↓ Skip to main content

No Difference in Reoperations at 2 Years Between Ceramic-on-metal and Metal-on-metal THA: A Randomized Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
No Difference in Reoperations at 2 Years Between Ceramic-on-metal and Metal-on-metal THA: A Randomized Trial
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11999-015-4424-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Anderson Engh, Supatra Sritulanondha, Abigail Korczak, Terrence David Whalen, Douglas D. R. Naudie, Richard W. McCalden, Steven J. MacDonald

Abstract

Hard-on-hard bearings for total hip arthroplasty continue to warrant analysis even though crosslinked polyethylene is performing very well. Ceramic-on-metal (CoM) has low in vitro wear and did well in an early clinical trial. We report on a prospective, randomized, multicenter investigational device trial comparing CoM with metal-on-metal (MoM). (1) Is there a difference in the number or type of revisions comparing CoM with MoM? (2) Are cobalt and chromium metal levels different for CoM and MoM THA? Between August 2005 and October 2006, of 1015 patients screened, 390 patients were enrolled at 11 centers and randomized to 194 CoM and 196 MoM bearings. There was no difference in the preoperative patient demographics between the study groups. Mean followup was 50 months (range, 22-75 months). Seventy-two patients from two centers had metal level analysis. With the numbers available, there was no difference in the proportion of patients undergoing revisions between the MoM and the CoM cohorts (MOM: 3% [six of 196]; COM: 1.5% [three of 194]; p = 0.50). Four MoM revisions were unrelated to the bearing surface. Two had bearing surface-related reoperations, one for an aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion and one for elevated metal levels with acetabular malposition. None of the CoM revisions were related to the bearing surface. The metal level analysis revealed that in contrast to the CoM, the MoM bearing group had increasing values of erythrocyte and serum cobalt from 1 to 5 years (CoM erythrocyte 0.45-0.55 ppb, p = 0.11 and CoM serum 0.88-0.85, p = 0.55, and MoM erythrocyte 0.32-0.51 ppb, p < 0.01 and MoM serum 0.65-1.01 ppb, p < 0.01). In addition, the MoM cobalt levels in erythrocytes and serum at 5 years were more variable than at 1 year (erythrocyte interquartile range [IQR], 0.26-0.44 to 0.31-1.21 ppb and serum IQR, 0.42-0.80 to 0.64-2.20 ppb, p < 0.02 for both). Although both bearings performed well at short-term followup, the CoM bearing group had no wear-related revisions and maintained consistently low metal levels. The MoM cobalt elevations may be important considering recent reports of taper corrosion. This CoM bearing was approved by the FDA but withdrawn from the market because of low sales. If it were available, the authors would not use CoM until long-term data were available. The bearing would have to outperform crosslinked polyethylene because it is unlikely that CoM metal levels will return to normal. Level I, therapeutic study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 2%
Norway 1 2%
Unknown 53 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Other 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 19 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 35%
Engineering 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 22 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 September 2015.
All research outputs
#8,426,836
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#2,377
of 7,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,890
of 277,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
#48
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,298 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.