Revision in Ceramic-on-Ceramic and Ceramic-on- Polyethylene Bearing in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty with Press-fit Cups: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Different Methodological Study Designs

Document Type : SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Authors

1 1 Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2 Xpert Clinics Orthopedie, Laarderhoogtweg 12, 1101EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands 3 Tergooi, department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Van Riebeeckweg 212, 1213 XZ, Hilversum, The Netherlands

2 Leiden University Medical Center, department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands

3 Xpert Clinics Orthopedie, Laarderhoogtweg 12, 1101EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands- Spaarne Gasthuis, Spaarne Gasthuis Academy, Spaarnepoort 1, 2134 TM Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

4 Amsterdam University Medical Centres, location Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Amsterdam Movement Sciences Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands

5 Leiden University Medical Center, department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands- OLVG, department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Oosterpark 9, 1091 AC Amsterdam, The Netherlands

6 Xpert Clinics Orthopedie, Laarderhoogtweg 12, 1101EA Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

Background: The influence of bearing on revision, especially in press-fit modular cup total hip arthroplasty (THA),
remains underexposed.
Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.
gov in line with the PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was an overall revision between ceramic-on-ceramic
(CoC) and all sorts of ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoPE) bearings. As secondary outcomes complications and reasons for
revision were compared between bearings. Outcomes were presented in subgroups based on study design (randomized
controlled trials (RCT), non-randomized comparative, and registry studies). The quality of evidence was assessed using
the GRADE. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane collaboration’s tool and the MINORS criteria.
Results: This meta-analysis included twelve RCTs, three nonrandomized comparative studies and two registry studies,
including 38,772 THAs (10,909 CoPE and 27,863 CoC). Overall revision showed a lower risk in CoPE compared to CoC
in the two registry studies (HR 0.71 (95%CI 0.53; 0.99)) (very low-quality GRADE evidence). In RCTs and nonrandomized
comparative studies, no difference was observed (low-quality GRADE evidence). Loosening, dislocation, infection, and
postoperative periprosthetic fracture showed no significant differences in risk ratio for all designs.
Conclusion: The lower risk of overall revision in registry studies of primary THA with a press-fit modular cup using
CoPE bearing compared to CoC should be considered preliminary since this outcome was just slightly significant,
based on very low-quality GRADE evidence and based on only two studies with several limitations. Since no
difference was observed in the other methodological designs and the separate reasons for revision showed no
significant difference in all designs either, no preference for CoC or CoPE can be expressed, and therefore both
seem a suitable options based on the available literature. More comparative long-term studies are needed to
confirm the potential advantages of wear-reduction of both bearings since the currently available literature is limited.
Level of evidence: I

Keywords

References

  1. Haverkamp D. The latest information on total hip arthroplasty bearing surfaces. Minerva Ortopedica e Traumatologica. 2009;60(3):233.
  2. Zagra L, Gallazzi E. Bearing surfaces in primary total hip arthroplasty. EFORT Open Rev. 2018;3(5):217-24. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.3.180300.
  3. Sentuerk U, von Roth P, Perka C. Ceramic on ceramic arthroplasty of the hip: new materials confirm appropriate use in young patients. Bone Joint J. 2016;98-b(1 Suppl A):14-7. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B1.36347.
  4. Yoon B-H, Park J-W, Cha Y-H, et al. Incidence of Ceramic Fracture in Contemporary Ceramic-on-Ceramic Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Meta-analysis of Proportions. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(5):1437-43.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2019.12.013.
  5. van Loon J, Vervest AMJS, van der Vis HM, et al. Ceramic-on-ceramic articulation in press-fit total hip arthroplasty as a potential reason for early failure, what about the survivors: a ten year follow-up. Int Orthop. 2021;45(6):1447-1454. doi: 10.1007/s00264-020-04895-1.
  6. Flivik G. Fixation of the cemented acetabular component in hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Suppl. 2005;76(316):3-30.
  7. Pakvis DFM, Heesterbeek PJC, Severens M, Spruit M. Cancellous and cortical bone mineral density around an elastic press-fit socket in total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2016;87(6):583-588. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1237439.
  8. Melvin JS, Karthikeyan T, Cope R, Fehring TK. Early failures in total hip arthroplasty -- a changing paradigm. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29(6):1285-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.024.
  9. Peters RM, Van Steenbergen LN, Stevens M, Rijk PC, Bulstra SK, Zijlstra WP. The effect of bearing type on the outcome of total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2018;89(2):163-9. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2017.
  10. Pitto RP, Sedel L. Periprosthetic Joint Infection in Hip Arthroplasty: Is There an Association Between Infection and Bearing Surface Type? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(10):2213-8. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4916-y.
  11. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty. Australia; 2020.
  12. National Joint Registry (NJR).17th Annual Report 2020. 2020.
  13. Dutch Arthroplasty Register L. Total hip arthroplasty, Surgical Techniques. 2020.
  14. Register SHA. Annual report 2019. Saskatchewan Health Authority. 2019.
  15. Corbett KL, Losina E, Nti AA, Prokopetz JJZ, Katz JN. Population-based rates of revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2010;5(10):e13520-e. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013520.
  16. Gray WK, Day J, Barker M, Briggs TWR. Fixation Method and Subsequent Revision Rates for Elective Primary Hip Arthroplasty in People Aged 70 Years and Older: Analysis of National Administrative Data Sets by the UK Getting It Right First Time Program. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(12):3631-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.06.081.
  17. Pedersen AB, Mehnert F, Havelin LI, et al. Association between fixation technique and revision risk in total hip arthroplasty patients younger than 55 years of age. Results from the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014;22(5):659-67. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2014.03.005.
  18. Almaawi A, Alzuhair A, AlHakbani A, et al. Comparison of Ceramic-on-Ceramic and Ceramic-on-Highly-Crosslinked-Polyethylene in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Findings of a Meta-Analysis. Cureus. 2021;13(2):e13304-e. doi: 10.7759/cureus.13304.
  19. Dong Y-L, Li T, Xiao K, Bian Y-Y, Weng X-S. Ceramic on Ceramic or Ceramic-on-polyethylene for Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systemic Review and Meta-analysis of Prospective Randomized Studies. Chin Med J (Engl). 2015;128(9):1223-31. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.156136.
  20. Hu D, Tie K, Yang X, Tan Y, Alaidaros M, Chen L. Comparison of ceramic-on-ceramic to metal-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res.2015;10:22. doi: 10.1186/s13018-015-0163-2.
  21. Si H-b, Zeng Y, Cao F, Pei F-x, Shen B. Is a Ceramic-on-Ceramic Bearing Really Superior to Ceramic-on-Polyethylene for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. Hip Int. 2015;25(3):191-8. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000223.
  22. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.
  23. Minten MJ, Heesterbeek PJ, Spruit M. No effect of additional screw fixation of a cementless, all-polyethylene press-fit socket on migration, wear, and clinical outcome. Acta Orthop. 2016;87(4):363-7. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2016.1190244.
  24. Ni S-H, Guo L, Jiang T-L, Zhao J, Zhao Y-G. Press-fit cementless acetabular fixation with and without screws. Int Orthop.2014;38(1):7-12. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2075-2.
  25. Nugent M, Campbell DG, Lewis PL, Cuthbert AR, Solomon LB. Acetabular screws do not improve early revision rates in primary total hip arthroplasty. An instrumented registry analysis. Int Orthop.2021;45(3):593-604. doi: 10.1007/s00264-021-04949-y.
  26. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Bmj. 2011;343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.
  27. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg.2003;73(9):712-6. doi: 10.1046/j.1445-2197.2003.02748.x.
  28. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj. 2008;336(7650):924-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD.
  29. Bender R, Beckmann L. Limitations of the incidence density ratio as approximation of the hazard ratio. Trials. 2019;20(1):485. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3590-2.
  30. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR. Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials. 2007;8(1):16. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-8-16.
  31. Grant J, Hunter A. Measuring inconsistency in knowledgebases. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems. 2006;27(2):159-84. DOI:10.1007/s10844-006-2974-4
  32. Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Ment Health. 2019;22(4):153-60. doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117.
  33. Amanatullah DF, Landa J, Strauss EJ, Garino JP, Kim SH, Di Cesare PE. Comparison of surgical outcomes and implant wear between ceramic-ceramic and ceramic-polyethylene articulations in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(6 Suppl):72-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.04.032.
  34. Atrey A, Wolfstadt JI, Hussain N, et al. The Ideal Total Hip Replacement Bearing Surface in the Young Patient: A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Alumina Ceramic-On-Ceramic With Ceramic-On-Conventional Polyethylene: 15-Year Follow-Up. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(6):1752-6. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.11.066.
  35. Beaupre LA, Al-Houkail A, Johnston DWC. A Randomized Trial Comparing Ceramic-on-Ceramic Bearing vs Ceramic-on-Crossfire-Polyethylene Bearing Surfaces in Total Hip Arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(6):1240-5. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.11.043.
  36. Cai P, Hu Y, Xie J. Large-diameter Delta ceramic-on-ceramic versus common-sized ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings in THA. Orthopedics. 2012;35(9):e1307-13. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20120822-14.
  37. Epinette J-A, Jolles-Haeberli BM. Comparative Results From a National Joint Registry Hip Data Set of a New Cross-Linked Annealed Polyethylene vs Both Conventional Polyethylene and Ceramic Bearings. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(7):1483-91. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2015.12.041.
  38. Feng B, Ren Y, Cao S, et al. Comparison of ceramic-on-ceramic bearing vs ceramic-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene-bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty for avascular necrosis of femoral head: a prospective cohort study with a mid-term follow-up. J Orthop Surg Res. 2019;14(1):388. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1410-8.
  39. Hamilton WG, McAuley JP, Dennis DA, Murphy JA, Blumenfeld TJ, Politi J. THA With Delta Ceramic on Ceramic: Results of a Multicenter Investigational Device Exemption Trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(2):358-66. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1091-4.
  40. Jameson SS, Baker PN, Mason J, et al. Independent predictors of failure up to 7.5 years after 35 386 single-brand cementless total hip replacements: a retrospective cohort study using National Joint Registry data. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-b(6):747-57. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B6.31378.
  41. Kim YH, Park JW, Kulkarni SS, Kim YH. A randomised prospective evaluation of ceramic-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings in the same patients with primary cementless total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2013;37(11):2131-7. doi: 10.1007/s00264-013-2036-9.
  42. Lewis PM, Al-Belooshi A, Olsen M, Schemitch EH, Waddell JP. Prospective randomized trial comparing alumina ceramic-on-ceramic with ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene bearings in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(3):392-7. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.01.013.
  43. Ochs U, Ilchmann T, Ochs BG, et al. EBRA migration patterns of the Plasmacup with ceramic or polyethylene inserts: a randomised study. Z Orthop Unfall. 2007;145 Suppl 1:S20-4. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-965655.
  44. Pitto RP, Bhargava A, Pandit S, Munro JT. Retroacetabular stress-shielding in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466(2):353-8. doi: 10.1007/s11999-007-0043-0.
  45. Pitto RP, Schikora N, Willmann G, Graef B, Schmidt R. Radiostereoanalysis of Press-Fit Cups with Alumina Liner. A Randomized Clinical Trial. Key Engineering Materials. 2002;240-242:817-22.
  46. Pitto RP, Schwämmlein D, Schramm M. Outcome of Modular Press-Fit Acetabular Components in Total Hip Arthroplasty - A Comparative Clinical Trial Using Polyethylene and Alumina Liners. Key Engineering Materials. 2000;192-195:979-82.
  47. Schmidt R, Willmann G, Pitto RP. Uncemented acetabular components with polyethylene or alumina liners. Int Orthop. 2003;27(2):85-9. doi: 10.1007/s00264-002-0422-9.
  48. Sonny Bal B, Aleto TJ, Garino JP, Toni A, Hendricks KJ. Ceramic-on-ceramic versus ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings in total hip arthroplasty: Results of a multicenter prospective randomized study and update of modern ceramic total hip trials in the United States. Hip Int. 2005;15(3):129-35. doi: 10.1177/112070000501500301.
  49. van Loon J, Hoornenborg D, van der Vis HM, Sierevelt IN, Opdam KT, Kerkhoffs GM, et al. Ceramic-on-ceramic vs ceramic-on-polyethylene, a comparative study with 10-year follow-up. World J Orthop. 2021;12(1):14-23. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v12.i1.14.
  50. Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES, Martell JM. Wear and Osteolysis of Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene at 10 to 14 Years: The Effect of Femoral Head Size. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(2):365-71. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4319-5.
  51. Kluess D, Martin H, Mittelmeier W, Schmitz KP, Bader R. Influence of femoral head size on impingement, dislocation and stress distribution in total hip replacement. Med Eng Phys. 2007;29(4):465-71. doi: 10.1016/j.medengphy.2006.07.001.
  52. Pulido L, Restrepo C, Parvizi J. Late instability following total hip arthroplasty. Clin Med Res. 2007;5(2):139-42. doi: 10.3121/cmr.2007.717.
  53. Renner L, Perka C, Melsheimer O, Grimberg A, Jansson V, Steinbrück A. Ceramic-on-Ceramic Bearing in Total Hip Arthroplasty Reduces the Risk for Revision for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Compared to Ceramic-on-Polyethylene: A Matched Analysis of 118,753 Cementless THA Based on the German Arthroplasty Registry. J Clin Med. 2021;10(6):1193. doi: 10.3390/jcm10061193.
  54. Hernigou P, Auregan JC, Bastard C, Housset V, Flouzat-Lachaniette CH, Dubory A. Higher prevalence of periprosthetic fractures with ceramic on polyethylene hip bearing compared with ceramic on ceramic on the contralateral side: a forty year experience with hip osteonecrosis. Int Orthop. 2018;42(7):1457-61. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-3863-5.
  55. Kim S-M, Rhyu KH, Yoo JJ, et al. The reasons for ceramic-on-ceramic revisions between the third- and fourth-generation bearings in total hip arthroplasty from multicentric registry data. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):5539. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85193-7.
  56. Chevillotte C, Trousdale RT, Chen Q, Guyen O, An K-N. The 2009 Frank Stinchfield Award: “Hip squeaking”: a biomechanical study of ceramic-on-ceramic bearing surfaces. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(2):345-50.
  57. Gamble PKJ, K.D. Johnston. The Use of Ceramics in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Orthopedics and Rheumatology Open Access Journals. 2017;4(1):49-55.
  58. Levy YD, Munir S, Donohoo S, Walter WL. Review on squeaking hips. World journal of orthopedics. 2015;6(10):812-20.
  59. Masson B. Emergence of the alumina matrix composite in total hip arthroplasty. Int orthopaedics. 2009;33(2):359-63. doi: 10.1007/s00264-007-0484-9.
  60. Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS, Kremers WK, Washington RE, Steiner CA, et al. Prevalence of Total Hip and Knee Replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(17):1386-97. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.N.01141.
  61. De Fine M, Terrando S, Hintner M, Porporati AA, Pignatti G. Pushing Ceramic-on-Ceramic in the most extreme wear conditions: A hip simulator study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;107(1):102643. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2020.05.003.

 

The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery
Volume 10, Issue 11
November 2022
Pages 916-936

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 29 July 2021
  • Revise Date: 15 March 2022
  • Accept Date: 28 April 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics