Complete acetabular cup revision versus isolated liner exchange for polyethylene wear and osteolysis without loosening in cementless total hip arthroplasty

Massive Periacetabular Osteolysis Treated With Acetabular Cup Retention and Cemented Screw Fixation

Management of periacetabular osteolysis is a challenging dilemma in revision total hip arthroplasty. When the acetabular shell is well-fixed, the surgeon may prefer to retain the cup to minimize further bone loss. However, filling the surrounding defect can be difficult if the area of involvement is massive. In this case, holes were created in the existing acetabular cup for supplemental pelvic screws, which were placed using computed tomography navigation, and then the areas of osteolysis were filled with cement. The patient recovered uneventfully, and he was satisfied with the outcome at 4 years postoperatively. Thus, pelvic screw placement with cement augmentation could be a viable option for a stable cup with surrounding osteolysis. Patient selection should be considered carefully as the long-term outcomes of this procedure are unknown.

Isolated Liner Exchange and Bone Grafting for the Management of Periacetabular Osteolysis in Well-Fixed Cups with an Intact Locking Mechanism at Short-Term to Medium-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review

Background: Polyethylene liner exchange and bone grafting is an effective surgical option for the management of periacetabular osteolysis following total hip arthroplasty with well-fixed cups and intact liner locking mechanisms. Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the revision-free survivorship and radiographic lesion progression after polyethylene liner exchange and bone grafting is performed for periacetabular osteolysis. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed. We queried Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for articles published from January 1999 to January 2023 using the following keywords: "osteolysis" AND "well-fixed," "osteolysis" AND "retro-acetabular," "bone graft" AND ("retention" OR "retained" OR "stable") AND "cup," and "uncemented liner" AND "well-fixed." Results: Of 596 articles found, 9 articles were selected for final inclusion (227 cases, mean follow-up time 43.6 months). The overall cup revision rate after liner exchange was 6.6% (15 hips) due to progressive osteolysis (5 hips), aseptic loosening of the acetabular component (5 hips), dislocation (4 hips), and periprosthetic infection (1 hip). There was either radiographic resolution or regression of periacetabular osteolysis in all reported cases that provided measurements (52 hips) except 1 (1.9%) requiring revision. All studies reporting clinical outcomes indicated improved pain and functional scores. Conclusion: This systematic review found that isolated liner exchange with bone grafting for the management of periacetabular osteolysis was associated with a high revision-free survival rate (93.4%) and minimal radiographic progression (1.9%) of osteolytic lesions at short-term to medium-term follow-up. Liner exchange with bone grafting is recommended for the management of large periacetabular osteolytic lesions (> 450 mm2) in well-fixed acetabular cups. We encourage future studies to develop a grading scale for lesions to guide clinical management and risk stratification for patients.

Is Retention of the Acetabular Component at Revision Surgery a Long-Term Solution?

Background

Acetabular retention in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) may be advantageous, yet long-term survival data is limited. Thus, we investigated long-term survivorship of retained acetabular components in revision THA with analysis of rerevision rate, instability risk, and clinical outcomes.

Methods

We reviewed 98 hips with polyethylene wear and/or osteolysis that were revised with retained acetabular components. Acetabular inclination and anteversion were measured from prerevision radiographs. A retrospective chart review was performed, collecting outcomes of interest including Harris hip score, instability events, and rerevision surgery. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to calculate the risk of revision over time. Predictors of survival including acetabular component position were analyzed by multiple logistic regression.

Results

Average follow-up was 13 years (range, 5-24). Survivorship rates at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years were 89.7%, 81.6%, 70.8%, and 63.8%, respectively. There was improvement in average Harris hip score (61 to 76, P < .0001). There was a 9% rate of dislocation, and 6 hips (6%) were rerevised for recurrent instability. Overall, there were 23 (23%) rerevisions at an average of 6.1 years with the most common reasons being instability (6%) and aseptic loosening (6%). Use of conventional polyethylene was the only identified independent predictor of rerevision (P = .025).

Conclusions

Retention of a well-fixed acetabular component in revision THA provides acceptable long-term outcomes with a 15-year survivorship of 71%. Instability and aseptic loosening were the most common reasons for rerevision. Surgeons may consider retaining the acetabular component at revision surgery if the implant is well-fixed and well-positioned.

Long-Term Outcomes of Cementing Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene Liners Into Well-Fixed Acetabular Shells in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Cementing a new liner into a secure, well-positioned metallic shell can be a less-invasive strategy in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study aimed to report the mean 14-year outcomes of cementing highly cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) liners into well-fixed acetabular shells in revision THAs.

METHODS

This study reviewed a single-surgeon series of cementing XLPE liners into well-fixed acetabular components. Of the 52 hips (51 patients) evaluated, 48 hips (47 patients) that satisfied a minimum follow-up of 10 years were included. The Harris Hip score was used for clinical evaluation. Final hip radiographs were used to determine the extent of acetabular osteolysis and stability of the components. The mean age at index operation was 53 years (range, 32 to 72). The mean follow-up duration was 14 years (range, 10 to 18).

RESULTS

The mean Harris Hip score improved from 58 points (range, 23-81) preoperatively to 91 points (range, 45-100) at the final evaluation (P < .001). A total of 3 acetabular rerevisions were performed, all for aseptic loosening of the outer shell. One postoperative dislocation occurred, but it was successfully treated with a closed reduction. Final radiographs showed a significant reduction in acetabular osteolysis (P < .001). Implant survivorship free from any rerevision was 93.3% (95% confidence interval, 85.9-100%) at 14 years.

CONCLUSION

Cementing an XLPE liner into a well-fixed acetabular shell in revision THA demonstrated excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes at a mean of 14 years postoperatively. This technique could be a safe and durable option in the absence of XLPE liners compatible with preimplanted shells.

Polyethylene liner cementation into a well-fixed metal acetabular shell for the management of periacetabular osteolysis: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Although various papers have reported on the clinical performance of cup retention with cementation of a new liner and bone grafting in the management of well-fixed cups with polyethylene wear and periacetabular osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty (THA), no systematic review of this topic has been published to date.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published from January 1999 to January 2019 using "osteolysis" AND "well-fixed", "osteolysis" AND "retro-acetabular", "bone graft" AND ("retention" OR "retained" OR "stable") AND "cup", and "cemented liner" AND "well-fixed".

RESULTS

Nine articles were selected for review (186 cases, 76.1 months mean follow-up). The overall revision rate was 11.3% (21 hips) most commonly due to aseptic loosening (9/186 hips), dislocation (8/186 hips), and liner wear progression (2/186 cases). The reported square size of osteolytic lesions ranged from a mean of 465.84 mm2 to a max of 4,770 mm2. Almost all reported lesions treated with bone grafts resolved or did not progress 97% (72/74). All studies indicated improved pain and functional scores at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Cementation of a new liner with periacetabular bone grafting provides an alternative option to isolated liner exchange and cup revision for the management of periacetabular osteolysis in well-fixed cups with a disrupted locking mechanism or unavailable exchange liner. Further higher quality studies are required in order to examine if the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene, highly porous-coated cups, hydroxyapatite-coated cups, and small-diameter cups influence the clinical outcome of liner cementation in well-fixed cups with periacetabular osteolysis.

Outcomes of isolated head-liner exchange versus full acetabular component revision in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Isolated head and liner exchange in aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is an appealing option rather than full acetabular component revision; however, early outcome reports suggest high rates of complications requiring re-revision. This study seeks to compare the outcomes of these procedures.

METHODS

This retrospective study assessed 124 head and liner exchanges and 59 full acetabular cup revisions conducted at a single center between 2011 and 2019 with at least 2 years of follow-up. Baseline demographics did not vary by group. Mean follow-up was 3.7 (range 2.0-8.6) years.

RESULTS

In the head and liner exchange group, re-revision-free survivorship at 2 years was 79% for all-causes and 84% for aseptic reasons. In the full acetabular revision group, it was 80% for all causes (p > 0.99) and 83% for aseptic reasons (p > 0.99). The 2-year survivorship of head and liner exchange was non-inferior to that of full acetabular revision, correcting for surgical indication and history of prior revision (adj-OR 0.1.39, 95% CI, 0.62-3.28, p = 0.99). A best-fit multivariable model found that revision for instability (adj-OR=3.03, 95% CI 1.40-6.66, p = 0.005), prior revision (adj-OR 2.15; 95% CI, 0.87-5.32; p = 0.10), current smoking (adj-OR 2.07; 95% CI, 0.94-4.57; p = 0.07), and obesity (adj-OR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.24-1.36; p = 0.22) were associated with failure within 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis, 2-year outcomes for isolated head and liner exchange were non-inferior to full acetabular component revision. A future randomised prospective study should be conducted to better assess the optimal approach to revision in an aseptic failed hip arthroplasty.

The Diagnosis and Treatment of Acetabular Bone Loss in Revision Hip Arthroplasty: An International Consensus Symposium

Despite growing evidence supporting the evaluation, classification, and treatment of acetabular bone loss in revision hip replacement, advancements have not been systematically incorporated into a single document, and therefore, a comprehensive review of the treatment of severe acetabular bone loss is needed. The Stavros Niarchos Foundation Complex Joint Reconstruction Center at Hospital for Special Surgery held an Acetabular Bone Loss Symposium on June 21, 2019, to answer the following questions: What are the trends, emerging technologies, and areas of future research related to the evaluation and management of acetabular bone loss in revision hip replacement? What constitutes the optimal workup and management strategies for acetabular bone loss? The 36 international experts convened were divided into groups, each assigned to discuss 1 of 4 topics: (1) preoperative planning and postoperative assessment; (2) implant selection, management of osteolysis, and management of massive bone loss; (3) the treatment challenges of pelvic discontinuity, periprosthetic joint infection, instability, and poor bone biology; and (4) the principles of reconstruction and classification of acetabular bone loss. Each group came to consensus, when possible, based on an extensive literature review. This document provides an overview of these 4 areas, the consensus each group arrived at, and directions for future research.

Outcome and Risk Factors Associated with Failures of Isolated Bearing Exchange for Osteolysis in Well-Fixed Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

It is often challenging to decide whether to revise only the bearing or femoral acetabular component in the setting of progressive osteolysis without component loosening in revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). In this study, we aimed to (1) compare the survivorship of isolated bearing exchange and single/both component revision for patients with periprosthetic osteolysis without component loosening, and (2) identify potential risk factors associated with failures of isolated bearing exchange.

METHODS

A total of 228 consecutive cases of revision THA for progressive osteolysis without component loosening was evaluated in 2 groups: (1) 124 component revision and (2) 104 isolated bearing exchange. The primary outcome was survival, with failure defined as repeat revision or reoperation for any reason. Patient risk factors, such as demographics and medical comorbidities, were also analyzed.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in survivorship between the component revision group and the bearing exchange group at 10 years (85% vs 82%; P = .89). There was no progression of osteolysis on radiographs at last follow-up for patients with isolated bearing change. Univariate regression modeling demonstrated that renal disease was associated with failure of isolated bearing exchange after revision THA.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that isolated bearing exchange is associated with similar outcomes compared with component revision for aseptic osteolysis without loosening, demonstrating that isolated bearing exchange is a viable option for selected patients with osteolysis in the setting of well-fixed THA components. This provides clinically useful information for surgeons in the surgical treatment of THA patients with wear and osteolysis without component loosening.

Finite Element Analysis of Stress Distribution in Flat and Elevated-Rim Polyethylene Acetabular Liners

Backgroud

No study has compared flat and elevated-rim polyethylene liners in terms of stress distribution on the bearing surface. The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference in stress distribution between flat and elevated-rim polyethylene liners.

Methods

A stress analysis was performed by using the 3-dimensional finite element method. The cup was placed at an open angle of 20°, the flat liner and the liner with a 10° elevation was placed at inclination angles of 80°, 70°, and 60°.

Results

Compared with the 60° flat liner, the 80° and 70° flat liners showed higher stress at the liner edge. In the elevated-rim liner, the stress was high at the liner edge along the cup edge. When the von Mises equivalent stress was applied to each element of the liner, the high stress area (volume) was the largest for the 80° flat liner, second largest for the 80° elevated-rim liner, and third largest for the 70° flat liner. The average contact pressure also followed the same order.

Conclusions

Elevated-rim liners affect the stress distribution by increasing the area of contact. However, since elevated-rim liners exhibit high stress at the cup edge, they are likely to result in new problems including liner failure. These findings could aid surgeons in the selection of liners and determination of revision methods such as isolated liner exchange vs. acetabular cup revision for a well-fixed metal cup with a higher inclination angle in revision total hip arthroplasty.

High risk of hip dislocation following polyethylene liner exchange in total hip arthroplasty-is cup revision necessary?

PURPOSE

Polyethylene (PE) wear remains a common reason for revision surgery following total hip arthroplasty (THA). An established treatment method is isolated liner exchange in a well-fixed acetabular cup and entails a known high risk of hip dislocation after revision surgery. The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine the rate of hip dislocation after liner exchange.

METHODS

Patients were included if (1) the PE liner was removable, (2) the acetabular shell was stable with acceptable orientation, (3) no osteolysis around the acetabular cup was found and (4) no dislocation of the THA occurred before revision surgery. We reviewed medical histories and performed radiological measurements using Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse (EBRA) software. EBRA measurements and statistical investigations were performed by two independent investigators.

RESULTS

A total of 82 patients were included in our study. Mean follow-up was six (range: 3.6-9.9) years. In 13 (15.8%) patients THA dislocations occurred at a mean postoperative period of 20.2 (range: 1-44) weeks after revising the PE liner. This is equivalent to an absolute risk increase of 16% after revision surgery, which results in a number needed to harm of 6. This means that every sixth patient with isolated liner exchange can expect to experience dislocation due to wear.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, isolated exchange of the polyethylene liner because of wear showed a high risk of dislocation and further cup revision. Our results suggest that the threshold for revising well-fixed components in the case of liner wear should be lowered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER AND DATE OF REGISTRATION

Number: 20140710-1012 and Date: 2016-03-09.

Evaluation and Treatment of Patients With Acetabular Osteolysis After Total Hip Arthroplasty

As the demand for total hip arthroplasty (THA) continues to increase, the burden of revision THA is also expected to increase. Although the quality of polyethylene has improved markedly, osteolysis continues to be a risk for older designs and younger, active patients. Although progressive but typically asymptomatic in early stages, osteolysis can result in component failure and complicate revision surgery. Serial radiographs are paramount for monitoring progression. Although select cases may be treated with observation, surgery should be considered based on age, activity level, and projected life span. Well-fixed, noncemented modular acetabular components may be treated with curettage and bone grafting, as well as having to bear liner exchange with retention of the acetabular shell. However, in the setting of osteolysis, it is controversial whether bone grafting and component retention is superior to cup revision. This review explores the pathophysiology of osteolysis after THA and provides a comprehensive analysis of the evaluation and treatment of patients with osteolysis.

Outcome of 4 Surgical Treatments for Wear and Osteolysis of Cementless Acetabular Components

BACKGROUND

Loosening and periprosthetic osteolysis are some of the most common long-term complications after hip arthroplasty. The decision-making process and surgical treatment options are controversial.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 96 acetabular revisions (91 patients) performed between 2002 and 2012, with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up and a mean of 5.7 years of follow-up. Clinical outcome was assessed using the Harris Hip Score. The size and location of osteolytic lesions were evaluated using the preoperative radiographs; healing of the defects was categorized using a standardized protocol.

RESULTS

Thirty-three (34.4%) hips had isolated liner exchanges (ILEs), 10 (10.4%) hips had cemented liners into well-fixed shells (CLS), 45 (46.9%) hips had full acetabular revisions (FARs), and 8 (8.3%) hips had revision with a roof ring/antiprotrusio cage (RWC). All procedures showed significant improvement in Harris Hip Score after revision (P ≤ .001). Fifteen patients had moderate residual pain (pain score ≤20): 8 (24%) ILE, 3 (30%) CLS, and 4 (9%) FAR. Complete bone defect healing after grafting was lower with acetabular component retention procedures (ILE and CLS; 27%) compared with full acetabular component revision procedures (FAR and RWC; 57%). Fifteen patients underwent reoperation: 3 ILE, 1 CLS, 8 FAR, and 3 RWC.

CONCLUSION

Acetabular component retention demonstrates a low risk of reoperation; however, residual pain and limited potential for bone graft incorporation are a concern. FAR is technically challenging and may have an elevated risk of reoperation; however, higher degrees of bone graft incorporation and satisfactory clinical outcome can be expected.

Robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty results in smaller acetabular cup size in relation to the femoral head size: a matched-pair controlled study

PURPOSE

To compare the acetabular component size relative to the patient's native femoral head size between conventional THA (CTHA) approach and robotic-arm assisted THA (RTHA) to infer which of these techniques preserved more acetabular bone.

METHODS

Patients were included if they had primary osteoarthritis (OA) and underwent total hip replacement between June 2008 and March 2014. Patients were excluded if they had missing or rotated postoperative anteroposterior radiographs. RTHA patients were matched to a control group of CTHA patients, in terms of preoperative native femoral head size, age, gender, body mass index (BMI) and approach. Acetabular cup size relative to femoral head size was used as a surrogate for amount of bone resected. We compared the groups according to 2 measures describing acetabular cup diameter (c) in relation to femoral head diameter (f): (i) c-f, the difference between cup diameter and femoral head diameter and (ii) (c-f)/f, the same difference as a fraction of femoral head diameter.

RESULTS

57 matched pairs were included in each group. There were no significant differences between groups for demographic measures, femoral head diameter, or acetabular cup diameter (p>0.05). However, measures (i) and (ii) did differ significantly between the groups, with lower values in the RTHA group (p<0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Using acetabular cup size relative to femoral head size as an approximate surrogate measure of acetabular bone resection may suggest greater preservation of bone stock using RTHA compared to CTHA. Further studies are needed to validate the relationship between acetabular cup size and bone loss in THA.

An unusual presentation of catastrophic failure of hip arthroplasty with a thigh mass

In the advent of increasing demand for total hip arthroplasty, surveillance of these patients is imperative to identify potential complications requiring revision surgery. This is especially important in the young population, as revision is usually necessary during their lifetime. We present a case of a young female patient with a history of total hip arthroplasty 17 years prior, who presented with left hip pain and anterior thigh mass. The prosthetic hip had progressed to catastrophic failure with the cobalt-chrome femoral head having eroded through the polyethylene and acetabular socket. This was associated with significant metal debris and large fluid collection in the thigh. The patient required complex revision surgery but could have had a much lesser procedure with earlier intervention.

The surgical options and clinical evidence for treatment of wear or corrosion occurring with THA or TKA

BACKGROUND

Wear and corrosion occurring in patients with hip and knee arthroplasty are common causes of failure leading to revision surgery. A variety of surgical approaches to these problems have been described, with varying efficacy. Polyethylene wear, metal-on-metal (MoM) hip bearing wear, and problems associated with modular taper corrosion are the areas of greatest clinical impact; results of revisions for these problems are likely to dictate a large portion of revision resources for the foreseeable future, and so they call for specific study.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We identified the most frequently reported procedures to treat hip polyethylene wear, knee polyethylene wear, MoM wear after THA, and modular taper corrosion and determined the timing and reasons these failed.

METHODS

We performed systematic reviews of the published literature on the four topics using MEDLINE(®) and Embase in October 2013; searches were supplemented by hand searches of bibliographies. Prespecified criteria resulted in the identification of 38 relevant articles, of which 33 were either case reports or Level IV evidence. Followup was generally at short term and ranged from 0.2 to 8 years.

RESULTS

The most frequently reported procedures for treating clinically important wear were a partial or complete revision. When treating polyethylene wear, the more frequently reported reasons for hip and knee rerevisions were loosening, continued wear, and instability. Soft tissue reactions were more common and occasionally extensive in patients with MoM or modular taper corrosion. Patients with soft tissue reactions had more complications and higher rerevision rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies with longer followup and higher levels of evidence are needed to direct the treatment of wear and corrosion. When soft tissue damage secondary to MoM wear or taper corrosion is present, the results of treatment can be poor. There is an urgent need to better understand these two mechanisms of failure.

Acetabular wall augmentation in selected patients with recurrent dislocation after THA

We reviewed 42 patients operated with PMMA augmentation of the acetabular wall for recurrent posterior dislocation of cemented total hip arthroplasties with a cemented all-poly acetabular component. 38 patients never experienced subsequent dislocations after the procedure. 4 patients had recurrent dislocations, and two additional patients underwent a revision procedure due to aseptic loosening of the acetabular component. 1, 5 and 10 years survival of the prosthesis free of dislocation were 95%, 95% and 64% respectively. 90% of the patients were satisfied, four patients experienced pain and 3 patients sustained an infection. The procedure is simple, effective, takes less time and results in less blood loss compared to full revision surgery. It should be considered in cases of recurrent posterior dislocation in elderly patients.

Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty with Retained Acetabular Component

BACKGROUND

Aseptic loosening and osteolysis commonly limit the survivorship of total hip prostheses. Retention of a well-fixed acetabular component, rather than full acetabular revision, has multiple advantages, but questions have lingered regarding the clinical success and prosthetic survivorship following this procedure. We examined the impact of acetabular component position, polyethylene type, liner insertion technique, femoral head size, and simultaneous revision of the entire femoral component (as opposed to head and liner exchange) or bone-grafting on mid-term to long-term prosthetic survival following such limited revisions.

METHODS

One hundred hips in 100 patients with osteolysis, polyethylene wear, or femoral component loosening underwent revision total hip arthroplasty with retention of the acetabular component. Acetabular component inclination and anteversion were measured on prerevision radiographs and were categorized according to predetermined positional safe zones (inclination of 35° to 55° and anteversion of 5° to 25°). Operative reports were reviewed for femoral head size, polyethylene liner type (conventional or highly cross-linked), liner insertion technique (use of the existing locking mechanism or cementation), whether the patient had revision of the entire femoral component, and use of bone graft. Outcomes of interest included the Harris hip score, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, episodes of instability, and need for repeat revision.

RESULTS

At an average of 6.6 years (range, two to fourteen years) postoperatively, the Harris hip and UCLA activity scores were both significantly improved compared with the preoperative scores (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.01, respectively). Overall, the failure rate was 13%. In addition, 6% of the patients had postoperative instability. Hips in which the acetabular component was outside of the safe zone for inclination had a higher rate of failure (p = 0.048). Use of conventional, rather than highly cross-linked, polyethylene at the time of revision was also associated with an increased rate of repeat revision (p = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

Revision total hip arthroplasty with retention of the acetabular component is associated with good outcomes in hips with an appropriately positioned, well-fixed acetabular component. Acetabular components outside the safe zone for inclination were at a higher risk for failure, as was use of conventional polyethylene.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Medium-term results of cementation of a highly cross-linked polyethylene liner into a well-fixed acetabular shell in revision hip arthroplasty

The present study was undertaken to document outcomes of cementation of a highly cross-linked polyethylene (PE) liner into a well-fixed acetabular metal shell in 36 hips. All operations were performed by a single surgeon using only one type of liner. Patients were followed for a mean of 6.1 years (range, 3-8 years). Mean Harris hip score improved from 58 points preoperatively to 91 points postoperatively. There were no cases of PE liner dislodgement or progressive osteolysis. 1 hip (2.8%) required revision surgery for acetabular cup loosening with greater trochanteric fracture. Complications included 1 peroneal nerve palsy and 1 dislocation. The results of this study and previous reports demonstrated that cementation of highly cross-linked PE liner into well-fixed metal shell could provide good midterm durability.

A new automated way to measure polyethylene wear in THA using a high resolution CT scanner: method and analysis

As the most advantageous total hip arthroplasty (THA) operation is the first, timely replacement of only the liner is socially and economically important because the utilization of THA is increasing as younger and more active patients are receiving implants and they are living longer. Automatic algorithms were developed to infer liner wear by estimating the separation between the acetabular cup and femoral component head given a computed tomography (CT) volume. Two series of CT volumes of a hip phantom were acquired with the femoral component head placed at 14 different positions relative to the acetabular cup. The mean and standard deviation (SD) of the diameter of the acetabular cup and femoral component head, in addition to the range of error in the expected wear values and the repeatability of all the measurements, were calculated. The algorithms resulted in a mean (± SD) for the diameter of the acetabular cup of 54.21 (± 0.011) mm and for the femoral component head of 22.09 (± 0.02) mm. The wear error was ± 0.1 mm and the repeatability was 0.077 mm. This approach is applicable clinically as it utilizes readily available computed tomography imaging systems and requires only five minutes of human interaction.

Treatment for Wear and Osteolysis in Well-Fixed Uncemented TKR

Background. Traditionally, osteolysis around total knee replacements (TKRs) is treated with complete revision. In certain subsets, polyethylene insert exchange and bone grafting may be applicable. This study reports the clinical outcomes for selective bone grafting in patients with osteolysis without complete revision of the TKR. Methods. This retrospective study analyzes 10 TKRs (9 patients, 66.5 ± 6.1 years old) presenting with osteolysis and revised after 8.7 ± 1.9 years of in vivo function. At index TKR, all patients were implanted with uncemented prosthesis and modular polyethylene insert with anteroposterior articular constraint (Ultracongruent, Natural Knee II, Sulzer Medica). The surgical technique for treating the osteolysis included removal of necrotic bone tissue using curettage, filling of the defect with bone graft materials, and polyethylene insert exchange. Results. Patients have not exhibited any further complications associated with osteolysis after 5.1 ± 2.4 years of followup. Routine radiographic exams show total incorporation of the graft material into the previously lytic regions in all patients. Conclusion. In some TKRs with osteolysis and firmly fixed components, the removal of lytic tissue and subsequent defect filling with bone graft materials can be a viable solution. This case series shows complete resolution of osteolysis in all patients with no complications.