ArticleCureus2021
Comparison of Ceramic-on-Ceramic and Ceramic-on-Highly-Crosslinked-Polyethylene in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Findings of a Meta-Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Article
- Review
- Revision in Ceramic-on-Ceramic and Ceramic-on-Polyethylene Bearing in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with Press-fit Cups: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Different Methodological Study Designs.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction An optimal hip implant is biocompatible, durable, and resistant to chemical and mechanical wear. This analysis aimed to compare failure (revision) and complication rates between ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and ceramic-on-highly-crosslinked-polyethylene (CoHXLPE) implants. Methods This review comprised of scientific literature published between 1995 and 2019. We included randomized controlled trials in adults (>18 years) that presented results of CoC and CoHXLPE total hip arthroplasty (THA) with more than two years of mean follow-up and drafted in English. The primary outcomes for this analysis were complications, revision rates, and loosening rates. Results Eight studies (1,689 hips) were included in this systematic review. There was no significant differences between COC and CoHXLPE for the risk of post-surgical complications (relative risk [RR]: 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83-4.69, P = 0.12). Revision rates (RR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.71-2.20, P = 0.43] and loosening rates between the two implants were not significantly different (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.30-4.52, P = 0.82). Conclusion We report no significant differences between CoHXLPE and CoC in adults undergoing primary THA. Although introduced relatively recently, CoHXLPE is a cost-effective bearing that can be used for younger patients with no risk of increased complications in comparison to CoC. Further studies with longer follow-up periods are recommended to confirm the findings of this meta-analysis.
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.