Skip to main content
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20150902-05Cited by:3

Abstract

The clinical and radiographic outcomes of 88 patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty with either conventional polyethylene or cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) from the same manufacturer were compared. There were no significant differences between the 2 subpopulations regarding average age, gender, side affected, or prosthetic stem and cup size. The average follow-up was 104 months (range, 55 to 131 months). To the authors’ knowledge, this is the longest follow-up for this particular insert. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months and then annually. Results showed that XLPE has a significantly greater wear reduction than that of standard polyethylene in primary total hip arthroplasty. At the longest available follow-up for these specific inserts, XLPE proved to be effective in reducing wear. [Orthopedics. 2015; 38(9):556–561.]

  • 1.Harris WH. The problem is osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1995; 311:46–53.

    Google Scholar
  • 2.Harris WH. Wear and periprosthetic osteolysis: the problem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001; (393):66–70.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3.DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1976; 121:20–32.

    Google Scholar
  • 4.Dumbleton JH, Manley MT, Edidin AA. A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17(5):649–661.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5.Kurtz SM, ed. UHMWPE Bio-materials Handbook: Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene in Total Joint Replacement and Medical Devices. 2nd ed. Burlington, MA: Academic Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar
  • 6.Baker D, Bellare A, Pruitt L. The effects of degree of cross-linking on the fatigue crack initiation and propagation resistance of orthopedic-grade polyethylene. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003; 66(1):146–154.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7.Geerdink CH, Grimm B, Vencken W, Heyligers IC, Tonino AJ. Cross-linked compared with historical polyethylene in THA: an 8-year clinical study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467(4):979–984.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8.Heisel C, Silva M, Schmalzried TP. In vivo wear of bilateral total hip replacements: conventional versus cross-linked polyethylene. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2005; 125(8):555–557.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9.Illgen RL, Forsythe TM, Pike JW, Laurent MP, Blanchard CR. Highly cross-linked vs conventional polyethylene particles: an in vitro comparison of biological activities. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23(5):721–731.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10.McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Chess DG, Charron KD. Wear rate of highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(4):773–782.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11.Hoeksma HL, Van Den Ende CH, Ronday HK, Heering A, Breedveld FC. Comparison of the responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score with generic measures for hip function in osteoarthritis of the hip. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003; 62(10):935–938.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12.Livermore J, Ilstrup D, Morrey B. Effect of femoral head size on wear of the polyethylene acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990; 72(4):518–528.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13.Geerdink CH, Grimm B, Vencken W, Heyligers IC, Tonino AJ. The determination of linear and angular penetration of the femoral head into the acetabular component as an assessment of wear in total hip replacement: a comparison of four computer-assisted methods. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008; 90(7):839–846.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14.Little NJ, Busch CA, Gallagher JA, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB. Acetabular polyethylene wear and acetabular inclination and femoral offset. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467(11):2895–2900.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15.Surace MF, Monestier L, Fagetti A, Ronga M, Cherubino P. Computer-based assessment and classification of periacetabular osteolytic lesions: a new method. Surg Technol Int. 2012; 22:285–289.

    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 16.Willert HG, Buchhorn GH, Hess T. The significance of wear and material fatigue in loosening of hip prostheses. Orthopade. 1989; 18(5):350–369.

    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17.Digas G, Kärrholm J, Thanner J, Herberts P. 5-year experience of highly cross-linked polyethylene in cemented and uncemented sockets: two randomized studies using radio-stereometric analysis. Acta Orthop. 2007; 78(6):746–754.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18.Manning DW, Chiang PP, Martell JM, Galante JO, Harris WH. In vivo comparative wear study of traditional and highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2005; 20(7):880–886.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 19.McKellop H, Shen FW, DiMaio W, Lancaster JG. Wear of gamma cross-linked polyethylene acetabular cups against roughened femoral balls. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999; 369:73–82.

    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20.Muratoglu OK, Greenbaum ES, Bragdon CR, Jasty M, Freiberg AA, Harris WH. Surface analysis of early retrieved acetabular polyethylene liners: a comparison of conventional and highly cross-linked polyethylenes. J Arthroplasty. 2004; 19(1):68–77.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21.Jacobs CA, Christensen CP, Greenwald AS, McKellop H. Clinical performance of highly cross-linked polyethylenes in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(12):2779–2786.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22.McCalden RW, Naudie DD, Yuan X, Bourne RB. Radiographic methods for the assessment of polyethylene wear after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87(10):2323–2334.

    MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23.Scheier H, Sandel J. Wear affecting the plastic cup in metal-plastic endoprostheses. In: , Gschwend N, Debrunner HU, eds. Total Hip Prostheses. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins; 1976:186–190.

    Google Scholar
  • 24.Sychterz CJ, Engh CA, Shah N, Engh CA. Radiographic evaluation of penetration by the femoral head into the polyethylene liner over time. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997; 79(7):1040–1046.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25.Martell JM, Berdia S. Determination of polyethylene wear in total hip replacements with use of digital radiographs. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997; 79(11):1635–1641.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26.Sychterz CJ, Engh CA, Yang A, Engh CA. Analysis of temporal wear patterns of porous-coated acetabular components: distinguishing between true wear and so-called bedding-in. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999; 81(6):821–830.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27.Olyslaegers C, Defoort K, Simon JP, Vandenberghe L. Wear in conventional and highly cross-linked polyethylene cups: a 5-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty. 2008; 23(4):489–494.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28.Murray DW, O’Connor JJ. Superolateral wear of acetabulum. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998; 80(2):197–200.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29.Ravi B, Escott B, Shah PS, et al.A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing complications following total joint arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis versus for osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2012; 64(12):3839–3849.

    Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For a complete overview of all the cookies used, please see our privacy policy.

×