Advertisement

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 133, Issue 5, pp 707–712 | Cite as

Early migration characteristics of a 180° porous-coated cup with 1-mm press fit

  • Christoph StihsenEmail author
  • Christopher Rath
  • Roman Radl
  • Ali A. Saalabian
  • Wilfried Materna
  • Peter Rehak
  • Reinhard Windhager
Hip Arthroplasty

Abstract

Introduction

Evaluation of early cup movement is an important diagnostic tool to predict the likelihood of long-term implant loosening and clinical failure. The investigated cementless cup is clinically proven over 10 years, but there is a paucity of information that accurately describes the migration characteristics of this component.

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analysed the clinical outcome and migration behaviour of 60 Pinnacle 100 shells after an average 3.8-year follow-up (range 2.1–5.4 years). For migration measurement, EBRA (Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse) digital software was applied. Clinical assessment was performed using the HHS, the UCLA score and the SF-36 health survey.

Results

The clinical outcome showed excellent results with a mean HHS of 95.4 (SD 7.1) and mean UCLA of 6.9 (SD 1.3). All implants were radiologically stable within the observation period and none of the cups was at risk for aseptical loosening. EBRA analysis revealed a mean total migration of 1.4 mm (SD 0.9) (95 % CI 1.1–1.6) at 3 years. Eight cups migrated more than 1 mm within the first three postoperative months, thereafter the migration curves flattened down.

Conclusion

Surgeons may expect to find a variable amount of early migration when using the Pinnacle cup. To our knowledge, these are the first results, which show an early “impaction” of a cementless cup, followed by subsequent osseointegration. We believe that an appropriate long-term outcome of the investigated cup is ensured. The data of the present investigation will provide clinicians with useful baseline information with which to compare new cup designs.

Keywords

Total hip arthroplasty Cementless Migration analysis EBRA 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was designed and performed as an academic investigation without any external or industrial funding sources.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    NJRfEaW (2011) National Joint Registry for England and Wales 8th Annual Report http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/NjrCentre/Portals/0/Documents/NJR%208th%20Annual%20Report%202011.pdf
  2. 2.
    Kindsfater KA, Sychterz Terefenko CJ, Gruen TA, Sherman CM (2012) Minimum 5-year results of modular metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 27:545–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lubbeke A, Katz JN, Perneger TV, Hoffmeyer P (2007) Primary and revision hip arthroplasty: 5-year outcomes and influence of age and comorbidity. J Rheumatol 34:394–400PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gheduzzi S, Miles AW (2007) A review of pre-clinical testing of femoral stem subsidence and comparison with clinical data. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 221:39–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kolb A, Grubl A, Schneckener CD, Chiari C, Kaider A, Lass R, Windhager R (2012) Cementless total hip arthroplasty with the rectangular Titanium Zweymuller Stem: a concise follow-up, at a minimum of 20 years, of previous reports. J Bone Jt Surg Am 94:1681–1684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stefl MD, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS, Pedersen DR, Goetz DD, Johnston RC (2012) Primary cementless acetabular fixation at a minimum of 20 years of follow-up: a concise update of a previous report. J Bone Jt Surg Am 94:234–239. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.K.00237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gotze C, Tschugunow A, Gotze HG, Bottner F, Potzl W, Gosheger G (2006) Long-term results of the metal-cancellous cementless Lubeck total hip arthroplasty: a critical review at 12.8 years. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 126:28–35. doi: 10.1007/s00402-005-0064-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parsch D, Jung AW, Thomsen M, Ewerbeck V, Aldinger PR (2008) Good survival of uncemented tapered stems for failed intertrochanteric osteotomy: a mean 16 year follow-up study in 45 patients. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 128:1081–1085. doi: 10.1007/s00402-007-0444-2 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krismer M, Stockl B, Fischer M, Bauer R, Mayrhofer P, Ogon M (1996) Early migration predicts late aseptic failure of hip sockets. J Bone Jt Surg Br 78:422–426Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stocks GW, Freeman MA, Evans SJ (1995) Acetabular cup migration. Prediction of aseptic loosening. J Bone Jt Surg Br 77:853–861Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mjoberg B (1991) Fixation and loosening of hip prostheses. Rev Acta Orthop Scand 62:500–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krismer M, Bauer R, Tschupik J, Mayrhofer P (1995) EBRA: a method to measure migration of acetabular components. J Biomech 28:1225–1236 [pii: 0021929094001776]PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stihsen C, Pabinger C, Radl R, Rehak P, Windhager R (2008) Migration of the Duraloc cup after 5 years. Int Orthop 32:791–794. doi: 10.1007/s00264-007-0405-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stoeckl B, Brabec E, Wanner S, Krismer M, Biedermann R (2005) Radiographic evaluation of the Duraloc cup after 4 years. Int Orthop 29:14–17. doi: 10.1007/s00264-004-0600-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stockl B, Sandow M, Krismer M, Biedermann R, Wimmer C, Frischhut B (1999) Migration of the Duraloc cup at 2 years. J Bone Jt Surg Br 81:51–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC (1998) Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplast 13:890–895 [pii: S0883-5403(98)90195-4]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Jt Surg Am 51:737–755Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 121:20–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ilchmann T, Kesteris U, Wingstrand H (1998) EBRA improves the accuracy of radiographic analysis of acetabular cup migration. Acta Orthop Scand 69:119–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ilchmann T, Franzen H, Mjoberg B, Wingstrand H (1992) Measurement accuracy in acetabular cup migration. A comparison of four radiologic methods versus roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Arthroplast 7:121–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bauer R, Kerschbaumer F, Poisel S, Oberthaler W (1979) The transgluteal approach to the hip joint. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 95:47–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Watson–Jones R (1936) Fractures of the neck of the femur. Br J Surg 23:787–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bertin KC, Rottinger H (2004) Anterolateral mini-incision hip replacement surgery: a modified Watson–Jones approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429:248–255PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Campbell D, Mercer G, Nilsson KG, Wells V, Field JR, Callary SA (2009) Early migration characteristics of a hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem: an RSA study. Int Orthop 35:483–488. doi: 10.1007/s00264-009-0913-z PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Strom H, Nilsson O, Milbrink J, Mallmin H, Larsson S (2007) The effect of early weight bearing on migration pattern of the uncemented CLS stem in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 22:1122–1129. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2006.11.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Powers CC, Ho H, Beykirch SE, Huynh C, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA Jr, Engh CA (2010) A comparison of a second- and a third-generation modular cup design: is new improved? J Arthroplast 25:514–521. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.02.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Selvik G (1989) Roentgen stereophotogrammetry. A method for the study of the kinematics of the skeletal system. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 232:1–51PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Stihsen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christopher Rath
    • 2
  • Roman Radl
    • 3
  • Ali A. Saalabian
    • 4
  • Wilfried Materna
    • 2
  • Peter Rehak
    • 5
  • Reinhard Windhager
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMedical University of ViennaViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryMedical University of GrazGrazAustria
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryLandeskrankenhaus StolzalpeStolzalpeAustria
  4. 4.Department of Plastic and Recontructive SurgeryMedical Institution RudolfstiftungViennaAustria
  5. 5.Unit for Biomedical Engineering and Computing, Department of SurgeryMedical University of GrazGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations