ArticleInternational orthopaedics2026
Third- and fourth- generation ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: a ten- to sixteen year follow-up study.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThird-generation alumina is being replaced with fourth-generation alumina matrix composite (AMC) in ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty (THA), however, comparative clinical studies at a long-term are lacking. We aimed to compare third- and fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic THA at a minimum follow-up of ten years.
methodsA total of 332 third-generation ceramic-on-ceramic THAs (302 patients) performed between 2010 and 2015 were compared with 185 fourth-generation (165 patients) during the same time period. Changes in the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Euro Qol-5D (EQ-5D), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) satisfaction instruments, complications, survival rates for reoperation and the radiographic results were compared.
resultsAt the latest follow-up, the mean HHS, EQ-5D and VAS scores were similar between the groups. There were four dislocations (1.2%) in the alumina group (one with a 28-mm and three with a 32-mm femoral head), and two (1.1%) in the AMC group (all with a 36-mm). Four (1.2%) patients in the alumina group and eight (2.1%) in the AMC group reported occasional noises but no squeaking. One 28-mm femoral head fractured in the alumina group. The 15-year survival rate for any reoperation was 95.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.6% to 97.9%) for alumina-on-alumina THAs, and 96.3% (95% CI: 93.5-99.0) for the AMC group (p = 0.8).
conclusionsBoth third- and fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic THA can provide excellent results in most patients. Although no ceramic-related complications occurred in the AMC group, fourth-generation bearings were not found to be superior to third-generation alumina bearings overall. A thorough understanding of implant characteristics and surgical technique is essential for an accurate clinical interpretation when assessing different brands in THA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42128932What 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.