Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 468, Issue 10, pp 2704–2709 | Cite as

Second-generation Highly Cross-linked X3™ Polyethylene Wear: A Preliminary Radiostereometric Analysis Study

  • David G. Campbell
  • John R. Field
  • Stuart A. Callary
Basic Research

Abstract

Background

First-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene liners have reduced the incidence of wear particle-induced osteolysis. However, failed acetabular liners have shown evidence of surface cracking, mechanical failure, and oxidative damage. This has led to the development of second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene, which has improved wear and mechanical properties and resistance to oxidation in vitro. Owing to its recent introduction, there are no publications describing its clinical performance.

Questions/purposes

We assessed early clinical wear of a second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene liner and compared its clinical performance with the published results of hip simulator tests and with first-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene annealed liners.

Patients and Methods

Twenty-one patients were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Clinical outcome and femoral head penetration were measured for 19 patients at 6 months and 1 and 2 years postoperatively.

Results

The median proximal head penetration was 0.009 mm and 0.024 mm at 1 and 2 years, respectively. The median two-dimensional (2-D) head penetration was 0.083 mm and 0.060 mm at 1 and 2 years, respectively. The median proximal wear rate between 1 and 2 years was 0.015 mm/year.

Conclusions

The wear rate calculated was similar to the in vitro wear rate reported for this material; however, it was less than the detection threshold for this technique. Although longer followup is required for wear to reach a clinically quantifiable level, this low level of wear is encouraging for the future clinical performance of this material.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London, UK: Chapman and Hall; 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual Report. Adelaide, Australia: AOA; 2008.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Avery J, Dal Grande E, Taylor A. Quality Of Life in South Australia as Measured by the SF12 Health Status Questionnaire Population Norms For 2003 Trends From 1997–2003. Population Research and Outcome Studies Unit Department of Human Services, Adelaide, South Australia; 2004.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borlin N, Rohrl SM, Bragdon CR. RSA wear measurements with or without markers in total hip arthroplasty. J Biomech. 2006;39:1641–1650.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bradford L, Baker DA, Graham J, Chawan A, Ries MD, Pruitt LA. Wear and surface cracking in early retrieved highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular liners. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:1271–1282.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bragdon CR, Barrett S, Martell JM, Greene ME, Malchau H, Harris WH. Steady-state penetration rates of electron beam-irradiated, highly cross-linked polyethylene at an average 45-month follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:935–943.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bragdon CR, Malchau H, Yuan X, Perinchief R, Karrholm J, Borlin N, Estok DM, Harris WH. Experimental assessment of precision and accuracy of radiostereometric analysis for the determination of polyethylene wear in a total hip replacement model. J Orthop Res. 2002;20:688–695.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bragdon CR, Thanner J, Greene ME, Malchau H, Digas G, Harris WH, Karrholm J. Standing versus supine radiographs in RSA evaluation of femoral head penetration. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;448:46–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campbell D, Mercer G, Nilsson K, Wells V, Field JR, Callary SA. Wear of a highly cross-linked polyethylene liner: a preliminary RSA study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2009; DOI 10.1007/s00590-009-0486-y.
  10. 10.
    Clohisy JC, Calvert G, Tull F, McDonald D, Maloney WJ. Reasons for revision hip surgery: a retrospective review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:188–192.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Collier JP, Currier BH, Kennedy FE, Currier JH, Timmins GS, Jackson SK, Brewer RL. Comparison of cross-linked polyethylene materials for orthopaedic applications. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;414:289–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D’Antonio JA, Manley MT, Capello WN, Bierbaum BE, Ramakrishnan R, Naughton M, Sutton K. Five-year experience with Crossfire highly cross-linked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:143–150.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Derbyshire B, Prescott RJ, Porter ML. Notes on the use and interpretation of radiostereometric analysis. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:124–130.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dorr LD, Wan Z, Shahrdar C, Sirianni L, Boutary M, Yun A. Clinical performance of a Durasul highly cross-linked polyethylene acetabular liner for total hip arthroplasty at five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1816–1821.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dowd JE, Sychterz CJ, Young AM, Engh CA. Characterization of long-term femoral-head-penetration rates: association with and prediction of osteolysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82:1102–1107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dumbleton JH, Manley MT, Edidin AA. A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:649–661.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dunbar MJ, Blackley HR, Bourne RB. Osteolysis of the femur: principles of management. Instr Course Lect. 2001;50:197–209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Endo M, Tipper JL, Barton DC, Stone MH, Ingham E, Fisher J. Comparison of wear, wear debris and functional biological activity of moderately crosslinked and non-crosslinked polyethylenes in hip prostheses. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2002;216:111–122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Engh CA Jr, Stepniewski AS, Ginn SD, Beykirch SE, Sychterz-Terefenko CJ, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA. A randomized prospective evaluation of outcomes after total hip arthroplasty using cross-linked marathon and non-cross-linked Enduron polyethylene liners. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21(6 suppl 2):17–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Estok DM II, Bragdon CR, Plank GR, Huang A, Muratoglu OK, Harris WH. The measurement of creep in ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene: a comparison of conventional versus highly cross-linked polyethylene. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:239–243.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Furmanski J, Gupta S, Chawan A, Kohm A, Lannutti J, Jewett B, Pruitt LA, Ries MD. Aspherical femoral head with highly cross-linked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene surface cracking: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:2266–2270.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Garcia-Cimbrelo E, Munuera L. Early and late loosening of the acetabular cup after low-friction arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992;74:1119–1129.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Glyn-Jones S, McLardy-Smith P, Gill HS, Murray DW. The creep and wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene: a three-year randomised, controlled trial using radiostereometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:556–561.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Halley D, Glassman A, Crowninshield RD. Recurrent dislocation after revision total hip replacement with a large prosthetic femoral head: a case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:827–830.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harris WH. The problem is osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995;311:46–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Lie SA, Vollset SE. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:337–353.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heisel C, Silva M, dela Rosa MA, Schmalzried TP. Short-term in vivo wear of cross-linked polyethylene. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:748–751.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hopper RH Jr, Young AM, Orishimo KF, McAuley JP. Correlation between early and late wear rates in total hip arthroplasty with application to the performance of marathon cross-linked polyethylene liners. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18(7 suppl 1):60–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Krushell RJ, Fingeroth RJ, Cushing MC. Early femoral head penetration of a highly cross-linked polyethylene liner vs a conventional polyethylene liner: a case-controlled study. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20(7 suppl 3):73–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Leung SB, Egawa H, Stepniewski A, Beykirch S, Engh CA Jr, Engh CA Sr. Incidence and volume of pelvic osteolysis at early follow-up with highly cross-linked and noncross-linked polyethylene. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6 suppl 2):134–139.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Livingston BJ, Chmell MJ, Spector M, Poss R. Complications of total hip arthroplasty associated with the use of an acetabular component with a Hylamer liner. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1529–1538.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lochner HV, Bhandari M, Tornetta P III. Type-II error rates (beta errors) of randomized trials in orthopaedic trauma. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1650–1655.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Manning DW, Chiang PP, Martell JM, Galante JO, Harris WH. In vivo comparative wear study of traditional and highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:880–886.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Chess DG, Charron KD. Wear rate of highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:773–782.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McCalden RW, Naudie DD, Yuan X, Bourne RB. Radiographic methods for the assessment of polyethylene wear after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2323–2334.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McKellop H, Shen FW, Lu B, Campbell P, Salovey R. Development of an extremely wear-resistant ultra high molecular weight polyethylene for total hip replacements. J Orthop Res. 1999;17:157–167.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Muratoglu OK, Bragdon CR, O’Connor DO, Jasty M, Harris WH. A novel method of cross-linking ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene to improve wear, reduce oxidation, and retain mechanical properties. Recipient of the 1999 HAP Paul Award. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:149–160.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Norton MR, Yarlagadda R, Anderson GH. Catastrophic failure of the Elite Plus total hip replacement, with a Hylamer acetabulum and Zirconia ceramic femoral head. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84:631–635.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Oparaugo PC, Clarke IC, Malchau H, Herberts P. Correlation of wear debris-induced osteolysis and revision with volumetric wear-rates of polyethylene: a survey of 8 reports in the literature. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:22–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oral E, Malhi AS, Muratoglu OK. Mechanisms of decrease in fatigue crack propagation resistance in irradiated and melted UHMWPE. Biomaterials. 2006;27:917–925.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Oral E, Wannomae KK, Hawkins N, Harris WH, Muratoglu OK. Alpha-tocopherol-doped irradiated UHMWPE for high fatigue resistance and low wear. Biomaterials. 2004;25:5515–5522.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ries MD, Pruitt L. Effect of cross-linking on the microstructure and mechanical properties of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;440:149–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rohrl S, Nivbrant B, Mingguo L, Hewitt B. In vivo wear and migration of highly cross-linked polyethylene cups: a radiostereometry analysis study. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:409–413.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Saleh KJ, Thongtrangan I, Schwarz EM. Osteolysis: medical and surgical approaches. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;427:138–147.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Schmalzried TP, Kwong LM, Jasty M, Sedlacek RC, Haire TC, O’Connor DO, Bragdon CR, Kabo JM, Malcolm AJ, Harris WH. The mechanism of loosening of cemented acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty: analysis of specimens retrieved at autopsy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1992;274:60–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Silva M, Shepherd EF, Jackson WO, Dorey FJ, Schmalzried TP. Average patient walking activity approaches 2 million cycles per year: pedometers under-record walking activity. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:693–697.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sychterz CJ, Engh CA Jr, Shah N, Engh CA Sr. Radiographic evaluation of penetration by the femoral head into the polyethylene liner over time. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1040–1046.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Valstar ER, Gill R, Ryd L, Flivik G, Borlin N, Karrholm J. Guidelines for standardization of radiostereometry (RSA) of implants. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:563–572.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    von Schewelov T, Onsten I, Markusson P, Carlsson A. Weight bearing radiographs are not necessary for measurement of polyethylene penetration in total hip prostheses: a radiostereometric study of 111 patients examined in weight-bearing and supine position. Acta Orthop. 2006;77:104–108.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    von Schewelov T, Sanzen L, Borlin N, Markusson P, Onsten I. Accuracy of radiographic and radiostereometric wear measurement of different hip prostheses: an experimental study. Acta Orthop Scand. 2004;75:691–700.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Whitley E, Ball J. Statistics review 4: sample size calculations. Crit Care. 2002;6:335–341.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • David G. Campbell
    • 1
  • John R. Field
    • 2
  • Stuart A. Callary
    • 3
  1. 1.Wakefield Orthopaedic ClinicAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.CORe: Comparative Orthopaedic Research Surgical Facility Flinders UniversityAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedics and TraumaRoyal Adelaide Hospital and University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations