Uncemented metal acetabular components show good osseointegration, but material stiffness causes stress shielding and retroacetabular bone loss. Cemented monoblock polyethylene components load more physiologically; however, the cement bone interface can suffer fibrous encapsulation and loosening. It was hypothesized that an uncemented titanium-sintered monoblock polyethylene component may offer the optimum combination of osseointegration and anatomical loading. A total of 38 patients were prospectively enrolled and received an uncemented monoblock polyethylene acetabular (pressfit) component. This single cohort was then retrospectively compared with previously reported randomized cohorts of cemented monoblock (cemented) and trabecular metal (trabecular) acetabular implants. The primary outcome measure was periprosthetic bone density using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry over two years. Secondary outcomes included radiological and clinical analysis.Aims
Methods
The ideal acetabular component is characterised by reliable, long-term fixation with physiological loading of bone and a low rate of wear. Trabecular metal is a porous construct of tantalum which promotes bony ingrowth, has a modulus of elasticity similar to that of cancellous bone, and should be an excellent material for fixation. Between 2004 and 2006, 55 patients were randomised to receive either a cemented polyethylene or a monobloc trabecular metal acetabular component with a polyethylene articular surface. We measured the peri-prosthetic bone density around the acetabular components for up to two years using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. We found evidence that the cemented acetabular component loaded the acetabular bone centromedially whereas the trabecular metal monobloc loaded the lateral rim and behaved like a hemispherical rigid metal component with regard to loading of the acetabular bone. We suspect that this was due to the peripheral titanium rim used for the mechanism of insertion.
