Aims. The primary outcome was investigating differences in wear, as measured by femoral head penetration, between cross-linked vitamin E-diffused polyethylene (vE-PE) and cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) acetabular component liners and between 32 and 36 mm head sizes at the ten-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes included acetabular component migration and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, Harris Hip Score, and University of California, Los Angeles Activity Scale (UCLA). Methods. A single-blinded, multi-arm, 2 × 2 factorial randomized controlled trial was undertaken. Patients were recruited between May 2009 and April 2011. Radiostereometric analyses (RSAs) were performed from baseline to ten years. Of the 220 eligible patients, 116 underwent randomization, and 82 remained at the ten-year follow-up. Eligible patients were randomized into one of four interventions: vE-PE acetabular liner with either 32 or 36 mm femoral head, and XLPE acetabular liner with either 32 or 36 mm femoral head. Parameters were otherwise identical except for acetabular liner material and femoral head size. Results. A total of 116 patients participated, of whom 77 were male. The median ages of the vE-PE 32 mm and 36 mm groups were 65 (interquartile range (IQR) 57 to 67) and 63 years (IQR 56 to 66), respectively, and of the XLPE 32 mm and 36 mm groups were 64 (IQR 58 to 66) and 61 years (IQR 54 to 66), respectively. Mean total head penetration was significantly lower into vE-PE acetabular liner groups than into XLPE acetabular liner groups (-0.219 mm (95% confidence interval -0.348 to -0.090); p = 0.001). There were no differences in wear according to head size, acetabular component migration, or PROMs, except for UCLA. There were no cases of aseptic loosening or failures requiring revision at long-term follow-up. Conclusion. Significantly lower wear was observed in vE-PE acetabular liners than in XLPE acetabular liners. No difference in wear was observed between different head size or PROMs except for the UCLA at ten years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1052–1059

Aims. The most frequent indication for revision surgery in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is aseptic loosening. Aseptic loosening is associated with polyethylene liner wear, and wear may be reduced by using vitamin E-doped liners. The primary objective of this study was to compare proximal femoral head penetration into the liner between a) two cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) liners (vitamin E-doped (vE-PE)) versus standard XLPE liners, and b) two modular femoral head diameters (32 mm and 36 mm). Methods. Patients scheduled for a THA were randomized to receive a vE-PE or XLPE liner with a 32 mm or 36 mm metal head (four intervention groups in a 2 × 2 factorial design). Head penetration and acetabular component migration were measured using radiostereometric analysis at baseline, three, 12, 24, and 60 months postoperatively. The Harris Hip Score, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Score, EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36) were assessed at baseline, three, 12, 36, and 60 months. Results. Of 220 screened patients, 127 were included in this study. In all, 116 received the allocated intervention, and 94 had their results analyzed at five years. Head penetration was similar between liner materials and head sizes at five years, vE-PE versus XLPE was -0.084 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.173 to 0.005; p = 0.064), and 32 mm versus 36 mm was -0.020 mm (95% CI -0.110 to 0.071; p = 0.671), respectively. No differences were found in acetabular component migration or in the patient-reported outcome measures. Conclusion. No significant difference in head penetration was found at five years between vE-PE and XLPE liners, nor between 32 mm and 36 mm heads. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(10):1303–1310

Aims

The rate of dislocation when traditional single bearing implants are used in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) has been reported to be between 8% and 10%. The use of dual mobility bearings can reduce this risk to between 0.5% and 2%. Dual mobility bearings are more expensive, and it is not clear if the additional clinical benefits constitute value for money for the payers. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of dual mobility compared with single bearings for patients undergoing revision THA.