| Literature DB >> 20541895 |
Steven M Kurtz1, Francisco J Medel, Daniel W MacDonald, Javad Parvizi, Matthew J Kraay, Clare M Rimnac.
Abstract
Over a 10-year period, we prospectively evaluated the reasons for revision of contemporary and highly cross-linked polyethylene formulations in amulticenter retrieval program. Two hundred twelve consecutive retrievals were classified as conventional gamma inert sterilized (n = 37), annealed (Cross fire,[Stryker Orthopedics, Mahwah, NJ] n = 72), or remelted (Longevity [Zimmer ,Warsaw, Ind], XLPE[Smith and Nephew, Memphis, Tenn], Durasul [Zimmer,Warsaw, Ind] n = 103) liners. The most frequent reasons for revision were loosening (35%), instability(28%), and infection (21%) and were not related to polyethylene formulation (P = .17). Annealed and remelted liners had comparable linear penetration rates(0.03 and 0.04 mm/y, respectively, on average), and these were significantly lower than the rate in conventional retrievals (0.11 mm/y, P ≤ .0005). This retrieval study including first-generation highly cross linked liners demonstrated lower wear than conventional polyethylene. Although loosening remained as the most prevalent reason for revision, we could not demonstrate a relationship between wear and loosening.The long-term clinical performance of first-generation highly cross-linked liners remains promising based on the midterm outcomes of the components documented in this study [corrected].Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20541895 PMCID: PMC2946323 DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.04.018
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Arthroplasty ISSN: 0883-5403 Impact factor: 4.757