Dataset Information

Is there any difference in survivorship of total hip arthroplasty with different bearing surfaces? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Although many total hip bearing implants are widely used all over the world, simultaneous comparisons across the numerous available bearing surfaces are rare. The purpose of this study was to compare the survivorship of total hip arthroplasty (THA) with six available bearing implants.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting survivorship or revision of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene (CoPc), ceramic-on-highly-crosslinked polyethylene (CoPxl), metal-on-conventional polyethylene (MoPc), metal-on-highly-crosslinked polyethylene (MoPxl), or metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing implants. The synthesis of present evidence was performed by both the traditional direct-comparison meta-analysis and network meta-analysis.

Results

In total, 40 RCTs involving a total of 5321 THAs were identified. The pooled data of network meta-analysis showed no difference in relative risk (RR) of revision across CoC, CoPc, CoPxl and MoPxl bearings. However, the MoM bearing was demonstrated with a significant higher risk of revision compared with CoC (RR 5.10; 95% CI=1.62 to 16.81), CoPc (RR 4.80; 95% CI=1.29 to 17.09), or MoPxl (RR 3.85; 95% CI=1.16 to 14.29), and the MoPc bearing was indicated with a higher risk of revision compared with CoC (RR 2.83; 95% CI=1.20 to 6.63). The ranking probabilities of the effective interventions also revealed the inferiority of the MoM and MoPc implants in survivorship (both 0%, 95% CI=0% to 0%) compared with CoC (39%, 95% CI=0% to 100%), CoPc (33%, 95% CI=0% to 100%), CoPxl (7%, 95% CI=0% to 100%) or MoPxl (21%, 95% CI=0% to 100%).

Conclusions

The present evidence indicated the similar performance in survivorship among CoC, CoPc, CoPxl and MoPxl bearing implants, and that all likely have superiority compared with the MoM and MoPc bearing implants in THA procedures. Long-term RCT data are required to confirm these conclusions and better inform clinical decisions.

SUBMITTER: Yin S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4724003 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is there any difference in survivorship of total hip arthroplasty with different bearing surfaces? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Yin Si S Zhang Dangfeng D Du Hui H Du Heng H Yin Zhanhai Z Qiu Yusheng Y

International journal of clinical and experimental medicine 20151115 11

<h4>Purpose</h4>Although many total hip bearing implants are widely used all over the world, simultaneous comparisons across the numerous available bearing surfaces are rare. The purpose of this study was to compare the survivorship of total hip arthroplasty (THA) with six available bearing implants.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting survivorship or revision of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene (CoPc), ce ...[more]

PMID: 26885157

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTotal hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasingly being performed in patients with long life expectancies and active lifestyles. Newer implant bearing surfaces, with superior wear characteristics, often are used in this cohort with the goal of improving longevity of the prosthesis, but comparisons across the numerous available bearing surfaces are limited, so the surgeon and patient may have difficulty deciding which implants to use.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to answer the following question: Is there a short- to mid-term survivorship difference between common THA bearings used in patients younger than age 65 years?MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published after 2000 that reported survivorship of ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC), ceramic-on-highly crosslinked polyethylene (CoPxl), or metal-on-highly crosslinked polyethylene (MoPxl) bearings. To qualify for our review, RCTs had to have a minimum 2-year followup and study patients were required to have an average age younger than 65 years. Direct-comparison meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were performed to combine direct and indirect evidence.ResultsDirect-comparison meta-analysis found no differences among the bearing surfaces in terms of the risk of revision; this approach demonstrated a risk ratio for revision of 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19-2.23; p = 0.50) between CoC and CoPxl and a risk ratio for revision of 0.40 (95% CI, 0.06-2.63; p = 0.34) between CoC and MoPxl. Network meta-analysis (with post hoc modification) likewise found no differences in survivorship across the three implant types, demonstrating the following probabilities of most effective implant with 95% credible intervals (CrI): CoC = 64.6% (0%-100%); CoPxl = 24.9% (0%-100%); and MoPxl = 9.9% (0%-100%). The CrIs ranged from 0% to 100% for all three bearing surfaces. Direct-comparison meta-analysis allowed for pooling of five RCTs, including 779 THAs, whereas network meta-analysis (before post hoc analysis) enabled pooling of 18 RCTs, including 2599 THAs.ConclusionsCurrent published evidence does not support survivorship differences among commonly used bearing surfaces in patients younger than age 65 years undergoing THA at short- to mid-term followup. Long-term RCT data will be needed to determine if a survivorship benefit is realized in younger, more active patients over time.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.

Dataset Information

Is there any difference in survivorship of total hip arthroplasty with different bearing surfaces? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Is there any difference in survivorship of total hip arthroplasty with different bearing surfaces? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets