ArticleThe bone & joint journal2014
A comparative assessment of small-head metal-on-metal and ceramic-on-polyethylene total hip replacement.
Article in The bone & joint journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pseudotumours, cobalt and clinical outcome in small head metal-on-metal versus conventional metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty.Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy · 2020Trial
- Head, acetabular liner composition, and rate of revision and wear in total hip arthroplasty: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Preoperative Planning for Total Hip Arthroplasty for Neglected Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip.Orthopaedic surgery · 2019Article
- The role of national registries in improving patient safety for hip and knee replacements.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2017Article
- Are PEEK-on-Ceramic Bearings an Option for Total Disc Arthroplasty? An In Vitro Tribology Study.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large-head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip replacements (THR) have given rise to concern. Comparative studies of small-head MoM THRs over a longer follow-up period are lacking. Our objective was to compare the incidence of complications such as infection, dislocation, revision, adverse local tissue reactions, mortality and radiological and clinical outcomes in small-head (28 mm) MoM and ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) THRs up to 12 years post-operatively. A prospective cohort study included 3341 THRs in 2714 patients. The mean age was 69.1 years (range 24 to 98) and 1848 (55.3%) were performed in women, with a mean follow-up of 115 months (18 to 201). There were 883 MoM and 2458 CoP bearings. Crude incidence rates (cases/1000 person-years) were: infection 1.3 vs 0.8; dislocation 3.3 vs 3.1 and all-cause revision 4.3 vs 2.2, respectively. There was a significantly higher revision rate after ten years (adjusted hazard ratio 9.4; 95% CI 2.6 to 33.6) in the MoM group, and ten of 26 patients presented with an adverse local tissue reaction at revision. No differences in mortality, osteolysis or clinical outcome were seen. In conclusion, we found similar results for small-head MoM and CoP bearings up to ten years post-operatively, but after ten years MoM THRs had a higher risk of all-cause revision. Furthermore, the presence of an adverse response to metal debris seen in the small-head MOM group at revision is a cause for concern.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.