Dataset Information

Gender Differences in Wear Rates for 28- vs 32-mm Ceramic Femoral Heads on Modern Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene at Midterm Follow-Up in Young Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty.

ABSTRACT: We report on the midterm linear and volumetric wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) and survivorship of 2 prospective young total hip arthroplasty (THA) cohorts that differed by the size of ceramic femoral head used: 28 vs 32 mm.We prospectively analyzed 220 consecutive primary THAs in patients aged ?50 years who received a cementless THA with a ceramic femoral head on HXLPE liner (C-HXLPE). There were 101 patients (46%) with 28-mm heads and 119 patients (54%) who received 32-mm heads at a mean follow-up of 5.5 years (range, 60-109 months). Wear was calculated using Martell Software.The 28-mm C-HXLPE cohort demonstrated average linear and volumetric wear of 0.020 mm/y (standard deviation [SD], 0.074; 95% CI, 0.003-0.037) and 18.775 mm(3)/y (SD, 21.743; 95% CI, 13.773-23.778) compared with 0.032 mm/y (SD, 0.087; 95% CI, 0.013-0.050]) and 29.847 mm(3)/y (SD, 35.441; 95% CI, 22.294-37.401) in the 32-mm C-HXLPE group. Subgroup analysis by gender and head size discovered significantly greater wear in females with 32-mm heads compared with 28-mm heads in both linear (0.01, 95% CI = -0.014 to 0.033 vs 0.048, 95% CI = 0.022-0.074 mm/y, P = .004) and volumetric wear (14.11, 95% CI = 8.957-19.271] vs 29.71, 95% CI = 17.584-41.840] mm(3)/y, P = .009). We found a 96% (95% CI = 92.30%-97.94%]) survivorship by Kaplan-Meier analysis at minimum 5 years with no failures because of osteolysis.Ceramic on HXLPE demonstrates extremely low wear properties in young patients at midterm follow-up. We identified a gender-dependent difference in wear based on head size, with 32-mm heads being associated with increased wear in females.

SUBMITTER: Stambough JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5374861 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gender Differences in Wear Rates for 28- vs 32-mm Ceramic Femoral Heads on Modern Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene at Midterm Follow-Up in Young Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Stambough Jeffrey B JB Pashos Gail G Wu Ningying N Haynes Jacob A JA Martell John M JM Clohisy John C JC

The Journal of arthroplasty 20151028 4

<h4>Background</h4>We report on the midterm linear and volumetric wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) and survivorship of 2 prospective young total hip arthroplasty (THA) cohorts that differed by the size of ceramic femoral head used: 28 vs 32 mm.<h4>Methods</h4>We prospectively analyzed 220 consecutive primary THAs in patients aged ≤50 years who received a cementless THA with a ceramic femoral head on HXLPE liner (C-HXLPE). There were 101 patients (46%) with 28-mm heads and 119 pat ...[more]

PMID: 26631286

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe most common bearing surface used among primary THAs worldwide is a metal or ceramic femoral head that articulates against a highly crosslinked ultrahigh-molecular-weight polyethylene (HXLPE) acetabular liner. Despite their widespread use, relatively little is known about the comparative effectiveness of ceramic versus metal femoral heads with respect to risk of revision and dislocation as well as the role of head size in this relationship.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of (1) all-cause revision in metal versus ceramic femoral heads when used with an HXLPE liner, including an evaluation of the effect of head size; and (2) dislocation in metal versus ceramic femoral heads when used with an HXLPE liner as well as an assessment of the effect of head size.MethodsData were collected as part of the Kaiser Permanente Total Joint Replacement Registry between 2001 and 2013. Patients in this study were on average overweight (body mass index = 29 kg/m2), 67 years old, mostly female (57%), and had osteoarthritis (93%) as the primary indication for surgery. The material of the femoral head (metal, ceramic) was crossed with head size (< 32, 32, 36, > 36 mm), yielding eight device groupings. Only uncemented devices were evaluated. The primary outcome was all-cause revision (n = 28,772) and the secondary outcome was dislocation within 1 year (n = 19,623). Propensity scores were used to adjust for potential confounding at the implant/patient level using between-within semiparametric survival models that control for surgeon and hospital confounding and adjust estimates for the within-cluster correlation among observations on the response.ResultsFor all-cause revision, there was no difference between ceramic versus metal (reference) heads in combination with an HXLPE liner (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82 [0.65-1.04], p = 0.099). Smaller metal head sizes of < 32 mm were associated with increased risk of revision relative to 36 mm (HR = 1.66 [1.20-2.31], p = 0.002, adjusted p = 0.025). For dislocation, ceramic heads increased risk relative to metal at < 32 mm only (HR = 4.39 [1.72-11.19], p = 0.002, adjusted p = 0.020). Head sizes < 32 mm were associated with increased risk of dislocation relative to 36 mm for metal (HR = 2.99 [1.40-6.39], p = 0.005, adjusted p = 0.047) and ceramic heads (HR = 15.69 [6.07-40.55], p < 0.001, adjusted p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe results did not provide evidence for use of one femoral head material over another when used with HXLPE liners for the outcome of revision, but for dislocation, metal performed better than ceramic with < 32-mm heads. Overall, the findings suggest increased risk of revision/dislocation with head sizes < 32 mm.Level of evidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.

Project description:Uncemented acetabular components have demonstrated low revision rates and high patient satisfaction but with concerns regarding increased costs compared with monoblock cups. Some newer lower-cost uncemented monoblock options have become available in the last decade, but limited data are available on their performance.(1) Does an uncemented, titanium-backed all-polyethylene acetabular cup provide reliable fixation? (2) What is the frequency and what are the causes for revision with this cup?Between 2004 and 2008, we elected to use an uncemented, titanium-backed all-polyethylene acetabular cup in older patients with limited physical demands. We performed 615 hip replacements in 550 patients with greater than 5 years of clinical and radiographic followup. When patients who were dead (80 hips in 75 patients), lost to followup (98 hips in 93 patients), or revised (three hips in three patients) were excluded, there were 434 hips in 379 patients for comparison of the postoperative and 5-year radiographs. Two observers not involved in the index surgical procedures (NH, HS) assessed radiographs for signs of migration or loosening. Some degree of early movement sometimes is seen before cup stabilization; however, to be conservative, we defined cups with greater than 3° of change of position (even if they subsequently stabilized) as potentially at risk and report them separately. Revision surgery, time from the index procedure, and the reason for revision were recorded from the New Zealand Joint Registry.By 5 years there was a median change in inclination of 2° (range, 0°-13°; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-2.4; p < 0.001) and 2° of anteversion (range, 0°-11°; 95% CI, 2.0-2.4; p < 0.001). Although at last followup all cups appeared to have stabilized with no radiolucent lines or medial migration, 22% of the cups (94 of 434) had moved more than 3° and so were deemed to be potentially at risk. There were 11 revision procedures (of 429 hips; 2.5%) of which six were for recurrent dislocation, four for femoral fracture, and one for femoral loosening to give an overall all-cause revision rate for all components of 0.25 per 100 component years (95% CI, 0.13-0.43). No revisions were performed for acetabular loosening.The short- to medium-term results of this all-polyethylene monoblock cup demonstrated a low frequency of revision. However, 94 cups were identified as potentially at risk based on movement of > 3° before apparent stabilization. Although those patients seem to be doing well enough now, the current duration of followup may not be sufficient to know that these cups will be durable, because other ongrowth designs have demonstrated a high frequency of late failure after apparent early success.Level IV, therapeutic study.

Dataset Information

Gender Differences in Wear Rates for 28- vs 32-mm Ceramic Femoral Heads on Modern Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene at Midterm Follow-Up in Young Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Publications

Gender Differences in Wear Rates for 28- vs 32-mm Ceramic Femoral Heads on Modern Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene at Midterm Follow-Up in Young Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets