DO ACETABULAR COMPONENTS MADE WITH CROSS-LINKED POLYETHYLENE UNDERGO LESS IN VIVO WEAR THAN THOSE MADE OF CONVENTIONAL POLYETHYLENE? A PROSPECTIVE, DOUBLE BLIND, RANDOMISED CONTROL TRIAL

Abstract

Introduction Polyethylene wear debris is an important cause of failure in cemented total hip arthroplasty. As a result of the biological response to debris at the bone-cement interface, osteolysis and subsequent failure occurs in both femoral and acetabular components. Most acetabular components and liners are made of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). Cross-linking UHMWPE has been shown to significantly reduce abrasive wear in hip simulator studies. The wear rates measured in vitro do not always correlate with the wear rates measured in clinical studies[1]. Some new polyethylenes have shown catastrophic wear in clinical studies despite encouraging hip simulator study results[2]. The aim of this study was to compare the wear of standard UHMWPE to that of cross-linked UHMWPE (Longevity, Zimmer, Warsaw, USA)

Patients and Methods This was a prospective, double blind, randomised control trial. 50 subjects were recruited, all of whom received the cemented CPT stem and uncemented Trilogy liner (Zimmer, UK). Subjects were randomised to receive either a standard Trilogy liner or a Longevity liner at the time of operation. Both liners are identical in appearance. All liners were of a neutral configuration. RSA was used to measure linear wear. This was calculated by measuring the distance between the centre of the femoral head and the centre of the acetabular liner. The preliminary results of the study are presented.

Results Both groups underwent significant wear over two years. The two year linear wear of the cross-linked UHMWPE was 0.3mm (+/− 0.06mm, p< 0.001). The two year linear wear of the standard UHMWPE was 0.39mm (+/− 0.04mm, p< 0.001). No significant difference existed between the two groups (p=0.24). Both cohorts had around 0.15 to 0.2 mm of measured wear per year. Cross-linked UHMWPE therefore underwent less wear than standard UHMWPE at two years, however this difference was not statistically significant.

Discussion This study suggests that Longevity UHMWPE has similar wear properties to standard UHMWPE in the first two years following implantation. This does not correlate with in vitro hip simulator studies of Longevity polyethylene, which show a significantly lower wear rate than standard UHMWPE. It suggests that hip simulator studies may be of little value in predicting in vivo wear rates and that all new types of polyethylene should be evaluated clinically and radiologically prior to general release. Whether both cohorts continue to wear at similar rates will only be revealed through continued observation.