C Shen1, Z-H Tang2, J-Z Hu2, G-Y Zou2, R-C Xiao2, D-X Yan2. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical College, 541001 Guilin, Guangxi, China. Electronic address: sc821@foxmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopedics, Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical College, 541001 Guilin, Guangxi, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although cross-linked polyethylene is resistant to wear in comparison to conventional polyethylene, it remains unknown whether it can decrease the wear-related revision rate of total hip arthroplasty. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether cross-linked polyethylene decreases the wear-related revision rate of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were queried from inception to July 6, 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cross-linked polyethylene with conventional polyethylene were included. In addition, the standard 28-mm femoral head was used, and follow-up was performed for a minimum of 5 years. The primary outcome assessed was wear-related revision. The secondary outcome measures evaluated were the incidence of osteolysis, the linear wear rate, and the linear head penetration. DATA SYNTHESIS: The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias was used for quality assessment. Data from eligible studies were pooled using a random effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies involving 735 patients were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference between cross-linked and conventional polyethylene group in terms of osteolysis or wear-related revision. The pooled mean differences were significantly less for the linear wear rate and linear head penetration for cross-linked polyethylene than for conventional polyethylene. LIMITATIONS: The studies differed with respect to the cross-linked liner brands, manufacturing processes, and radiological evaluation methods. Moreover, the follow-up periods of the RCTs were not long enough. CONCLUSIONS: The current limited evidence suggests that cross-linked polyethylene significantly reduced the radiological wear compared with conventional polyethylene at midterm follow-up periods. However, there is no evidence that cross-linked polyethylene had an advantage over conventional polyethylene in terms of reducing osteolysis or wear-related revision. Nevertheless, future long-term RCTs on this topic are needed. KEY FINDINGS: Cross-linked polyethylene significantly reduced radiological wear but not osteolysis or wear-related revision in comparison to conventional polyethylene at midterm follow-up periods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systematic review of level I studies.
BACKGROUND: Although cross-linked polyethylene is resistant to wear in comparison to conventional polyethylene, it remains unknown whether it can decrease the wear-related revision rate of total hip arthroplasty. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether cross-linked polyethylene decreases the wear-related revision rate of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were queried from inception to July 6, 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cross-linked polyethylene with conventional polyethylene were included. In addition, the standard 28-mm femoral head was used, and follow-up was performed for a minimum of 5 years. The primary outcome assessed was wear-related revision. The secondary outcome measures evaluated were the incidence of osteolysis, the linear wear rate, and the linear head penetration. DATA SYNTHESIS: The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias was used for quality assessment. Data from eligible studies were pooled using a random effects model. RESULTS: Eight studies involving 735 patients were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference between cross-linked and conventional polyethylene group in terms of osteolysis or wear-related revision. The pooled mean differences were significantly less for the linear wear rate and linear head penetration for cross-linked polyethylene than for conventional polyethylene. LIMITATIONS: The studies differed with respect to the cross-linked liner brands, manufacturing processes, and radiological evaluation methods. Moreover, the follow-up periods of the RCTs were not long enough. CONCLUSIONS: The current limited evidence suggests that cross-linked polyethylene significantly reduced the radiological wear compared with conventional polyethylene at midterm follow-up periods. However, there is no evidence that cross-linked polyethylene had an advantage over conventional polyethylene in terms of reducing osteolysis or wear-related revision. Nevertheless, future long-term RCTs on this topic are needed. KEY FINDINGS:Cross-linked polyethylene significantly reduced radiological wear but not osteolysis or wear-related revision in comparison to conventional polyethylene at midterm follow-up periods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systematic review of level I studies.
Authors: J Philippe Kretzer; Maximilian Uhler; Sebastian Jäger; Therese Bormann; Robert Sonntag; Mareike Schonhoff; Stefan Schröder Journal: Orthopade Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 1.087
Authors: Matthew G Teeter; Xunhua Yuan; Lyndsay E Somerville; Steven J MacDonald; Richard W McCalden; Douglas D Naudie Journal: Can J Surg Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Per-Erik Johanson; Ove Furnes; Leif Ivar Havelin; Anne Marie Fenstad; Alma B Pedersen; Søren Overgaard; Göran Garellick; Keijo Mäkelä; Johan Kärrholm Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 3.717