These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Ceramic Femoral Heads Exhibit Lower Wear Rates Compared to Cobalt Chrome: A Meta-Analysis.
    Author: Mertz KC, Yang J, Chung BC, Chen X, Mayfield CK, Heckmann ND.
    Journal: J Arthroplasty; 2023 Feb; 38(2):397-405. PubMed ID: 36108994.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Wear between the femoral head and acetabular liners continues to limit the longevity of total hip arthroplasty implants despite advances in implant materials. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare linear wear rates of cobalt-chromium (CoCr) and fourth-generation ceramic femoral heads on highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) liners. METHODS: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted to identify all studies between 2003 and 2020 that examined in vivo wear rates of either fourth-generation ceramics or CoCr femoral heads on XLPE liners. Studies were analyzed in a weighted means analysis of wear rates and a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies met inclusion criteria (1,657 CoCr and 659 ceramic patients). The pooled, weighted mean wear rate was 0.063 mm/year (standard deviation [SD]: 0.061, confidence interval [CI]: 0.049-0.077) for CoCr and 0.047 mm/year (SD: 0.057, CI: 0.033-0.062; P < .01) for ceramic (P < .01). A meta-analysis of 4 studies directly comparing ceramic and CoCr found that CoCr heads demonstrated 0.029 mm/year more wear than ceramic heads (95% CI: 0.026-0.059, P = .306). Mean wear for 32-mm heads was significantly higher for ceramic (P < .01), while mean wear for 36-mm heads was significantly higher for CoCr (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Fourth-generation ceramic femoral heads were found to have significantly lower wear rates than CoCr heads. Unlike previous studies, this meta-analysis included only in vivo studies and those with the same generation of highly XLPE liners.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]