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

Hip

HAVE NEWER BEARING SURFACES CHANGED EXPECTATIONS REGARDING TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY LONGEVITY?

The Hip Society (THS) 2019 Summer Meeting, Kohler, WI, USA, 25–27 September 2019.



Abstract

Introduction

Prior to the introduction of alternative bearing surfaces, patients were typically counseled to expect that their total hip arthroplasty (THA) using conventional polyethylene would last for 10 years. With the introduction of crosslinked polyethylene and hard-on-hard bearing surfaces, revisions related to bearing surface wear were expected to decrease. We examined six different bearing surfaces used at our institution over three decades to evaluate how the overall survivorship, reasons for revision and Harris Hip Scores have changed with time.

Methods

We identified six cohorts of patients with 754 primary hips done between 1983 and 2007. With the exception of 81 Birmingham hip resurfacings (BHR), all femoral components were straight, extensively porous-coated cylindrical (EPC) stems (AML and Prodigy). All cups were porous coated. In addition to the BHRs, the bearing surfaces included 223 conventional polyethylene (CPE) in a non-modular shell, 114 CPE in a modular shell, 116 crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE), 130 metal-on-metal (MOM), and 90 ceramic-on-ceramic (COC). The mean follow-up for all hip replacements is 13.0±6.0 years. Kaplan-Meier survivorship using revision for any reason as an endpoint with log rank testing was used to evaluate differences among groups.

Results

Although there were no differences in survivorship at 10-year follow-up among the groups (p=0.53), the XLPE liners demonstrated improved survivorship at 15-years compared to both CPE groups owing to the absence of wear-related revisions (97% versus 83% for non-modular and 85% for modular cups respectively, p=0.001 and p=0.008). Revisions for femoral loosening have only occurred among 0.6% (4/673) of EPC stems. Revisions for cup loosening have occurred among 4% (10/223) of the non-modular cups but there are none among the other groups. The incidence of dislocation was reduced with the MOM, BHR and COC bearings that used 36-mm or larger femoral heads compared to the THAs that used 28-mm or 32-mm heads [1.1 % (3/261) versus 5.1% (25/493), p<0.01]. Infection has led to revision among 2 THAs with CPE in non-modular cups (0.9%), 2 MOM (1.5%), and 2 COC (2.2%). At 10-year follow-up, Harris Hip Scores tended to be higher among the BHRs compared to the other groups (92.1 versus 82.9, p<0.01).

Discussion

The introduction of XLPE has eliminated wear-related revisions through 15-year follow-up. Hard-on-hard bearing surfaces are performing relatively well but differences are not yet discernable compared to CPE. Dislocation incidence has been reduced with the introduction of larger diameter heads but remains a persistent concern. Infection continues to occur although the incidence remains low.

For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly.