Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene Liners Have Negligible Wear at 10 Years: A Radiostereometric Analysis Study

Polyethylene thickness does not influence aseptic revision rate with highly cross-linked liners in THA with 36-mm femoral heads

BACKGROUND

To reduce the risk of dislocation, larger head size can be used in total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, larger head size leads to thinner acetabular liners. With conventional polyethylene, thickness of >8 mm has been advocated to reduce stress and wear rate of the polyethylene. Modern polyethylene has become more wear-resistant. In this study, we investigated if the thickness of sequentially cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) liners is associated with failure of THA in the medium term.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

3654 THAs were included (2009-2016), in which THA was performed with a XLPE liner in combination with a 36-mm femoral head. Patient and surgical characteristics were collected. We compared implant survival of THA with thin liners (<7.9 mm) and thick liners (⩾7.9 mm) with a Kaplan Meier survival analysis at 5 years, median follow-up and 10 years of follow-up with and point aseptic loosening and performed a multivariate analysis to estimate hazard ratios (HR).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 7.7 years (IQR 5.6-9.8). In total, 179 revision procedures were performed, where 82 revisions (46%) were performed for aseptic loosening. The survival rate at 5 years, median and 10 years of follow-up showed no statistically significant difference in implant survival. The survival rate at 10 years follow-up was for thin liners 97.1% (95% CI, 96.3-97.9) and for thick liners 98.2% (95% CI, 97.4-99.0) in the aseptic loosening group (chi-square 2.55; p = 0.11).The adjusted HR for thick liners (⩾7.9 mm) was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.38-1.08) compared with the thin liners (<7.9 mm), which was not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

From this single-centre retrospective study it appears that thinner polyethylene liners are well tolerated when using second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene. Thickness of the XLPE liners did not influence the risk of aseptic loosening of the implants in the medium term.

Large articulations do not increase wear rates of thin second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene liners at ten years

Aims

Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) is the most accurate radiological method to measure in vivo wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) acetabular components. We have previously reported very low wear rates for a sequentially irradiated and annealed X3 XLPE liner (Stryker Orthopaedics, USA) when used in conjunction with a 32 mm femoral heads at ten-year follow-up. Only two studies have reported the long-term wear rate of X3 liners used in conjunction with larger heads using plain radiographs which have poor sensitivity. The aim of this study was to measure the ten-year wear of thin X3 XLPE liners against larger 36 or 40 mm articulations with RSA.

Methods

We prospectively reviewed 19 patients who underwent primary cementless THA with the XLPE acetabular liner (X3) and a 36 or 40 mm femoral head with a resultant liner thickness of at least 5.8 mm. RSA radiographs at one week, six months, and one, two, five, and ten years postoperatively and femoral head penetration within the acetabular component were measured with UmRSA software. Of the initial 19 patients, 12 were available at the ten-year time point.

Results

The median proximal, 2D, and 3D wear rates calculated between one and ten years were all less than 0.005 mm/year, with no patient recording a proximal wear rate of more than 0.021 mm/year. Importantly, there was no increase in the wear rate between five and ten years.

Conclusion

The very low wear rate of X3 XLPE liners with larger articulations remains encouraging for the future clinical performance of this material.

Comparative Survival of Contemporary Cementless Acetabular Components Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The advent of highly porous ingrowth surfaces and highly crosslinked polyethylene has been expected to improve implant survivorship in revision total hip arthroplasty. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the survival of several contemporary acetabular designs following revision total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

Acetabular revisions performed from 2000 to 2019 were identified from our institutional total joint registry. We studied 3,348 revision hips, implanted with 1 of 7 cementless acetabular designs. These were paired with highly crosslinked polyethylene or dual-mobility liners. A historical series of 258 Harris-Galante-1 components, paired with conventional polyethylene, was used as reference. Survivorship analyses were performed. For the 2,976 hips with minimum 2-year follow-up, the median follow-up was 8 years (range, 2 to 35 years).

RESULTS

Contemporary components with adequate follow-up had survivorship free of acetabular rerevision of ≥95% at 10-year follow-up. Relative to Harris-Galante-1 components, 10-year survivorship free of all-cause acetabular cup rerevision was significantly higher in Zimmer Trabecular Metarevision (hazard ratio (HR) 0.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2-0.45), Zimmer Trabecular MetaModular (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13-0.89), Zimmer Trilogy (HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.24-0.69), DePuy Pinnacle Porocoat (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.11-0.51), and Stryker Tritanium revision (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24-0.91) shells. Among contemporary components, there were only 23 rerevisions for acetabular aseptic loosening and no rerevisions for polyethylene wear.

CONCLUSION

Contemporary acetabular ingrowth and bearing surfaces were associated with no rerevisions for wear and aseptic loosening was uncommon, particularly with highly porous designs. Therefore, it appears that contemporary revision acetabular components have dramatically improved upon historical results at available follow-up.