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). 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.Aims
Methods
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). 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.Aims
Methods
Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) can detect early
micromovement in unstable implant designs which are likely subsequently
to have a high failure rate. In 2010, the Articular Surface Replacement
(ASR) was withdrawn because of a high failure rate. In 19 ASR femoral
components, the mean micromovement over the first two years after implantation
was 0.107 mm ( We conclude that the ASR femoral component achieves initial stability
and that early migration is not the mode of failure for this resurfacing
arthroplasty.
It is accepted that resurfacing hip replacement
preserves the bone mineral density (BMD) of the femur better than total
hip replacement (THR). However, no studies have investigated any
possible difference on the acetabular side. Between April 2007 and March 2009, 39 patients were randomised
into two groups to receive either a resurfacing or a THR and were
followed for two years. One patient’s resurfacing subsequently failed,
leaving 19 patients in each group. Resurfaced replacements maintained proximal femoral BMD and,
compared with THR, had an increased bone mineral density in Gruen
zones 2, 3, 6, and particularly zone 7, with a gain of 7.5% (95%
confidence interval (CI) 2.6 to 12.5) compared with a loss of 14.6%
(95% CI 7.6 to 21.6). Resurfacing replacements maintained the BMD
of the medial femoral neck and increased that in the lateral zones
between 12.8% (95% CI 4.3 to 21.4) and 25.9% (95% CI 7.1 to 44.6). On the acetabular side, BMD was similar in every zone at each
point in time. The mean BMD of all acetabular regions in the resurfaced
group was reduced to 96.2% (95% CI 93.7 to 98.6) and for the total
hip replacement group to 97.6% (95% CI 93.7 to 101.5) (p = 0.4863).
A mean total loss of 3.7% (95% CI 1.0 to 6.5) and 4.9% (95% CI 0.8
to 9.0) of BMD was found above the acetabular component in W1 and
10.2% (95% CI 0.9 to 19.4) and 9.1% (95% CI 3.8 to 14.4) medial
to the implant in W2 for resurfaced replacements and THRs respectively.
Resurfacing resulted in a mean loss of BMD of 6.7% (95% CI 0.7 to
12.7) in W3 but the BMD inferior to the acetabular component was
maintained in both groups. These results suggest that the ability of a resurfacing hip replacement
to preserve BMD only applies to the femoral side.
