Si Yin1, Dangfeng Zhang1, Hui Du2, Heng Du1, Zhanhai Yin1, Yusheng Qiu1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong university Xi'an, China. 2. Department of Network Coordination, Shaanxi Radio and TV University Xi'an, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although many total hip bearing implants are widely used all over the world, simultaneous comparisons across the numerous available bearing surfaces are rare. The purpose of this study was to compare the survivorship of total hip arthroplasty (THA) with six available bearing implants. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting survivorship or revision of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene (CoPc), ceramic-on-highly-crosslinked polyethylene (CoPxl), metal-on-conventional polyethylene (MoPc), metal-on-highly-crosslinked polyethylene (MoPxl), or metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing implants. The synthesis of present evidence was performed by both the traditional direct-comparison meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 40 RCTs involving a total of 5321 THAs were identified. The pooled data of network meta-analysis showed no difference in relative risk (RR) of revision across CoC, CoPc, CoPxl and MoPxl bearings. However, the MoM bearing was demonstrated with a significant higher risk of revision compared with CoC (RR 5.10; 95% CI=1.62 to 16.81), CoPc (RR 4.80; 95% CI=1.29 to 17.09), or MoPxl (RR 3.85; 95% CI=1.16 to 14.29), and the MoPc bearing was indicated with a higher risk of revision compared with CoC (RR 2.83; 95% CI=1.20 to 6.63). The ranking probabilities of the effective interventions also revealed the inferiority of the MoM and MoPc implants in survivorship (both 0%, 95% CI=0% to 0%) compared with CoC (39%, 95% CI=0% to 100%), CoPc (33%, 95% CI=0% to 100%), CoPxl (7%, 95% CI=0% to 100%) or MoPxl (21%, 95% CI=0% to 100%). CONCLUSIONS: The present evidence indicated the similar performance in survivorship among CoC, CoPc, CoPxl and MoPxl bearing implants, and that all likely have superiority compared with the MoM and MoPc bearing implants in THA procedures. Long-term RCT data are required to confirm these conclusions and better inform clinical decisions.
PURPOSE: Although many total hip bearing implants are widely used all over the world, simultaneous comparisons across the numerous available bearing surfaces are rare. The purpose of this study was to compare the survivorship of total hip arthroplasty (THA) with six available bearing implants. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting survivorship or revision of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene (CoPc), ceramic-on-highly-crosslinked polyethylene (CoPxl), metal-on-conventional polyethylene (MoPc), metal-on-highly-crosslinked polyethylene (MoPxl), or metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing implants. The synthesis of present evidence was performed by both the traditional direct-comparison meta-analysis and network meta-analysis. RESULTS: In total, 40 RCTs involving a total of 5321 THAs were identified. The pooled data of network meta-analysis showed no difference in relative risk (RR) of revision across CoC, CoPc, CoPxl and MoPxl bearings. However, the MoM bearing was demonstrated with a significant higher risk of revision compared with CoC (RR 5.10; 95% CI=1.62 to 16.81), CoPc (RR 4.80; 95% CI=1.29 to 17.09), or MoPxl (RR 3.85; 95% CI=1.16 to 14.29), and the MoPc bearing was indicated with a higher risk of revision compared with CoC (RR 2.83; 95% CI=1.20 to 6.63). The ranking probabilities of the effective interventions also revealed the inferiority of the MoM and MoPc implants in survivorship (both 0%, 95% CI=0% to 0%) compared with CoC (39%, 95% CI=0% to 100%), CoPc (33%, 95% CI=0% to 100%), CoPxl (7%, 95% CI=0% to 100%) or MoPxl (21%, 95% CI=0% to 100%). CONCLUSIONS: The present evidence indicated the similar performance in survivorship among CoC, CoPc, CoPxl and MoPxl bearing implants, and that all likely have superiority compared with the MoM and MoPc bearing implants in THA procedures. Long-term RCT data are required to confirm these conclusions and better inform clinical decisions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Total hip arthroplasty; bearing surface; network meta-analysis; randomized controlled trial; survivorship
Authors: Adolph V Lombardi; Thomas H Mallory; John M Cuckler; Joseph Williams; Keith R Berend; Thomas M Smith Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: J Christiaan Keurentjes; Bart G Pijls; Floris R Van Tol; Jill F Mentink; Stephanie D Mes; Jan W Schoones; Marta Fiocco; Art Sedrakyan; Rob G Nelissen Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Ove Furnes; Elizabeth Paxton; Guy Cafri; Stephen Graves; Barbara Bordini; Thomas Comfort; Moises Coll Rivas; Samprit Banerjee; Art Sedrakyan Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Geraint E R Thomas; David J Simpson; Shahid Mehmood; Adrian Taylor; Peter McLardy-Smith; Harinderjit Singh Gill; David W Murray; Siôn Glyn-Jones Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2011-04-20 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Edward T Davis; Ville Remes; Petri Virolainen; Peter Gebuhr; Bart Van Backlé; Matthew P Revell; Branko Kopjar Journal: J Orthop Surg Res Date: 2021-01-09 Impact factor: 2.359
Authors: Rinne M Peters; Liza N Van Steenbergen; Martin Stevens; Paul C Rijk; Sjoerd K Bulstra; Wierd P Zijlstra Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 3.717