Xianyue Shen1, Yanguo Qin2, Yang Li3, Xiongfeng Tang1, Jianlin Xiao4. 1. Department of Orthopedics, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130041, Jilin province, PR China. 2. Department of Orthopedics, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130041, Jilin province, PR China. Electronic address: qinyg@jlu.edu.cn. 3. Department of Orthopedics, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130033, Jilin province, PR China. 4. Department of Orthopedics, China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130033, Jilin province, PR China. Electronic address: xiaojianlin10@jlu.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare cup survival and the incidence of adverse events associated with the use of trabecular metal (TM) and non-TM cups for acetabular revision surgery. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for comparative studies that reported cup survival and the incidence of adverse events associated with the use of TM and non-TM cups for acetabular revision surgery. Primary outcomes included cup survival, aseptic loosening, dislocation, and infection. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 6 studies that involved 13,864 total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions who underwent acetabular revision surgery with TM (n = 5,619) or non-TM (n = 8,245) cups. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in cup survival using re-revision for any reason or aseptic loosening as the endpoint following acetabular revision surgery with TM or non-TM cups (HR = 0.96; [95% CI, 0.84-1.09]; HR = 1.29; [95% CI, 0.70-2.38]). Pooled data indicated that the overall incidence of adverse events for TM or non-TM cups was 6.8% (382/5,289) and 9.0% (725/8,083), respectively, and not significantly different (OR = 0.91; [95% CI, 0.80-1.04]). The incidence of aseptic loosening and infection were significantly lower (OR = 0.75; [95% CI, 0.58-0.96]; OR = 0.70; [95% CI, 0.54-0.90]) and the incidence of dislocation was significantly higher (OR = 1.53; [95% CI, 1.22-1.91]) for TM compared to non-TM cups. CONCLUSION: This review was the first to use reconstructed time-to-event data to find that there was no difference in survival of TM and non-TM cups in acetabular revision surgery. Overall, fewer adverse events were associated with the use of TM compared to non-TM cups, but the difference was not significant. The incidence of aseptic loosening and infection were significantly lower and the incidence of dislocation was significantly higher for TM compared to non-TM cups. This information is expected to guide orthopedic surgeons in the selection of appropriate acetabular components for THA revision.
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare cup survival and the incidence of adverse events associated with the use of trabecular metal (TM) and non-TM cups for acetabular revision surgery. METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for comparative studies that reported cup survival and the incidence of adverse events associated with the use of TM and non-TM cups for acetabular revision surgery. Primary outcomes included cup survival, aseptic loosening, dislocation, and infection. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 6 studies that involved 13,864 total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions who underwent acetabular revision surgery with TM (n = 5,619) or non-TM (n = 8,245) cups. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in cup survival using re-revision for any reason or aseptic loosening as the endpoint following acetabular revision surgery with TM or non-TM cups (HR = 0.96; [95% CI, 0.84-1.09]; HR = 1.29; [95% CI, 0.70-2.38]). Pooled data indicated that the overall incidence of adverse events for TM or non-TM cups was 6.8% (382/5,289) and 9.0% (725/8,083), respectively, and not significantly different (OR = 0.91; [95% CI, 0.80-1.04]). The incidence of aseptic loosening and infection were significantly lower (OR = 0.75; [95% CI, 0.58-0.96]; OR = 0.70; [95% CI, 0.54-0.90]) and the incidence of dislocation was significantly higher (OR = 1.53; [95% CI, 1.22-1.91]) for TM compared to non-TM cups. CONCLUSION: This review was the first to use reconstructed time-to-event data to find that there was no difference in survival of TM and non-TM cups in acetabular revision surgery. Overall, fewer adverse events were associated with the use of TM compared to non-TM cups, but the difference was not significant. The incidence of aseptic loosening and infection were significantly lower and the incidence of dislocation was significantly higher for TM compared to non-TM cups. This information is expected to guide orthopedic surgeons in the selection of appropriate acetabular components for THA revision.