Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35039021›Full record

ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022

Ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: a comparative study at a minimum of 13 years follow-up.

Malerba Giuseppe, Basilico Mattia, Bonfiglio Nadia, Vitiello Raffaele, Ruberto Pasquale, D' Adamio Stefano, Sirgiovanni Mattia, De Santis Vincenzo, Maccauro Giulio

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Ceramic-on-ceramic versus polyethylene-based bearings in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. 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

9 authors.

Malerba GiuseppeFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli - IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Basilico MattiaFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli - IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Bonfiglio NadiaFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli - IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Vitiello RaffaeleFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli - IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy. lele.vitiello@gmail.com.
Ruberto PasqualeFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli - IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
D' Adamio StefanoFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli - IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Sirgiovanni MattiaDepartment of Medical Oncology and Pneumology, University Hospital Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany.
De Santis VincenzoFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli - IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.
Maccauro GiulioFondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli - IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00168, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNowadays hip replacement is one of the most successful surgery in terms of clinical outcome and patient's satisfaction. Therefore, the choice of biomaterials in hip replacement is increasingly important with the aim of obtaining a long-term satisfaction of patient and a greater survivorship of the implants. Ceramic-on-polyethylene (COP) and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings are two common coupling used in total hip arthroplasty. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between patients treated using CoC and CoP THA at a mean follow-up of 15 years.

methods86 patients, average age 65.6, were included in the study: 43 in group A bearing CoC and 43 in group B bearing CoP. Minimum follow-up was 13 years. Primary outcome was a clinical evaluation assessed by HOOS and SF-12 questionnaires. Secondary outcome was a radiological evaluation on a A-P pelvis x-ray calculating acetabular cup inclination and anteversion and detecting osteolysis.

resultAfter a multivariate analysis was performed, our results show clinical outcomes in group B significantly better than in group A: statistically significant value (p < 0,05) was found in the mean HOOS-symptoms subscale (83.0 ± 15.4 in Group A vs 90.3 ± 12.2 in group B) in the SF-12 physical component score (39.7 ± 11.0 in Group A vs 48.1 ± 10.1 in group B) and in HOOS (79.0 ± 16 in Group A vs 87.0 ± 16 in group B). 3 squeaking was found in group A. The calculated mean acetabular cup inclination value was 44,87 in group A and 44,5 in group B and the mean socket version was 17,54 in group A and 15,10 in group B. No significant statistically relationship between radiographic parameters analyzed and clinical outcomes was noted.

conclusionThe current results provide us important information about the THA long-term outcome. CoP offered significantly better results compared with CoC at long-term follow up, and thus it should be considered in the choose of bearing in THA.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipHip ProsthesisAgedCeramicsFollow-Up StudiesHumansPolyethyleneProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureReoperationRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomePolyethyleneCeramicHipPolyethyleneReplacementWear, outcomes

Identifiers

PMID35039021
PMCPMC8764755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.