Abstract
Aims
Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) is the most accurate radiological method to measure in vivo wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) acetabular components. We have previously reported very low wear rates for a sequentially irradiated and annealed X3 XLPE liner (Stryker Orthopaedics, USA) when used in conjunction with a 32 mm femoral heads at ten-year follow-up. Only two studies have reported the long-term wear rate of X3 liners used in conjunction with larger heads using plain radiographs which have poor sensitivity. The aim of this study was to measure the ten-year wear of thin X3 XLPE liners against larger 36 or 40 mm articulations with RSA.
Methods
We prospectively reviewed 19 patients who underwent primary cementless THA with the XLPE acetabular liner (X3) and a 36 or 40 mm femoral head with a resultant liner thickness of at least 5.8 mm. RSA radiographs at one week, six months, and one, two, five, and ten years postoperatively and femoral head penetration within the acetabular component were measured with UmRSA software. Of the initial 19 patients, 12 were available at the ten-year time point.
Results
The median proximal, 2D, and 3D wear rates calculated between one and ten years were all less than 0.005 mm/year, with no patient recording a proximal wear rate of more than 0.021 mm/year. Importantly, there was no increase in the wear rate between five and ten years.
Conclusion
The very low wear rate of X3 XLPE liners with larger articulations remains encouraging for the future clinical performance of this material.
Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):839–845.
Take home message
There is negligible wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) liners articulating with large femoral head sizes after ten years.
The very low long-term wear rate of X3 XLPE liners is encouraging for the future performance of this implant.
Introduction
The introduction of highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) has resulted in a significant reduction of reported long-term wear rates compared to conventional polyethylene components.1,2 The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) has confirmed XLPE bearings to have significantly reduced revision rates at 16 years,3 which has led to the widespread adoption of XLPE components. A number of different manufacturing techniques are used to produce XLPE components including a different sequence of treatments including irradiation, annealing or melting of the polyethylene.4 One second-generation XLPE liner (X3; Stryker Orthopaedics, USA) is manufactured differently by sequentially irradiating and annealing the material to reduce in vivo oxidation.
While the majority of clinical studies report very low wear rates, large variations remain in the literature when investigating factors that may influence XLPE wear. For example, two retrospective studies of the X3 XLPE mid-term wear at five years reported a mean 2D wear rate of 0.106 mm/year and 0.109 mm/year,5,6 which is very close to the 0.100 mm/year threshold wear rate associated with osteolysis.7 However, the poor sensitivity of measurements made from plain radiographs in these retrospective studies is a significant limitation.8 XLPE has very low wear rates and requires more sensitive measures, such as radiostereometric analysis (RSA),9 to measure longer-term wear rates and investigate the effect of factors that may influence XLPE wear rates such as larger articulations.
Larger femoral heads are known to increase the stability of the hip joint by increasing the distance required for the femoral head to disengage from the acetabular component.10,11 A large multicentre randomized controlled trial found that patients who received a 36 mm articulation had significantly reduced incidence of dislocation (0.8%) when compared to patients who received 28 mm articulation (4.4%).12 Cohort studies have also confirmed a decreased risk of revision THA for dislocation or instability when larger articulations were used.13-17 RSA studies have confirmed that larger 36 mm articulations did not increase the wear rates of Longevity XLPE liners at three years12 or X3 XLPE liners at five years.18 However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, only one prospective RSA study has investigated the long-term wear of larger 36 mm articulations19 which was limited to only six hips available for analysis at long-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to measure the ten-year wear rate of thin X3 liners articulating with 36 and 40 mm articulations and compare these results to our previous RSA studies of 32 mm articulations with the same X3 XLPE liner at ten years.20
Methods
This is a brief follow-up report of a prospective cohort previously reported at five years.18 The cohort originally included 19 patients who underwent primary THA with a 36 or 40 mm articulation between May 2007 and January 2009. All THAs in both cohorts were undertaken by the same surgeon (DGC) at Calvary Adelaide Hospital, Australia, and all patients received a second-generation XLPE liner (X3; Stryker Orthopaedics). Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had had a diagnosis of osteoarthritis; were aged between 45 and 80 years; were deemed suitable for an uncemented THA; and resided within the Adelaide metropolitan area. Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Ethics Committee and the trial is registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (#ACTRN12616000952448). The X3 XLPE liner was manufactured using a cycle of 30kGy of γ irradiation followed by annealing at 130 °C for eight hours, repeated three times for a cumulative dose of 90kGy. All patients had flat liners within the same femoral stem with a cobalt chrome femoral head (Accolade; Stryker Orthopaedics). The need to use an acetabular component with an outer diameter less than 52 mm was an intraoperative exclusion criterion due to this resulting in a linear thickness below 5.8 mm with a 36 mm articulation.
Ten-year follow-up
One patient was revised due to infection at five years; two patients were revised for taper wear at seven and eight years, respectively; one was revised for loose femoral stem at seven years; one died prior to ten year follow-up; and two patients were lost to follow-up leaving 12 hips to undergo RSA exams at ten years. Of the 12 patients examined at ten years, three required an acetabular component with an outer diameter of 54 mm received a 36 mm articulation with a resultant XLPE liner thickness of 5.9 mm; seven patients requiring an acetabular component with an outer diameter of 56 mm or 58 mm received a 40 mm articulation with a resultant minimum XLPE liner thickness of 5.8 mm; and two patients requiring an acetabular component with an outer diameter of 60 and 62 mm received a 40 mm articulation with a resultant minimum XLPE liner thickness of 7.4 mm (Table I). The results of this cohort will be compared to our recently published ten-year wear results of 16 patients who received a 32 mm articulation against the same X3 XLPE liner.20
Table I.
Patient and implant details for the 32 mm and the larger 36/40 mm cohorts at ten years.
| Cohort | 32 mm | 36/40 mm |
|---|---|---|
| Total, n | 16 | 12 |
| Sex, M:F | 7:9 | 10:2 |
| Head size (mm), n | ||
| 32 | 16 | 0 |
| 36 | 0 | 3 |
| 40 | 0 | 9 |
| Side, L:R | 13:3 | 2:10 |
| Cup outer diameter (mm), n | ||
| 48 | 1 | 0 |
| 50 | 1 | 0 |
| 52 | 5 | 0 |
| 54 | 3 | 3 |
| 56 | 4 | 6 |
| 58 | 1 | 1 |
| 60 | 1 | 1 |
| 62 | 0 | 1 |
| Liner thickness (mm), n | ||
| 5.8/5.9 | 2 | 10 |
| 7.4/7.9 | 8 | 2 |
| 9.9 | 5 | 0 |
| 11.4 | 1 | 0 |
| Median age, yrs (range) | 63 (47 to 73) | 63 (55 to 76) |
| Median BMI, kg/m2 (range) | 27.5 (22 to 30) | 28 (22 to 35) |
| Inclination, degrees (range) | 44 (39 to 58) | 47 (40 to 50) |
RSA methodology
Supine RSA examinations were undertaken within the first postoperative week, at six months, and one, two, five, and ten years postoperatively. A ceiling-mounted radiological tube and a mobile radiological tube were used simultaneously to take exposures of the hip with a calibration cage (number 43; RSA Biomedical, Sweden). Penetration of the femoral head within the acetabular component was measured using UmRSA software (v6.0; RSA Biomedical). The outer ellipse and opening of the acetabular component were used to represent the acetabular segment for both cohorts. The maximum condition number and rigid body error accepted for each reference segment were 50 and 0.35 mm, respectively. Femoral head penetration was calculated in the medial, proximal and anterior axes. 2D head penetration was calculated as the vectorial sum of medial and proximal migrations and 3D head penetration was calculated as the vectorial sum of medial, proximal, and anterior migrations. The immediate postoperative radiographs provided a baseline for calculation of ‘bedding-in’ migration of the femoral head at one year.21 The slope of the penetration recorded for each individual between one and ten years was assumed to represent wear of the liner.
Statistical analysis
The aim of this study was to determine whether the wear rate of larger 36 and 40 mm articulations was no greater than the wear rate of 32 mm articulations at ten years and a one-sided test of non-inferiority was considered the most appropriate statistical test. We previously reported that the median proximal wear rate between one and two years for the 32 mm cohort was 0.02 mm/year (interquartile range -0.04 to 0.07),22 and a non-inferiority margin of 0.03 mm was chosen (lower bound of the 90% confidence interval of the mean difference). An additional wear rate of 0.03 mm/year would result in a clinically relevant wear rate of 0.05 mm/yr, below which osteolysis is almost absent.7 Hence, the wear of the larger articulation cohort was not significantly greater than the 32 mm cohort if the non-inferiority was supported.
Results
Patient demographics
The median age of the 12 patients with larger articulations was 63 years (55 to 76) and the median BMI was 28 kg/m2 (22 to 35). The median cup size was 56 mm (54 to 62) with a median inclination of 47 (40 to 50). As evident, there was no difference in age and BMI between the 32 and 36/40 mm cohorts (Table I).
Femoral head penetration
The median medial, proximal, anterior, 2D,and 3D femoral head penetration between one week and ten years were –0.093,–0.017, 0.147, 0.163, and 0.278 mm, respectively (Table II). The majority of the head penetration occurred within the first year (Figure 1).18 The amount of head penetration in the proximal and medial directions was less than 0.3 mm at ten years for all hips in both cohorts (Figure 2).
Table II.
Femoral head penetration, bedding-in, and wear for each cohort in each axis.
| Variable | Medial (positive), lateral (negative) |
Proximal (positive), distal (negative) |
Anterior (positive), posterior (negative) |
2D | 3D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Femoral head penetration between 1 wk and 10 yrs, mm | ||||||
| 32 mm articulation | Median | -0.040 | -0.022 | -0.028 | 0.105 | 0.258 |
| Mean | -0.039 | -0.007 | -0.038 | 0.136 | 0.285 | |
| SD | 0.091 | 0.122 | 0.305 | 0.071 | 0.180 | |
| Range | -0.186 to 0.134 | -0.199 to 0.283 | -0.837 to 0.369 | 0.069 to 0.313 | 0.0830 to 0.841 | |
| 36/40 mm articulation | Median | -0.093 | -0.017 | 0.147 | 0.163 | 0.278 |
| Mean | -0.079 | -0.006 | 0.136 | 0.162 | 0.293 | |
| SD | 0.110 | 0.123 | 0.238 | 0.073 | 0.131 | |
| Range | -0.283 to 0.086 | -0.224 to 0.234 | -0.255 to 0.552 | 0.042 to 0.294 | 0.150 to 0.580 | |
| Difference between means | 0.039 | -0.001 | -0.173 | -0.025 | -0.008 | |
| 90% lower CI limit of difference | -0.026 | -0.081 | -0.355 | -0.072 | -0.113 | |
| Wear rate between 1 and 10 yrs, mm/yr | ||||||
| 32 mm articulation | Median | -0.003 | 0.001 | -0.018 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Mean | -0.000 | 0.003 | -0.013 | 0.003 | 0.004 | |
| SD | 0.008 | 0.011 | 0.023 | 0.008 | 0.017 | |
| Range | -0.010 to 0.018 | -0.014 to 0.031 | -0.042 to 0.037 | -0.012 to 0.023 | -0.026 to 0.042 | |
| 36/40 mm articulation | Median | -0.011 | -0.004 | 0.016 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Mean | -0.009 | -0.001 | 0.011 | 0.006 | 0.011 | |
| SD | 0.009 | 0.014 | 0.025 | 0.010 | 0.016 | |
| Range | -0.020 to 0.009 | -0.027 to 0.022 | -0.036 to 0.044 | -0.007 to 0.021 | -0.007 to 0.048 | |
| Difference between means | 0.009 | 0.004 | -0.024 | -0.004 | 0.006 | |
| 90% lower CI limit of difference | 0.004 | -0.004 | -0.039 | -0.010 | -0.017 | |
| Non-inferiority supported | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | |
| Wear rate between 5 and 10 yrs, mm/yr | ||||||
| 32 mm articulation | Median | -0.002 | 0.011 | -0.013 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Mean | 0.000 | 0.007 | -0.021 | 0.003 | 0.002 | |
| SD | 0.014 | 0.016 | 0.037 | 0.018 | 0.028 | |
| Range | -0.013 to 0.030 | -0.013 to 0.043 | -0.081 to 0.033 | -0.025 to 0.048 | -0.039 to 0.064 | |
| 36/40 mm articulation | Median | -0.007 | 0.002 | 0.036 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Mean | -0.012 | 0.004 | 0.016 | 0.013 | 0.030 | |
| SD | 0.017 | 0.010 | 0.050 | 0.015 | 0.031 | |
| Range | -0.048 to 0.012 | -0.009 to 0.021 | -0.063 to 0.078 | -0.003 to 0.048 | -0.046 to 0.083 | |
| Difference between means | 0.012 | 0.003 | -0.037 | -0.010 | -0.028 | |
| 90% lower CI limit of difference | 0.002 | -0.006 | -0.065 | -0.021 | -0.047 | |
| Non-inferiority supported | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
Fig. 1
Median proximal femoral head penetration (mm) over time for the 32 and 36/40 mm cohorts.
Fig. 2
Proximal femoral head penetration (mm) between zero and ten years for the 32 and 36/40 mm cohorts.
Wear rate
The median medial, proximal, anterior, 2D, and 3D wear rate for larger articulations between one and ten years were -0.011,–0.004, 0.016, 0.003, and 0.005 mm/year, respectively (Table II). The median medial, proximal, anterior, 2D, and 3D wear rates for the 32 mm articulations at ten years were -0.003, 0.001, 0.002 and 0.004 mm/year, respectively. Non-inferiority of medial, proximal, 2D, and 3D wear of the larger articulations was supported when compared to 32 mm articulations. No patient in either of the 32 or 36/40 mm cohorts had a medial, proximal, or 2D wear rate greater than 0.05 mm/year. The maximum proximal wear rate was 0.031 and 0.022 mm/year for the 32 and 36/40 mm cohorts respectively (Figure 3). Importantly, the wear rate in each axis between five and ten years was similar to that between one and five years. The median medial, proximal, anterior, 2D, and 3D wear rates for larger articulations between five and ten years were -0.007, 0.002, 0.036, 0.011, and 0.033 mm/year, respectively.
Fig. 3
Proximal wear rate (mm/year) between one and ten years for the 32 and 36/40 mm cohorts.
Discussion
The introduction of XLPE in THA has significantly reduced polyethylene wear.1 This reduction in wear has encouraged the use of larger articulations, which have been shown to reduce the rates of early dislocation.12,17 Implant Registry data have reported widespread acceptance of XLPE, improved clinical results and increased use of femoral heads 32 mm or larger in primary THA.23 However, longer-term effects of larger articulations with relatively thin XLPE liners on in vivo wear are limited. Our study found negligible wear of larger articulations at ten years similar to that previously reported for 32 mm articulations against the same XLPE liner.
There are only two long term clinical studies of X3 XLPE liners used with larger articulations (Table III).24,25 Remily et al24 reported a combined mean 2D wear rate of 0.015 mm/year at 11 years (10 to 14 years) for 101 primary THA patients treated with metal or ceramic head sizes of 28, 32, 36 and 40 mm. Sax et al25 reported a mean 2D wear rate at ten years (8 to 15) for 69 primary THA patients of 0.02 mm/year for 36/40 mm articulations, which was no greater than 0.02 mm/year for 28/32 mm articulations (p = 0.074). The 2D wear rate in our study is 80% and 85% lower than Remily et al24 and Sax et al,25 respectively. However, both these studies used Martell Hip Analysis software to measure the wear rates retrospectively on plain radiographs which have reduced sensitivity and precision. Similarly, Deckard et al5 and Selvaraj et al6 reported a much higher 2D wear rate between one and five years of 0.106 and 0.109 mm/year for 36 mm articulations against X3 XLPE liners.6 If these wear rates were true, it would imply that a high percentage of these hips were at risk of developing osteolysis,6,7 and would be of concern for the surgeons using X3 XLPE liners with large articulations. Careful interpretation of the method used and an understanding of RSA methodology as a gold standard technique to measure XLPE wear rates is required.9,21
Table III.
Long-term ( ≥ ten years) wear studies of X3 highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular components.
| Wear study | Cohort no. analyzed | Head size, mm | Follow-up, yrs (range) | Wear rate calculation | Method | Mean proximal wear rate, mm/yr (SD) | Mean 2D wear rate, mm/yr (SD) |
Mean 3D wear rate, mm/yr (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Remily et al, 202124 | 101 | 28 to 40 Ceramic and CoCr | 11.1 (10.4 to 14.4) | 0 to 10* | Martell Hip Analysis | N/R | 0.015 (0.018) | N/R |
| Sax et al, 202225 | 51 | 28 to 32 Ceramic and CoCr |
10 (8 to 15) | 0 to 10* | Martell Hip Analysis | N/R | 0.02 | N/R |
| 69 | 36 to 40 Ceramic and CoCr | 10 (8 to 15) | 0 to 10* | Martell Hip Analysis | N/R | 0.02 | N/R | |
| Campbell et al, 202220 | 16 | 32 CoCr | 10 (8 to 15) | 1 to 10 | RSA | 0.004 (-0.004 to 0.009)† | 0.000 (-0.005 to 0.005)† |
0.002 (-0.004 to 0.004)† |
| Current study | 12 | 36 + 40 CoCr | 10 | 1 to 10 | RSA | -0.004 (0.014) | 0.003 (0.010) | 0.005 (0.016) |
-
*
Initial postoperative radiograph used described as within first year.
-
†
Median (interquartile range).
-
N/R, not reported; RSA, radiostereometric analysis; SD, standard deviation.
Besides the two cohorts described in this study, there are no other long-term (≥ ten years) prospective RSA studies of the X3 XLPE liners (Table IV). We have previously reported wear rate for X3 liner is negligible when coupled with 32 mm articulations.20 In the current RSA study, we report for the first time a wear rate below 0.005 mm/year between one and ten years for X3 XLPE liner with larger articulations. Similar very low median proximal wear rates below 0.010 mm/year were reported for other XLPE liners at ten years.1,19,26,27 Only one RSA study of larger articulations reported a median proximal wear rate of 0.002 mm/year for 36 mm articulations,19 which is similar to our findings. One long-term RSA study did report a proximal wear rate of 0.020 mm/year,28 but did not exclude bedding-in between three months and one year. The exclusion of bedding-in within the first year is known to be an important methodological consideration,21 as more recently highlighted by Khosbin et al.2 Bedding-in likely contributed to considerably larger 3D wear rates of 0.066,29 0.067,30 0.055,31 and 0.042mm/year, respectively,32 being reported in long-term studies of XLPE liners that used a unique retrospective RSA methodology with no baseline examination.
Table IV.
Prospective long-term ( ≥ ten years) radiostereometric analysis wear studies of highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular components.
| RSA study | XLPE implant | Head size, mm | Head material | Cohort no. analyzed | Follow-up, yrs | Mean proximal wear rate, mm/yr (SD) | Mean 3D wear rate, mm/yr (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rohrl et al, 201226 | Osteonics Cup (Crossfire PE; Stryker) | 28 | CoCr | 8 | 10 | 0.002* | N/R |
| Johanson et al, 201227 | XLPE Cup (Durasul; Zimmer) | 28 | CoCr | 23 | 10 | 0.005 (SE 0.002)* | 0.005 (SE 0.002)* |
| Glyn-Jones et al, 20151 | Longevity XLPE liner (Trilogy Cup; Zimmer) | 28 | CoCr | 20 | 10 | 0.009 (0.066) | 0.003 (0.023) |
| Nebergall et al, 201619 | Longevity XLPE liner (Trilogy Cup; Zimmer) | 28 | CoCr | 6 | 13 | 0.007 (SE 0.003) | N/R |
| 36 | CoCr | 6 | 13 | 0.002 (SE 0.003) | N/R | ||
| Bergvinsson et al, 202128 | HXLPE liner (CSF Plus Cup; JRI Orthopaedics) | 28 | CoCr | 15 | 10 | 0.020† | 0.020† |
| Campbell et al, 202220 | X3 XLPE liner (Trident Cup; Stryker) | 32 | CoCr | 16 | 10 | 0.004 (-0.004 to 0.009)‡ | 0.002 (-0.004 to 0.004)‡ |
| Current study | X3 XLPE liner (Trident Cup; Stryker) | 36 + 40 | CoCr | 12 | 10 | -0.004 (0.014) | 0.005 (0.016) |
-
*
Calculated between two years and ten years.
-
†
Calculated between three months and ten years.
-
‡
Median (interquartile range).
-
N/R, not reported; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error.
A strength of this study is the use of a similar historical control cohort of smaller 32 mm heads. While not part of the same study, introduction of the larger heads (≥ 36 mm) following confirmation of the low wear rates of 32 mm heads against the new X3 liner adheres to the stepwise introduction of new implant designs advocated in orthopaedics.33,34 The main limitation of our study is a small sample size which is common to most long-term RSA studies. However, a post hoc power analysis confirmed the adequacy of the sample sizes used in the comparison at ten years. Overall, 12 patients (six in each cohort) are required to be 95% sure that the lower limit of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (or equivalently a 95% two-sided confidence interval) will be above the non-inferiority limit of -0.03. A second limitation is the use of the outer ellipse as the acetabular reference segment in our RSA results presented for both cohorts. This accounts for very small differences in the ten-year RSA results of the 32 mm articulation control group previously reported,20 which used a combination of the tantalum markers placed in the outer rim of the liner and the ellipse of the metal shell as the acetabular reference segment. Ellipse reference segments have a similar accuracy to those that include markers in the rim,9 but the combined method has been shown to have the superior precision.35 Third, an important limitation of this wear study was the inability to investigate non-wear-related consequences of larger diameter femoral heads, such as the potential for increased corrosion and metal release at the head-neck taper junction of larger articulations.36 In this small series, two hips were revised at seven and eight years due to taper corrosion.37
In conclusion, larger articulations did not significantly increase the proximal, medial, 2D, or 3D wear rates between one and ten years of the X3 XLPE liner when compared to our previous study of 32 mm articulations. These results are promising for the continued use of larger articulations, particularly in those patients, such as the elderly, in whom a decreased risk of dislocation is a priority.
References
1. Glyn-Jones S , Thomas GER , Garfjeld-Roberts P , et al. The John Charnley Award: highly crosslinked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty decreases long-term wear: a double-blind randomized trial . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2015 ; 473 ( 2 ): 432 – 438 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
2. Khoshbin A , Wu J , Ward S , et al. Wear rates of XLPE nearly 50% lower than previously thought after adjusting for initial creep: an RCT comparing 4 bearing combinations . JBJS Open Access . 2020 ; 5 ( 2 ): e0066 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
3. de Steiger R , Lorimer M , Graves SE . Cross-linked polyethylene for total hip arthroplasty markedly reduces revision surgery at 16 years . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2018 ; 100-A ( 15 ): 1281 – 1288 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
4. Dumbleton JH , D’Antonio JA , Manley MT , Capello WN , Wang A . The basis for a second-generation highly cross-linked UHMWPE . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2006 ; 453 : 265 – 271 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
5. Deckard ER , Meneghini RM . Femoral head penetration rates of second-generation sequentially annealed highly cross-linked polyethylene at minimum five years . J Arthroplasty . 2019 ; 34 ( 4 ): 781 – 788 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
6. Selvarajah E , Hooper G , Grabowski K , Frampton C , Woodfield TBF , Inglis G . The rates of wear of X3 highly cross-linked polyethylene at five years when coupled with a 36 mm diameter ceramic femoral head in young patients . Bone Joint J . 2015 ; 97-B ( 11 ): 1470 – 1474 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
7. Dumbleton JH , Manley MT , Edidin AA . A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty . 2002 ; 17 ( 5 ): 649 – 661 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
8. Rahman L , Cobb J , Muirhead-Allwood S . Radiographic methods of wear analysis in total hip arthroplasty . J Am Acad Orthop Surg . 2012 ; 20 ( 12 ): 735 – 743 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
9. Callary SA , Solomon LB , Holubowycz OT , Campbell DG , Howie DW . Accuracy of methods to measure femoral head penetration within metal-backed acetabular components . J Orthop Res . 2017 ; 35 ( 5 ): 988 – 996 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
10. Crowninshield RD , Maloney WJ , Wentz DH , Humphrey SM , Blanchard CR . Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don’t do . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2004 ; 429 ( 429 ): 102 – 107 . PubMed Google Scholar
11. Ito H , Tanino H , Yamanaka Y , Minami A , Matsuno T . Intermediate- to long-term results after hybrid total hip arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis . J Arthroplasty . 2013 ; 28 ( 2 ): 309 – 314 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
12. Howie DW , Holubowycz OT , Middleton R , Large Articulation Study Group . Large femoral heads decrease the incidence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2012 ; 94-A ( 12 ): 1095 – 1102 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
13. Amlie E , Høvik Ø , Reikerås O . Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty with 28 and 32-mm femoral head . J Orthop Traumatol . 2010 ; 11 ( 2 ): 111 – 115 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
14. Berry DJ , von Knoch M , Schleck CD , Harmsen WS . Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2005 ; 87-A ( 11 ): 2456 – 2463 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
15. Conroy JL , Whitehouse SL , Graves SE , Pratt NL , Ryan P , Crawford RW . Risk factors for revision for early dislocation in total hip arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty . 2008 ; 23 ( 6 ): 867 – 872 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
16. Haughom BD , Plummer DR , Moric M , Della Valle CJ . Is there a benefit to head size greater than 36 mm in total hip arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty . 2016 ; 31 ( 1 ): 152 – 155 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
17. Peters CL , McPherson E , Jackson JD , Erickson JA. . Reduction in early dislocation rate with large-diameter femoral heads in primary total hip arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty 2007 ; 22 : 140 - 144 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
18. Callary SA , Field JR , Campbell DG . The rate of wear of second-generation highly crosslinked polyethylene liners five years post-operatively does not increase if large femoral heads are used . Bone Joint J . 2016 ; 98-B ( 12 ): 1604 – 1610 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
19. Nebergall AK , Greene ME , Rubash H , Malchau H , Troelsen A , Rolfson O . Thirteen-year evaluation of highly cross-linked polyethylene articulating with either 28-mm or 36-mm femoral heads using radiostereometric analysis and computerized tomography . J Arthroplasty . 2016 ; 31 ( 9 Suppl ): 269 – 276 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
20. Campbell DG , Callary SA . Highly crosslinked polyethylene liners have negligible wear at 10 years: a radiostereometric analysis study . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2022 ; 480 ( 3 ): 485 – 491 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
21. Callary SA , Solomon LB , Holubowycz OT , Campbell DG , Munn Z , Howie DW . Wear of highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular components . Acta Orthop . 2015 ; 86 ( 2 ): 159 – 168 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
22. Campbell DG , Field JR , Callary SA . Second-generation highly cross-linked X3 polyethylene wear: a preliminary radiostereometric analysis study . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2010 ; 468 ( 10 ): 2704 – 2709 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
23. No authors listed . Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry . Annual Report . 2021 . https://aoanjrr.sahmri.com/en-GB/annual-reports-2021 ( date last accessed 11 October 2023 ). Google Scholar
24. Remily EA , Douglas SJ , Sax OC , et al. Sequentially irradiated and annealed highly cross-linked polyethylene: linear vector and volumetric wear in total hip arthroplasty at 10 years . Arthroplast Today . 2021 ; 11 : 140 – 145 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
25. Sax OC , Douglas SJ , Chen Z , Mont MA , Nace J , Delanois RE . Low wear at 10-year follow-up of a second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty . J Arthroplasty . 2022 ; 37 ( 7S ): S592 – S597 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
26. Röhrl SM , Nivbrant B , Nilsson KG . No adverse effects of submelt-annealed highly crosslinked polyethylene in cemented cups: an RSA study of 8 patients 10 yaers after surgery . Acta Orthop . 2012 ; 83 ( 2 ): 148 – 152 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
27. Johanson P-E , Digas G , Herberts P , Thanner J , Kärrholm J . Highly crosslinked polyethylene does not reduce aseptic loosening in cemented THA 10-year findings of a randomized study . Clin Orthop Relat Res . 2012 ; 470 ( 11 ): 3083 – 3093 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
28. Bergvinsson H , Zampelis V , Sundberg M , Flivik G . Highly cross-linked polyethylene still outperforms conventional polyethylene in THA: 10-year RSA results . Acta Orthop . 2021 ; 92 ( 5 ): 568 – 574 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
29. Goyal P , Howard JL , Yuan X , Teeter MG , Lanting BA . Effect of acetabular position on polyethylene liner wear measured using simultaneous biplanar acquisition . J Arthroplasty . 2017 ; 32 ( 5 ): 1670 – 1674 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
30. Teeter MG , Goyal P , Yuan X , Howard JL , Lanting BA . Change in acetabular cup orientation from supine to standing position and its effect on wear of highly crosslinked polyethylene . J Arthroplasty . 2018 ; 33 ( 1 ): 263 – 267 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
31. Teeter MG , Lanting BA , Naudie DD , McCalden RW , Howard JL , MacDonald SJ . Highly crosslinked polyethylene wear rates and acetabular component orientation: a minimum ten-year follow-up . Bone Joint J . 2018 ; 100-B ( 7 ): 891 – 897 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
32. Teeter MG , Yuan X , Somerville LE , MacDonald SJ , McCalden RW , Naudie DD . Thirteen-year wear rate comparison of highly crosslinked and conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: long-term follow-up of a prospective randomized controlled trial . Can J Surg . 2017 ; 60 ( 3 ): 212 – 216 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
33. Nelissen RGHH , Pijls BG , Kärrholm J , Malchau H , Nieuwenhuijse MJ , Valstar ER . RSA and registries: the quest for phased introduction of new implants . J Bone Joint Surg Am . 2011 ; 93-A Suppl 3 : 62 – 65 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
34. Malchau H , Bragdon CR , Muratoglu OK . The stepwise introduction of innovation into orthopedic surgery: the next level of dilemmas . J Arthroplasty . 2011 ; 26 ( 6 ): 825 – 831 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
35. Nebergall AK , Rader K , Palm H , Malchau H , Greene ME . Precision of radiostereometric analysis (RSA) of acetabular cup stability and polyethylene wear improved by adding tantalum beads to the liner . Acta Orthop . 2015 ; 86 ( 5 ): 563 – 568 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
36. Cooper HJ , Della Valle CJ . Large diameter femoral heads: is bigger always better? Bone Joint J . 2014 ; 96-B ( 11 Supple A ): 23 – 26 . Crossref PubMed Google Scholar
37. Walker P , Campbell D , Della Torre P , Brazil D , McTighe T . Trunnion corrosion and early failure in monolithic metal-on-polyethylene TMZF femoral components: a case series . ReconRev . 2016 ; 6 ( 3 ): 13 – 18 . Crossref Google Scholar
Author contributions
S. A. Callary: Project administration, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
D. K. Sharma: Data curation, Investigation, Formal analysis, Statistical analysis, Writing – review & editing.
T. M. D’Apollonio: Formal analysis, Data curation, Validation, Writing – review & editing.
D. G. Campbell: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Data curation, Writing – review & editing.
Funding statement
The authors received no financial or material support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. S. A. Callary held a Research Fellowship funded by Hospital Research Foundation Group during the period of this study.
ICMJE COI statement
D. G. Campbell received, during the study period, funding from Stryker Australia. However, the company was not involved in the planning of the experiment or data collection, analyses, interpretation or writing of the manuscript. S. A. Callary declares being co-investigator of a project grant from Zimmer Biomet, which is unrelated to this article. D. K. Sharma reports project support (paid to institution) from Synergia Life Sciences, which is also unrelated.
Data sharing
The data that support the findings for this study are available to other researchers from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Yvonne Johnstone, and staff at Dr Jones & partners Medical Imaging for their radiological support; Christine Schultz who provided data collection and logistical support; and John Field who provided support with original study design.
Open access funding
The authors report that the open access funding for this manuscript was self-funded.
Trial registration number
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (#ACTRN12616000952448).
Follow S. A. Callary @stuartcallary
Follow the Centre for Orthopaedic & Trauma Research at The University of Adelaide @COTR_Adelaide
© 2023 Callary et al. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attributions (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original author and source are credited.
