SynthesisMedicine2026
Comprehensive outcomes of different prosthetic interfaces in total hip arthroplasty: A network meta-analysis and systematic review based on age and follow-up periods.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTotal Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is a well-established intervention that improves the quality of life in patients with severe hip arthritis by relieving pain and restoring function. Long-term success of THA is heavily influenced by the choice of prosthetic interfaces, particularly the bearing surfaces. However, the effects of patient age and follow-up duration on the outcomes of different interfaces remain underexplored.
methodsThis study performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis, gathering randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Included studies compared outcomes of various prosthetic interfaces, focusing on patient age (≤60 years and > 60 years) and follow-up duration. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
resultsFifty-nine RCTs were included. For younger patients (≤60 years), ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), and highly cross-linked polyethylene (CoXLPE) interfaces showed lower revision rates and superior radiographic outcomes compared to metal-on-metal (MoM) and metal-on-polyethylene (MoP). Older patients (>60 years) saw better outcomes with metal interfaces, particularly MoP, in short- and mid-term follow-ups. Across all ages, CoXLPE demonstrated excellent durability and reduced revision rates.
conclusionThis meta-analysis highlights the importance of age-specific prosthetic selection in THA. Younger patients benefit from CoC and CoXLPE due to superior wear resistance, while older patients may achieve better results with MoP. Further long-term studies are needed to validate these findings and reduce study heterogeneity.
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.