Functional Outcomes of Different Bearing Surfaces for Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) has changed significantly since its inception, with various bearing surfaces affecting clinical outcomes. This systematic review aimed to assess the functional results of various bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty using validated scoring systems. Methods: This systematic review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO under CRD42025634591. Studies were included based on predefined criteria for population, intervention type, and reported clinical outcomes. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Harris Hip Score (HHS), and SF-12 were analyzed closely. Results: <0.001), suggesting better quality of life and improved functional outcomes. CoM showed slightly better WOMAC scores over MoM, but the difference was not statistically significant. The most common reason for revision was dislocation (36 cases), while osteolysis was the most common complication (43 cases). Conclusion: MoM implants demonstrated better quality of life and functional outcomes, but their use has declined due to safety concerns. Other implants may reduce complications related to metal ion release. These findings help surgeons choose THA implants by weighing benefits against long-term risks. Further research is necessary to refine implant selection criteria and long-term performance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".