Limited implant survival due to aseptic cup loosening is most commonly responsible for revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Advances in implant designs and materials have been crucial in addressing those challenges. Vitamin E-infused highly cross-linked polyethylene (VEPE) promises strong wear resistance, high oxidative stability, and superior mechanical strength. Although VEPE monoblock cups have shown good mid-term performance and excellent wear patterns, long-term results remain unclear. This study evaluated migration and wear patterns and clinical and radiological outcomes at a minimum of ten years’ follow-up. This prospective observational study investigated 101 cases of primary THA over a mean duration of 129 months (120 to 149). At last follow-up, 57 cases with complete clinical and radiological outcomes were evaluated. In all cases, the acetabular component comprised an uncemented titanium particle-coated VEPE monoblock cup. Patients were assessed clinically and radiologically using the Harris Hip Score, visual analogue scale (pain and satisfaction), and an anteroposterior radiograph. Cup migration and polyethylene wear were measured using Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyze software. All complications and associated treatments were documented until final follow-up.Aims
Methods
Our primary aim was to describe migration of the Exeter stem with a 32 mm head on highly crosslinked polyethylene and whether this is influenced by age. Our secondary aims were to assess functional outcome, satisfaction, activity, and bone mineral density (BMD) according to age. A prospective cohort study was conducted. Patients were recruited into three age groups: less than 65 years (n = 65), 65 to 74 years (n = 68), and 75 years and older (n = 67). There were 200 patients enrolled in the study, of whom 115 were female and 85 were male, with a mean age of 69.9 years (sd 9.5, 42 to 92). They were assessed preoperatively, and at three, 12 and, 24 months postoperatively. Stem migration was assessed using Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse (EBRA). Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), EuroQol-5 domains questionnaire (EQ-5D), short form-36 questionnaire (SF-36,) and patient satisfaction were used to assess outcome. The Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS), Timed Up and Go (TUG) test, and activPAL monitor (energy expelled, time lying/standing/walking and step count) were used to assess activity. The BMD was assessed in Gruen and Charnley zones.Objectives
Patients and Methods
Objectives. High failure rates of metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty implants have highlighted the need for more careful introduction and monitoring of new implants and for the evaluation of the safety of medical devices. The National Joint Registry and other regulatory services are unable to detect failing implants at an early enough stage. We aimed to identify validated surrogate markers of long-term outcome in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. We conducted a systematic review of studies evaluating surrogate markers for predicting long-term outcome in primary THA. Long-term outcome was defined as revision rate of an implant at ten years according to National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guidelines. We conducted a search of Medline and Embase (OVID) databases. Separate search strategies were devised for the Cochrane database and Google Scholar. Each search was performed to include articles from the date of their inception to June 8, 2015. Results. Our search strategy identified 1082 studies of which 115 studies were included for full article review. Following review, 17 articles were found that investigated surrogate markers of long-term outcome. These included one systematic review, one randomised control trial (RCT), one case control study and 13 case series. Validated surrogate markers included Radiostereometric Analysis (RSA) and Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse (EBRA), each measuring implant migration and wear. We identified five RSA studies (one systematic review and four case series) and four
