Lewinnek's safe zone recommendation to minimise dislocations was a target of 5–25° for anteversion angle and 30–50° for inclination angle. Subsequently, it was demonstrated that mal-positioning of the acetabular cup can also lead to edge loading, liner fracture, and greater conventional polyethylene wear. The purpose of this study was to measure the effect of acetabular cup position on highly crosslinked polyethylene wear in total hip arthroplasty (THA) at long-term follow-up.

We identified all patients that underwent primary THA with a minimum of 10 years follow-up using an institutional database in London, Ontario, Canada. Patients with a single implant design consisting of a 28 mm cobalt chromium head and highly crosslinked polyethylene liner (ram extruded, GUR 1050, 100 kGy gamma irradiated, remelted, ethylene oxide sterilised) were selected for inclusion. In total, 85 hips from 79 recruited patients were analysed. Patients underwent a supine radiostereometric analysis (RSA) exam in which the x-ray sources and detectors were positioned to obtain an anterior-posterior and cross-table lateral radiograph. Acetabular cup anteversion angle, inclination angle, and 3D penetration rate (including wear and creep) were measured from the stereo radiograph pairs.

At a mean follow-up of 13 years (range, 10–17 years) the mean penetration rate was 0.059 mm/year (95% CI: 0.045 to 0.073 mm/year). Mean anteversion angle was 18.2° (range, −14 to 40°) and mean inclination angle was 43.6° (range, 27 to 61°). With respect to the Lewinnek safe zone, 67% hips met the target for anteversion angle, 77% met the target for inclination angle, and 51% met the target for both. There was no correlation between anteversion angle and penetration rate (r = −0.14, p = 0.72) or between inclination angle and penetration rate (r = 0.11, p = 0.35). There was also no difference (p = 0.07) in penetration rate between hips located within the Lewinnek safe zone for both anteversion angle and inclination angle (mean 0.057 mm/year, 95% CI: 0.036 to 0.079 mm/year) and those outside the safe zone (mean 0.062 mm/year, 95% CI: 0.042 to 0.083 mm/year).

Acetabular cup position had no effect on the wear rate of highly crosslinked polyethylene at long-term follow-up. Although care should still be taken to correctly position the acetabular cup for stability, highly crosslinked polyethylene is a forgiving bearing material that can withstand a wide range of cup positions without negatively impacting longevity due to wear.

This was a randomised controlled trial studying the safety of a new short metaphyseal fixation (SMF) stem. We hypothesised that it would have similar early clinical results and micromovement to those of a standard-length tapered Synergy metaphyseal fixation stem. Using radiostereometric analysis (RSA) we compared the two stems in 43 patients. A short metaphyseal fixation stem was used in 22 patients and a Synergy stem in 21 patients. No difference was found in the clinical outcomes pre- or post-operatively between groups. RSA showed no significant differences two years post-operatively in mean micromovement between the two stems (except for varus/valgus tilt at p = 0.05) (subsidence 0.94 mm (sd 1.71) vs 0.32 mm (sd 0.45), p = 0.66; rotation 0.96° (sd 1.49) vs 1.41° (sd 2.95), p = 0.88; and total migration 1.09 mm (sd 1.74) vs 0.73 mm (sd 0.72), p = 0.51). A few stems (four SMF and three Synergy) had initial migration > 1.0 mm but stabilised by three to six months, with the exception of one SMF stem which required revision three years post-operatively. For most stems, total micromovement was very low at two years (subsidence < 0.5 mm, rotation < 1.0°, total migration < 0.5 mm), which was consistent with osseous ingrowth. The small sample makes it difficult to confirm the universal applicability of or elucidate the potential contraindications to the use of this particular new design of stem.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:595–602.

This was a safety study where the hypothesis was that the newer-design CPCS femoral stem would demonstrate similar early clinical results and micromovement to the well-established Exeter stem. Both are collarless, tapered, polished cemented stems, the only difference being a slight lateral to medial taper with the CPCS stem. A total of 34 patients were enrolled in a single-blinded randomised controlled trial in which 17 patients received a dedicated radiostereometric CPCS stem and 17 a radiostereometric Exeter stem. No difference was found in any of the outcome measures pre-operatively or post-operatively between groups. At two years, the mean subsidence for the CPCS stem was nearly half that seen for the Exeter stem (0.77 mm (−0.943 to 1.77) and 1.25 mm (0.719 to 1.625), respectively; p = 0.032). In contrast, the mean internal rotation of the CPCS stem was approximately twice that of the Exeter (1.61° (−1.07° to 4.33°) and 0.59° (0.97° to 1.64°), respectively; p = 0.048). Other migration patterns were not significantly different between the stems. The subtle differences in designs may explain the different patterns of migration.

Comparable migration with the Exeter stem suggests that the CPCS design will perform well in the long term.