Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 11, pp 3572–3580

Do Monoblock Cups Improve Survivorship, Decrease Wear, or Reduce Osteolysis in Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty?

  • Jelle J. Halma
  • H. Charles Vogely
  • Wouter J. Dhert
  • Steven M. Van Gaalen
  • Arthur de Gast
Survey (Systematic Review)

Abstract

Background

Monoblock acetabular components used in uncemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) have certain mechanical characteristics that potentially reduce acetabular osteolysis and polyethylene wear. However, the degree to which they achieve this goal is not well documented.

Questions/purposes

The purpose of this study was to use a systematic review of controlled trials to test the hypothesis that monoblock cups have superior (1) polyethylene wear rate; (2) frequency of cup migration; (3) frequency of acetabular osteolysis; and (4) frequency of aseptic loosening compared with modular components used in uncemented THA.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases to assemble all controlled trials comparing monoblock with modular uncemented acetabular components in primary THA. Included studies were considered “best evidence” if the quality score was either ≥ 50% on the Cochrane Back Review Group checklist or ≥ 75% the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. A total of seven publications met our inclusion criteria.

Results

Best evidence analysis showed no difference in polyethylene wear rate, the frequency of cup migration, and aseptic loosening between monoblock and modular acetabular components. No convincing evidence was found for the claim that lower frequencies of acetabular osteolysis are observed with the use of monoblock cups compared with modular uncemented cups.

Conclusions

The purported benefits of monoblock cups were not substantiated by this systematic review of controlled studies in that polyethylene wear rates and frequencies of cup failure and acetabular osteolysis were similar to those observed with modular implants. Other factors should therefore drive implant selection in cementless THA.

Level of Evidence

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

References

  1. 1.
    Ali MS, Kumar A. Hydroxyapatite-coated RM cup in primary hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2003;2:90–93.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Australian National Joint Replacement Registry annual report 2011. Available at: http://www.dmac.adelaide.edu.au/aoanjrr/documents/AnnualReports2011/AnnualReport_2011_WebVersion.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2012.
  3. 3.
    Baad-Hansen T, Kold S, Nielsen PT, Laursen MB, Christensen PH, Soballe K. Comparison of trabecular metal cups and titanium fiber-mesh cups in primary hip arthroplasty: a randomized RSA and bone mineral densitometry study of 50 hips. Acta Orthop. 2011;2:155–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berli BJ, Ping G, Dick W, Morscher EW. Nonmodular flexible press-fit cup in primary total hip arthroplasty: 15-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;461:114–121.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bracco P, Oral E. Vitamin E-stabilized UHMWPE for total joint implants: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2286–2293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M, Editorial Board, Cochrane Back Review Group. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;18:1929–1941.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Garavaglia G, Lubbeke A, Barea C, Roussos C, Peter R, Hoffmeyer P. Ten-year results with the Morscher press-fit cup: an uncemented, non-modular, porous-coated cup inserted without screws. Int Orthop. 2011;7:957–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gonzalez Della Valle A, Su E, Zoppi A, Sculco TP, Salvati EA. Wear and periprosthetic osteolysis in a match-paired study of modular and nonmodular uncemented acetabular cups. J Arthroplasty. 2004;8:972–977.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gwynne-Jones DP, Garneti N, Wainwright C, Matheson JA, King R. The Morscher press fit acetabular component: a nine- to 13-year review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;7:859–864.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hailer NP, Garellick G, Karrholm J. Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2010;1:34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horne G, Culliford N, Adams K, Devane P. Hybrid total hip replacement: outcome after a mean follow up of 10 years. ANZ J Surg. 2007;8:638–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horne G, Devane PA, Dalton DJ. Does pelvic osteolysis occur with a nonmodular uncemented acetabular component? J Arthroplasty. 2006;2:185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huk OL, Bansal M, Betts F, Rimnac CM, Lieberman JR, Huo MH, Salvati EA. Polyethylene and metal debris generated by non-articulating surfaces of modular acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;4:568–574.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ihle M, Mai S, Pfluger D, Siebert W. The results of the titanium-coated RM acetabular component at 20 years: a long-term follow-up of an uncemented primary total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;10:1284–1290.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ihle M, Mai S, Siebert WE. Treatment for acetabular dysplasia using the uncemented RM acetabular component—a 20 year follow-up. Hip Int. 2010;1:94–101.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kitamura N, Leung SB, Engh CA Sr. Characteristics of pelvic osteolysis on computed tomography after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:291–297.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krismer M, Fischer M, Mayrhofer P, Stockl F, Bittner C, Trojer C, Stockl B. A prospective study of the migration of two acetabular components. PCA versus RM cups. Int Orthop. 1994;1:23–28.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Krismer M, Stockl B, Fischer M, Bauer R, Mayrhofer P, Ogon M. Early migration predicts late aseptic failure of hip sockets. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;3:422–426.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kurtz SM, Ochoa JA, Hovey CB, White CV. Simulation of initial frontside and backside wear rates in a modular acetabular component with multiple screw holes. J Biomech. 1999;9:967–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009:b2700.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Macheras G, Kateros K, Kostakos A, Koutsostathis S, Danomaras D, Papagelopoulos PJ. Eight- to ten-year clinical and radiographic outcome of a porous tantalum monoblock acetabular component. J Arthroplasty. 2009;5:705–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Macheras GA, Kateros K, Koutsostathis SD, Tsakotos G, Galanakos S, Papadakis SA. The trabecular metal monoblock acetabular component in patients with high congenital hip dislocation: a prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;5:624–628.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meneghini RM, Ford KS, McCollough CH, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Bone remodeling around porous metal cementless acetabular components. J Arthroplasty. 2010;5:741–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nagi ON, Kumar S, Aggarwal S. The uncemented isoelastic/isotitan total hip arthroplasty. A 10–15 years follow-up with bone mineral density evaluation. Acta Orthop Belg. 2006;1:55–64.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Joint Registry of England and Wales annual report 2010. Available at: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/portals/0/njr%207th%20annual%20report%202010.pdf. Accessed November 1, 2012.
  26. 26.
    Oral E, Christensen SD, Malhi AS, Wannomae KK, Muratoglu OK. Wear resistance and mechanical properties of highly cross-linked, ultrahigh-molecular weight polyethylene doped with vitamin E. J Arthroplasty. 2006;4:580–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pakvis D, Biemond L, van Hellemondt G, Spruit M. A cementless elastic monoblock socket in young patients: a ten to 18-year clinical and radiological follow-up. Int Orthop. 2011;10:1445–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pakvis D, van Hellemondt G, de Visser E, Jacobs W, Spruit M. Is there evidence for a superior method of socket fixation in hip arthroplasty? A systematic review. Int Orthop. 2011;8:1109–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Roffman M, Kligman M. Cementless coated and noncoated Mathys acetabular cups: radiographic and histologic evaluation. Orthopedics. 1999;1:39–41.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rohrl SM, Nivbrant B, Strom H, Nilsson KG. Effect of augmented cup fixation on stability, wear, and osteolysis: a 5-year follow-up of total hip arthroplasty with RSA. J Arthroplasty. 2004;8:962–971.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Soballe K, Hansen ES, B-Rasmussen H, Jorgensen PH, Bunger C. Tissue ingrowth into titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated implants during stable and unstable mechanical conditions. J Orthop Res. 1992;2:285–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;15:2008–2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register annual report 2010. Available at: http://www.shpr.se/Libraries/Documents/AnnualReport-2010-2-eng.sflb.ashx. Accessed November 1, 2012.
  34. 34.
    Trebse R, Milosev I, Kovac S, Mikek M, Pisot V. Poor results from the isoelastic total hip replacement: 14–17-year follow-up of 149 cementless prostheses. Acta Orthop. 2005;2:169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weiss RJ, Hailer NP, Stark A, Karrholm J. Survival of uncemented acetabular monoblock cups: evaluation of 210 hips in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2012;3:214–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Available at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed October 20, 2012.
  37. 37.
    Wolf C, Lederer K, Pfragner R, Schauenstein K, Ingolic E, Siegl V. Biocompatibility of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMW-PE) stabilized with alpha-tocopherol used for joint endoprostheses assessed in vitro. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;6:1247–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Young AM, Sychterz CJ, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA. Effect of acetabular modularity on polyethylene wear and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;1:58–63.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jelle J. Halma
    • 1
  • H. Charles Vogely
    • 2
  • Wouter J. Dhert
    • 2
  • Steven M. Van Gaalen
    • 1
  • Arthur de Gast
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical Orthopedic Research Center–midden Nederland (CORC-mN), Department of OrthopaedicsDiakonessenhuis HospitalUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity Medical Center UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations