Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25080263›Full record

SynthesisClinical orthopaedics and related research2014

How have new bearing surfaces altered the local biological reactions to byproducts of wear and modularity?

Thomas W Bauer, Patricia A Campbell, Gretchen Hallerberg, Biological Working Group

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Thomas W BauerDepartments of Pathology, Orthopaedic Surgery and The Spine Center, L25, The Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA, Bauert@ccf.org.
Patricia A Campbell
Gretchen Hallerberg
Biological Working Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe biologic reactions to byproducts of wear or corrosion can involve innate and adaptive processes and are dependent on many factors, including the composition, size, surface properties, shape, and concentration of debris. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We used a systematic literature review to compare the reported patterns of inflammation in tissues around total hip implants with the goal of identifying whether there are unique or characteristic patterns associated with the newer bearing options or modular components.

methodsA search of the Ovid Medline database between 1996 and early December 2013 identified articles that compared the histology around six implant groups: (1) metal-on-metal; (2) ceramic-on-ceramic; (3) metal-on-crosslinked polyethylene; (4) metal-on-conventional polyethylene with or (5) without modularity; and (6) tissue obtained at primary arthroplasty. Our initial search yielded 865 citations. After excluding articles that lacked a quantitative or semiquantitative description of histologic findings in periprosthetic tissue, we reviewed 34 articles.

resultsNo pattern of inflammation is specific for any given bearing combination. Histologic features suggestive of an adaptive immune response appear to be more frequent and of greater magnitude in failed metal-on-metal implants, but tissues around many failed metal-on-metal implants show features of an "innate" foreign body reaction without lymphocytes. Occasional nonmetal-on-metal implants show features of an immune reaction, possibly associated with metal particles. Modular connections are one source of metal debris in nonmetal-on-metal implants. Features of an immune reaction appear rare in ceramic-on-ceramic implants that lack corrosion. Insufficient reports are available to characterize the biologic response to crosslinked polyethylene.

conclusionsAll total hip bearing combinations will wear in vivo, and modular interfaces are a likely source of metal that may be associated with a biological response regardless of the composition of the bearing surfaces. Surgeons must weigh the potential advantages of each articular combination and modular connection with the potential adverse tissue reactions in any given patient. Additional work is needed to clarify the implant and host-related factors associated with adverse tissue reactions and that seem to induce an immune reaction in some patients.

Indexed as

Hip ProsthesisProsthesis FailureAdaptive ImmunityAnimalsArthroplasty, Replacement, HipBiomechanical PhenomenaCeramicsCorrosionForeign-Body MigrationHip JointHumansImmunity, InnateMetal-on-Metal Joint ProsthesesPolyethyleneProsthesis DesignRisk FactorsPolyethylene

Identifiers

PMID25080263
PMCPMC4397755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.