A randomized double-blind noninferiority trial, evaluating migration of a cemented vitamin E-stabilized highly crosslinked component compared with a standard polyethylene component in reverse hybrid total hip arthroplasty

AIMS

Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) studies of vitamin E-doped, highly crosslinked polyethylene (VEPE) liners show low head penetration rates in cementless acetabular components. There is, however, currently no data on cemented VEPE acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of a new cemented VEPE component, compared with a conventional polyethylene (PE) component regarding migration, head penetration, and clinical results.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We enrolled 42 patients (21 male, 21 female) with osteoarthritis and a mean age of 67 years (sd 5), in a double-blinded, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial. The subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive a reverse hybrid THA with a cemented component of either argon-gas gamma-sterilized PE component (controls) or VEPE, with identical geometry. The primary endpoint was proximal implant migration of the component at two years postoperatively measured with RSA. Secondary endpoints included total migration of the component, penetration of the femoral head into the component, and patient-reported outcome measurements.

RESULTS

In total, 19 control implants and 18 implants in the VEPE group were analyzed for the primary endpoint. We found a continuous proximal migration of the component in the VEPE group that was significantly higher with a difference at two years of a mean 0.21 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.37; p = 0.013). The total migration was also significantly higher in the VEPE group, but femoral head penetration was lower. We found no difference in clinical outcomes between the groups.

CONCLUSION

At two years, this cemented VEPE component, although having a low head penetration and excellent clinical results, failed to meet noninferiority compared with the conventional implant by a proximal migration above the proposed safety threshold of RSA. The early proximal migration pattern of the VEPE component is a reason for continued monitoring, although a specific threshold for proximal migration and risk for later failure cannot be defined and needs further study. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1192-1198.

The Rim Cutter does not show an advantage over modern cementing techniques: a five-year radiological and clinical follow-up of the Rim Cutter used with flanged acetabular components

AIMS

We report the incidence of radiolucent lines (RLLs) using two flanged acetabular components at total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the effect of the Rim Cutter.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 300 hips in 292 patients who underwent primary cemented THA. A contemporary flanged acetabular component was used with (group 1) and without (group 2) the use of the Rim Cutter and the Rimfit acetabular component was used with the Rim Cutter (group 3). RLLs and clinical outcomes were evaluated immediately post-operatively and at five years post-operatively.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the incidence of RLLs on the immediate post-operative radiographs (p = 0.241) or at five years post-operatively (p = 0.463). RLLs were seen on the immediate post-operative radiograph in 2% of hips in group 1, in 5% in group 2 and in 7% in group 3. Five years post-operatively, there were RLLs in 42% of hips in group 1, 41% in group 2 and in 49% in group 3. In the vast majority of hips, in each group, the RLL was present in DeLee and Charnley zone 1 only (86%, 83%, 67% respectively). Oxford and Harris Hip scores improved significantly in all groups. There was no significant difference in these scores or in the change in scores between the groups, with follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Despite the Rim Cutter showing promising results in early laboratory and clinical studies, this analysis of the radiological and clinical outcome five years post-operatively does not show any advantage over and above modern cementing techniques in combination with a well performing cemented acetabular component. For this reason, we no longer use the Rim Cutter in routine primary THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1450-7.