NEW YORK, Nov. 30 (UPI) -- A U.S. study found no advantage of one hip implant type over another, but there was evidence of potential for harm associated with metal-on-metal implants.
First author Dr. Art Sedrakyan, associate professor of public health at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York said more than 270,000 Americans get hip replacement surgeries every year. In the 1940s, surgeons used metal-on-metal implants, implants made of a metal head and polyethylene socket were introduced in the 1960s, followed by ceramic-on-ceramic implants in the 1990s, Sedrakyan said.
"While hip replacement surgery has helped millions of Americans with painful arthritis or joint damage, substantial number of these implants require revision surgery due to infection, wear, dislocation, instability or other mechanical failures," Sedrakyan said in a statement.
Sedrakyan and his co-authors examined records of 3,139 patients and 3,404 hips enrolled in 18 comparative studies and more than 830,000 surgeries in national registries, comparing device effectiveness and quality of life.
The overall results show no clear advantage, the study authors report that the data are complex and while one clinical study reported fewer joint dislocations associated with metal-on-metal implants, there was evidence of a greater risk for implant revision procedures associated with metal-on-metal implants in three of the largest national registries involving 700,000 patients when compared with metal-on-polyethylene. One trial reported fewer revisions with ceramic-on-ceramic as compared with metal-on-polyethylene implants, but data from national registries did not support this finding.
The findings are scheduled to be published in the Dec. 1 edition of the journal British Medical Journal.
