Advertisement

Polyethylene Wear in Metal-Backed Cups: A Retrospective Analysis of 200 Uncemented Prostheses

  • Walter van der Weegen
  • Shennah Austen
  • Thea Sijbesma
  • Henk J. Hoekstra
Chapter

Abstract

Uncemented total hip prostheses were introduced some 40 years ago, after disappointing results with cemented hip prostheses in young and active patients. In orthopedic literature, research on uncemented hip prostheses has focused on the survival of the uncemented femoral stem, and in general, excellent results were reported. Although the femoral component showed excellent performance, recent in vivo studies have reported increased wear of the polyethylene (PE) liner of the uncemented acetabular cup. This PE wear results in PE particles being distributed in the tissue surrounding the prosthesis, with macrophages being activated by these particles. These activated macrophages induce osteolysis (see Fig. 9.1) which in the end results in aseptic loosening of the prosthesis.

Keywords

Femoral Component Aseptic Loosening Acetabular Component Liner Wear Conventional UHMWPE 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1.  1.
    Aldinger PR, Jung AW, Pritsch M et al (2009) Uncemented grit-blasted straight tapered titanium stems in patients younger than fifty-five years of age. Fifteen to twenty-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(6):1432–1439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2.  2.
    Anissian HL, Stark A, Gustafson A, Good V, Clarke IC (1999) Metal-on-metal bearing in hip prosthesis generates 100-fold less wear debris than metal-on-polyethylene. Acta Orthop Scand 70(6):578–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3.  3.
    Barrack RL, Folgueras A, Munn B, Tvetden D, Sharkey P (1997) Pelvic lysis and polyethylene wear at 5–8 years in a uncemented total hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 335:211–217PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4.  4.
    Beckenbaugh RD, Ilstrup DM (1978) A review of three hundred and thirty-three cases with long follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 60:306–313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5.  5.
    Bjerkholt H, Høvik O, Reikerås O (2010) Direct comparison of polyethylene wear in cemented and uncemented acetabular cups. J Orthop Traumatol 11(3):155–1558PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6.  6.
    Blacha J (2004) High osteolysis and revision rate with the hydroxyapatite- coated ABG hip prostheses: 65 hips in 56 young patients followed for 5–9 years. Acta Orthop Scand 75(3):276–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7.  7.
    Capello WN, Antonio JAD, Feinberg JR, Manley MT, Naughton M (2008) Ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: update. J Arthroplasty 23(7):39–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8.  8.
    Carlsson AS, Gentz CF (1977) Mechanical loosening of the femoral head prosthesis in the charnley total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 147:262–270Google Scholar
  9.  9.
    Chan FW, Bobyn DJ, Medley JB et al (1996) Engineering issues and wear performance of metal on metal hip implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 333:96–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chandler HP, Reineck FT, Wixson RL, Mccarthy JC (1981) Total hip replacement in patients younger than thirty years old. A five-year follow-up study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 63(9):1426–1434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clarke I, Good V, Williams P et al (2000) Ultra-low wear rates for rigid-on-rigid bearings in total hip replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 14(4):331–347Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Delaunay C, Petit I, Learmonth ID, Oger P, Vendittoli PA (2010) Metal-on- metal bearings total hip arthroplasty: the cobalt and chromium ions release concern. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96(8):894–904PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 121:20–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Digas G, Kärrholm J, Thanner J (2006) Different loss of BMD using uncemented press-fit and whole polyethylene cups fixed with cement repeated DXA studies in 96 hips randomized to 3 types of fixation. Acta Orthop 77(2):218–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dowd JE, Sychterz CJ, Young AM, Engh CA (2000) Characterization of long-term femoral-head-penetration rates: association with and prediction of osteolysis characterization of long-term femoral-head-penetration rates. J Bone Joint Surg Am 82-A(8):1102–1107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dumbleton JH, Manley MT, Edidin AA (2002) A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17(5):649–661PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Emerson RH, Sanders SB, Head WC, Higgins L (1999) Effect of circumferential plasma-spray porous coating on the rate of femoral osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:1291–1298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Emms NW, Stockley I, Hamer AJ, Wilkinson JM (2010) Long-term outcome of a cementless, hemispherical, press-fit acetabular component: survivorship analysis and dose–response relationship to linear polyethylene wear. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(6):856–861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gallo J, Raška M, Mrázek F, Petřek M (2008) Bone remodeling, particle disease and individual susceptibility to periprosthetic osteolysis. Physiol Res 57(3):339–349PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garcia-Rey E, Garcia-Cimbrelo E (2007) Long-term results of uncemented acetabular cups with an ACS polyethylene liner. A 14–16-year follow-up study. Int Orthop 31(2):205–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldsmith AA, Dowson D, Isaac GH, Lancaster JG (2000) A comparative joint simulator study of the wear of metal-on-metal and alternative material combinations in hip replacements. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 214(1):39–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Goosen JHM, Castelein RM, Verheyen CCPM (2005) Silent osteolysis associated with an uncemented acetabular component: a monitoring and treatment algorithm. Curr Orthop 19:288–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gordon A, Greenfield EM, Eastell R, Kiss-toth E, Wilkinson JM (2010) Individual susceptibility to periprosthetic osteolysis is associated with altered patterns of innate immune gene expression in response to pro-inflammatory stimuli. J Orthop Res 28(9):1127–1135PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res 141:17–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hallan G, Dybvik E, Furnes O, Havelin LI (2010) Metal-backed acetabular components with conventional polyethylene: a review of 9113 primary components with a follow-up of 20 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(2):196–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hlatky MA, Boineau RE, Higginbotham MB et al (1989) A brief self-administered questionnaire to determine functional capacity (the Duke activity status index). Am J Cardiol 64(10):651–654PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Holt G, Murnaghan C, Reilly J, Meek RM (2007) The biology of aseptic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 460:240–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hui AJ, Mccalden RW, Martell JM et al (2003) Validation of two and three-dimensional radiographic techniques for measuring polyethylene wear after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:505–511PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ingham E, Fisher J (2005) The role of macrophages in osteolysis of total joint replacement. Biomaterials 26:1271–1286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kawate K, Ohmura T, Kawahara I et al (2009) Differences in highly cross-linked polyethylene wear between zirconia and cobalt-chromium femoral heads in Japanese patients: a prospective, randomized study. J Arthroplasty 24(8):1221–1224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Krieg AH, Speth BM (2009) Backside volumetric change in the polyethylene of uncemented acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(8):1037–1043PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kurtz SM (2009) UHMWPE biomaterials handbook: ultra high molecular weight polyethylene in total joint replacement and medical devices, 2nd edn. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kurtz S, Medel FJ, Manley M (2008) Wear in highly cross-linked polyethylenes. Curr Orthop 22(6):392–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kwon Y-M, Thomas P, Summer B et al (2010) Lymphocyte proliferation responses in patients with pseudotumors following metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 28(4):444–4450PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lombardi AV, Berend KR, Mallory TH, Skeels MD, Adams JB (2009) Survivorship of 2000 tapered titanium porous plasma-sprayed femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(1):146–154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mahendra G, Pandit H, Kliskey K et al (2009) Necrotic and inflammatory changes in metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasties. Acta Orthop 80(6):653–659PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mallory T (2001) Minimal 10-year results of a tapered cementless femoral component in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 16(8):49–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Martell JM, Verner JJ, Incavo SJ (2003) Clinical performance of a highly cross-linked polyethylene at two years in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized prospective trial. J Arthroplasty 18(7 Suppl 1):55–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Matar WY, Restrepo C (2010) Revision Hip arthroplasty for ceramic-on-ceramic squeaking hips does not compromise the results. J Arthroplasty 25(6):81–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Rorabeck CH et al (2009) Wear rate of highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. A randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(4):773–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McLaughlin JR, Lee KR (2010) Total Hip arthroplasty with an uncemented tapered femoral component in patients younger than 50 years. J Arthroplasty 26(1):9–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Merle C, Clarius M, Aldinger PR (2010) Long-term results of uncemented stems in total hip arthroplasty: analysis of survival rates with a minimum 15-year follow-up. Orthopade 39(1):80–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mu Z, Tian J, Wu T, Yang J, Pei F (2009) A systematic review of radiological outcomes of highly cross-linked polyethylene versus conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 33(3):599–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mueller LA, Schmidt R, Ehrmann C et al (2009) Modes of periacetabular load transfer to cortical and cancellous bone after cemented versus uncemented total hip arthroplasty: a prospective study using computed tomography-assisted osteodensitometry. J Orthop Res 27(2):176–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Murphy SB, Ecker TM, Tannast M (2006) Two- to 9-year clinical results of alumina ceramic-on-ceramic THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 453:97–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Orishimo KF, Claus AM, Sychterz CJ, Engh CA (2003) Wear and osteolysis in hips with coated cementless cup after seven years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A(6):1095–1099PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Parvizi J, Keisu KS, Hozack WJ, Sharkey PF, Rothman RH, Petsatodis GE, Papadopoulos PP, Papavasiliou KA et al (2010) Primary cementless total hip arthroplasty with an alumina ceramic-on-ceramic bearing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:639–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Petsatodis GE, Papadopoulos PP, Papavasiliou KA, Hatzokos IG, Agathangelidis FG, Christodoulou AG (2010) Primary cementless total hip arthroplasty with an alumina ceramic-on-ceramic bearing: results after a minimum of twenty years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(3):639–644Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Prosser GH, Yates PJ, Wood DJ et al (2010) Outcome of primary resurfacing hip replacement: evaluation of risk factors for early revision 12,093 replacements from the Australian joint registry. Clin Orthop 81(1):66–71Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rajadhyaksha AD, Brotea C, Cheung Y et al (2009) Five-year comparative study of highly cross-linked (crossfire) and traditional polyethylene. J Arthroplasty 24(2):161–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ren P-G, Irani A, Huang Z et al (2010) Continuous infusion of UHMWPE particles induces increased bone macrophages and osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(1):113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Röder C, Bach B, Berry DJ et al (2010) Case–control study of 4420 patients obesity, age, sex, diagnosis, and fixation mode differently affect early cup failure in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:1954–1963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Schewelov TV, Sanzén L, Börlin N, Markusson P, Önsten I (2004) Accuracy of radiographic and radiostereometric wear measurement of different hip prostheses an experimental study. Acta Orthop Scand 75(6):691–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Shen Z, Crotti TN, McHugh KP, Matsuzaki K, Gravallese EM, Bierbaum BE, Goldring SR (2006) The role played by cell-substrate interactions in the pathogenesis of osteoclast-mediated peri-implant osteolysis. Arthritis Res Ther 8(3):R70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sochart DH (1999) Relationship of acetabular wear to osteolysis and loosening in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 363:135–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Stauffer R (1982) Ten-year follow-up study of total hip replacement 1107. J Bone Joint Surg Am 64:983–990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Stilling M, Nielsen KA, Søballe K, Rahbek O (2009) Clinical comparison of polyethylene wear with zirconia or cobalt-chromium femoral heads. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(10):2644–2650PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Swanson TV, Peterson DJ, Seethala R, Bliss RL, Spellmon CA (2010) Influence of prosthetic design on squeaking after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 25(6):36–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Walter WL, Yeung E, Esposito C (2010) A review of squeaking hips. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 18(6):319–326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wilkinson JM, Hamer AJ, Stockley I, Eastell R (2005) Polyethylene wear rate and osteolysis: critical threshold versus continuous dose – response relationship. J Orthop Res 23:520–525PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Yamamoto K, Imakiire A, Shishido T et al (2003) Cementless total hip arthroplasty using porous-coated Biomet acetabular cups (hexloc and ringloc types). J Orthop Sci 8(5):657–663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EFORT 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Walter van der Weegen
    • 1
  • Shennah Austen
    • 2
  • Thea Sijbesma
    • 3
  • Henk J. Hoekstra
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgerySt. Anna HospitalGeldropThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryUniversity of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Orthopedic SurgerySt. Anna HospitalGeldropThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations