Willem R Six, Iris Koenraadt-van Oost, Leonieke C van Boekel, Stefan B T Bolder
{"title":"在使用 36 毫米股骨头的 THA 中,聚乙烯厚度不会影响高交联内衬的无菌翻修率。","authors":"Willem R Six, Iris Koenraadt-van Oost, Leonieke C van Boekel, Stefan B T Bolder","doi":"10.1177/11207000231196141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To reduce the risk of dislocation, larger head size can be used in total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, larger head size leads to thinner acetabular liners. With conventional polyethylene, thickness of >8 mm has been advocated to reduce stress and wear rate of the polyethylene. Modern polyethylene has become more wear-resistant. In this study, we investigated if the thickness of sequentially cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) liners is associated with failure of THA in the medium term.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>3654 THAs were included (2009-2016), in which THA was performed with a XLPE liner in combination with a 36-mm femoral head. Patient and surgical characteristics were collected. We compared implant survival of THA with thin liners (<7.9 mm) and thick liners (⩾7.9 mm) with a Kaplan Meier survival analysis at 5 years, median follow-up and 10 years of follow-up with and point aseptic loosening and performed a multivariate analysis to estimate hazard ratios (HR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median follow-up was 7.7 years (IQR 5.6-9.8). In total, 179 revision procedures were performed, where 82 revisions (46%) were performed for aseptic loosening. The survival rate at 5 years, median and 10 years of follow-up showed no statistically significant difference in implant survival. The survival rate at 10 years follow-up was for thin liners 97.1% (95% CI, 96.3-97.9) and for thick liners 98.2% (95% CI, 97.4-99.0) in the aseptic loosening group (chi-square 2.55; <i>p</i> = 0.11).The adjusted HR for thick liners (⩾7.9 mm) was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.38-1.08) compared with the thin liners (<7.9 mm), which was not significantly different.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>From this single-centre retrospective study it appears that thinner polyethylene liners are well tolerated when using second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene. Thickness of the XLPE liners did not influence the risk of aseptic loosening of the implants in the medium term.</p>","PeriodicalId":12911,"journal":{"name":"HIP International","volume":" ","pages":"181-186"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Polyethylene thickness does not influence aseptic revision rate with highly cross-linked liners in THA with 36-mm femoral heads.\",\"authors\":\"Willem R Six, Iris Koenraadt-van Oost, Leonieke C van Boekel, Stefan B T Bolder\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11207000231196141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To reduce the risk of dislocation, larger head size can be used in total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, larger head size leads to thinner acetabular liners. With conventional polyethylene, thickness of >8 mm has been advocated to reduce stress and wear rate of the polyethylene. Modern polyethylene has become more wear-resistant. In this study, we investigated if the thickness of sequentially cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) liners is associated with failure of THA in the medium term.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>3654 THAs were included (2009-2016), in which THA was performed with a XLPE liner in combination with a 36-mm femoral head. Patient and surgical characteristics were collected. We compared implant survival of THA with thin liners (<7.9 mm) and thick liners (⩾7.9 mm) with a Kaplan Meier survival analysis at 5 years, median follow-up and 10 years of follow-up with and point aseptic loosening and performed a multivariate analysis to estimate hazard ratios (HR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median follow-up was 7.7 years (IQR 5.6-9.8). In total, 179 revision procedures were performed, where 82 revisions (46%) were performed for aseptic loosening. The survival rate at 5 years, median and 10 years of follow-up showed no statistically significant difference in implant survival. The survival rate at 10 years follow-up was for thin liners 97.1% (95% CI, 96.3-97.9) and for thick liners 98.2% (95% CI, 97.4-99.0) in the aseptic loosening group (chi-square 2.55; <i>p</i> = 0.11).The adjusted HR for thick liners (⩾7.9 mm) was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.38-1.08) compared with the thin liners (<7.9 mm), which was not significantly different.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>From this single-centre retrospective study it appears that thinner polyethylene liners are well tolerated when using second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene. Thickness of the XLPE liners did not influence the risk of aseptic loosening of the implants in the medium term.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HIP International\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"181-186\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HIP International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11207000231196141\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HIP International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11207000231196141","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Polyethylene thickness does not influence aseptic revision rate with highly cross-linked liners in THA with 36-mm femoral heads.
Background: To reduce the risk of dislocation, larger head size can be used in total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, larger head size leads to thinner acetabular liners. With conventional polyethylene, thickness of >8 mm has been advocated to reduce stress and wear rate of the polyethylene. Modern polyethylene has become more wear-resistant. In this study, we investigated if the thickness of sequentially cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) liners is associated with failure of THA in the medium term.
Patients and methods: 3654 THAs were included (2009-2016), in which THA was performed with a XLPE liner in combination with a 36-mm femoral head. Patient and surgical characteristics were collected. We compared implant survival of THA with thin liners (<7.9 mm) and thick liners (⩾7.9 mm) with a Kaplan Meier survival analysis at 5 years, median follow-up and 10 years of follow-up with and point aseptic loosening and performed a multivariate analysis to estimate hazard ratios (HR).
Results: Median follow-up was 7.7 years (IQR 5.6-9.8). In total, 179 revision procedures were performed, where 82 revisions (46%) were performed for aseptic loosening. The survival rate at 5 years, median and 10 years of follow-up showed no statistically significant difference in implant survival. The survival rate at 10 years follow-up was for thin liners 97.1% (95% CI, 96.3-97.9) and for thick liners 98.2% (95% CI, 97.4-99.0) in the aseptic loosening group (chi-square 2.55; p = 0.11).The adjusted HR for thick liners (⩾7.9 mm) was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.38-1.08) compared with the thin liners (<7.9 mm), which was not significantly different.
Conclusions: From this single-centre retrospective study it appears that thinner polyethylene liners are well tolerated when using second-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene. Thickness of the XLPE liners did not influence the risk of aseptic loosening of the implants in the medium term.
期刊介绍:
HIP International is the official journal of the European Hip Society. It is the only international, peer-reviewed, bi-monthly journal dedicated to diseases of the hip. HIP International considers contributions relating to hip surgery, traumatology of the hip, prosthetic surgery, biomechanics, and basic sciences relating to the hip. HIP International invites reviews from leading specialists with the aim of informing its readers of current evidence-based best practice.
The journal also publishes supplements containing proceedings of symposia, special meetings or articles of special educational merit.
HIP International is divided into six independent sections led by editors of the highest scientific merit. These sections are:
• Biomaterials
• Biomechanics
• Conservative Hip Surgery
• Paediatrics
• Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasty
• Traumatology