Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 30, 2025
Biotribological Testing and Analysis of Articular Cartilage Sliding against Metal for Implants
Published on: May 14, 2020
Trabecular metal versus non-trabecular metal acetabular components for acetabular revision surgery: A systematic
Xianyue Shen1, Yanguo Qin1, Yang Li2
1Department of Orthopedics, The Second Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, 130041, Jilin province, PR China.
Background:
The objective of this study was to compare cup survival and the incidence of adverse events associated with the use of trabecular metal (TM) and non-TM cups for acetabular revision surgery.
Methods:
The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for comparative studies that reported cup survival and the incidence of adverse events associated with the use of TM and non-TM cups for acetabular revision surgery. Primary outcomes included cup survival, aseptic loosening, dislocation, and infection.
Results:
The meta-analysis included 6 studies that involved 13,864 total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions who underwent acetabular revision surgery with TM (n = 5,619) or non-TM (n = 8,245) cups. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in cup survival using re-revision for any reason or aseptic loosening as the endpoint following acetabular revision surgery with TM or non-TM cups (HR = 0.96; [95% CI, 0.84-1.09]; HR = 1.29; [95% CI, 0.70-2.38]). Pooled data indicated that the overall incidence of adverse events for TM or non-TM cups was 6.8% (382/5,289) and 9.0% (725/8,083), respectively, and not significantly different (OR = 0.91; [95% CI, 0.80-1.04]). The incidence of aseptic loosening and infection were significantly lower (OR = 0.75; [95% CI, 0.58-0.96]; OR = 0.70; [95% CI, 0.54-0.90]) and the incidence of dislocation was significantly higher (OR = 1.53; [95% CI, 1.22-1.91]) for TM compared to non-TM cups.
Conclusion:
This review was the first to use reconstructed time-to-event data to find that there was no difference in survival of TM and non-TM cups in acetabular revision surgery. Overall, fewer adverse events were associated with the use of TM compared to non-TM cups, but the difference was not significant. The incidence of aseptic loosening and infection were significantly lower and the incidence of dislocation was significantly higher for TM compared to non-TM cups. This information is expected to guide orthopedic surgeons in the selection of appropriate acetabular components for THA revision.
