To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Long-term comparison of ceramic-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-polyethylene THA in young patients

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
July 2018

Long-term comparison of ceramic-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-polyethylene THA in young patients

Vol: 7| Issue: 7| Number:13| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Randomized Trial
OE Level Evidence:N/A
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

The Ideal Total Hip Replacement Bearing Surface in the Young Patient: A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Alumina Ceramic-On-Ceramic With Ceramic-On-Conventional Polyethylene: 15-Year Follow-Up

J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jun;33(6):1752-1756

Contributing Authors:
EH Schemitch JP Waddell N Hussain A Khoshbin JI Wolfstadt A Atrey S Ward M Shahid

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

57 young patients (18-60 years of age) scheduled for elective, primary total hip arthroplasty were included in this study to compare long-term wear, revision, and functional outcomes between ceramic-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-conventional polyethylene bearing surfaces. This study presented the result at a minimum 15-year follow-up. Total wear, linear wear rate, and the incidence of femoral osteolys...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue