Article

Prospective randomized trial comparing alumina ceramic-on-ceramic with ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene bearings in total hip arthroplasty.

Division of Orthopaedics, Department of Surgery, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
The Journal of arthroplasty (Impact Factor: 2.37). 02/2009; 25(3):392-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.01.013
Source: PubMed

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.

0 Followers
 · 
43 Views
  • Source
    [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. DOI:10.1186/s13018-015-0163-2 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasingly being performed in patients with long life expectancies and active lifestyles. Newer implant bearing surfaces, with superior wear characteristics, often are used in this cohort with the goal of improving longevity of the prosthesis, but comparisons across the numerous available bearing surfaces are limited, so the surgeon and patient may have difficulty deciding which implants to use. The purpose of this study was to answer the following question: Is there a short- to mid-term survivorship difference between common THA bearings used in patients younger than age 65 years? We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published after 2000 that reported survivorship of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), ceramic-on-highly crosslinked polyethylene (CoPxl), or metal-on-highly crosslinked polyethylene (MoPxl) bearings. To qualify for our review, RCTs had to have a minimum 2-year followup and study patients were required to have an average age younger than 65 years. Direct-comparison meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were performed to combine direct and indirect evidence. Direct-comparison meta-analysis found no differences among the bearing surfaces in terms of the risk of revision; this approach demonstrated a risk ratio for revision of 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-2.23; p = 0.50) between CoC and CoPxl and a risk ratio for revision of 0.40 (95% CI, 0.06-2.63; p = 0.34) between CoC and MoPxl. Network meta-analysis (with post hoc modification) likewise found no differences in survivorship across the three implant types, demonstrating the following probabilities of most effective implant with 95% credible intervals (CrI): CoC = 64.6% (0%-100%); CoPxl = 24.9% (0%-100%); and MoPxl = 9.9% (0%-100%). The CrIs ranged from 0% to 100% for all three bearing surfaces. Direct-comparison meta-analysis allowed for pooling of five RCTs, including 779 THAs, whereas network meta-analysis (before post hoc analysis) enabled pooling of 18 RCTs, including 2599 THAs. Current published evidence does not support survivorship differences among commonly used bearing surfaces in patients younger than age 65 years undergoing THA at short- to mid-term followup. Long-term RCT data will be needed to determine if a survivorship benefit is realized in younger, more active patients over time. Level I, therapeutic study.
    Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 12/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11999-014-4065-0 · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 01/2015; 19(10):1-668. DOI:10.3310/hta19100 · 5.12 Impact Factor