The Incidence of Acetabular Osteolysis in Young Patients With Conventional versus Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene
- 520 Downloads
Osteolysis is a major mode of hip implant failure. Previous literature has focused on the amount of polyethylene wear comparing highly crosslinked polyethylene (HXPLE) with conventional liners but has not clarified the relative incidence of osteolysis with these two liners.
We determined (1) the incidence of osteolysis in HXLPE versus conventional polyethylene (CPE), (2) the ability to detect and evaluate the size of lytic lesions using radiographs compared with CT scans, (3) head penetration in hips without and with lysis, and (4) determined whether acetabular position, head size, and UCLA activity score contributed to lysis.
We compared head penetration and osteolysis on plain radiographs and presence and volume of osteolysis on CT scans in 48 patients with HXLPE (mean, 46.5 years) and 50 patients with CPE (mean, 43.2 years). The minimum followup was 5 years (average, 7.2 years; range, 5.1–10.9 years),
Osteolysis was apparent on CT in a larger number of patients with CPE liners than HXLPE liners: 12 of 50 (24%) versus one of 48 (2%), respectively. We found no correlation between head penetration and volume of osteolytic lesions. Head penetration was greater in patients with osteolysis. Smaller head sizes were associated with greater wear and those with osteolysis had smaller head sizes; however, there was no difference in acetabular component position or UCLA activity in those with lysis compared with those without.
HXLPE diminished the incidence of osteolysis, but the lack of correlation between penetration and volume of osteolysis suggests other factors other than wear contribute to the development of osteolysis.
Level of Evidence
Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
KeywordsAcetabular Component Osteolytic Lesion Head Size Lytic Lesion Acetabular Anteversion
We thank Kirk E. Smith for his work with CT scan processing and measurement of these CT examinations.
- 4.Cahir JG, Toms AP, Marshall TJ, Wimhurst J, Nolan J. CT and MRI of hip arthroplasty. Clin Radiol. 2007;62:1163–1171; discussion 1172–1173.Google Scholar
- 8.Digas G, Karrholm J, Thanner J, Malchau H, Herberts P. The Otto Aufranc Award. Highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: randomized evaluation of penetration rate in cemented and uncemented sockets using radiostereometric analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:6–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.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.Google Scholar
- 14.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(Suppl 2):17–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Glyn-Jones S, Isaac S, Hauptfleisch J, McLardy-Smith P, Murray D, Gill H. Does highly cross-linked polyethylene wear less than conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty? A double-blind, ransomized, and controlled trial using roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:337–343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar