Orthopaedics & traumatology, surgery & research : OTSR · 2014
Does cross-linked polyethylene decrease the revision rate of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene? A meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shen C, Tang Z-H, Hu J-Z, Zou G-Y, Xiao R-C, Yan D-X
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although cross-linked polyethylene is resistant to wear in comparison to conventional polyethylene, it remains unknown whether it can decrease the wear-related revision rate of total hip arthroplasty.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether cross-linked polyethylene decreases the wear-related revision rate of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene.
DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were queried from inception to July 6, 2013.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cross-linked polyethylene with conventional polyethylene were included. In addition, the standard 28-mm femoral head was used, and follow-up was performed for a minimum of 5 years. The primary outcome assessed was wear-related revision. The secondary outcome measures evaluated were the incidence of osteolysis, the linear wear rate, and the linear head penetration.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias was used for quality assessment. Data from eligible studies were pooled using a random effects model.
RESULTS: Eight studies involving 735 patients were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference between cross-linked and conventional polyethylene group in terms of osteolysis or wear-related revision. The pooled mean differences were significantly less for the linear wear rate and linear head penetration for cross-linked polyethylene than for conventional polyethylene.
LIMITATIONS: The studies differed with respect to the cross-linked liner brands, manufacturing processes, and radiological evaluation methods. Moreover, the follow-up periods of the RCTs were not long enough.
CONCLUSIONS: The current limited evidence suggests that cross-linked polyethylene significantly reduced the radiological wear compared with conventional polyethylene at midterm follow-up periods. However, there is no evidence that cross-linked polyethylene had an advantage over conventional polyethylene in terms of reducing osteolysis or wear-related revision. Nevertheless, future long-term RCTs on this topic are needed.
KEY FINDINGS: Cross-linked polyethylene significantly reduced radiological wear but not osteolysis or wear-related revision in comparison to conventional polyethylene at midterm follow-up periods.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systematic review of level I studies.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether cross-linked polyethylene decreases the wear-related revision rate of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene.
DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were queried from inception to July 6, 2013.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cross-linked polyethylene with conventional polyethylene were included. In addition, the standard 28-mm femoral head was used, and follow-up was performed for a minimum of 5 years. The primary outcome assessed was wear-related revision. The secondary outcome measures evaluated were the incidence of osteolysis, the linear wear rate, and the linear head penetration.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias was used for quality assessment. Data from eligible studies were pooled using a random effects model.
RESULTS: Eight studies involving 735 patients were included in this study. Meta-analysis showed there was no significant difference between cross-linked and conventional polyethylene group in terms of osteolysis or wear-related revision. The pooled mean differences were significantly less for the linear wear rate and linear head penetration for cross-linked polyethylene than for conventional polyethylene.
LIMITATIONS: The studies differed with respect to the cross-linked liner brands, manufacturing processes, and radiological evaluation methods. Moreover, the follow-up periods of the RCTs were not long enough.
CONCLUSIONS: The current limited evidence suggests that cross-linked polyethylene significantly reduced the radiological wear compared with conventional polyethylene at midterm follow-up periods. However, there is no evidence that cross-linked polyethylene had an advantage over conventional polyethylene in terms of reducing osteolysis or wear-related revision. Nevertheless, future long-term RCTs on this topic are needed.
KEY FINDINGS: Cross-linked polyethylene significantly reduced radiological wear but not osteolysis or wear-related revision in comparison to conventional polyethylene at midterm follow-up periods.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systematic review of level I studies.