header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

BACKSIDE WEAR IN RETRIEVED MODULAR AND NON-MODULAR UNCEMENTED ACETABULAR CUPS.



Abstract

Particles generated at the non articulating surface (backside) of modular acetabular components have been implicated in the development of periprosthetic osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty. Several design changes have been introduced in modern uncemented acetabular cups in an attempt to reduce backside wear, including the use of so called “non-modular cups”. We compared the backside wear of retrieved cementless non-modular cups, with modular cups of first and second generation designs.

Nine retrieved non-modular cups (Implex) were match paired for time in situ, patient age and weight, with 9 retrieved Trilogy cups, 9 Harris-Galante 1, and 9 Harris-Galante 2. The average time in situ was 2.5 years (1 to 7). The backside was divided in quadrants and each rated utilizing a score with a value from 0 (absence of wear) to 3 (severe backside wear) for a total ranging from 0 to 12. The score was validated for intra and inter observer reproducibility.

Among 36 quadrants in the HG1 group there were 3 rated 1, 23 rated 2, and 10 rated 3. In the HG2 group, there was 1 quadrant rated 0, 16 rated 1, 14 rated 2, and 5 rated 3. In the Trilogy group, there were 6 quadrants rated 0, 27 rated 1, and 3 rated 2. In the Implex group, there were 15 quadrants rated 0, 21 rated 1. The average total backside wear score and 95%CI were 8.4 (7.6–9.3); 7.3 (5.5–9.1); 3.7 (3.2–4.1); and 2.3 (1.3–3.4) respectively. The HG1 and HG2 groups demonstrated similar backside wear scores (p=0.3). The HG1 and HG2 designs demonstrated significantly more backside wear than the Trilogy and Implex (p< 0.01). The differences between the Trilogy and the Implex were not significant in this cohort.

A comparison of the “in vivo” backside wear of first generation and modern acetabular cups has not been published to date. Despite the limitations imposed by the small sample studied, the presence of multiple screw holes in the HG retrievals, and sub-optimal matching for sex, height, and varied indication for revision, we detected significant reduction in the backside wear of modern modular and non-modular acetabular cups when compared to first generation modular designs.

Correspondence should be addressed to Richard Komistek, PhD, International Society for Technology in Arthroplasty, PO Box 6564, Auburn, CA 95604, USA. E-mail: ista@pacbell.net