We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Comparison of ten-year survivorship of hip prostheses with use of conventional polyethylene, metal-on-metal, or ceramic-on-ceramic bearings.
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 2012 October 4
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.
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.
Full text links
Trending Papers
A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure.Heart International 2023
Potential Mechanisms of the Protective Effects of the Cardiometabolic Drugs Type-2 Sodium-Glucose Transporter Inhibitors and Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists in Heart Failure.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 Februrary 21
The Effect of Albumin Administration in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Single-Center Analysis.Critical Care Medicine 2024 Februrary 8
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app