tween ceramic-and polyethylene-lined acetabular cups [2,3]. In the study by Atrey et al, it was found that ceramic-lined acetabular implants had lower mean wear rates than polyethylene-lined implants, and in the study by Beaupre et al, it was found that polyethylene-lined acetabular implants resulted in more revisions than ceramic-lined implants. In addition, using the values provided in table 6 of the study by Wilson et al, along with the inclusion of the results from their own study, we performed a meta-analysis of proportions using the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation based on the values of prosthesis revisions extracted from the individual included studies [4], following which, reconstruction of the relative risks using pooled proportions was performed [5]. We found a combined average implant survival rate of both materials to be 95% (confidence interval [CI]: 0.92 to 0.97, Fig. 1). However, when subgroup analysis was performed on the type of implants, the rates of revision for ceramic and polyethylene groups were 98% (CI: 0.96 to 0.99) and 93% (CI: 0.89 to 0.96), respectively. In addition, the risk ratio (RR) ceramic-lined acetabular cups showed a marginally lower yet statistically significant difference, in terms of the revision rate, as compared with polyethylene-lined acetabular cups (RR ¼ 0.95, CI: 0.93 to 0.97, P < .001). Contrary to the manner in which the results were presented in the study by Wilson et al, the results and outcomes measured in the RCTs conducted by Atrey et al and Beaupre et al were stratified into groups based on the lining material of the articular surface of the implants. Both RCTs stated that ceramic-and polyethylene-lined acetabular cups were prone to different types of wear and failure and hence have different indications for use, based on the individual patient characteristics. In addition, there is a large cost differential between ceramic and polyethylene liners, with Beaupre et al stating that ceramic-lined acetabular cups cost up to three times more than their polyethylene counterparts. Considering the differences found, we would encourage the authors to consider separating the analysis between patients receiving ceramic-and polyethylene-lined acetabular prostheses into two separate groups rather than analyzing the data in combination. This would provide a comparison of outcomes (e.g.