V P Galea1, J W Connelly1, B Shareghi2, J Kärrholm2, O Sköldenberg3, M Salemyr3, M B Laursen4, O Muratoglu5, C Bragdon5, H Malchau5. 1. Harris Orthopaedic Laboratory, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 3. Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Division of Orthopaedics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Orthopaedics, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 5. Harris Orthopaedic Laboratory, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: The primary aim of this study was to compare the wear properties of vitamin E-diffused, highly crosslinked polyethylene (VEPE) and one formulation of moderately crosslinked and mechanically annealed ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (ModXLPE) in patients five years after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The secondary aim was to assess the clinical results of patients treated with VEPE by evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiological evidence of fixation, and the incidence of mechanical failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 208 patients (221 THAs) from four international centres were recruited into a prospective study involving radiostereometric analysis (RSA) and the assessment of clinical outcomes. A total of 193 hips (87%) were reviewed at the five-year follow-up. Of these, 136 (70%) received VEPE (vs ModXLPE) liners and 68 (35%) received ceramic (vs metal) femoral heads. PROMs and radiographs were collected preoperatively and at one, two, and five years postoperatively. In addition, RSA images were collected to measure PE wear postoperatively and at one, two, and five years after surgery. RESULTS: We observed similar bedding in one year postoperatively and wear two years postoperatively between the two types of liner. However, there was significantly more penetration of the femoral head in the ModXLPE cohort compared with the VEPE cohort five years postoperatively (p < 0.001). The only variables independently predictive of increased wear were ModXLPE (vs VEPE) liner type (β = 0.22, p = 0.010) and metal (vs ceramic) femoral head (β = 0.21, p = 0.013). There was no association between increased wear and the development of radiolucency (p = 0.866) or PROMs. No patient had evidence of osteolysis. CONCLUSION: Five years postoperatively, patients with VEPE (vs ModXLPE) and ceramic (vs metal) femoral heads had decreased wear. The rates of wear for both liners were very low and have not led to any osteolysis or implant failure due to aseptic loosening.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: The primary aim of this study was to compare the wear properties of vitamin E-diffused, highly crosslinked polyethylene (VEPE) and one formulation of moderately crosslinked and mechanically annealed ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (ModXLPE) in patients five years after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The secondary aim was to assess the clinical results of patients treated with VEPE by evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiological evidence of fixation, and the incidence of mechanical failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 208 patients (221 THAs) from four international centres were recruited into a prospective study involving radiostereometric analysis (RSA) and the assessment of clinical outcomes. A total of 193 hips (87%) were reviewed at the five-year follow-up. Of these, 136 (70%) received VEPE (vs ModXLPE) liners and 68 (35%) received ceramic (vs metal) femoral heads. PROMs and radiographs were collected preoperatively and at one, two, and five years postoperatively. In addition, RSA images were collected to measure PE wear postoperatively and at one, two, and five years after surgery. RESULTS: We observed similar bedding in one year postoperatively and wear two years postoperatively between the two types of liner. However, there was significantly more penetration of the femoral head in the ModXLPE cohort compared with the VEPE cohort five years postoperatively (p < 0.001). The only variables independently predictive of increased wear were ModXLPE (vs VEPE) liner type (β = 0.22, p = 0.010) and metal (vs ceramic) femoral head (β = 0.21, p = 0.013). There was no association between increased wear and the development of radiolucency (p = 0.866) or PROMs. No patient had evidence of osteolysis. CONCLUSION: Five years postoperatively, patients with VEPE (vs ModXLPE) and ceramic (vs metal) femoral heads had decreased wear. The rates of wear for both liners were very low and have not led to any osteolysis or implant failure due to aseptic loosening.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bone resorption; Ceramic-on-polyethylene; Metal-on-polyethylene; Polyethylene wear; Radiostereometric analysis; Total hip arthroplasty; Vitamin E polyethylene