, Paul D. Siney1 and Patricia A. Fleming1
(1)
The John Charnley Research Institute Wrightington Hospital, Wigan, Lancashire, UK
It is remarkable that the material, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), not specifically formulated for use in the human body, has withstood nearly 50 years under conditions of human activities and function of the hip joint. UHMWPE followed the rapidly wearing PTFE. The possibility of long-term problems resulting from wear, were considered. In the initial reports of this method of treatment the emphasis was primarily on the design of the components, surgical technique, clinical results and the early complications.
In the first publication of the clinical results [1] (1972), wear of the cup was established from examination of annual radiographs. The range of total penetration was from 1 mm in 5 years to no measurable wear in 7 years. The mean penetration rate was 0.13 mm/year. Direct wear measurements were carried out on seven explanted cups.
Increasing follow-up generated revisions and offered an opportunity to study explanted components in detail. It was becoming clear that wear and loosening of the UHMWPE cup was the most likely long-term problem. It was, therefore, essential to study factors affecting wear; the information would be essential for further developments.
Cup Position: Medialised Verses Rim Support?
Medialisation of the cup, by deep reaming of the acetabulum, was Charnley’s attempt to reduce wear and loosening of the ultra high molecular weight polyethylene cup in his hip replacement. In a review of 1,344 cases, with a follow-up to 44 years, we compared radiographic loosening of the cup in two groups of patients; those with medialised and rim supported cups.
The medialised cup where: “the socket was placed very deep in the acetabulum” [1] and the rim support cup: where transverse reaming of the acetabulum, preservation of strong bone, and placement of the cup was within the rim of the acetabulum [2].
The details of the two groups of patients are shown in Table 34.1, the reasons for revision in Table 34.2, and the details of patients available for continuing follow-up in Table 34.3.
Table 34.1
Patient demographics of the two groups
Cup position | ||
---|---|---|
Medialised | Rim support | |
Number of patients | 479 | 549 |
Number of LFAs | 638 | 706 |
Mean age at operation – years (range) | 40.5 (17–51) | 41.9 (15–50) |
Mean weight – kg (range) | 62.5 (30–102) | 68.2 (32–108) |
Mean follow-up – years (range) | 17.9 (1–44) | 18 (1–40) |
Mean cup wear rate – mm/year (range) | 0.09 (0.01–0.71) | 0.1 (0.01–0.67) |
Mean cup wear total – mm (range) | 1.48 (0.1–7.5) | 1.65 (0.1–8.0) |
Lost to follow-up | ||
Hips (%) | 14 (2.2) | 28 (4) |
Patients (%) | 13 (2.7) | 25 (4.6) |
Deaths | ||
Hips (%) | 121 (19.0) | 113 (16.0) |
Patients (%) | 91 (19.0) | 76 (13.8) |
Revisions | ||
Hips (%) | 169 (26.5) | 161 (22.8) |
Patients (%) | 137 (28.6) | 134 (24.4) |
Table 34.2
Indications/findings at revision
Findings at revision | Cup position | |
---|---|---|
Medialised | Rim support | |
Infection – number (%) | 11 (1.70) | 12 (1.7) |
Dislocation | 2 (0.31) | 5 (0.7) |
Loose/worn cup | 122 (19.1) | 124 (17.6) |
Loose stem | 51 (8.0) | 46 (6.5) |
# stem | 18 (2.8) | 7 (1.0) |
Unexplained pain | 1 (0.16) | 1 (0.14) |
Loose cup radiological – number (%) | 178 (28.0) | 151 (21.4) |
Table 34.3
Cup position – patients attending follow-up. No revisions
Cup position | ||
---|---|---|
Medialised | Rim support | |
Number of patients | 238 | 314 |
Number of LFAs | 334 | 404 |
Mean age at operation – years (range) | 40.8 (20–50) | 42.3 (20–50) |
Mean follow-up – years (range) | 22.6 (10–44) | 21.5 (10–40) |
Mean cup wear rate – mm/year (range) | 0.07 (0.01–0.31) | 0.07 (0.01–0.3) |
Mean cup wear total – mm (range) | 1.48 (0.1–7.5) | 1.5 (0.1–8.0) |
Loose cup radiological – number (%)
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channelFull access? Get Clinical TreeGet Clinical Tree app for offline access |