Suárez JC, Forero A, Llinás A, Bonilla G, Rodríguez H, Amado O

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 22-26
PDF size: 144.28 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: In primary hip replacement, different materials are used for bearing surfaces. In our medium metal or ceramic heads with highly crossed-linked polyethylene (PA) are the most used. These combinations have good results, but it is not clear which is clinically superior. The objective of this study is to determine whether there is any clinically significant difference based on a systematic review of the literature and national registries of arthroplasty. Material and methods: We conduct a systematic review of the literature and national registries of arthroplasty and we were looking for studies comparing bearing surfaces: ceramic-highly cross-linked polyethylene (CP) and metal-highly cross-linked polyethylene (MP); describing the revision rate according to the surface type with a minimum 10-year follow-up. The outcome evaluated was: review rate for any cause depending on surface type. Results: Two out of fifteen national registries were included. The Australian registry shows a difference in the 15-year revision rate: CP: 6.3 (IC 5.8, 6.7) vs MP: 5.1 (IC 4.6, 5.7). The New Zealand registry shows no differences in revision rate/100 components/year: CP 0.54 (0.48-0.61) vs MP 0.61 (0.57-0.66). We do not find clinical studies with inclusion criteria that answer the research question. Conclusion: The results of this review show a high survival rate with the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene, the results are similar when using ceramic or metal heads.

REFERENCES

1. Koenig L, Zhang Q, Austin MS, Demiralp B, Fehring TK, Feng C, et al. Estimating the societal benefits of THA after accounting for work status and productivity: a Markov model approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474(12): 2645-54.

2. Keurentjes JC, Van Tol FR, Fiocco M, Schoones JW, Nelissen RG. Minimal clinically important differences in health-related quality of life after total hip or knee replacement: a systematic review. Bone Joint Res [Internet]. 2012; 1(5): 71-7. Disponible en: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3626243&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract

3. Babovic N, Trousdale RT. Total hip arthroplasty using highly cross-linked polyethylene in patients younger than 50 years with minimum 10-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2013; 28(5): 815-7. Disponible en: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0883540313001113

4. Geerdink CH, Grimm B, Ramakrishnan R, Rondhuis J, Verburg AJ, Tonino AJ. Crosslinked polyethylene compared to conventional polyethylene in total hip replacement: pre-clinical evaluation, in vitro testing and prospective clinical follow-up study. Acta Orthop. 2006; 77(5): 719-25.

5. Muratoglu OK, Bragdon CR, O’Connor DO, Jasty M, Harris WH. A novel method of cross-linking ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene to improve wear, reduce oxidation, and retain mechanical properties. J Arthroplasty [Internet]. 2001; 16(2): 149-60. Disponible en: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0883540301361466

6. Digas G, Kärrholm J, Thanner J, Malchau H, Herberts P. The Otto Aufranc Award. Highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: randomized evaluation of penetration rate in cemented and uncemented sockets using radiostereometric analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004; (429): 6-16.

7. Bozic KJ, Kurtz S, Lau E, Ong K, Chiu V, Vail TP, et al. The epidemiology of bearing surface usage in total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am [Internet]. 2009; 91(7): 1614-20. Available from: http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00004623-200907000-00008

8. Green M, Wishart N, Young E, Mccormack V, Swanson M. 14th Annual Report. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. The NJR Editorial Board. 2017 [December 2016].

9. 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): 880-6.

10. McKesson Corporation [Internet]. Annual Report 2017. New York: McKesson Corporation. 2017. Disponible en: http://www.annualreports.com/HostedData/AnnualReportArchive/m/NYSE_MCK_2017.pdf

11. Semlitsch M, Lehmann M, Weber H, Doerre E, Willert HG. New prospects for a prolonged functional life-span of artificial hip joints by using the material combination polyethylene/aluminum oxide ceramic/metal. J Biomed Mater Res. 1977; 11(4): 537-52.

12. New Zealand Orthopaedic Association. The New Zealand Joint Registry Seventeen Year Report (January 1999-December 2015) [Internet]. Editorial Committee. 2016. Disponible en: www.nzoa.org.nz/nz-joint-registry

13. Meftah M, Klingenstein GG, Yun RJ, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS. Long-term performance of ceramic and metal femoral heads on conventional polyethylene in young and active patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am [Internet]. 2013; 95(13): 1193-7. Disponible en: http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00004623-201307030-00006

14. Clarke IC, Gustafson A. Clinical and hip simulator comparisons of ceramic-on-polyethylene and metal-on-polyethylene wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000; (379): 34-40.

15. Boutin P. Total arthroplasty of the hip by fritted alumina prosthesis. Experimental study and 1st clinical applications. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res [Internet]. 2014; 100(1): 15-21. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2013.12.004

16. Cafri G, Ma EWP, Mph RL, Bini SA, Kurtz SM. Is there a difference in revision risk between metal and ceramic heads on highly crosslinked polyethylene liners? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017; 475(5): 1349-55.