTRACT This prospective randomized study aims to compare the outcome between an alumina ceramic-on-ceramic (CC) articulation with a ceramic on ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene articulation (CP). Fifty-six hips in 55 patients with mean age 42.2 (range, 19-56) each received uncemented components, a 28-mm alumina head with randomization of acetabular liner. Mean St Michael's outcome score for each group with up to 10 years follow-up (median, 8 years; range, 1-10) was 22.8 and 22.9, respectively (P = .819). Wear was identified in all but 1 CP replacement, but only 12 of the 23 CC. Mean wear in the CP group was 0.11 mm/y and 0.02 mm/yr in the CC group (P < .001). Other than significantly greater wear in the polyethylene group, there was no significant difference in midterm outcome between the 2 groups.
- SourceAvailable from: Ole ReigstadActa Orthopaedica. 03/2014; 85(S354).
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background In recent years, the choice of ceramic-on-ceramic (COC) and metal-on-polyethylene (MOP) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability and durability of COC with that of MOP bearing surfaces in THA.Methods Based on prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) searched from Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane central database, we performed a meta-analysis for comparing clinical and radiographic outcomes of COC with those of MOP. Two investigators independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Risk ratios and weighted mean differences from each trial were pooled using random-effect or fixed-effect models depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies.ResultsFive RCTs involving 897 patients with 974 hips met predetermined inclusion criteria. Our results demonstrated COC significantly decreased the risks of revision, osteolysis, and radiolucent line, aseptic loosening, and dislocation and increased the risks of squeaking and intraoperative implant fracture compared with MOP. There was no significant difference between the two groups in postoperative hip function, deep infection, and heterotopic ossification.Conclusions Generally, despite more squeaking and intraoperative implant fracture, our findings support the use of COC bearing surface which has lower rates of revision, osteolysis, and radiolucent line, aseptic loosening, and dislocation compared with MOP.Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 02/2015; 10(1):22. · 1.58 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Total hip arthroplasty is considered one of the greatest advances in health care of the last century. More than one million THAs are estimated to be performed annually and an increasing number of revisions are expected in the future. Osteolysis and loosening are still the main reasons for failure, justifying the use of low-wear bearings.The aim of this paper is to describe the mode of failure of the different couplings (polyethylene, cross-linked PE, metal, ceramic) and the options of treatment considering the various scenarios that the surgeon has to face nowadays in the case of failure related to articulation material. A comprehensive algorithm of treatment strategies is proposed based on the best current evidence and on the authors' experience.Periodical follow-up, indications for early revision, selection of proper surgical techniques and tribology are suggested. Nowadays, few rules are strongly recommended: trying to avoid any metal in case of failure of metal-on-metal; to avoid metal in fracture of ceramic; never to mix metals or ceramics from different manufactures. We aim to address a great number of open questions. There is still need for further research and evidences in this essential field of orthopaedic surgery.Hip international: the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy 06/2014; 24(Suppl 10). · 0.34 Impact Factor