Abstract
BACKGROUND
Hybrid total hip arthroplasty (THA) commonly recognized as cementless hemi-spherical acetabular component combined with cemented femoral stem. We have done so called “reverse” hybrid THA with cemented socket and cementless stem and compared with all-cemented THAs.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
We have been collecting data on total hip arthroplasty since November, 1993. Reverse hybrid hip replacements were used mainly from February, 2001. We evaluated data on 272 reverse hybrid THAs (223 patients) from this year onward until May, 2010, and compared the results with those from 283 all-cemented THAs (237 patients) between 1993 and May, 2010. Eighty percent or more of patients had diagnosed as secondary osteoarthritis of the hip joint due to dysplasia in our hospitals. Highly cross linked ultrahigh molecular polyethylene (CLP) socket was introduced in October, 1999. We used conventional (not cross linked polyethylene) socket for 82 hips (cemented group-1) operated before October, 1999 and CLP socket for 201 hips (cemented group-2) in all-cemented cases. We used the Kaplan-Meier method for estimation of prosthesis survival and relative risk of revision. The endpoint was radiological loosening or revision. Socket linear wear rates were also assessed in radiographically. Clinical assessment was performed using the Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) scores and Merle d'Aubigne & Postel scores.
RESULTS
We have 12 hips (11 sockets and 1 stem) with radiological loosening in all cemented series and no hips in reverse hybrid series. A case with stem loosening in all cemented THAs had fractured stem without bony support due to massive osteolysis caused by heavy polyethylene wear. All of the loosening cases had conventional polyethylene socket and six of them were revised. Socket linear wear rates were calculated as 0.171 +/− 0.069, 0.030+/− 0.027, and 0.035+/− 0.026 mm per year for cemented group-1, group-2 and reverse hybrid cases, respectively. Clinical scores were significantly improved those at the time of final follow up compared with those of preoperative assessment. There were significant differences between conventional and cross linked polyethylene cases. We found no significant difference survival to that from cemented THR at 12 years (all cemented: 96.1% (95% CI: 92.7–99.1); reverse hybrid: 100%) (Figure 1).
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
With a follow-up of up to 12 years, reverse hybrid THAs performed well, and similarly to all-cemented THRs from the same time period. The reason for loosening was mainly bone loss and osteolysis due to polyethylene socket wear. It is no problem if the stem was installed by cemented or cementless fixation, because the rates of stem loosening were very low in the current study. The reverse hybrid method might therefore be an alternative to all-cemented THR. Longer follow-up time is needed to evaluate whether reverse hybrid hip arthroplasty has any advantages over all-cemented THA.
