Low wear, high stability - promises of success in a moderately cross-linked cup?

Migration patterns of acetabular cups: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RSA studies

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of RSA studies to investigate the early and long-term migration patterns of acetabular cups and the influence of implant factors on cup migration over time.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases to identify all RSA studies of cup migration following primary total hip replacement (THR). Proximal migration at 3 and 6 months, 1, 2, 5, and 10 years were considered for analysis. Implant factors investigated included fixation type, head size, bearing surface, uncemented coating design, and the decade of RSA introduction.

RESULTS

47 studies reported the proximal migration of 83 cohorts (2,328 cups). Besides 1 threaded cup design, no implant factor investigated was found to significantly influence proximal migration. The mean pooled 2-year proximal migration of cemented cups (0.14 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.08-0.20) was not significantly different from uncemented cups (0.12 mm, CI 0.04-0.19). The mean pooled proximal migration at 6 months was 0.11 mm (CI 0.06-0.16) and there was no significant increase between 6 months and 2 years (0.015 mm, CI 0.000-0.030). 27 of 75 cohorts (36%) reported mean proximal migration greater than 0.2 mm at 2 years, which has previously been identified as a predictor of implants at risk of long-term loosening.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the majority of cup migration occurs within the first 6 months. With one exception, no implant factors influenced the 2-year proximal migration of acetabular cups. 36% of studies with 2-year migration were considered at risk of long-term loosening. Further investigation and comparison against long-term survivorship data would validate 6-month and/or 1-year proximal migration measurements as an earlier predictor of long-term loosening than the current 2-year threshold.

Results of a randomized controlled trial with five-year radiostereometric analysis results of vitamin E-infused highly crosslinked versus moderately crosslinked polyethylene in reverse total hip arthroplasty

Aims

Vitamin E-infused highly crosslinked polyethylene (VEPE) has been introduced into total hip arthroplasty (THA) with the aim of further improving the wear characteristics of moderately and highly crosslinked polyethylenes (ModXLPE and HXLPE). There are few studies analyzing the outcomes of vitamin E-infused components in cemented arthroplasty, though early acetabular component migration has been reported. The aim of this study was to measure five-year polyethylene wear and acetabular component stability of a cemented VEPE acetabular component compared with a ModXLPE cemented acetabular component.

Methods

In a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT), we assessed polyethylene wear and acetabular component stability (primary outcome) with radiostereometric analysis (RSA) in 68 patients with reverse hybrid THA at five years follow-up. Patients were randomized to either a VEPE or a ModXLPE cemented acetabular component.

Results

Mean polyethylene wear in the proximal direction was 0.17 mm (SD 0.15) for the VEPE group and 0.20 mm (SD 0.09) for the ModXLPE group (p = 0.005) at five years. Annual proximal wear rates were 0.03 mm/year (VEPE) and 0.04 mm/year (ModXLPE). Total 3D wear was 0.21 mm (SD 0.26) and 0.23 mm (SD 0.10) for the VEPE and ModXLPE groups, respectively (p = 0.009). Total 3D cup translation was 0.72 mm (SD 0.70) (VEPE) and 0.50 mm (SD 0.44) (ModXLPE) (p = 0.409).

Conclusion

At five years, there was less polyethylene wear in the VEPE group than in the ModXLPE group. Both VEPE and ModXLPE cemented components showed low annual wear rates. Component stability was similar in the two groups and remained constant up to five years. Whether these results will equate to a lower long-term revision rate is still unknown. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1646–1653.

Global diversity in bearings in primary THA

Choice of articulating materials, head size and the design of the articulation will become decisive for the long-term performance of a total hip arthroplasty (THA) and especially in terms of risk for dislocation and wear-related problems. Here we account for common alternatives based on available studies and the evidence that can be derived from them.Metal or ceramic femoral heads articulating against a liner or cup made of highly cross-linked polyethylene and ceramic-on-ceramic articulations have about similar risk for complications leading to revision, whereas the performance of metal-on-metal articulations, especially with use of big heads, is inferior. The clinical significance of problems related to ceramic-on-ceramic articulations such as squeaking remains unclear. With use of current technology ceramic fractures are rare.Large femoral heads have the potential to increase the range of hip movement before impingement occurs and are therefore expected to reduce dislocation rates. On the other hand, issues related to bearing wear, corrosion at the taper-trunnion junction and groin pain may arise with larger heads and jeopardize the longevity of THA. Based on current knowledge, 32-mm heads seem to be optimal for metal-on-polyethylene bearings. Patients with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings may benefit from even larger heads such as 36 or 40 mm, but so far there are no long-term reports that confirm the safety of bearings larger than 36 mm.Assessment of lipped liners is difficult because randomized studies are lacking, but retrospective clinical studies and registry data seem to indicate that this liner modification will reduce the rate of dislocation or revision due to dislocation without clear evidence of clinically obvious problems due to neck-liner impingement.The majority of studies support the view that constrained liners and dual mobility cups (DMC) will reduce the risk of revision due to dislocation both in primary and revision THA, the latter gaining increasing popularity in some countries. Both these devices suffer from implant-specific problems, which seem to be more common for the constrained liner designs. The majority of studies of these implants suffer from various methodological problems, not least selection bias, which calls for randomized studies preferably in a multi-centre setting to obtain sufficient power. In the 2020s, the orthopaedic profession should place more effort on such studies, as has already been achieved within other medical specialties, to improve the level of evidence in the choice of articulation when performing one of the most common in-hospital surgical procedures in Europe. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:763-775. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200002.

A randomized double-blind noninferiority trial, evaluating migration of a cemented vitamin E-stabilized highly crosslinked component compared with a standard polyethylene component in reverse hybrid total hip arthroplasty

AIMS

Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) studies of vitamin E-doped, highly crosslinked polyethylene (VEPE) liners show low head penetration rates in cementless acetabular components. There is, however, currently no data on cemented VEPE acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of a new cemented VEPE component, compared with a conventional polyethylene (PE) component regarding migration, head penetration, and clinical results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled 42 patients (21 male, 21 female) with osteoarthritis and a mean age of 67 years (sd 5), in a double-blinded, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial. The subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive a reverse hybrid THA with a cemented component of either argon-gas gamma-sterilized PE component (controls) or VEPE, with identical geometry. The primary endpoint was proximal implant migration of the component at two years postoperatively measured with RSA. Secondary endpoints included total migration of the component, penetration of the femoral head into the component, and patient-reported outcome measurements.

RESULTS

In total, 19 control implants and 18 implants in the VEPE group were analyzed for the primary endpoint. We found a continuous proximal migration of the component in the VEPE group that was significantly higher with a difference at two years of a mean 0.21 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.37; p = 0.013). The total migration was also significantly higher in the VEPE group, but femoral head penetration was lower. We found no difference in clinical outcomes between the groups.

CONCLUSION

At two years, this cemented VEPE component, although having a low head penetration and excellent clinical results, failed to meet noninferiority compared with the conventional implant by a proximal migration above the proposed safety threshold of RSA. The early proximal migration pattern of the VEPE component is a reason for continued monitoring, although a specific threshold for proximal migration and risk for later failure cannot be defined and needs further study. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1192-1198.