Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1592 - 1599
1 Dec 2018
Galea VP Connelly JW Shareghi B Kärrholm J Sköldenberg O Salemyr M Laursen MB Muratoglu O Bragdon C Malchau H

Aims

The primary aim of this study was to compare the wear properties of vitamin E-diffused, highly crosslinked polyethylene (VEPE) and one formulation of moderately crosslinked and mechanically annealed ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (ModXLPE) in patients five years after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). The secondary aim was to assess the clinical results of patients treated with VEPE by evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), radiological evidence of fixation, and the incidence of mechanical failure.

Patients and Methods

A total of 208 patients (221 THAs) from four international centres were recruited into a prospective study involving radiostereometric analysis (RSA) and the assessment of clinical outcomes. A total of 193 hips (87%) were reviewed at the five-year follow-up. Of these, 136 (70%) received VEPE (vs ModXLPE) liners and 68 (35%) received ceramic (vs metal) femoral heads. PROMs and radiographs were collected preoperatively and at one, two, and five years postoperatively. In addition, RSA images were collected to measure PE wear postoperatively and at one, two, and five years after surgery.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 91-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1217 - 1222
1 Sep 2009
King RJ Makrides P Gill JA Karthikeyan S Krikler SJ Griffin DR

We have developed a novel method of calculating the radiological magnification of the hip using two separate radio-opaque markers. We recruited 74 patients undergoing radiological assessment following total hip replacement. Both the new double marker and a conventional single marker were used by the radiographer at the time of x-ray. The predicted magnification according to each marker was calculated, as was the true radiological magnification of the components. The correlation between true and predicted magnification was good using the double marker (r = 0.90, n = 74, p < 0.001), but only moderate for the single marker (r = 0.50, n = 63, p < 0.001). The median error was significantly less for the double marker than for the single (1.1% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). The double marker method demonstrated excellent validity (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.89), in contrast to the single marker (0.32).

The double marker method appears to be superior to the single marker method when used in the clinical environment.