Literature DB >> 23032586

Comparison of ten-year survivorship of hip prostheses with use of conventional polyethylene, metal-on-metal, or ceramic-on-ceramic bearings.

Ingrid Milošev1, Simon Kovač, Rihard Trebše, Vesna Levašič, Venčeslav Pišot.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To improve the long-term performance of hip prostheses, alternative bearings with metal-on-metal (MoM) and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) couples have been introduced. Although currently the results from the use of these bearings are in the midterm stage, there have been few comparative studies of these different bearings.
METHODS: From 2000 to 2002, 487 total hip replacements were performed with use of a BICON-PLUS acetabular cup and an SL-PLUS femoral stem (Plus Orthopedics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland, now Smith & Nephew Orthopaedics). The patients were divided into three groups according to the type of bearing that was used: an MoM group (sixty-nine prostheses), a metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) group (200 prostheses), and a CoC group (218 prostheses). Patient demographic data and data with regard to revision operations were evaluated from the hospital computer database. The mean follow-up period was 8.5 years (range, 6.9 to 10.5 years). Patient activity was assessed with use of the University of California at Los Angeles activity scale.
RESULTS: The mean patient age was sixty years at the time of the index arthroplasty in the MoM and CoC groups, and seventy-one years in the MoP group. Based on a scale of ten, the mean postoperative activity level was six in the CoC group, five in the MoM group, and four in the MoP group. Survival at ten years with regard to revision for any reason was 0.984, 0.956, and 0.879 for the MoP, CoC, and MoM groups, respectively. When revision for any reason was considered as the end point, survival of the MoM bearings was significantly worse than that of the MoP bearings (p = 0.005). Survival at ten years with regard to revision for aseptic loosening was 0.995, 0.990, and 0.894 for the MoP, CoC, and MoM groups, respectively. When revision for aseptic loosening was considered as the end point, survival of the MoM group was significantly worse than that of either the MoP group (p = 0.001) or the CoC group (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: When comparing two groups of patients of similar mean age and mean activity level undergoing total hip arthroplasty with the use of alternative bearings, CoC bearings had better survival than did MoM bearings at the ten-year follow-up; the difference was significant when revision for aseptic loosening was defined as a failure. However, neither the CoC nor the MoM alternative bearings provided improved midterm results when compared with the results of the conventional MoP bearings. For older, less active patients, traditional metal-on-polyethylene bearings are the appropriate choice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23032586     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01858

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  16 in total

1.  Low aseptic loosening and revision rate in Zweymüller-Plus total hip arthroplasty with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings.

Authors:  T Bouras; T Repantis; P Fennema; P Korovessis
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2014-12

2.  Revisions of Modular Metal-on-metal THA Have a High Risk of Early Complications.

Authors:  Jason M Jennings; Samuel White; J Ryan Martin; Charlie C Yang; Todd M Miner; Douglas A Dennis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  The future role of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing.

Authors:  Gulraj S Matharu; Hemant G Pandit; David W Murray; Ronan B C Treacy
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-02-24       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Risk factors for early revision after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Christopher J Dy; Kevin J Bozic; Ting Jung Pan; Timothy M Wright; Douglas E Padgett; Stephen Lyman
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 4.794

5.  Ten to fifteen-year clinical and radiographic follow-up with a third-generation cementless stem in a young patient population.

Authors:  Peteris Studers; Danils Belajevs; Vitolds Jurkevics; Peteris Likums
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  High rate of infection after aseptic revision of failed metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Cody C Wyles; Robert E Van Demark; Rafael J Sierra; Robert T Trousdale
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Surface Texturing of Prosthetic Hip Implant Bearing Surfaces: A Review.

Authors:  Quentin Allen; Bart Raeymaekers
Journal:  J Tribol       Date:  2020-10-05       Impact factor: 2.045

Review 8.  Factors Affecting Periprosthetic Bone Loss after Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Se-Won Lee; Weon-Yoo Kim; Joo-Hyoun Song; Jae-Hoon Kim; Hwan-Hee Lee
Journal:  Hip Pelvis       Date:  2021-06-04

9.  Dual effects and mechanism of TiO2 nanotube arrays in reducing bacterial colonization and enhancing C3H10T1/2 cell adhesion.

Authors:  Zhaoxiang Peng; Jiahua Ni; Kang Zheng; Yandong Shen; Xiaoqing Wang; Guo He; Sungho Jin; Tingting Tang
Journal:  Int J Nanomedicine       Date:  2013-08-14

10.  Perfusion MRI in hips with metal-on-metal and metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty: A pilot study.

Authors:  H Anwander; G O Cron; K Rakhra; P E Beaule
Journal:  Bone Joint Res       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 5.853

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.