How do 3D-printed primary uncemented acetabular components compare with established uncemented acetabular cups? The experience of the New Zealand National Joint Registry

Abstract

Background:

3D-printed or additive manufactured acetabular implants are an exciting new technology being used in hip surgery with increasing frequency especially in complex acetabular reconstructions. However, the performance of acetabular components produced by this method for primary THR is unknown.

Methods:

41,272 uncemented cups in primary THR for OA were identified in the NZJR for the purposed of this study. There were 39,080 uncemented cups in the control group (15,798 Pinnacle cups, 12,724 Trident cups and 10,558 RM Pressfit cups) compared to 2192 3D-printed uncemented implants (1397 Delta TT cups, 640 Ti Por and 155 Polymax cups). All-cause revision rates and reasons for revision were examined. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed.

Results:

3D-printed cups were inserted into younger, fitter patients with a higher mean BMI compared to those in the control group (p < 0.001). The overall all-cause revision rate for 3D-printed cups was not significantly different to the controls: 0.77/100 cys (95% CI 0.59–1) compared to 0.55/100 cys (95% CI 0.52–0.58) in the control group (p = 0.058, Hazards ratio 1.29, 95% CI 0.992–1.678). There was no difference in aseptic cup loosening or deep infection rates between either group or indeed individual implant designs.

Conclusions:

3D-printed uncemented cups provide reliable survivorship and clinical results in primary THR comparable to established designs manufactured by traditional means. The theoretical concerns of increased rates of fatigue failure or deep infection are unsubstantiated.

Keywords

3D-printed cups function primary THR registry survivorship uncemented

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Wong

Scheinemann

. Additive manufactured metallic implants for orthopaedic applications. Sci China Mater 2018; 61: 440–454.

Garellick

Malchau

Herberts

, et al. Life expectancy and cost utility after total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998; (346): 141–151.

Hooper

. The ageing population and the increasing demand for joint replacement. N Z Med J 2013; 126: 5–6.

Sharplin

Wyatt

Rothwell

, et al. Which is the best bearing surface for primary total hip replacement? A New Zealand Joint Registry study. Hip Int 2018; 71: 346.

Wyatt

Hooper

Frampton

, et al. Survival outcomes of cemented compared to uncemented stems in primary total hip replacement. World J Orthop 2014; 5: 591–596.

Kieser

Ailabouni

Kieser

SCJ

, et al. The use of an Ossis custom 3D-printed tri-flanged acetabular implant for major bone loss: minimum 2-year follow-up. Hip Int 2018; 28: 668–674.

Benchimol

Smeeth

Guttmann

, et al. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) statement. PLOS Med 2015; 12: e1001885.

Murray

Fitzpatrick

Rogers

, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee Scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89: 1010–1014.

Konan

Haddad

. Joint Registries: a Ptolemaic model of data interpretation? Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B: 1585–1586.

10.

Ondeck

Bohl

Bovonratwet

, et al. Discriminative ability of commonly used indices to predict adverse outcomes after poster lumbar fusion: a comparison of demographics, ASA, the modified Charlson Comorbidity Index, and the modified Frailty Index. Spine 2018; 18: 44–52.