Abstract
Only a little over a decade ago the vast majority of primary total hip replacements performed in North America, and indeed globally, employed a conventional polyethylene insert, either in a modular version or in a cemented application. Beginning in the early 2000's there was an explosion in technology and options available for the bearing choice in total hip arthroplasty.
Highly cross-linked polyethylene was introduced in 1998, and within a few short years the vast majority of polyethylene inserts performed in North America were manufactured from this material. Globally there was a mixed picture with variable market penetration. Surgeons had seen historically poor results with attempts at “improving” polyethylene in the past and many were hesitant to use this new technology. Many randomised clinical trials have been performed and all have shown to a greater or lesser degree, that indeed the highly cross-linked polyethylene insert has undergone less linear and volumetric wear than its more conventional counterpart. This replicates well the hip simulator data. The challenge however is as we approached mid-term results, orthopaedic manufacturers began altering the polyethylene to improve wear and improve mechanical strength. Therefore while ten-year and greater data will ultimately be published, the actual polyethylene in use at that time will be a different material. Additionally while wear rates are undoubtedly lower, we are still waiting for long-term results of actual osteolytic lesion development and the effect that highly cross-linked polyethylene will have on this clinical scenario. That being said, with over a decade of clinical experience, unquestionably highly cross-linked polyethylene has truly been a revolution in design, essentially eliminating polyethylene wear as an early failure mode.
During this same decade metal-on-metal implants had seen a significant resurgence in use. Most major orthopaedic companies produced a metal-on-metal implant whether in the form of a more conventional modular insert, or a monoblock resurfacing-type implant, or both. Metal-on-metal implants had in-vitro advantages with very low wear rates. They allowed the use of large metal heads and articulations, thereby improving range of motion and stability. Concerns always existed regarding the production of metal ions and the potential for metal hypersensitivity, as well as possible systemic effects. Metal hypersensitivity remains a diagnosis of exclusion with no definitive diagnostic tests to either screen for it, or diagnose it, if suspected. Over the past few years metal-on-metal implant use has dropped significantly, to the point now in 2013, where the only remaining application is resurfacing implants in the younger male patient.
Ceramic-on-ceramic bearings enjoy the lowest wear rates of all currently available hip articulations. Historically there has been concern regarding fracturing of both the inserts and the heads, although current generation ceramic-on-ceramic bearings have a much lower reported fracture rate. The phenomenon of a squeaking articulation remains a concern for both patient and surgeon. Conflicting reports exist on whether this is related to implant mal-position or is a function of the bearing itself. As with other bearings, improvements in technology continue to evolve and newer ceramics have recently been introduced and are in clinical practice.
The future will continue to see the evolution of the articulation in total hip arthroplasty. Patients are undergoing total hip replacements at younger ages and clearly have higher demands than seen historically. That being said, two factors have will have a major influence on future developments. The tremendous clinical success of highly cross-linked polyethylene should have us all question the need for significant changes in bearing material and the current environment following the multiple issues with metal-on-metal is one of evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, design and introduction.
