Ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty.

Abstract

The choice between ceramic-on-ceramic (COC) and ceramic-on-polyethylene (COP) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and durability of COC vs COP bearing surfaces in THA. Based on published randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) identified in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the authors performed a meta-analysis comparing the clinical and radiographic outcomes of COC with those of COP. Two investigators independently selected the studies and extracted the data. The methodological quality of each RCT was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals from each trial were pooled using random-effects or fixed-effects models depending on the heterogeneity of the included studies. Nine RCTs involving 1575 patients (1747 hips) met the predetermined inclusion criteria. Eight of 9 included RCTs had high methodological quality. The heterogeneity was not significant, and all the results were pooled using a fixed-effects model. The results demonstrated that COC significantly increased the risks of squeaking and total implant fracture compared with COP. No significant differences with respect to revision, osteolysis and radiolucent lines, loosening, dislocation, and deep infection were observed between the COC and COP bearing surfaces. This meta-analysis resulted in no sufficient evidence to identify any clinical or radiographic advantage of COC vs COP bearing surfaces in the short- to mid-term follow-up period. Long-term follow-up is required for further evaluation.