Are Hooded, Crosslinked Polyethylene Liners Associated with a Reduced Risk of Revision After THA?

[Standard and special liner in primary hip arthroplasty : Current study and survey results from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD)]

BACKGROUND

Instability constitutes the main reason for revision hip arthroplasties. Modified polyethylene liners are designed to improve the stability of a hip replacement. In July 2022 The Bone & Joint Journal published a study with data of the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). The study investigated mechanical failure of standard and modified liner designs in primary, cementless total hip arthroplasty. Following the study, the EPRD conducted a survey of German clinics to research the utilization of lipped liners in primary total hip replacement.

METHODS

The liner study included 151,096 primary, elective, cementless total hip arthroplasties. Data from November 2012 to November 2020 were obtained from the EPRD. Standard polyethylene liners were compared with lipped, angulated, offset and angulated/offset inlays. Cumulative incidences for endpoint revision due to mechanical complication were calculated with a competing risk analysis. The influence of other variables was investigated with a multivariate Cox regression. In the following online survey, 237 out of 789 hospitals completed a form.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

In our analysis, only offset liners were, compared to standard liners, associated with a reduced risk of mechanical failure in a short to medium follow up. However, the resultant joint reaction force is increased with offset liners due to the lateralization of the hip center of rotation. Thus, the long-term performance of offset liners needs to be observed. Our survey indicated that lipped liners were implanted more often if the posterior approach was used. Moreover, lipped liners were mostly positioned with the elevated rim in the biomechanically less optimal posterior-superior quadrant. To improve stability it is suggested to position the elevated rim in the posterior-inferior quadrant.

Dual mobility versus conventional total hip arthroplasty in femoral neck fractures (DISTINCT): protocol for a registry-nested, open-label, cluster-randomised crossover trial

INTRODUCTION

Hip fractures treated with total hip arthroplasty (THA) are at high risk of prosthesis instability, and dislocation is the most common indication for revision surgery. This study aims to determine whether dual mobility THA implants reduce the risk of dislocation compared with conventional THA in patients with hip fracture suitable to be treated with THA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a cluster-randomised, crossover, open-label trial nested within the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). The clusters will comprise hospitals that perform at least 12 THAs for hip fracture per annum. All adults age ≥50 years who meet the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry guidelines for THA will be included. The intervention will be dual mobility THA and the comparator will be conventional THA. Each hospital will be allocated to two consecutive periods, one of dual mobility THA and the other of conventional THA in random order, aiming for an average of 16 patients eligible for the primary analysis per group (32 total per site), allowing different recruitment totals between sites. Data will be collected through the AOANJRR and linked with patient-level discharge data acquired through government agencies. The primary outcome is dislocation within 1 year. Secondary outcomes include revision surgery for dislocation and all-cause, complications and mortality at 1, 2 and 5 years. If dual mobility THA is found to be superior, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. The study will aim to recruit 1536 patients from at least 48 hospitals over 3 years.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval has been granted (Sydney Local Health District - Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Zone (approval X20-0162 and 2020/ETH00680) and site-specific approvals). Participant recruitment is via an opt-out consent process as both treatments are considered accepted, standard practice. The trial is endorsed by the Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal Clinical Trials Network.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621000069853.

The effect of uncemented acetabular liner geometry and lip size on the risk of revision for instability or loosening : a study on 202,511 primary hip arthroplasties from the National Joint Registry

AIMS

The aim of this study was to determine if uncemented acetabular polyethylene (PE) liner geometry, and lip size, influenced the risk of revision for instability or loosening.

METHODS

A total of 202,511 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) with uncemented acetabular components were identified from the National Joint Registry (NJR) dataset between 2003 and 2017. The effect of liner geometry on the risk of revision for instability or loosening was investigated using competing risk regression analyses adjusting for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, indication, side, institution type, surgeon grade, surgical approach, head size, and polyethylene crosslinking. Stratified analyses by surgical approach were performed, including pairwise comparisons of liner geometries.

RESULTS

The distribution of liner geometries were neutral (39.4%; 79,822), 10° (34.5%; 69,894), 15° (21.6%; 43,722), offset reorientating (2.8%; 5705), offset neutral (0.9%; 1,767), and 20° (0.8%; 1,601). There were 690 (0.34%) revisions for instability. Compared to neutral liners, the adjusted subhazard ratios of revision for instability were: 10°, 0.64 (p < 0.001); 15°, 0.48 (p < 0.001); and offset reorientating, 1.6 (p = 0.010). No association was found with other geometries. 10° and 15° liners had a time-dependent lower risk of revision for instability within the first 1.2 years. In posterior approaches, 10° and 15° liners had a lower risk of revision for instability, with no significant difference between them. The protective effect of lipped over neutral liners was not observed in laterally approached THAs. There were 604 (0.3%) revisions for loosening, but no association between liner geometry and revision for loosening was found.

CONCLUSION

This registry-based study confirms a lower risk of revision for instability in posterior approach THAs with 10° or 15° lipped liners compared to neutral liners, but no significant difference between these lip sizes. A higher revision risk is seen with offset reorientating liners. The benefit of lipped geometries against revision for instability was not seen in laterally approached THAs. Liner geometry does not seem to influence the risk of revision for loosening. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1774-1782.

Using an asymmetric crosslinked polyethylene liner in primary total hip arthroplasty is associated with a lower risk of revision surgery : an analysis of the National Joint Registry

AIMS

The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of asymmetric crosslinked polyethylene liner use on the risk of revision of cementless and hybrid total hip arthroplasties (THAs).

METHODS

We undertook a registry study combining the National Joint Registry dataset with polyethylene manufacturing characteristics as supplied by the manufacturers. The primary endpoint was revision for any reason. We performed further analyses on other reasons including instability, aseptic loosening, wear, and liner dissociation. The primary analytic approach was Cox proportional hazard regression.

RESULTS

A total of 213,146 THAs were included in the analysis. Overall, 2,997 revisions were recorded, 1,569 in THAs with a flat liner and 1,428 in THAs using an asymmetric liner. Flat liner THAs had a higher risk of revision for any reason than asymmetric liner THAs when implanted through a Hardinge/anterolateral approach (hazard ratio (HR) 1.169, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.022 to 1.337) and through a posterior approach (HR 1.122, 95% CI 1.108 to 1.346). There was no increased risk of revision for aseptic loosening when asymmetric liners were used for any surgical approach. A separate analysis of the three most frequently used crosslinked polyethylene liners was in agreement with this finding. When analyzing THAs with flat liners only, THAs implanted through a Hardinge/anterolateral approach were associated with a reduced risk of revision for instability compared to posterior approach THAs (HR 0.561 (95% CI 0.446 to 0.706)). When analyzing THAs with an asymmetric liner, there was no significant difference in the risk of revision for instability between the two approaches (HR 0.838 (95% CI 0.633 to 1.110)).

CONCLUSION

For THAs implanted through the posterior approach, the use of asymmetric liners reduces the risk of revision for instability and revision for any reason. In THAs implanted through a Hardinge/anterolateral approach, the use of an asymmetric liner was associated with a reduced risk of revision. The effect on revision for instability was less pronounced than in the posterior approach. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1479-1487.

Recent update on crosslinked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty

More than two decades after their clinical introduction, crosslinked polyethylenes (XLPE) have been widely adopted. Though concerns were initially raised regarding oxidation and brittleness, on a large scale, the first generation of XLPE continues to be highly effective 15 years after the surgery, even in a young and active population. Remelted XLPE might display lower wear rates than annealed XLPE. Second generation XLPEs, not only including sequentially irradiated and annealed but also associated with antioxidants, demonstrate encouraging short- to mid-term results. Registry data support clinical trial reports. Even in less favorable settings (lipped liners, dual mobility cups, revision surgery, hip resurfacing) results are promising. However, failures (fractures) have already been described. Therefore, a high level of surveillance remains crucial.