Comparative meta-analysis of pyrocarbon and silicone for joint replacement surgery

To investigate the efficacy and complications that might be associated with pyrocarbon compared with silicone in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery.

The full-text papers about the clinical efficacy of pyrocarbon and silicone were retrieved from multiple databases. Review Manager version 5.0 was adopted for meta-analysis and analyses of sensitivity and bias.

Ultimately, we studied 232 patients across eight studies that met the eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis suggested a significant difference between the pyrocarbon and silicone groups in terms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score (standard mean difference (SMD) = 1.48; 95% CI [0.97, 1.99]; P = .009; P for Heterogeneity <0.00001; I = 63%); Visual Analogue Score (VAS) (SMD = 1.68; 95% CI [1.36, 1.99]; P < .00001; P for heterogeneity = 0.01; I = 61%), and the abnormal radiolucent line (RR = 6.66; 95% CI [3.19, 13.89]; P < .00001; P for heterogeneity = 0.87, I = 0%); and ossification development (RR = 0.90; 95% CI [0.56, 1.44], P = .66; P for heterogeneity = 0.94, I = 0%).

This study showed that pyrocarbon might be an efficient material compared with silicone for joint replacement surgery, but resulted in poorer functional and pain outcomes compared with silicone.