Trial reportInternational orthopaedics2020
Metasul vs Cerasul bearings: a prospective, randomized study at a mean eighteen years.
Trial report in International orthopaedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survival in the Third Decade of Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty With Small-Diameter Metal-on-Metal Versus Ceramic-on-Conventional Polyethylene Bearings.Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- 25-year follow-up of 102 unrevised cementless total hip arthroplasties with a second-generation metal-on-metal bearing in a young patient cohort.Arthroplasty (London, England) · 2026Article
- Management and Outcomes of Breakage in Polyethylene-Ceramic Composite (Sandwich-type) Liners: Lessons From Long-term Follow-up.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aims of our study were to compare the clinical, radiographic outcomes and survivals between second-generation metal-on-metal (Metasul) and ceramic-on-ceramic (Cerasul) bearings at a very long-term follow-up.
methodsA prospective, randomized study was originally performed on a consecutive series of 250 cementless, 28-mm head and primary total hip arthroplasties between 1999 and 2002. For each bearing (Metasul or Cerasul), 125 THAs were initially included. All cases were evaluated both clinically and radiographically, and survival was assessed, considering revisions for aseptic loosening or for any reason as the end points for failure.
resultsAt a mean 18-year follow-up, clinical and radiographic outcomes were similar. Harris Hip Score increased 30% in the Metasul group and 32% in the Cerasul group (p = 0.6). Survival free of aseptic loosening was higher for Cerasul (100%), than for Metasul (94% [CI 88-99.9]) (p = 0.04). Survival free of any revision was 91% ([CI 84-98%]) for Cerasul and 91% ([CI 84-98%]) for Metasul. Fractures of Cerasul insert occurred in four cases (3%) at a mean 12.5 ± 3.3 years (range, 6 to 17 years).
conclusionAt 18 years, Cerasul demonstrated higher survivorship than Metasul considering aseptic loosening as an end point. However, Cerasul liners had high rate of fracture because of its sandwich design (thin ceramic liner into polyethylene). These implants are no more available on the market.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33083903What 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.