Abstract
Background
Cross-linked polyethylene has much less wear than conventional polyethylene and can used in a more bone conserving thickness of 4 mm. We have used it for hip resurfacing since 2001.
Questions/Purposes
This study evaluated the effectiveness of a highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular component for hip resurfacing in patients under age 50. I posed 5 questions: (1) What are the functional results, (2) What are the complications, (3) What is the 10-year implant survivorship, (4) What is the femoral head penetration into the polyethylene, and (5) What is the bone conservation?
Participants and Methods
There were 160 resurfacing procedures (144 participants) using a 2 piece acetabular shell and a cobalt chromium femoral component (fig. 1). Participants averaged 43 years of age at the time of surgery (range, 23 – 49.5 years) and 70% were women. Inclusion criteria were patients with adequate acetabular bone and a high enough head-neck ratio so that the reconstruction would not violate the femoral neck cortices or medial acetabular wall. The largest cross-linked polyethylene available was 49 mm so only patients with smaller femoral geometries were included. The Harris, WOMAC, and UCLA hip scores were used to assess pain, activity, and function and participants were asked about their satisfaction with the procedure. Digital radiography and computed tomographic scans were used to evaluate femoral head penetration and osteolysis. Removed polyethylene liners were analyzed.
Results
The median follow-up was 11.5 years (range, 10 – 14 years). One participant was lost to follow-up and 1 died. The mean Harris Hip Score was 95 and 95% of the participants rated the results of their procedure as excellent. The average UCLA activity score was 8. One patient underwent successful revision surgery for acetabular loosening. Four participants underwent successful revision to a total hip replacement because of femoral neck fracture (2), femoral loosening, or infection. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 96%. There were no revisions for polyethylene wear and there were no instances of osteolysis. The medial acetabular wall thickness averaged 7.3 mm (range, 1.5 mm – 14.9 mm). The mean inclination angle was 39°. The mean femoral head penetration was 0.05 mm/year (range, .028 – .09 mm/year).
Conclusions
Hip resurfacing with a highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular component is a reliable procedure at mid-term follow-up. The rate of polyethylene wear is below the osteolytic threshold of .1 mm/yr. The preservation of both acetabular and femoral bone is reasonable even in comparison to thin metal shells available for metal-on-metal resurfacing and total hip replacement. The functional results are comparable to those of metal-on-metal resurfacing without the concerns of a metal bearing couple. The procedures are demanding and patient selection is critical to the success of the procedure. Although long-term follow-up is needed to determine if implant survivorship with highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular components will equal that of metal-on-metal prostheses, the low rate of femoral head penetration suggests that many years of use in young highly active participants are possible.
