SynthesisPeerJ2024
Comparative postoperative prognosis of ceramic-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-polyethylene for total hip arthroplasty: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Review
- Surgical and functional outcomes of primary un-cemented total hip arthroplasty.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- A novel BMSC-derived Exosomal circrna promotes angiogenesis by targeting miR-34a-5p to regulate Piezo1.Stem cell research & therapy · 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
Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes between ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) and ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) bearing surfaces in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) through a pooled analysis and evidence update. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science up to March 2023 for studies that compared the bearing surfaces of CoC and CoP in patients undergoing THA. The primary outcomes were the incidence of common postoperative complications and the rate of postoperative revision. The secondary outcome was the Harris Hip Score. Results: A total of 10 eligible studies involving 1,946 patients (1.192 CoC-THA Conclusion: CoC articulations are more commonly used in younger, healthier, and more active patients. While the performance of conventional polyethylene is indeed inferior to highly cross-linked polyethylene, there is currently a lack of sufficient research comparing the outcomes between highly cross-linked polyethylene and CoC bearing surfaces. This area should be a focal point for future research, and it is hoped that more relevant articles will emerge. Given the limited number of studies included, the heterogeneity and potential bias of those included in the analysis, orthopaedic surgeons should select a THA material based on their experience and patient-specific factors, and large multicentre clinical trials with >15 years of follow-up are needed to provide more evidence on the optimal bearing surface for initial THA.
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.