SynthesisEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2026
Ceramic-on-ceramic versus polyethylene-based bearings in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBearing surface selection is a key determinant of long-term performance in total hip arthroplasty (THA), yet comparative evidence across modern ceramic and polyethylene-based couples remains inconsistent. This meta-analysis provides a comprehensive comparative evaluation of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings versus metal-on-polyethylene (MoP), metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene (MoHXLPE), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), and ceramic-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene (CoHXLPE).
methodsA systematic search of four databases identified randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies evaluating CoC bearings against alternative articulations in primary THA. Thirty-three studies were included (over 120,000 THAs). Outcomes included implant survivorship, revision, dislocation, wear, osteolysis, functional scores, radiographic findings, and postoperative complications. Pooled analyses were performed using fixed-effect or random-effects models according to heterogeneity.
resultsAcross all comparisons, revision rates, aseptic loosening, and periprosthetic fracture were similar between CoC and polyethylene-based bearings; periprosthetic joint infection was also comparable (all p > 0.05), except that a lower pooled PJI rate was observed with CoC versus MoHXLPE (RR 0.42, p < 0.00001). CoC demonstrated reduced prosthetic hip dislocation compared with MoP (RR 0.39, p = 0.05) and MoHXLPE (RR 0.77, p = 0.004), and lower osteolysis relative to MoP (RR 0.26, p = 0.02) and MoHXLPE (RR 0.48, p = 0.004). Squeaking was consistently more frequent with CoC, particularly versus MoP (RR 2.14, p = 0.002), CoP (RR 8.60, p = 0.04), and CoHXLPE (RR 5.98, p = 0.0007). Functional outcomes were broadly equivalent, although in the CoC vs MoHXLPE subgroup CoC showed modestly better Harris Hip Score (MD 1.78, p = 0.0009) and lower WOMAC scores (MD -6.16, p = 0.005). Kaplan-Meier survivorship was excellent in the CoC vs MoP and CoC vs MoHXLPE comparisons, with a small but consistent numerical advantage favoring CoC, frequently remaining above 95% at long-term follow-up.
conclusionModern bearing surfaces provide generally comparable safety and survivorship in THA. CoC bearings offer specific benefits, including reduced dislocation risk and lower osteolysis, balanced against a higher incidence of squeaking. These findings support individualized bearing selection based on patient age, activity level, and tolerance for ceramic-specific complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42295433What 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.