194 of the THAs had articulations with an Alumina liner and a femoral head made of a composite of Alumina and Zirconium oxide ceramic (Biolox delta). This group had a median follow-up of only 1.1 years, and the group was therefore not included in the survival analyses. 2312 of the THAs were uncemented prostheses with Alumina-on-Alumina articulations, with a follow-up of 0–11 years (median 4.3 years). For further analyses we included only patients under the age of 80 years (n = 2209). We compared the two most common C-on-C cup/stem combinations: Igloo/Filler (n=1402) and Trilogy/SCP (n=363), and a group of others (n= 547). Further we compared the C-on-C prostheses with cemented Charnley prostheses in patients under the age of 80 years, operated during the same time-period. We also compared the C-on-C prostheses with Charnley prostheses in a group limited to patients under the age of 60 years. Prosthesis survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses adjusted for age and gender.
The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register has shown that several designs of uncemented femoral stems give good or excellent survivorship. The overall findings for uncemented total hip replacement however, have been disappointing because of poor results with the use of metal-backed acetabular components. In this study, we exclusively investigated the medium-to long-term performance of primary uncemented metal-backed acetabular components. A total of 9113 primary uncemented acetabular components were implanted in 7937 patients between 1987 and 2007. These were included in a prospective, population-based observational study. All the implants were modular and metal-backed with ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene liners. The femoral heads were made of stainless steel, cobalt-chrome (CoCr) alloy or alumina ceramic. In all, seven different designs of acetabular component were evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier survivorship method and Cox regression analysis. Most acetabular components performed well up to seven years. When the endpoint was revision of the acetabular component because of aseptic loosening, the survival ranged between 87% and 100% at ten years. However, when the endpoint was revision for any reason, the survival estimates were 81% to 92% for the same implants at ten years. Aseptic loosening, wear, osteolysis and dislocation were the main reasons for the relatively poor overall performance of the acetabular components. Prostheses with alumina heads performed slightly better than those with stainless steel or CoCr alloy in subgroups. Whereas most acetabular components performed well at seven years, the survivorship declined with longer follow-up. Fixation was generally good. None of the metal-backed uncemented acetabular components with ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene liners in our study had satisfactory long-term results because of high rates of wear, osteolysis, aseptic loosening and dislocation.
There has been no general agreement about the use of uncemented hip prostheses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In the present study we compared the results for the cemented and uncemented stem that most commonly had been used in RA patients in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.
Primary uncemented femoral stems reported to the Norwegian arthroplasty register between 1987 and 2005 were included in this prospective observational study. There were 11 516 hips (9679 patients) and 14 different designs of stem. Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities and Cox regression were used to analyse the data. With aseptic loosening as the end-point, all currently used designs performed excellently with survival of 96% to 100% at ten years. With the end-point as stem revision for any cause, the long-term results of the different designs varied from poor to excellent, with survival at 15 years ranging between 29% and 97%. Follow-up for longer than seven years was needed to identify some of the poorly-performing designs. There were differences between the stems; the Corail, used in 5456 hips, was the most frequently used stem with a survival of 97% at 15 years. Male gender was associated with an increased risk of revision of × 1.3 (95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.52), but age and diagnosis had no influence on the results. Overall, modern uncemented femoral stems performed well. Moderate differences in survival between well-performing stems should be interpreted with caution since the differences may be caused by factors other than the stem itself.
We analysed the results of different strategies in the revision of primary uncemented acetabular components reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The aim was to compare the risk of further acetabular revision after isolated liner exchange and complete component revision. The results of exchanging well-fixed components were also compared with those of exchanging loose acetabular components. The period studied was between September 1987 and April 2005. The following groups were compared: group 1, exchange of liner only in 318 hips; group 2, exchange of well-fixed components in 398; and group 3, exchange of loose components in 933. We found that the risk of a further cup revision was lower after revision of well-fixed components (relative risk from a Cox model (RR) = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.37% to 0.87%) and loose components (RR = 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39% to 0.80%), compared with exchange of the liner in isolation. The most frequent reason for a further acetabular revision was dislocation, accounting for 61 (28%) of the re-revisions. Other reasons for further revision included pain in 27 (12%), loosening in 24 (11%) and infection in 20 (9%). Re-revisions because of pain were less frequent when complete component (fixed or loose) revision was undertaken compared with isolated exchange of the liner (RR = 0.20 (95% confidence interval 0.06% to 0.65%) and RR = 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.03% to 0.30%), respectively). The risk of further acetabular revision for infection, however, did not differ between the groups. In this study, exchange of the liner only had a higher risk of further cup revision than revision of the complete acetabular component. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear and osteolysis should be lowered.
We performed a randomised, radiostereometric study comparing two different bone cements, one of which has been sparsely clinically documented. Randomisation of 60 total hip replacements (57 patients) into two groups of 30 was undertaken. All the patients were operated on using a cemented Charnley total hip replacement, the only difference between groups being the bone cement used to secure the femoral component. The two cements used were Palamed G and Palacos R with gentamicin. The patients were followed up with repeated clinical and radiostereometric examinations for two years to assess the micromovement of the femoral component and the clinical outcome. The mean subsidence was 0.18 mm and 0.21 mm, and the mean internal rotation was 1.7° and 2.0° at two years for the Palamed G and Palacos R with gentamicin bone cements, respectively. We found no statistically significant differences between the groups. Micromovement occurred between the femoral component and the cement, while the cement mantle was stable inside the bone. The Harris hip score improved from a mean of 38 points (14 to 54) and 36 (10 to 57) pre-operatively to a mean of 92 (77 to 100) and 91 (63 to 100) at two years in the Palamed G and Palacos R groups, respectively. No differences were found between the groups. Both bone cements provided good initial fixation of the femoral component and good clinical results at two years.
The 10 years survival of uncemented total hip arthroplasties, however was inferior to the all-cemented Charnley. Cup revisions due to aseptic loosening, and wear and/or osteolysis were the reasons for this.
We reviewed 96 consecutive cementless total hip replacements with four different designs; 21 PCA, 25 Harris Galante Porous/Harris Galante I (stem/cup), 25 Profile Porocoat/Tri-Lock Plus (stem/cup) and 25 Profile HA-coated/Tri-Lock Plus (stem/cup). The operations were performed in the period 1984 to 1991. Median follow-up ranged from 12 to 16 years in the four groups. Mean linear wear rates ranged from 0,17 to 0,21 mm/year in the four groups, and there were no statistically significant differences between the groups (p=0,9). Moderate or extensive osteolysis was found in 46 of the 96 included hips. The association between wear and extent of osteolysis was statistically significant (p=0,006). We found poor twelve-year survival of the primary prostheses in all four groups (50–70%), mainly due to revisions because of wear of the polyethylene liner and/or osteolysis. The sparsely documented Profile/Tri-Lock Plus systems did not perform statistically significantly better than the PCA and the HG. The poor long term results with these uncemented total hip arthroplasties illustrate the necessity of regular radiographic evaluation in order to detect osteolysis and liner-failure which both generally are asymptomatic until catastrophic failure appears.