Metasul vs Cerasul bearings: a prospective, randomized study at 9 years.
rct · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 22784488.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.arth.2012.05.028.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
The aims of our study were to compare metal-on-metal (Metasul) and ceramic-on-ceramic (Cerasul) bearings and to evaluate the clinical and radiographic results of these 2 different hard-on-hard bearings. We conducted a prospective, randomized study on a series of 250 cementless primary total hip arthroplasties. The prostheses were similar in all aspects except for the bearing surfaces: 50% of Metasul bearing and 50% of Cerasul bearing. All the patients were evaluated both clinically and radiographically. No patient was lost to follow-up. Clinical outcomes in both groups were similar. Considering aseptic loosening as the end point for failure, the 9-year survival rate was 100% for Cerasul and 98.4% for Metasul. Neither bearing outperformed the other both radiographically and clinically. The overall 9-year survival rate was 99.2% and 97.6% in the Cerasul and Metasul groups, respectively.
Medical subject headings
- Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
- Hip Joint
- Hip Prosthesis
- Joint Diseases
Anatomy
- hip