[Meta-analysis of different joint interfaces in total hip arthroplasty under long-term follow-up]
Gai-Ge Wu1, Ling-An Huang1, Li Guo1
1Shanxi Provincial Key Laboratory of Bone and Soft Tissue Injury Repair, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan 030001, Shanxi, China.
Objective:
To compare the long-term follow-up effect and complications of ceramic on ceramic (CoC) interface and ceramic on polyethyleneon ceramic (CoP) interface in primary total hip arthroplasty, and provide clinical evidence.
Methods:
Search PubMed, EMBase, the CoChrane Library databases, Web of science, Wanfang database, and CNKI from January 2000 to September 2021, screening and inclusion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the long-term efficacy and complications of CoC interface and CoP interface in total hip arthroplasty. Literature screening, quality evaluation and data extraction were carried out according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, using Review Manager 5.3 statistical software. The software was used to perform statistical analysis on joint function, revision, prosthesis fracture, abnormal joint noise, and prosthesis wear rate after CoC or CoP.
Results:
Seven RCTs studies were included, including 390 cases of hips with CoC artificial joints and 384 cases of hips with CoP artificial joints. The long-term joint function improvement of CoC and CoP artificial joints was similar and there was no significant differences, with an average difference was MD=0.63, 95%CI=(-1.81, 3.07), P=0.61. About the postoperative complications, CoC artificial joints have higher incidence rate of abnormal joint noise, with odds ratio (OR)=11.05, 95%CI=(2.04, 59.84), P=0.005. CoP artificial joints wear faster, with an average MD=-87.11, 95%CI=(-114.40, -59.82), P<0.000 1. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the replacement-related complications such as joint dislocation, prosthesis loosening, osteolysis, and the rate of prosthesis revision caused by various reasons.
Conclusion:
The clinical function results and complications of CoC artificial joints are comparable to those of CoP artificial joints. Although CoP artificial joint prosthesis has a faster wear rate, it does not affect joint function and increase complications, and there is no abnormal joint noise. CoC is expensive and the long-term efficacy is equivalent to CoP. Clinicians should consider cost performance when choosing CoC.
