Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36561219›Full record

ReviewThe archives of bone and joint surgery2022

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.

Justin van Loon, Jan Jaap de Graeff, Inger Nicoline Sierevelt, Kim Theresia Maria Opdam, Rudolf Wilhelm Poolman, Gino Matheus Melanie Johannes Kerkhoffs, Daniël Haverkamp

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2022. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Justin van LoonAmsterdam University Medical Centres, location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan Jaap de GraeffLeiden University Medical Center, department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands.
Inger Nicoline SiereveltXpert Clinics Orthopedie, Laarderhoogtweg 12, 1101EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kim Theresia Maria OpdamAmsterdam University Medical Centres, location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rudolf Wilhelm PoolmanLeiden University Medical Center, department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands.
Gino Matheus Melanie Johannes KerkhoffsAmsterdam University Medical Centres, location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Daniël HaverkampXpert Clinics Orthopedie, Laarderhoogtweg 12, 1101EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The influence of bearing on revision, especially in press-fit modular cup total hip arthroplasty (THA), remains underexposed. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov in line with the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was overall revision between ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and all sorts of ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE) bearings. As secondary outcomes complications and reasons for revision were compared between bearings. Outcomes were presented in subgroups based on study design (randomized controlled trials (RCT), non-randomized comparative, and registry studies). The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration's tool and the MINORS criteria. Results: This meta-analysis included twelve RCTs, three non-randomized comparative studies and two registry studies, including 38,772 THAs (10,909 CoPE and 27,863 CoC). Overall revision showed a lower risk in CoPE compared to CoC in the two registry studies (HR 0.71 (95%CI 0.53; 0.99)) (very low-quality GRADE evidence). In RCTs and non-randomized comparative studies, no difference was observed (low-quality GRADE evidence). Loosening, dislocation, infection, and postoperative periprosthetic fracture showed no significant differences in risk ratio for all designs. Conclusion: The lower risk of overall revision in registry studies of primary THA with a press-fit modular cup using CoPE bearing compared to CoC should be considered preliminary since this outcome was just slightly significant, based on very low-quality GRADE evidence and based on only two studies with several limitations. Since no difference was observed in the other methodological designs and the separate reasons for revision showed no significant difference in all designs either, no preference for CoC or CoPE can be expressed, and therefore both seem suitable options based on the available literature. More comparative long-term studies are needed to confirm the potential advantages of wear-reduction of both bearings since the currently available literature is limited.

Indexed as

Ceramic-on-ceramicCeramic-on-polyethylenePress-fitRevisionTotal hip arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID36561219
PMCPMC9749123

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.