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.

Between 1988 and 1998 we implanted 318 total hip replacements (THRs) in 287 patients using the Plasmacup (B. Braun Ltd, Sheffield, United Kingdom) and a conventional metal-on-polyethylene articulation. The main indications for THR were primary or secondary osteoarthritis. At follow-up after a mean 11.6 years (7.6 to 18.4) 17 patients had died and 20 could not be traced leaving a final series of 280 THRs in 250 patients. There were 62 revisions (22.1%) in 59 patients. A total of 43 acetabular shells (15.4%) had been revised and 13 (4.6%) had undergone exchange of the liner. The most frequent indications for revision were osteolysis and aseptic loosening, followed by polyethylene wear. The mean Kaplan-Meier survival of the Plasmacup was 91% at ten years and 58% at 14 years. Osteolysis was found around 36 (17.1%) of the 211 surviving shells. The median annual rate of linear wear in the surviving shells was 0.12 mm/year and 0.25 mm/year in those which had been revised (p < 0.001). Polyethylene wear was a strong independent risk factor for osteolysis and aseptic loosening. The percentage of patients with osteolysis increased proportionately with each quintile of wear-rate. There is a high late rate of failure of the Plasmacup. Patients with the combination of this prosthesis and bearing should be closely monitored after ten years

We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed literature focusing on metal sensitivity testing in patients undergoing total joint replacement (TJR). Our purpose was to assess the risk of developing metal hypersensitivity post-operatively and its relationship with outcome and to investigate the advantages of performing hypersensitivity testing.

We undertook a comprehensive search of the citations quoted in PubMed and EMBASE: 22 articles (comprising 3634 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The frequency of positive tests increased after TJR, especially in patients with implant failure or a metal-on-metal coupling. The probability of developing a metal allergy was higher post-operatively (odds ratio (OR) 1.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 2.31)), and the risk was further increased when failed implants were compared with stable TJRs (OR 2.76 (95% CI 1.14 to 6.70)).

Hypersensitivity testing was not able to discriminate between stable and failed TJRs, as its predictive value was not statistically proven. However, it is generally thought that hypersensitivity testing should be performed in patients with a history of metal allergy and in failed TJRs, especially with metal-on-metal implants and when the cause of the loosening is doubtful.