Ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty is superior to metal-on-conventional polyethylene at 20-year follow-up: A randomised clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Metal-on-conventional polyethylene (MoPc) bearing wear-related biological reactions in total hip arthroplasty (THA) continue to raise concerns among young, active patients. Ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings may offer improved outcomes in this patient population. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aim of this study was to determine if, more than 20years postoperatively, there is a difference between MoPc and CoC THA in terms of (1) survivorship, (2) related complications, (3) radiographic signs of wear, and (4) functional scores. HYPOTHESIS: CoC bearing THAs have superior clinical results compared to MoPc THAs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 140 hips in 116 patients with a mean age of 42years were randomised to receive CoC or MoPc THA between 1996 and 2001. Sixty-nine hips in 58 patients received MoP and 71 hips in 68 patients received CoC. Revision rate, WOMAC score, and radiological signs of osteolysis and loosening were compared at last follow-up. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up of 21years (19-23), 40 patients (48 THAs; 34%) had died and 6 patients (6 THAs; 4%) were lost to follow-up. Aseptic revision rate was significantly higher in the MoPc group (17/69; 24.6%) versus CoC (2/71; 2.8%; p<0.001). Kaplan-Meier survivorship estimator with revision for aseptic reasons was 73.6% (95% CI: 63.3-84.9%) for MoPc and 96.9% (95% CI: 92.8-100%) for CoC (p<0.001). On radiographic evaluation, 13% (3/23) MoPc were considered loose versus no CoC, and 61% (14/23) MoPc versus 6% (2/33) CoC showed osteolytic signs (p<0.001). CoC had better mean WOMAC scores than MoPc (11.0 vs. 19.4; p=0.048). No ceramic fracture was observed. CONCLUSION: In this RCT, CoC bearings provided excellent results and were safer than MoPc bearings at more than 20-year follow-up. The long-term in vivo behaviour of CoC bearing makes it a great THA option for middle-aged patients and should be compared to newer polyethylene bearings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".