Editorial

Split Viewer

Hip Pelvis 2016; 28(4): 191-200

Published online December 31, 2016

https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2016.28.4.191

© The Korean Hip Society

The Current Concepts of Total Hip Arthroplasty

Joong-Myung Lee, MD, PhD

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea

Correspondence to : Joong-Myung Lee, MD, PhD
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, CHA Bundang Medial Center, CHA University, 59 Yatap-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam, Gyeonggido 13496, Korea
TEL: +82-31-780-5289 FAX: +82-31-708-3578
E-mail: drjmlee@naver.com

Received: November 24, 2016; Revised: December 8, 2016; Accepted: December 8, 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Joints deformed or injured by trauma, different forms of arthritis, infection and other causes tend to aggravate rather than regenerate. These progressive joint abnormalities may lead to severe pain, claudication, and nonfunctional ambulatory status, and tend to manifest more evidently in the hip joint than in the knee or ankle joints. Orthopaedic surgeons have continued their efforts to cure these joint disorders over centuries. Treatment choices include pharmacotherapy and conservative interventions, but surgery is the best option in many cases. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the most commonly performed adult reconstructive hip procedure and almost one million are being implanted annually worldwide, and projected to grow at a faster rate1). The author of this study aimed to review the advancements in THA that have occurred through trial and error.

The first recorded successful hip arthroplasty was femoral osteotomy between the greater trochanter and lesser trochanter in the fused hip, performed by John Rhea Barton in 1826 in Philadelphia2). Since then, surgeons have seeked alternative methods to replace the removed joint. Until now, the two main questions raised by investigators are: i) what are the alternative materials that can be used in a joint replacement?; ii) how can these materials be fixed firmly? Looking for answers to these questions can be regarded as a history of hip replacement in the early years.

The first question is about bearings, and investigators have explored a variety of materials including glass, ivory, metal alloys (e.g., Co-Cr), synthetic substances, polyethylene and ceramics. Glass, ivory and nylon are no longer used, while polyethylene and ceramic materials are widely used as they improve limitations. The second question is how to make a successful fixation, as related to both the design of the prosthesis and the actual fixation method including cemented and cementless. In 1958, Philip Wiles of London implanted matched acetabular and femoral components made of stainless steel as hip replacements in six patients with Still's disease. The acetabulum was stabilized with screws and the head component with a stem, side plate, and screws3). But, these implants were not successful. After that, it has been attempted to fix femoral prosthesis to the femoral canal. Before bone cement was introduced, fixation of prostheses into the medullary canal was uneasy, so more than 50 different prosthetic designs were developed until the 1950s. Components were designed as short or long stems. Based on the clinical outcomes that a long-stem prosthesis was more stable and a metal implant was more durable than a nonmetal implant, Thompson and Austin Moore inserted a long-stem prosthesis without cement45). Although stem designs and surgical techniques on fixation of the femoral prosthesis with a metal stem have been improved, the basic principles are still valid until today. Since prosthetic fixation in the acetabulum is also challenging, Ring, Sivash and others intended to fix implants using a screw or a threaded cup but failed in achieving long-term stability. Around the same time, McKee and Watson-Farrar6) developed the metal-on-metal (MoM) prosthesis using a long intramedullary stem and a screw-type acetabular cup an overall success rate of 51% between 1956 and 1960. However, they redesigned the cemented-type cup in 1960s. After first introducing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement7), which became very popular and successful implant.

In 1950s, Frederik R. Thompson of New York and Austin T. Moore of South Carolina developed prostheses which replaced only the femoral head. And these were commonly used to treat hip fractures and arthritis cases45). This type of hip arthroplasty, called hemiarthroplasty, was used in the diseased femoral head, but did not resolve acetabular problems. Despite tremendous popularity for these prostheses in the 1950s, clinical results were hardly predictable. On the other hand, Charnley89) aggressively pursued effective methods of replacing both the femoral head and acetabulum and obtained favorable long-term results by introducing bone cement, which was used to achieve primary stability for dental implants. His most important intellectual breakthrough was his concept of the low-friction arthroplasty. Previously, all surgeons had substituted prostheses that were the same size and configuration as normal human anatomy. Charnley greatly reduced the diameter of the head on the femoral stem to a diameter of 22 mm to improve the frictional torque. Maurice E Müller in Switzerland introduced a design with a femoral head diameter of 32 mm for hip joint stability. In 1958, Charnley attempted to use polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) bearings, but the clinical outcomes were poor9). After an initial failure with the use of Teflon as a bearing surface, he adopted high molecular weight polyethylene which showed satisfactory clinical performance. This was the beginning of the “total hip arthroplasty”. Charnley THA had been commonly performed after gaining widespread popularity in the United Kingdom and the United States, and long term survivorship rates reached up to 95% at 10-year follow-up and more than 80% at 25-year follow-up; however, a relatively high failure rate (68%) was demonstrated in physically active patients1,1011). To sum up the achievements of Charnley, he increased long-term implant survivorship by using bone cement, first used polyethylene bearings, and described the concept of the “low friction arthroplasty” as a solution to wear problems. In addition, he tried to improve weaknesses by recognizing vulnerability of hip arthroplasty to infection. It is no exaggeration to say that most modern hip replacement concepts have advanced from Charnley's achievements. Therefore, identifying why and how Charnley THA has evolved is a good means of better understanding the latest hip replacement techniques.

1. Cemented Total Hip Arthroplasty

The greatest benefit of using bone cement in hip arthroplasty is to secure firm initial stability. Since this stability is achieved regardless of bone quality, this intervention can be applied to elderly patients, tumor cases, revision cases associated with severe bone loss and others. On the contrary, the disadvantages of bone cement are the potential risk of cardiopulmonary disturbance, called bone cement implantation syndrome12,1314), and challenging surgical techniques and concerns about long-term survivorship. Even though the cause of aseptic loosening has been clarified as polyethylene debris instead of bone cement, Aseptic failures of cemented arthroplasties were at one time thought to result from a biologic reaction to the cement, and the term ‘cement disease’ was coined15). Multiple studies have reported that the cemented acetabular cup, in particular, has a higher loosening rate than the cementless implant when used for more than 10 years, and despite advances in cementing technique, reductions in the failure rate have not been achieved. That was the reason why the use of the cemented acetabular cups has decreased 16,1718). By comparison, the cemented femoral component is still being used in many cases, and has revealed favorable clinical performance for more than 15 years as the concept of hybrid THA19,2021). This is because that this component has secured satisfying durability along with improvements in cemented femoral component designs and cementing techniques.

There are two important concepts related to the design of the cemented femoral stem. First, a taper slip design is designed to obtain stronger stability with slight subsidence of the femoral component within the cement mantle utilizing the viscoelastic properties of cement. This design is characterized by its polished surface and reduces the shear stresses at the bone-cement interface by increasing compressive force by having a distally tapered design22). Another design is a composite beam model that is made to improve limitations of femoral stem fixation through formation of a strong mechanical bonding at the stem-cement interface. This model strengthens the bonding by creating a rough stem surface or adopting the precoating method with PMMA. Since the latter design has brought increases in loosening rates of the bone cement and marrow cavity, the taper slip model is accepted as the standard design.

In regards to prosthetic material, metals with higher modulus of elasticity such as Co-Cr alloy or stainless steel are preferred rather to titanium alloys, because stresses imposed on the cement can be decreased. Moreover, most prosthetic designs have distal centralizers for a uniform thickness of the cement mantle.

Robin Ling first pointed out the importance of careful preparation of the bone surfaces and of forcing the cement into the bone by pressure22). It was developed as the second-generation cementing technique, which improve interlocking shear strength by bone lavage and drying in prior to cementing for removing fat, blood, and other debris, and using plug before cementing to make sufficient compression by blocking the distal portion. Furthermore, blood mixing is prevented through retrograde cementing via a cement gun. The third-generation cementing technique enhances the physical properties of cement by reducing cement porosity via vacuum mixing or centrifugation and pressurization. The-fourth generation cementing technique adds to the third-generation concept of stem centralization both proximally and distally to ensure an adequate cement mantle.

Due to these improvements in stem design and cementing techniques, hybrid THA demonstrate comparable survival rate to those of cementless THA. And cementing techniques have a low risk of complications associated with cementless THA such as periprosthetic fracture and thigh pain19). Currently, cementless THA is predominantly performed because of the rapid progression of cementless design, shorter operating time, and technical difficulties of cementing23). However, cemented THA still remains the standard option for primary revision THA, and can be an alternative choice to resolve problems of cementless THA. Therefore, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of surgery and precise surgical technique is crucial.

2. Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty

The early prostheses, before Charnley introduced bone cement, were cementless. However, it was not biologic fixation and often failed due to absence of long-lasting fixation. The 1970s was a time of intensive basic experimental research on surface coating and tissue ingrowth. These investigations delineated two basic criteria for bone ingrowth into porous surfaces. First, bone ingrowth could be achieved into microporous surfaces when pore size was between 50 and 500 mm. Second, for this bone ingrowth to be achieved, a stable implant with minimal interface motion was necessary24). Osseointegration following cementless fixation is divided into ongrowth or ingrowth of bone according to histological characteristics. Bone ingrowth refers to bone formation within the porous structures of the implant and is observed on surfaces treated with bead coating, plasma spraying, tantalum porous coating and others. Bone ongrowth is used to describe the development of bone onto rough surfaces finished with grit blasting, hydroxyapatite (HA) coating and others. For this reason, cementless stem design has been developed toward ‘fit and fill’ concept in the intramedullary canal to get the stability as increasing the contact surface between bone and stem as much as possible, and is a current standard femoral component design.

Since the introduction of the cementless acetabular cup, different cup designs have been attempted to increase stability. In the early years, a threaded acetabular cup was made to maintain the initial fixation only mechanically without surface coating, and this led to failure like in femoral components. Later on, threaded and expansion cups with grit-blasted surfaces were used. Although short and mid-term clinical outcomes were favorable, long-term failure rates were relatively high. A hemispherical acetabular cup with a porous-coated surface is currently the most frequently used design25). This design is better in obtaining biological fixation by providing greater contact surface area between the bone and the component. Although brit-blasted and HA-coated surfaces designs were also attempted, unsatisfying results were observed unlike in the femoral stem. So, the porous coating design was applied and mainly used to induce bone ingrowth for acetabular component26,2728). To achieve initial stable fixation, compression by inserting a cup bigger than the reaming diameter of the acetabular bone is used. The author of this study also uses a cup 2 mm larger than the reaming diameter in compression. Screw fixation through a hole in the metal cup is typically used in additional fixation.

Cementless stem design has been developed taking a ‘fit and fill’ approach in the intramedullary canal to maximize stability as increasing the contact surface between bone and stem as much as possible, and is a current standard femoral component design. Besides the ‘fit and fill’ concept in the evolution of cementless femoral stem designs, there are a variety of design concepts to obtain initial stability. One popular design concept is proximal fixation in the metaphysis and a distally tapered design to reduce stress shielding caused by high modulus of elasticity of metal. Also, there is distal diaphyseal scratch-fit design such as AML (Anatomic Medullary Locking, Depuy) stem, which has the problem of stress-shielded bone loss proximally. The press-fit concept is designed to provide strong rotational stability. To ensure strong initial press-fit fixation, a stem with rectangular cross section or a wedge-shape is fixed at metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction with a strong press fit. The CLS (Cementless Spotorno, Zimmer) or Zweymüller (Zimmer) stem is most commonly used and has shown good clinical results in a long-term follow-up2930). In many cases, these stems have blasted surfaces made by spraying metal or ceramic powders at a high pressure to create rough surfaces31).

Titanium alloys with low modulus of elasticity are preferred materials instead of Co-Cr alloys. Cobalt-chrome stem surfaces (Trilock, PCA, and AML) are commonly coated with sintered beads, while titanium stem surfaces are roughened with meshing, plasma spraying and grit blasting for osseointegration. A circumferentially coated stem exhibits substantially lower osteolysis than a patch-coated stem, this stem prevents distal migration of polyethylene wear debris and has a lower incidence of loosening. Consequently, the cementless stem without circumferential coating at the proximal extent is no longer used. Furthermore, though HA-coated stems have displayed good outcomes in terms of bone ongrowth, the use of this stem design is gradually decreasing due to debonding, coating absorption or other problems.

In summary, the use of a porous-coated hemispherical acetabular cup is found to be the best option to induce bone ingrowth. Additional screw fixation is optional. The femoral stem designs vary widely according to different concepts, but identifying the best option remains controversial. In choosing hip prostheses, surgeons should prepare for surgery with a full understanding of each implant design to achieve sufficient initial stability and minimize complication by adequate techniques.

Surface replacement arthroplasty, also known as cup arthroplasty, was first introduced by Charnley in the 1950s prior to low-friction arthroplasty. The femoral head was covered with a cup of Teflon, and the acetabulum was lined with another layer of Teflon. However, he abandoned it because of unsatisfactory results. Since the late 1970s, Gerard, Paltinieri, Trentani, Furuya, Freeman, Capello, Amstutz, Wagner and others reported varying results using improved implant designs and modified surgical techniques. Most of them used plastic cup and larger metal head resurfacing fixed with bone cement. In very short time after introduction of surface replacement, the use of this technique gradually decreased due to early failure and severe osteolysis of the acetabular component. However, surface replacement arthroplasty has been consistently explored by some groups using improved bearing surface tolerances of MoM bearing, such as BHR (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing, Smith & Nephew) by Derek McMinn32). These implants were developed to determine the precise center of hip rotation and improved with materials and fixation for acetabular components. Moreover, the advantage of these implants is revision of the femoral component only without replacement of the acetabular component in failed cases of hip resurfacing. Amstutz and Le Duff33) suggested that the 5-year survival rate was 95.2%, and this could be improved by modifying surgical methods and choosing surgical indications, and other previous studies reached comparable conclusions3435). However, metal ion release from MoM bearings, pseudo tumor and early loosening have emerged as serious problems and these implants are rarely used at present after ASR (Articular Surface Replacement/Resurfacing, Depuy) hip implant system was recalled.

Along with recent breakthroughs and much progress in materials, surface-coating methods and designs in hip-replacement surgery, a variety of implants have demonstrated good clinical results. The development and improvement of new bearing materials are expected to overcome problems such as osteolysis, loosening and dislocation and extend the longevity of hip joint replacements. However, other new problems have emerged.

1. Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene

A critical factor for determining the long-term lifespan of THA is bearing, and high density polyethylene as a bearing material is the leading cause of osteolysis and loosening by releasing polyethylene debris36). Free radicals produced during irradiation are identified as facilitators of this process. As solutions, cross-linked polyethylene was designed to improve wear resistance through irradiation crosslinking of polyethylene by gamma or electron beam rays. Furthermore, second-generation cross-linked polyethylene was developed through blending of vitamin E, changing irradiation or annealing process for the reduction of free radicals37). This highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) has been successful in dramatically reducing wear rates and osteolysis3738). The combined use of a HXLPE cup with a ceramic femoral head has revealed good clinical results3940). This material is the most commonly used bearing surface in THA in the United States. On the other hand, resistance against fatigue fracture is reduced as wear-resistant improves, and failure has emerged as a problem due to reduced liner thickness and repeated impingement resulted from a recent trend towards increasing femoral head size41). Furthermore, damaged femoral bearing surface and third body rather lead to an increase in wear rates42), and more small wear particles could speed up the process of osteolysis.

According to a U.S. market research report in 2015, ceramic-on-HXLPE accounted for 50%, metal on HXLPE for 42% thus HXLPE acetabular liner for more than 90%43). These statistics appears to be attributed from concerns about ceramic fracture or squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings. Considering Improvements in polyethylene properties and a low coefficient of friction with ceramic, ceramic-on-HXLPE bearings are anticipated to significantly decrease osteolysis and loosening in the long term4445). However, long-term clinical outcomes have to be carefully monitored to confirm that ceramic-on-HXLPE is the best choice as a wear-resistant material.

2. Metal-on-Metal Bearings

MoM bearings have drawn increasingly more attention as the problem of polyethylene debris-induced osteolysis has been raised. MoM bearings were introduced about 40 years ago by McKee & Farrar and Ring in England, and by Haboush, Urist, and McBride in the United States. While the use of these prostheses gave surgeons further experience with what had become known as THA, the results were not entirely satisfactory because of problems with loosening of the components and wear between the opposing metal surfaces. That was the reason why Charnley prosthesis took the place of MoM bearing prosthesis. The leading cause of failure was aseptic loosening, and other causes were rough bearing surfaces, not fully rounded shape and too small clearance3246). Subsequently, manufacturers introduced the MetasulTM as second-generation MoM prosthesis by modifying first-generation MoM hip prosthesis in several aspects, and the MetasulTM was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraion (FDA) in 1999. The benefits of MoM bearing are that the volume of wear debris released by MoM bearings is about 100 to 200 times lower than that of polyethylene gamma sterilized in air, and hip stability can be enhanced by having the ability to use large femoral heads47). On the contrary, potential problems with metal bearing surfaces are metal hypersensitivity and adverse local tissue reactions (ALTRs) such as pseudo tumor. Although the clinical symptoms of ALTRs occur in a small number of patients, ALTRs are suspected to shorten the life expectancy of hip arthroplasty by incurring severe osteolysis4849). In addition, Co-Cr used for MoM bearing surfaces may generate genetic mutations as long-term biological reaction, and act as an oncogenic material through ionization50). According to the data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, the revision rate of arthroplasties involving the ASR XL was 9.3% and ASR resurfacing was 10.9% at 5-year follow up51). According to the National Joint Registry of England and Wales (2012), the revision rate was 3.59% and high failure rates for MoM hip replacements were shown particularly in young women implanted with large diameter heads52). DePuy issued a voluntary recall of ASR devices in 2010, and the FDA has required post-marketing studies since 2011. The Korea Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) also took similar measures in 2012 and this bearing system is rarely used.

3. Ceramic-on-Ceramic Bearings

CoC bearings can be an optimal option for hip-bearing material due to their many advantages (e.g., hardness, high wear resistance, no metal ion release, enhanced lubrication with chemical inertness and hydrophilic properties and the ability to use of larger femoral head)53). First-generation CoC hip prosthesis introduced 30 years ago showed inadequate clinical performance due to wear and fracture. Second-generation CoC hip prostheses were released in 1977 by improving several weaknesses, but the Mittelmeier system, once momentarily popular, became a failed design due to neck-socket impingement, ceramic fracture and loosening. Third-generation alumina ceramic bearing (Biolox Forte) was introduced in 1994. The grain size in third-generation ceramics was less than 1.8 micrometer, and fracture incidence was lowered to less than 0.02% by meeting strength specifications54). The volume of wear debris released by alumina-alumina bearings is comparable to that of debris from MoM bearings, but not ionized in the body. The FDA approved alumina-on-alumina bearing hip implants in 2003 after clinical trials performed in the 1990s. Biolox Delta, introduced in 2000, is composed of 82% alumina and 17% zirconia, and according to the manufacturer, this alumina composite was anticipated to remarkably reduce the incidence of ceramic fractures. The use of Biolox Delta ceramic has reduced the rate of femoral head fractures to 0.003% compared to 0.021% for alumina-on-alumina; however the fracture rate of liners has not been reduced, and remained at approximately 0.03%54). The problem of early CoC bearing was initial acetabular fixation, thus CoC bearings have become tremendously popularized by newly developed CoC that employ modular design with metal acetabular shell in the early 2000s. The most important current concerns about CoC bearings are ceramic fracture and squeaking55). Ceramic fracture may occur when excessive load is partially applied. First, incorrect component positioning of the acetabular cup and the femoral stem may generate fracture by incurring impingement. Fractures may also be caused by mismatched geometry between the taper and ceramic head, damaged taper and jamming when a liner is placed into the cup in the wrong direction. Squeaking is a phenomenon which could occur when using hard-on-hard bearings. The reported clinical incidence of squeaking with CoC bearings varies between 0.7% and 20.9%56). Although the exact cause has not been clarified, squeaking appears to be associated with a specific stem design, a short neck length, anteversion of the acetabular cup and others5758). Squeaking requires revision when a patient complains of discomfort to noises, since this symptom persists permanently without spontaneous remission59). Despite such problem, CoC bearings have demonstrated favorable clinical results at long-term follow-up39,60,61,6263).

CoC bearings are widely used in Korea, but this is different from the U.S. market where ceramic-on-HXLPE is used at a considerably high rate. Demand for ceramic heads is gradually increasing in most markets worldwide43).

4. Big Head Concept

The normal range of motion for hip flexion is 135°, but artificial hip joints were designed to accommodate maximal flexion up to 120°. Even though the current designs of prostheses are dramatically improved, impingement between the femoral head and the acetabular liner is unavoidable. In particular, impingement frequently occurs in 22-mm and 28-mm diameter heads, and can be easily checked in revision surgery due to wear of the polyethylene liner. However, this cannot happen in a ceramic or metal liner; therefore impingement can potentially lead to dislodgement or ceramic fracture and others. However, femoral head sizes could not exceed 28 mm on polyethylene due to wear, but the use of larger size femoral heads are allowed after wear has been resolved to a certain degree in cross-linked polyethylene, ceramic or metal materials. Therefore, the risk of impingement can be reduced by using larger heads64). Head sizes have gradually increased up to 32 mm, 36 mm and 40 mm. In the United States, the most commonly used head sizes are 36 mm (51%), followed by 32 mm (28%)23). The use of larger femoral heads has attracted much attention because larger head size gives proportionally greater range of motion and lowers impingement or dislocation rates.

With increasing head sizes, new problems have been manifested including bursitis of the iliopsoas tendon and others. According to one study, head diameters greater than 32 mm were essential to minimize component to component impingement, but the range of motion no longer increased by using femoral heads greater than 38 mm. Because the impingement in further range of motion is caused by bone-to-bone impingement65), the use of head sizes larger than 36 mm seems to be meaningless.

1. Minimally Invasive Total Hip Arthroplasty

Minimally invasive surgery has drawn much attention worldwide as it has achieved clinical outcomes equivalent to standard surgical approaches, and this trend continues in the field of orthopedics. Minimally invasive procedures such as arthroscopic surgery or endoscopic spinal surgery have been popularized as their outstanding efficacy and benefits have been proved in THA. Minimally invasive hip replacement, in fact, is not a single type of surgery but rather is a family of operations designed to allow total hip replacement to be completed through smaller incisions, potentially with less soft-tissue disruption. The three main methods involve; i) a combination of a small incision and a posterior approach to the hip, ii) a combination of a small incision and an anterior approach to the hip, or iii) two small incisions performed using the Smith-Peterson interval for acetabular placement and the approach usually used for femoral intramedullary nailing for femoral component insertion. However, clinical results for these approaches still remain controversial. Some studies have suggested that minimally invasive surgery is similar to traditional surgical methods6667), while previous studies have reported higher rates of adverse effects including inadequate fixation of implants, extended opening hours, technical challenges, increased risk of neurovascular injuries, and fracture caused by insufficient dissection of soft tissues during prosthesis insertion due to difficulty in obtaining a surgical view and excessive or insufficient reaming6869). In addition, other limitations include the lack of long-term follow-up studies and other scientific information. However, many problems can be solved by using navigation systems70).

Intense focus on improving initial problems is demanding in THA which requires long-term monitoring, and there are limitations to overcome complications at present.

2. Computer Navigation and Robot Surgery

Correct positioning of the acetabular or femoral component during THA results in good clinical outcomes, but not all operations yield desirable results. (Malposition of the acetabular component during hip arthroplasty increases the occurrence of impingement, reduces range of motion, and increases the risk of dislocation and long-term wear.) Although surgeons have acquired surgical techniques to insert implants at correct position, different surgeons have different limitations. Along with scientific development, surgical intervention using computer-assisted navigation enables the remote tracking of human anatomical structures and surgical instruments. To determine accurate orientation of surgical instruments and patient's anatomical locations spatially, provided views are used as virtual reference data using three non-collinear points coordinated by the camera system. There are three types of surgical planning: i) volumetric image-based navigation, which makes use of volumetric images such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or ultrasound echography; ii) fluoroscopic navigation, which makes use of intraoperative fluoroscopic images; and iii) imageless navigation, which makes use of kinetic information about joints or morphometric information about the target bones obtained intraoperatively71). This navigation system is increasingly used as an alternative measure to prevent possible incorrect positioning of the acetabular cup in minimally invasive surgery7273). However, the navigation system is too expensive to be commercialized and its efficacy still has a lot of controversial issues.

Robot-assisted THA is further elaborated computer-assisted orthopedic surgery where a hip prosthesis is designed to fill the medullary canal is custom-made through three-dimensional visualization of computed tomography-image data, and then the shape of the medullary canal is carved using a high-speed burr or rasp. Subsequently, the designed implant is inserted to accurately fit the medullary canal with a computed tomography-based navigation system. However, this technique is used sparingly because filling the medullary canal to the maximum degree does not guarantee favorable results, and it is still in the trial stage due to the lack of long-term data, cost-related problems and insufficient studies to clarify safety74). This field appears to have unlimited potential for development along with future scientific advances.

Hip replacement is a remarkable medical innovation that allows humans to walk without pain by reconstructing badly damaged hip joints. Today, hip replacement procedures have advanced dramatically through failures and successes over many years. The introduction of a new hip prosthesis does not always mean better performance compared to traditional hip implants nor does it assure good clinical outcomes. The best professional approach for surgeons will be performing surgery using standard hip replacement prostheses when fully understanding the concepts, principles, benefits and risks of currently established approaches.

  1. Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 2012;380:1768-1777.
    Pubmed
  2. Hernigou P. Earliest times before hip arthroplasty: from John Rhea Barton to Themistocles Glück. Int Orthop 2013;37:2313-2318.
    Pubmed
  3. Wiles P. The surgery of the osteoarthritic hip. Br J Surg 1958;45:488-497.
    Pubmed
  4. Moore AT. The self-locking metal hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1957;39-A:811-827.
    Pubmed
  5. Thompson FR. Two and a half years' experience with a vitallium intramedullary hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1954;36-A:489-502.
    Pubmed
  6. McKee GK, Watson-Farrar J. Replacement of arthritic hips by the McKee-Farrar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1966;48:245-259.
    Pubmed
  7. Charnley J, Cupic Z. The nine and ten year results of the low-friction arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1973;:9-25.
    Pubmed
  8. Charnley J. Anchorage of the femoral head prosthesis to the shaft of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1960;42-B:28-30.
    Pubmed
  9. Charnley J. Arthroplasty of the hip. A new operation. Lancet 1961;1:1129-1132.
    Pubmed
  10. Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Cabanela ME, Morrey BF. Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84-A:171-177.
    Pubmed
  11. Callaghan JJ, Templeton JE, Liu SS, et al. Results of Charnley total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of thirty years. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:690-695.
    Pubmed
  12. Ereth MH, Weber JG, Abel MD, et al. Cemented versus noncemented total hip arthroplasty--embolism, hemodynamics, and intrapulmonary shunting. Mayo Clin Proc 1992;67:1066-1074.
    Pubmed
  13. Parvizi J, Holiday AD, Ereth MH, Lewallen DG. The frank stinchfield award. Sudden death during primary hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999;:39-48.
  14. Koessler MJ, Fabiani R, Hamer H, Pitto RP. The clinical relevance of embolic events detected by transesophageal echocardiography during cemented total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Analg 2001;92:49-55.
    Pubmed
  15. Jones LC, Hungerford DS. Cement disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987;:192-206.
  16. Clohisy JC, Harris WH. Matched-pair analysis of cemented and cementless acetabular reconstruction in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:697-705.
    Pubmed
  17. Hartofilakidis G, Georgiades G, Babis GC. A comparison of the outcome of cemented all-polyethylene and cementless metal-backed acetabular sockets in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009;24:217-225.
    Pubmed
  18. Voigt JD, Mosier MC. Cemented all-polyethylene acetabular implants vs other forms of acetabular fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Arthroplasty 2012;27:1544-1553.e10.
    Pubmed
  19. González Della Valle A, Sharrock N, Barlow M, Caceres L, Go G, Salvati EA. The modern, hybrid total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis at the Hospital for Special Surgery. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:54-59.
    Pubmed
  20. Harris WH, Maloney WJ. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;:21-29.
  21. Berger RA, Kull LR, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty: 7- to 10-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;:134-146.
  22. Lee AJ, Ling RS, Vangala SS. Some clinically relevant variables affecting the mechanical behaviour of bone cement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1978;92:1-18.
    Pubmed
  23. Lehil MS, Bozic KJ. Trends in total hip arthroplasty implant utilization in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2014;29:1915-1918.
    Pubmed
  24. Boyan BD, Lossdörfer S, Wang L, et al. Osteoblasts generate an osteogenic microenvironment when grown on surfaces with rough microtopographies. Eur Cell Mater 2003;6:22-27.
    Pubmed
  25. DiFazio FA. The current status of acetabular fixation in total hip replacement. Orthop Rev 1992;21:1067-1071.
    Pubmed
  26. Miyakawa S, Kawamura H, Mishima H, Yasumoto J. Grit-blasted and hydroxyapatite-coated total hip arthroplasty: an 11- to 14-year follow-up study. J Orthop Sci 2004;9:462-467.
    Pubmed
  27. Delaunay CP, Kapandji AI. Survivorship of rough-surfaced threaded acetabular cups. 382 consecutive primary Zweymüller cups followed for 0.2-12 years. Acta Orthop Scand 1998;69:379-383.
    Pubmed
  28. Cheung KW, Yung SH, Wong KC, Chiu KH. Early failure of smooth hydroxyapatite-coated press-fit acetabular cup--7 years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:627-631.
    Pubmed
  29. Aldinger PR, Breusch SJ, Lukoschek M, Mau H, Ewerbeck V, Thomsen M. A ten- to 15-year follow-up of the cementless spotorno stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85:209-214.
    Pubmed
  30. Müller LA, Wenger N, Schramm M, Hohmann D, Forst R, Carl HD. Seventeen-year survival of the cementless CLS Spotorno stem. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010;130:269-275.
    Pubmed
  31. Khanuja HS, Vakil JJ, Goddard MS, Mont MA. Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:500-509.
    Pubmed
  32. McMinn D, Treacy R, Lin K, Pynsent P. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Experience of the McMinn prothesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;:S89-S98.
    Pubmed
  33. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ. Eleven years of experience with metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing: a review of 1000 conserve plus. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:36-43.
    Pubmed
  34. Jameson SS, Langton DJ, Natu S, Nargol TV. The influence of age and sex on early clinical results after hip resurfacing: an independent center analysis. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:50-55.
    Pubmed
  35. Kim PR, Beaulé PE, Laflamme GY, Dunbar M. Causes of early failure in a multicenter clinical trial of hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:44-49.
  36. Willert HG, Bertram H, Buchhorn GH. Osteolysis in alloarthroplasty of the hip. The role of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene wear particles. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;:95-107.
  37. 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;89:2779-2786.
    Pubmed
  38. Hanna SA, Somerville L, McCalden RW, Naudie DD, MacDonald SJ. Highly cross-linked polyethylene decreases the rate of revision of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene at 13 years' follow-up. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:28-32.
  39. Kim YH, Park JW, Kulkarni SS, Kim YH. A randomised prospective evaluation of ceramic-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings in the same patients with primary cementless total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2013;37:2131-2137.
    Pubmed
  40. Fukui K, Kaneuji A, Sugimori T, Ichiseki T, Matsumoto T. Wear comparison between conventional and highly cross-linked polyethylene against a zirconia head: a concise follow-up, at an average 10 years, of a previous report. J Arthroplasty 2013;28:1654-1658.
    Pubmed
  41. Brown TD, Elkins JM, Pedersen DR, Callaghan JJ. Impingement and dislocation in total hip arthroplasty: mechanisms and consequences. Iowa Orthop J 2014;34:1-15.
    Pubmed
  42. Heiner AD, Galvin AL, Fisher J, Callaghan JJ, Brown TD. Scratching vulnerability of conventional vs highly cross-linked polyethylene liners because of large embedded third-body particles. J Arthroplasty 2012;27:742-749.
    Pubmed
  43. Mendenhall S. Editorial--Hidden costs in cap prices. Orthop Netw News 2015;26:466-469.
  44. Malerba G, De Santis V, Francesco B, et al. Wear in total hip arthroplasty using ceramic head: 10 years maximum FU. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:9th.
  45. Urban JA, Garvin KL, Boese CK, et al. Ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. Seventeen to twenty-one-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83-A:1688-1694.
    Pubmed
  46. Amstutz HC, Grigoris P. Metal on metal bearings in hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;:S11-S34.
    Pubmed
  47. Cuckler JM. The rationale for metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;441:132-136.
    Pubmed
  48. Levy YD, Ezzet KA. Poor short term outcome with a metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013;28:1212-1217.
    Pubmed
  49. Fehring TK, Odum S, Sproul R, Weathersbee J. High frequency of adverse local tissue reactions in asymptomatic patients with metal-on-metal THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:517-522.
    Pubmed
  50. Witzleb WC, Ziegler J, Krummenauer F, Neumeister V, Guenther KP. Exposure to chromium, cobalt and molybdenum from metal-on-metal total hip replacement and hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2006;77:697-705.
    Pubmed
  51. de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN, Graves SE, Davidson DC. Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:2287-2293.
    Pubmed
  52. Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Vernon K, Porter M, Blom AW. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Lancet 2012;379:1199-1204.
    Pubmed
  53. Sedel L. Evolution of alumina-on-alumina implants: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;:48-54.
    Pubmed
  54. Massin P, Lopes R, Masson B, Mainard D. Does Biolox Delta ceramic reduce the rate of component fractures in total hip replacement?. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014;100:S317-S321.
    Pubmed
  55. Migaud H, Putman S, Kern G, et al. Do the reasons for ceramic-on-ceramic revisions differ from other bearings in total hip arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016;474:2190-2199.
    Pubmed
  56. Mai K, Verioti C, Ezzet KA, Copp SN, Walker RH, Colwell CW. Incidence of ‘squeaking’ after ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:413-417.
    Pubmed
  57. Keurentjes JC, Kuipers RM, Wever DJ, Schreurs BW. High incidence of squeaking in THAs with alumina ceramic-on-ceramic bearings. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:1438-1443.
    Pubmed
  58. Walter WL, O'toole GC, Walter WK, Ellis A, Zicat BA. Squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic hips: the importance of acetabular component orientation. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:496-503.
    Pubmed
  59. Restrepo C, Matar WY, Parvizi J, Rothman RH, Hozack WJ. Natural history of squeaking after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:2340-2345.
    Pubmed
  60. Seo BH, Ryu DJ, Kang JS, Moon KH. Primary total hip arthroplasty using 3rd generation ceramic-on-ceramic articulation. Hip Int 2016;26:468-473.
    Pubmed
  61. Lee GC, Bistolfi A. Ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: A new standard. Semin Arthroplasty 2015;26:11-15.
  62. Kang BJ, Ha YC, Ham DW, Hwang SC, Lee YK, Koo KH. Third-generation alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty: 14 to 16-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2015;30:411-415.
    Pubmed
  63. Lee GC, Knox DE, Garino JP. Long-term results of hybrid alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty: 10-14-year results. Semin Arthroplasty 2013;24:202-205.
  64. Crowninshield RD, Maloney WJ, Wentz DH, Humphrey SM, Blanchard CR. Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don't do. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;:102-107.
    Pubmed
  65. Burroughs BR, Hallstrom B, Golladay GJ, Hoeffel D, Harris WH. Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:11-19.
    Pubmed
  66. Chimento GF, Pavone V, Sharrock N, Kahn B, Cahill J, Sculco TP. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:139-144.
    Pubmed
  67. Berry DJ, Berger RA, Callaghan JJ, et al. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Development, early results, and a critical analysis. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Orthopaedic Association, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, June 14, 2003. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85-A:2235-2246.
    Pubmed
  68. Wall SJ, Mears SC. Analysis of published evidence on minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:55-58.
    Pubmed
  69. Kim YH. Comparison of primary total hip arthroplasties performed with a minimally invasive technique or a standard technique: a prospective and randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2006;21:1092-1098.
    Pubmed
  70. Reininga IH, Zijlstra W, Wagenmakers R, et al. Minimally invasive and computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty: a qualitative and systematic review of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010;11:92.
    Pubmed
  71. Sugano N. Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery. J Orthop Sci 2003;8:442-448.
    Pubmed
  72. Wixson RL, MacDonald MA. Total hip arthroplasty through a minimal posterior approach using imageless computer-assisted hip navigation. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:51-56.
  73. DiGioia AM, Plakseychuk AY, Levison TJ, Jaramaz B. Mini-incision technique for total hip arthroplasty with navigation. J Arthroplasty 2003;18:123-128.
    Pubmed
  74. Adili A. Robot-assisted orthopedic surgery. Semin Laparosc Surg 2004;11:89-98.
    Pubmed

Article

Editorial

Hip Pelvis 2016; 28(4): 191-200

Published online December 31, 2016 https://doi.org/10.5371/hp.2016.28.4.191

Copyright © The Korean Hip Society.

The Current Concepts of Total Hip Arthroplasty

Joong-Myung Lee, MD, PhD

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, Korea

Correspondence to:Joong-Myung Lee, MD, PhD
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, CHA Bundang Medial Center, CHA University, 59 Yatap-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam, Gyeonggido 13496, Korea
TEL: +82-31-780-5289 FAX: +82-31-708-3578
E-mail: drjmlee@naver.com

Received: November 24, 2016; Revised: December 8, 2016; Accepted: December 8, 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

INTRODUCTION

Joints deformed or injured by trauma, different forms of arthritis, infection and other causes tend to aggravate rather than regenerate. These progressive joint abnormalities may lead to severe pain, claudication, and nonfunctional ambulatory status, and tend to manifest more evidently in the hip joint than in the knee or ankle joints. Orthopaedic surgeons have continued their efforts to cure these joint disorders over centuries. Treatment choices include pharmacotherapy and conservative interventions, but surgery is the best option in many cases. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the most commonly performed adult reconstructive hip procedure and almost one million are being implanted annually worldwide, and projected to grow at a faster rate1). The author of this study aimed to review the advancements in THA that have occurred through trial and error.

THE HISTORY OF HIP ARTHROPLASTY

The first recorded successful hip arthroplasty was femoral osteotomy between the greater trochanter and lesser trochanter in the fused hip, performed by John Rhea Barton in 1826 in Philadelphia2). Since then, surgeons have seeked alternative methods to replace the removed joint. Until now, the two main questions raised by investigators are: i) what are the alternative materials that can be used in a joint replacement?; ii) how can these materials be fixed firmly? Looking for answers to these questions can be regarded as a history of hip replacement in the early years.

The first question is about bearings, and investigators have explored a variety of materials including glass, ivory, metal alloys (e.g., Co-Cr), synthetic substances, polyethylene and ceramics. Glass, ivory and nylon are no longer used, while polyethylene and ceramic materials are widely used as they improve limitations. The second question is how to make a successful fixation, as related to both the design of the prosthesis and the actual fixation method including cemented and cementless. In 1958, Philip Wiles of London implanted matched acetabular and femoral components made of stainless steel as hip replacements in six patients with Still's disease. The acetabulum was stabilized with screws and the head component with a stem, side plate, and screws3). But, these implants were not successful. After that, it has been attempted to fix femoral prosthesis to the femoral canal. Before bone cement was introduced, fixation of prostheses into the medullary canal was uneasy, so more than 50 different prosthetic designs were developed until the 1950s. Components were designed as short or long stems. Based on the clinical outcomes that a long-stem prosthesis was more stable and a metal implant was more durable than a nonmetal implant, Thompson and Austin Moore inserted a long-stem prosthesis without cement45). Although stem designs and surgical techniques on fixation of the femoral prosthesis with a metal stem have been improved, the basic principles are still valid until today. Since prosthetic fixation in the acetabulum is also challenging, Ring, Sivash and others intended to fix implants using a screw or a threaded cup but failed in achieving long-term stability. Around the same time, McKee and Watson-Farrar6) developed the metal-on-metal (MoM) prosthesis using a long intramedullary stem and a screw-type acetabular cup an overall success rate of 51% between 1956 and 1960. However, they redesigned the cemented-type cup in 1960s. After first introducing polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) bone cement7), which became very popular and successful implant.

THE CHARNLEY LOW-FRICTION ARTHROPLASTY

In 1950s, Frederik R. Thompson of New York and Austin T. Moore of South Carolina developed prostheses which replaced only the femoral head. And these were commonly used to treat hip fractures and arthritis cases45). This type of hip arthroplasty, called hemiarthroplasty, was used in the diseased femoral head, but did not resolve acetabular problems. Despite tremendous popularity for these prostheses in the 1950s, clinical results were hardly predictable. On the other hand, Charnley89) aggressively pursued effective methods of replacing both the femoral head and acetabulum and obtained favorable long-term results by introducing bone cement, which was used to achieve primary stability for dental implants. His most important intellectual breakthrough was his concept of the low-friction arthroplasty. Previously, all surgeons had substituted prostheses that were the same size and configuration as normal human anatomy. Charnley greatly reduced the diameter of the head on the femoral stem to a diameter of 22 mm to improve the frictional torque. Maurice E Müller in Switzerland introduced a design with a femoral head diameter of 32 mm for hip joint stability. In 1958, Charnley attempted to use polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) bearings, but the clinical outcomes were poor9). After an initial failure with the use of Teflon as a bearing surface, he adopted high molecular weight polyethylene which showed satisfactory clinical performance. This was the beginning of the “total hip arthroplasty”. Charnley THA had been commonly performed after gaining widespread popularity in the United Kingdom and the United States, and long term survivorship rates reached up to 95% at 10-year follow-up and more than 80% at 25-year follow-up; however, a relatively high failure rate (68%) was demonstrated in physically active patients1,1011). To sum up the achievements of Charnley, he increased long-term implant survivorship by using bone cement, first used polyethylene bearings, and described the concept of the “low friction arthroplasty” as a solution to wear problems. In addition, he tried to improve weaknesses by recognizing vulnerability of hip arthroplasty to infection. It is no exaggeration to say that most modern hip replacement concepts have advanced from Charnley's achievements. Therefore, identifying why and how Charnley THA has evolved is a good means of better understanding the latest hip replacement techniques.

CEMENTED VS. CEMENTLESS HIP ARTHROPLASTY

1. Cemented Total Hip Arthroplasty

The greatest benefit of using bone cement in hip arthroplasty is to secure firm initial stability. Since this stability is achieved regardless of bone quality, this intervention can be applied to elderly patients, tumor cases, revision cases associated with severe bone loss and others. On the contrary, the disadvantages of bone cement are the potential risk of cardiopulmonary disturbance, called bone cement implantation syndrome12,1314), and challenging surgical techniques and concerns about long-term survivorship. Even though the cause of aseptic loosening has been clarified as polyethylene debris instead of bone cement, Aseptic failures of cemented arthroplasties were at one time thought to result from a biologic reaction to the cement, and the term ‘cement disease’ was coined15). Multiple studies have reported that the cemented acetabular cup, in particular, has a higher loosening rate than the cementless implant when used for more than 10 years, and despite advances in cementing technique, reductions in the failure rate have not been achieved. That was the reason why the use of the cemented acetabular cups has decreased 16,1718). By comparison, the cemented femoral component is still being used in many cases, and has revealed favorable clinical performance for more than 15 years as the concept of hybrid THA19,2021). This is because that this component has secured satisfying durability along with improvements in cemented femoral component designs and cementing techniques.

There are two important concepts related to the design of the cemented femoral stem. First, a taper slip design is designed to obtain stronger stability with slight subsidence of the femoral component within the cement mantle utilizing the viscoelastic properties of cement. This design is characterized by its polished surface and reduces the shear stresses at the bone-cement interface by increasing compressive force by having a distally tapered design22). Another design is a composite beam model that is made to improve limitations of femoral stem fixation through formation of a strong mechanical bonding at the stem-cement interface. This model strengthens the bonding by creating a rough stem surface or adopting the precoating method with PMMA. Since the latter design has brought increases in loosening rates of the bone cement and marrow cavity, the taper slip model is accepted as the standard design.

In regards to prosthetic material, metals with higher modulus of elasticity such as Co-Cr alloy or stainless steel are preferred rather to titanium alloys, because stresses imposed on the cement can be decreased. Moreover, most prosthetic designs have distal centralizers for a uniform thickness of the cement mantle.

Robin Ling first pointed out the importance of careful preparation of the bone surfaces and of forcing the cement into the bone by pressure22). It was developed as the second-generation cementing technique, which improve interlocking shear strength by bone lavage and drying in prior to cementing for removing fat, blood, and other debris, and using plug before cementing to make sufficient compression by blocking the distal portion. Furthermore, blood mixing is prevented through retrograde cementing via a cement gun. The third-generation cementing technique enhances the physical properties of cement by reducing cement porosity via vacuum mixing or centrifugation and pressurization. The-fourth generation cementing technique adds to the third-generation concept of stem centralization both proximally and distally to ensure an adequate cement mantle.

Due to these improvements in stem design and cementing techniques, hybrid THA demonstrate comparable survival rate to those of cementless THA. And cementing techniques have a low risk of complications associated with cementless THA such as periprosthetic fracture and thigh pain19). Currently, cementless THA is predominantly performed because of the rapid progression of cementless design, shorter operating time, and technical difficulties of cementing23). However, cemented THA still remains the standard option for primary revision THA, and can be an alternative choice to resolve problems of cementless THA. Therefore, understanding the advantages and disadvantages of surgery and precise surgical technique is crucial.

2. Cementless Total Hip Arthroplasty

The early prostheses, before Charnley introduced bone cement, were cementless. However, it was not biologic fixation and often failed due to absence of long-lasting fixation. The 1970s was a time of intensive basic experimental research on surface coating and tissue ingrowth. These investigations delineated two basic criteria for bone ingrowth into porous surfaces. First, bone ingrowth could be achieved into microporous surfaces when pore size was between 50 and 500 mm. Second, for this bone ingrowth to be achieved, a stable implant with minimal interface motion was necessary24). Osseointegration following cementless fixation is divided into ongrowth or ingrowth of bone according to histological characteristics. Bone ingrowth refers to bone formation within the porous structures of the implant and is observed on surfaces treated with bead coating, plasma spraying, tantalum porous coating and others. Bone ongrowth is used to describe the development of bone onto rough surfaces finished with grit blasting, hydroxyapatite (HA) coating and others. For this reason, cementless stem design has been developed toward ‘fit and fill’ concept in the intramedullary canal to get the stability as increasing the contact surface between bone and stem as much as possible, and is a current standard femoral component design.

Since the introduction of the cementless acetabular cup, different cup designs have been attempted to increase stability. In the early years, a threaded acetabular cup was made to maintain the initial fixation only mechanically without surface coating, and this led to failure like in femoral components. Later on, threaded and expansion cups with grit-blasted surfaces were used. Although short and mid-term clinical outcomes were favorable, long-term failure rates were relatively high. A hemispherical acetabular cup with a porous-coated surface is currently the most frequently used design25). This design is better in obtaining biological fixation by providing greater contact surface area between the bone and the component. Although brit-blasted and HA-coated surfaces designs were also attempted, unsatisfying results were observed unlike in the femoral stem. So, the porous coating design was applied and mainly used to induce bone ingrowth for acetabular component26,2728). To achieve initial stable fixation, compression by inserting a cup bigger than the reaming diameter of the acetabular bone is used. The author of this study also uses a cup 2 mm larger than the reaming diameter in compression. Screw fixation through a hole in the metal cup is typically used in additional fixation.

Cementless stem design has been developed taking a ‘fit and fill’ approach in the intramedullary canal to maximize stability as increasing the contact surface between bone and stem as much as possible, and is a current standard femoral component design. Besides the ‘fit and fill’ concept in the evolution of cementless femoral stem designs, there are a variety of design concepts to obtain initial stability. One popular design concept is proximal fixation in the metaphysis and a distally tapered design to reduce stress shielding caused by high modulus of elasticity of metal. Also, there is distal diaphyseal scratch-fit design such as AML (Anatomic Medullary Locking, Depuy) stem, which has the problem of stress-shielded bone loss proximally. The press-fit concept is designed to provide strong rotational stability. To ensure strong initial press-fit fixation, a stem with rectangular cross section or a wedge-shape is fixed at metaphyseal-diaphyseal junction with a strong press fit. The CLS (Cementless Spotorno, Zimmer) or Zweymüller (Zimmer) stem is most commonly used and has shown good clinical results in a long-term follow-up2930). In many cases, these stems have blasted surfaces made by spraying metal or ceramic powders at a high pressure to create rough surfaces31).

Titanium alloys with low modulus of elasticity are preferred materials instead of Co-Cr alloys. Cobalt-chrome stem surfaces (Trilock, PCA, and AML) are commonly coated with sintered beads, while titanium stem surfaces are roughened with meshing, plasma spraying and grit blasting for osseointegration. A circumferentially coated stem exhibits substantially lower osteolysis than a patch-coated stem, this stem prevents distal migration of polyethylene wear debris and has a lower incidence of loosening. Consequently, the cementless stem without circumferential coating at the proximal extent is no longer used. Furthermore, though HA-coated stems have displayed good outcomes in terms of bone ongrowth, the use of this stem design is gradually decreasing due to debonding, coating absorption or other problems.

In summary, the use of a porous-coated hemispherical acetabular cup is found to be the best option to induce bone ingrowth. Additional screw fixation is optional. The femoral stem designs vary widely according to different concepts, but identifying the best option remains controversial. In choosing hip prostheses, surgeons should prepare for surgery with a full understanding of each implant design to achieve sufficient initial stability and minimize complication by adequate techniques.

RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY

Surface replacement arthroplasty, also known as cup arthroplasty, was first introduced by Charnley in the 1950s prior to low-friction arthroplasty. The femoral head was covered with a cup of Teflon, and the acetabulum was lined with another layer of Teflon. However, he abandoned it because of unsatisfactory results. Since the late 1970s, Gerard, Paltinieri, Trentani, Furuya, Freeman, Capello, Amstutz, Wagner and others reported varying results using improved implant designs and modified surgical techniques. Most of them used plastic cup and larger metal head resurfacing fixed with bone cement. In very short time after introduction of surface replacement, the use of this technique gradually decreased due to early failure and severe osteolysis of the acetabular component. However, surface replacement arthroplasty has been consistently explored by some groups using improved bearing surface tolerances of MoM bearing, such as BHR (Birmingham Hip Resurfacing, Smith & Nephew) by Derek McMinn32). These implants were developed to determine the precise center of hip rotation and improved with materials and fixation for acetabular components. Moreover, the advantage of these implants is revision of the femoral component only without replacement of the acetabular component in failed cases of hip resurfacing. Amstutz and Le Duff33) suggested that the 5-year survival rate was 95.2%, and this could be improved by modifying surgical methods and choosing surgical indications, and other previous studies reached comparable conclusions3435). However, metal ion release from MoM bearings, pseudo tumor and early loosening have emerged as serious problems and these implants are rarely used at present after ASR (Articular Surface Replacement/Resurfacing, Depuy) hip implant system was recalled.

THE NEW BEARINGS

Along with recent breakthroughs and much progress in materials, surface-coating methods and designs in hip-replacement surgery, a variety of implants have demonstrated good clinical results. The development and improvement of new bearing materials are expected to overcome problems such as osteolysis, loosening and dislocation and extend the longevity of hip joint replacements. However, other new problems have emerged.

1. Highly Cross-linked Polyethylene

A critical factor for determining the long-term lifespan of THA is bearing, and high density polyethylene as a bearing material is the leading cause of osteolysis and loosening by releasing polyethylene debris36). Free radicals produced during irradiation are identified as facilitators of this process. As solutions, cross-linked polyethylene was designed to improve wear resistance through irradiation crosslinking of polyethylene by gamma or electron beam rays. Furthermore, second-generation cross-linked polyethylene was developed through blending of vitamin E, changing irradiation or annealing process for the reduction of free radicals37). This highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) has been successful in dramatically reducing wear rates and osteolysis3738). The combined use of a HXLPE cup with a ceramic femoral head has revealed good clinical results3940). This material is the most commonly used bearing surface in THA in the United States. On the other hand, resistance against fatigue fracture is reduced as wear-resistant improves, and failure has emerged as a problem due to reduced liner thickness and repeated impingement resulted from a recent trend towards increasing femoral head size41). Furthermore, damaged femoral bearing surface and third body rather lead to an increase in wear rates42), and more small wear particles could speed up the process of osteolysis.

According to a U.S. market research report in 2015, ceramic-on-HXLPE accounted for 50%, metal on HXLPE for 42% thus HXLPE acetabular liner for more than 90%43). These statistics appears to be attributed from concerns about ceramic fracture or squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings. Considering Improvements in polyethylene properties and a low coefficient of friction with ceramic, ceramic-on-HXLPE bearings are anticipated to significantly decrease osteolysis and loosening in the long term4445). However, long-term clinical outcomes have to be carefully monitored to confirm that ceramic-on-HXLPE is the best choice as a wear-resistant material.

2. Metal-on-Metal Bearings

MoM bearings have drawn increasingly more attention as the problem of polyethylene debris-induced osteolysis has been raised. MoM bearings were introduced about 40 years ago by McKee & Farrar and Ring in England, and by Haboush, Urist, and McBride in the United States. While the use of these prostheses gave surgeons further experience with what had become known as THA, the results were not entirely satisfactory because of problems with loosening of the components and wear between the opposing metal surfaces. That was the reason why Charnley prosthesis took the place of MoM bearing prosthesis. The leading cause of failure was aseptic loosening, and other causes were rough bearing surfaces, not fully rounded shape and too small clearance3246). Subsequently, manufacturers introduced the MetasulTM as second-generation MoM prosthesis by modifying first-generation MoM hip prosthesis in several aspects, and the MetasulTM was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administraion (FDA) in 1999. The benefits of MoM bearing are that the volume of wear debris released by MoM bearings is about 100 to 200 times lower than that of polyethylene gamma sterilized in air, and hip stability can be enhanced by having the ability to use large femoral heads47). On the contrary, potential problems with metal bearing surfaces are metal hypersensitivity and adverse local tissue reactions (ALTRs) such as pseudo tumor. Although the clinical symptoms of ALTRs occur in a small number of patients, ALTRs are suspected to shorten the life expectancy of hip arthroplasty by incurring severe osteolysis4849). In addition, Co-Cr used for MoM bearing surfaces may generate genetic mutations as long-term biological reaction, and act as an oncogenic material through ionization50). According to the data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, the revision rate of arthroplasties involving the ASR XL was 9.3% and ASR resurfacing was 10.9% at 5-year follow up51). According to the National Joint Registry of England and Wales (2012), the revision rate was 3.59% and high failure rates for MoM hip replacements were shown particularly in young women implanted with large diameter heads52). DePuy issued a voluntary recall of ASR devices in 2010, and the FDA has required post-marketing studies since 2011. The Korea Food and Drug Administration (KFDA) also took similar measures in 2012 and this bearing system is rarely used.

3. Ceramic-on-Ceramic Bearings

CoC bearings can be an optimal option for hip-bearing material due to their many advantages (e.g., hardness, high wear resistance, no metal ion release, enhanced lubrication with chemical inertness and hydrophilic properties and the ability to use of larger femoral head)53). First-generation CoC hip prosthesis introduced 30 years ago showed inadequate clinical performance due to wear and fracture. Second-generation CoC hip prostheses were released in 1977 by improving several weaknesses, but the Mittelmeier system, once momentarily popular, became a failed design due to neck-socket impingement, ceramic fracture and loosening. Third-generation alumina ceramic bearing (Biolox Forte) was introduced in 1994. The grain size in third-generation ceramics was less than 1.8 micrometer, and fracture incidence was lowered to less than 0.02% by meeting strength specifications54). The volume of wear debris released by alumina-alumina bearings is comparable to that of debris from MoM bearings, but not ionized in the body. The FDA approved alumina-on-alumina bearing hip implants in 2003 after clinical trials performed in the 1990s. Biolox Delta, introduced in 2000, is composed of 82% alumina and 17% zirconia, and according to the manufacturer, this alumina composite was anticipated to remarkably reduce the incidence of ceramic fractures. The use of Biolox Delta ceramic has reduced the rate of femoral head fractures to 0.003% compared to 0.021% for alumina-on-alumina; however the fracture rate of liners has not been reduced, and remained at approximately 0.03%54). The problem of early CoC bearing was initial acetabular fixation, thus CoC bearings have become tremendously popularized by newly developed CoC that employ modular design with metal acetabular shell in the early 2000s. The most important current concerns about CoC bearings are ceramic fracture and squeaking55). Ceramic fracture may occur when excessive load is partially applied. First, incorrect component positioning of the acetabular cup and the femoral stem may generate fracture by incurring impingement. Fractures may also be caused by mismatched geometry between the taper and ceramic head, damaged taper and jamming when a liner is placed into the cup in the wrong direction. Squeaking is a phenomenon which could occur when using hard-on-hard bearings. The reported clinical incidence of squeaking with CoC bearings varies between 0.7% and 20.9%56). Although the exact cause has not been clarified, squeaking appears to be associated with a specific stem design, a short neck length, anteversion of the acetabular cup and others5758). Squeaking requires revision when a patient complains of discomfort to noises, since this symptom persists permanently without spontaneous remission59). Despite such problem, CoC bearings have demonstrated favorable clinical results at long-term follow-up39,60,61,6263).

CoC bearings are widely used in Korea, but this is different from the U.S. market where ceramic-on-HXLPE is used at a considerably high rate. Demand for ceramic heads is gradually increasing in most markets worldwide43).

4. Big Head Concept

The normal range of motion for hip flexion is 135°, but artificial hip joints were designed to accommodate maximal flexion up to 120°. Even though the current designs of prostheses are dramatically improved, impingement between the femoral head and the acetabular liner is unavoidable. In particular, impingement frequently occurs in 22-mm and 28-mm diameter heads, and can be easily checked in revision surgery due to wear of the polyethylene liner. However, this cannot happen in a ceramic or metal liner; therefore impingement can potentially lead to dislodgement or ceramic fracture and others. However, femoral head sizes could not exceed 28 mm on polyethylene due to wear, but the use of larger size femoral heads are allowed after wear has been resolved to a certain degree in cross-linked polyethylene, ceramic or metal materials. Therefore, the risk of impingement can be reduced by using larger heads64). Head sizes have gradually increased up to 32 mm, 36 mm and 40 mm. In the United States, the most commonly used head sizes are 36 mm (51%), followed by 32 mm (28%)23). The use of larger femoral heads has attracted much attention because larger head size gives proportionally greater range of motion and lowers impingement or dislocation rates.

With increasing head sizes, new problems have been manifested including bursitis of the iliopsoas tendon and others. According to one study, head diameters greater than 32 mm were essential to minimize component to component impingement, but the range of motion no longer increased by using femoral heads greater than 38 mm. Because the impingement in further range of motion is caused by bone-to-bone impingement65), the use of head sizes larger than 36 mm seems to be meaningless.

OTHER ISSUES ON TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY

1. Minimally Invasive Total Hip Arthroplasty

Minimally invasive surgery has drawn much attention worldwide as it has achieved clinical outcomes equivalent to standard surgical approaches, and this trend continues in the field of orthopedics. Minimally invasive procedures such as arthroscopic surgery or endoscopic spinal surgery have been popularized as their outstanding efficacy and benefits have been proved in THA. Minimally invasive hip replacement, in fact, is not a single type of surgery but rather is a family of operations designed to allow total hip replacement to be completed through smaller incisions, potentially with less soft-tissue disruption. The three main methods involve; i) a combination of a small incision and a posterior approach to the hip, ii) a combination of a small incision and an anterior approach to the hip, or iii) two small incisions performed using the Smith-Peterson interval for acetabular placement and the approach usually used for femoral intramedullary nailing for femoral component insertion. However, clinical results for these approaches still remain controversial. Some studies have suggested that minimally invasive surgery is similar to traditional surgical methods6667), while previous studies have reported higher rates of adverse effects including inadequate fixation of implants, extended opening hours, technical challenges, increased risk of neurovascular injuries, and fracture caused by insufficient dissection of soft tissues during prosthesis insertion due to difficulty in obtaining a surgical view and excessive or insufficient reaming6869). In addition, other limitations include the lack of long-term follow-up studies and other scientific information. However, many problems can be solved by using navigation systems70).

Intense focus on improving initial problems is demanding in THA which requires long-term monitoring, and there are limitations to overcome complications at present.

2. Computer Navigation and Robot Surgery

Correct positioning of the acetabular or femoral component during THA results in good clinical outcomes, but not all operations yield desirable results. (Malposition of the acetabular component during hip arthroplasty increases the occurrence of impingement, reduces range of motion, and increases the risk of dislocation and long-term wear.) Although surgeons have acquired surgical techniques to insert implants at correct position, different surgeons have different limitations. Along with scientific development, surgical intervention using computer-assisted navigation enables the remote tracking of human anatomical structures and surgical instruments. To determine accurate orientation of surgical instruments and patient's anatomical locations spatially, provided views are used as virtual reference data using three non-collinear points coordinated by the camera system. There are three types of surgical planning: i) volumetric image-based navigation, which makes use of volumetric images such as computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, or ultrasound echography; ii) fluoroscopic navigation, which makes use of intraoperative fluoroscopic images; and iii) imageless navigation, which makes use of kinetic information about joints or morphometric information about the target bones obtained intraoperatively71). This navigation system is increasingly used as an alternative measure to prevent possible incorrect positioning of the acetabular cup in minimally invasive surgery7273). However, the navigation system is too expensive to be commercialized and its efficacy still has a lot of controversial issues.

Robot-assisted THA is further elaborated computer-assisted orthopedic surgery where a hip prosthesis is designed to fill the medullary canal is custom-made through three-dimensional visualization of computed tomography-image data, and then the shape of the medullary canal is carved using a high-speed burr or rasp. Subsequently, the designed implant is inserted to accurately fit the medullary canal with a computed tomography-based navigation system. However, this technique is used sparingly because filling the medullary canal to the maximum degree does not guarantee favorable results, and it is still in the trial stage due to the lack of long-term data, cost-related problems and insufficient studies to clarify safety74). This field appears to have unlimited potential for development along with future scientific advances.

CONCLUSION

Hip replacement is a remarkable medical innovation that allows humans to walk without pain by reconstructing badly damaged hip joints. Today, hip replacement procedures have advanced dramatically through failures and successes over many years. The introduction of a new hip prosthesis does not always mean better performance compared to traditional hip implants nor does it assure good clinical outcomes. The best professional approach for surgeons will be performing surgery using standard hip replacement prostheses when fully understanding the concepts, principles, benefits and risks of currently established approaches.

References

  1. Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet 2012;380:1768-1777.
    Pubmed
  2. Hernigou P. Earliest times before hip arthroplasty: from John Rhea Barton to Themistocles Glück. Int Orthop 2013;37:2313-2318.
    Pubmed
  3. Wiles P. The surgery of the osteoarthritic hip. Br J Surg 1958;45:488-497.
    Pubmed
  4. Moore AT. The self-locking metal hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1957;39-A:811-827.
    Pubmed
  5. Thompson FR. Two and a half years' experience with a vitallium intramedullary hip prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1954;36-A:489-502.
    Pubmed
  6. McKee GK, Watson-Farrar J. Replacement of arthritic hips by the McKee-Farrar prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1966;48:245-259.
    Pubmed
  7. Charnley J, Cupic Z. The nine and ten year results of the low-friction arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1973;:9-25.
    Pubmed
  8. Charnley J. Anchorage of the femoral head prosthesis to the shaft of the femur. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1960;42-B:28-30.
    Pubmed
  9. Charnley J. Arthroplasty of the hip. A new operation. Lancet 1961;1:1129-1132.
    Pubmed
  10. Berry DJ, Harmsen WS, Cabanela ME, Morrey BF. Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84-A:171-177.
    Pubmed
  11. Callaghan JJ, Templeton JE, Liu SS, et al. Results of Charnley total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of thirty years. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:690-695.
    Pubmed
  12. Ereth MH, Weber JG, Abel MD, et al. Cemented versus noncemented total hip arthroplasty--embolism, hemodynamics, and intrapulmonary shunting. Mayo Clin Proc 1992;67:1066-1074.
    Pubmed
  13. Parvizi J, Holiday AD, Ereth MH, Lewallen DG. The frank stinchfield award. Sudden death during primary hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1999;:39-48.
  14. Koessler MJ, Fabiani R, Hamer H, Pitto RP. The clinical relevance of embolic events detected by transesophageal echocardiography during cemented total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Anesth Analg 2001;92:49-55.
    Pubmed
  15. Jones LC, Hungerford DS. Cement disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987;:192-206.
  16. Clohisy JC, Harris WH. Matched-pair analysis of cemented and cementless acetabular reconstruction in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:697-705.
    Pubmed
  17. Hartofilakidis G, Georgiades G, Babis GC. A comparison of the outcome of cemented all-polyethylene and cementless metal-backed acetabular sockets in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009;24:217-225.
    Pubmed
  18. Voigt JD, Mosier MC. Cemented all-polyethylene acetabular implants vs other forms of acetabular fixation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Arthroplasty 2012;27:1544-1553.e10.
    Pubmed
  19. González Della Valle A, Sharrock N, Barlow M, Caceres L, Go G, Salvati EA. The modern, hybrid total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis at the Hospital for Special Surgery. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:54-59.
    Pubmed
  20. Harris WH, Maloney WJ. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;:21-29.
  21. Berger RA, Kull LR, Rosenberg AG, Galante JO. Hybrid total hip arthroplasty: 7- to 10-year results. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;:134-146.
  22. Lee AJ, Ling RS, Vangala SS. Some clinically relevant variables affecting the mechanical behaviour of bone cement. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1978;92:1-18.
    Pubmed
  23. Lehil MS, Bozic KJ. Trends in total hip arthroplasty implant utilization in the United States. J Arthroplasty 2014;29:1915-1918.
    Pubmed
  24. Boyan BD, Lossdörfer S, Wang L, et al. Osteoblasts generate an osteogenic microenvironment when grown on surfaces with rough microtopographies. Eur Cell Mater 2003;6:22-27.
    Pubmed
  25. DiFazio FA. The current status of acetabular fixation in total hip replacement. Orthop Rev 1992;21:1067-1071.
    Pubmed
  26. Miyakawa S, Kawamura H, Mishima H, Yasumoto J. Grit-blasted and hydroxyapatite-coated total hip arthroplasty: an 11- to 14-year follow-up study. J Orthop Sci 2004;9:462-467.
    Pubmed
  27. Delaunay CP, Kapandji AI. Survivorship of rough-surfaced threaded acetabular cups. 382 consecutive primary Zweymüller cups followed for 0.2-12 years. Acta Orthop Scand 1998;69:379-383.
    Pubmed
  28. Cheung KW, Yung SH, Wong KC, Chiu KH. Early failure of smooth hydroxyapatite-coated press-fit acetabular cup--7 years of follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:627-631.
    Pubmed
  29. Aldinger PR, Breusch SJ, Lukoschek M, Mau H, Ewerbeck V, Thomsen M. A ten- to 15-year follow-up of the cementless spotorno stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85:209-214.
    Pubmed
  30. Müller LA, Wenger N, Schramm M, Hohmann D, Forst R, Carl HD. Seventeen-year survival of the cementless CLS Spotorno stem. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010;130:269-275.
    Pubmed
  31. Khanuja HS, Vakil JJ, Goddard MS, Mont MA. Cementless femoral fixation in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:500-509.
    Pubmed
  32. McMinn D, Treacy R, Lin K, Pynsent P. Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Experience of the McMinn prothesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;:S89-S98.
    Pubmed
  33. Amstutz HC, Le Duff MJ. Eleven years of experience with metal-on-metal hybrid hip resurfacing: a review of 1000 conserve plus. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:36-43.
    Pubmed
  34. Jameson SS, Langton DJ, Natu S, Nargol TV. The influence of age and sex on early clinical results after hip resurfacing: an independent center analysis. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:50-55.
    Pubmed
  35. Kim PR, Beaulé PE, Laflamme GY, Dunbar M. Causes of early failure in a multicenter clinical trial of hip resurfacing. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:44-49.
  36. Willert HG, Bertram H, Buchhorn GH. Osteolysis in alloarthroplasty of the hip. The role of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene wear particles. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;:95-107.
  37. 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;89:2779-2786.
    Pubmed
  38. Hanna SA, Somerville L, McCalden RW, Naudie DD, MacDonald SJ. Highly cross-linked polyethylene decreases the rate of revision of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene at 13 years' follow-up. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:28-32.
  39. Kim YH, Park JW, Kulkarni SS, Kim YH. A randomised prospective evaluation of ceramic-on-ceramic and ceramic-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings in the same patients with primary cementless total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 2013;37:2131-2137.
    Pubmed
  40. Fukui K, Kaneuji A, Sugimori T, Ichiseki T, Matsumoto T. Wear comparison between conventional and highly cross-linked polyethylene against a zirconia head: a concise follow-up, at an average 10 years, of a previous report. J Arthroplasty 2013;28:1654-1658.
    Pubmed
  41. Brown TD, Elkins JM, Pedersen DR, Callaghan JJ. Impingement and dislocation in total hip arthroplasty: mechanisms and consequences. Iowa Orthop J 2014;34:1-15.
    Pubmed
  42. Heiner AD, Galvin AL, Fisher J, Callaghan JJ, Brown TD. Scratching vulnerability of conventional vs highly cross-linked polyethylene liners because of large embedded third-body particles. J Arthroplasty 2012;27:742-749.
    Pubmed
  43. Mendenhall S. Editorial--Hidden costs in cap prices. Orthop Netw News 2015;26:466-469.
  44. Malerba G, De Santis V, Francesco B, et al. Wear in total hip arthroplasty using ceramic head: 10 years maximum FU. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:9th.
  45. Urban JA, Garvin KL, Boese CK, et al. Ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. Seventeen to twenty-one-year results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83-A:1688-1694.
    Pubmed
  46. Amstutz HC, Grigoris P. Metal on metal bearings in hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996;:S11-S34.
    Pubmed
  47. Cuckler JM. The rationale for metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005;441:132-136.
    Pubmed
  48. Levy YD, Ezzet KA. Poor short term outcome with a metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013;28:1212-1217.
    Pubmed
  49. Fehring TK, Odum S, Sproul R, Weathersbee J. High frequency of adverse local tissue reactions in asymptomatic patients with metal-on-metal THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014;472:517-522.
    Pubmed
  50. Witzleb WC, Ziegler J, Krummenauer F, Neumeister V, Guenther KP. Exposure to chromium, cobalt and molybdenum from metal-on-metal total hip replacement and hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2006;77:697-705.
    Pubmed
  51. de Steiger RN, Hang JR, Miller LN, Graves SE, Davidson DC. Five-year results of the ASR XL Acetabular System and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System: an analysis from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011;93:2287-2293.
    Pubmed
  52. Smith AJ, Dieppe P, Vernon K, Porter M, Blom AW. Failure rates of stemmed metal-on-metal hip replacements: analysis of data from the National Joint Registry of England and Wales. Lancet 2012;379:1199-1204.
    Pubmed
  53. Sedel L. Evolution of alumina-on-alumina implants: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000;:48-54.
    Pubmed
  54. Massin P, Lopes R, Masson B, Mainard D. Does Biolox Delta ceramic reduce the rate of component fractures in total hip replacement?. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2014;100:S317-S321.
    Pubmed
  55. Migaud H, Putman S, Kern G, et al. Do the reasons for ceramic-on-ceramic revisions differ from other bearings in total hip arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016;474:2190-2199.
    Pubmed
  56. Mai K, Verioti C, Ezzet KA, Copp SN, Walker RH, Colwell CW. Incidence of ‘squeaking’ after ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:413-417.
    Pubmed
  57. Keurentjes JC, Kuipers RM, Wever DJ, Schreurs BW. High incidence of squeaking in THAs with alumina ceramic-on-ceramic bearings. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:1438-1443.
    Pubmed
  58. Walter WL, O'toole GC, Walter WK, Ellis A, Zicat BA. Squeaking in ceramic-on-ceramic hips: the importance of acetabular component orientation. J Arthroplasty 2007;22:496-503.
    Pubmed
  59. Restrepo C, Matar WY, Parvizi J, Rothman RH, Hozack WJ. Natural history of squeaking after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:2340-2345.
    Pubmed
  60. Seo BH, Ryu DJ, Kang JS, Moon KH. Primary total hip arthroplasty using 3rd generation ceramic-on-ceramic articulation. Hip Int 2016;26:468-473.
    Pubmed
  61. Lee GC, Bistolfi A. Ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty: A new standard. Semin Arthroplasty 2015;26:11-15.
  62. Kang BJ, Ha YC, Ham DW, Hwang SC, Lee YK, Koo KH. Third-generation alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty: 14 to 16-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2015;30:411-415.
    Pubmed
  63. Lee GC, Knox DE, Garino JP. Long-term results of hybrid alumina-on-alumina total hip arthroplasty: 10-14-year results. Semin Arthroplasty 2013;24:202-205.
  64. Crowninshield RD, Maloney WJ, Wentz DH, Humphrey SM, Blanchard CR. Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don't do. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004;:102-107.
    Pubmed
  65. Burroughs BR, Hallstrom B, Golladay GJ, Hoeffel D, Harris WH. Range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty with 28-, 32-, 38-, and 44-mm femoral head sizes. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:11-19.
    Pubmed
  66. Chimento GF, Pavone V, Sharrock N, Kahn B, Cahill J, Sculco TP. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty: a prospective randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:139-144.
    Pubmed
  67. Berry DJ, Berger RA, Callaghan JJ, et al. Minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. Development, early results, and a critical analysis. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Orthopaedic Association, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, June 14, 2003. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003;85-A:2235-2246.
    Pubmed
  68. Wall SJ, Mears SC. Analysis of published evidence on minimally invasive total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:55-58.
    Pubmed
  69. Kim YH. Comparison of primary total hip arthroplasties performed with a minimally invasive technique or a standard technique: a prospective and randomized study. J Arthroplasty 2006;21:1092-1098.
    Pubmed
  70. Reininga IH, Zijlstra W, Wagenmakers R, et al. Minimally invasive and computer-navigated total hip arthroplasty: a qualitative and systematic review of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010;11:92.
    Pubmed
  71. Sugano N. Computer-assisted orthopedic surgery. J Orthop Sci 2003;8:442-448.
    Pubmed
  72. Wixson RL, MacDonald MA. Total hip arthroplasty through a minimal posterior approach using imageless computer-assisted hip navigation. J Arthroplasty 2005;20:51-56.
  73. DiGioia AM, Plakseychuk AY, Levison TJ, Jaramaz B. Mini-incision technique for total hip arthroplasty with navigation. J Arthroplasty 2003;18:123-128.
    Pubmed
  74. Adili A. Robot-assisted orthopedic surgery. Semin Laparosc Surg 2004;11:89-98.
    Pubmed

Hip & Pelvis