To evaluate the clinical performance of a polycarbonate-urethane liner as a bearing material inside a cobalt-chrome acetabular shell.
Methods
Between December 2007 and July 2011, this material combination was used in 27 total hip replacement patients, most of whom had an indication of osteoarthritis. This report focuses on the first 5-year results of the clinical use of this material combination in the TriboFit® Hip System.
Results
Mean Harris Hip Score showed significant improvement from 40 to 86 after 5 years, similar to studies in the literature. No adverse events - revisions or complications - or disadvantages that have been reported for other total hip materials were observed over the 5-year period. The radiographs showed no signs of wear, migration or loosening of the implants.
Conclusions
These early results indicate this new material combination offers promise as a safe and effective alternative bearing material for use in total hip systems. Further clinical trials are necessary to reconfirm these findings.
BozicKJDurbhakulaSBerryDJDifferences in patient and procedure characteristics and hospital resource use in primary and revision TJA.J Arthroplasty2005;20(7)Supp 3:17–25.
2.
McTigheTTreharneRGreeneAHDesign rationale and clinical review of a new compliant bearing material for acetabular reconstruction.Joint Implant Surgery & Research Foundation, Chagrin Falls, Ohio, USA. July, 2009
3.
SchwartzCJBahadurSInvestigation of articular cartilage and counterface compliance in multi-directional sliding as in orthopedic implants.Wear2007;262(11):1315–1320.
4.
UnsworthARobertsBThompsonJCThe application of soft-layer lubrication to hip prostheses.J Bone Joint Surg Br1981;63:297–309.
5.
CarboneAHowieDWMcGeeMAging performance of a compliant layer bearing acetabular prosthesis in an ovine hip arthroplasty model.J Arthroplasty2006;21(6):899–906.
6.
KhanISmithNJonesEFinchDSCameronREAnalysis and evaluation of a biomedical polycarbonate urethane tested in an in vitro study and an ovine arthroplasty model.Part I: materials selection and evaluation. Biomaterials2005;26(6):621–631.
7.
KhanISmithNJonesEFinchDSCameronREAnalysis and evaluation of a biomedical polycarbonate urethane tested in an in vitro study and an ovine arthroplasty model.Part II: in vivo investigation. Biomaterials2005;26(6):633–643.
8.
St JohnKGuptaMEvaluation of the wear performance of a polycarbonate-urethane acetabular component in a hip joint simulator and comparison with UHMWPE and cross-linked UHMWPE.J Biomater Appl2012;27(1):55–65.
9.
ElsnerJJShemeshMMezapeYLong-term evaluation of a compliant cushion form acetabular bearing for hip joint replacement: a 20 million cycles wear simulation.J Orthop Res2011;29(12):1859–1866.
10.
SmithRAHallabNJIn vitro macrophage response to polyethylene and polycarbonate-urethane particles.J Biomed Mater Res A2010;93(1):347–355.
11.
SmithRAMaghsoodpourAHallabNJIn vivo response to cross-linked polyethylene and polycarbonate-urethane particles.J Biomed Mater Res A2010;93(1):227–234.
12.
GruenTAMcNeiceGMAmstutzHCModes of failure of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening.Clin Orthop Relat Res1979;(141):17–27.
13.
JohnstonRCFitzgeraldRHJrHarrisWHPossRMüllerMESledgeCBClinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement.A standard system of terminology for reporting results. J Bone Joint Surg Am1990;72(2):161–168.
14.
NgCYBallantyneJABrenkelIJQuality of life and functional outcome after primary total hip replacement.A five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br2007;89(7):868–873.
15.
MaiSGollaMSiebertWEThe Basis CL cemented femoral stem: results after 8.9 years follow-up.Hip Int2013;23(2):147–153.
16.
BozicKJKurtzSMLauEOngKVailTPBerryDJThe epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States.J Bone Joint Surg Am2009;91(1):128–133.
17.
BradfordLKurlandRSankaranMKimHPruittLARiesMDEarly failure due to osteolysis associated with contemporary highly cross-linked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene.A case report. J Bone Joint Surg Am2004;86(5):1051–1056.
18.
MaloneyWJGalanteJOAndersonMFixation, polyethylene wear, and pelvic osteolysis in primary total hip replacement.Clin Orthop Relat Res1999;369:157–164.
19.
TowerSSCurrierJHCurrierBHLyfordKAVan CittersDWMayorMBRim cracking of the cross-linked longevity polyethylene acetabular liner after total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am2007;89(10):2212–2217.
20.
MoroniASavarinoLCadossiMBaldiniNGianniniSDoes ion release differ between hip resurfacing and metal-on-metal THA?Clin Orthop Relat Res2008;466(3):700–707.
21.
DaviesAPWillertHGCampbellPALearmonthIDCaseCPAn unusual lymphocytic perivascular infiltration in tissues around contemporary metal-on-metal joint replacements.J Bone Joint Surg Am2005;87(1):18–27.
22.
DaviesAPSoodALewisACNewsonRLear- monthIDCaseCPMetal specific differences in levels of DNA damage caused by synovial fluid re- covered at revision arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Br2005;87-B(10)1439-1444.
23.
AllainJRoudot-ThoravalFDelecrinJAnractPMigaudHGoutallierDRevision total hip arthroplasty performed after fracture of a ceramic femoral head.A multicenter survivorship study. J Bone Joint Surg Am2003;85(5):825–830.
24.
ParkYSHwangSKChoyWSKimYSMoonYWLimSJCeramic failure after total hip arthroplasty with an alumina-on-alumina bearing.J Bone Joint Surg Am2006;88(4):780–787.
25.
KurtzSMRoderCLauEInternational survey of primary and revision total hip replacement.56th Annual Meeting of the Orthop Res Soc2010 Poster 1761.
26.
MoroniANoccoEHoqueMCushion bearings versus large diameter head metal-on-metal bearings in total hip arthroplasty: a short-term metal ion study.Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2012;132(1):123–129.
27.
TriantafyllopoulosGKElpersMEBurketJCEspositoCIPadgettDEWrightTMOtto Aufranc Award: Large heads do not increase damage at the head-neck taper of metal-on-polethylene total hip arthroplasties.Clin Orthop Relat Res2016;474(2):330–338.
28.
DelayCPutmanSDereudreGIs there any range-of-motion advantage to using bearings larger than 36mm in primary hip arthroplasty: A case-control study comparing 36-mm and large-diameter heads.Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2016;102(6):735–740.
29.
HaidukewychGJJacofskyDJHanssenADLewallenDGIntraoperative fractures of the acetabulum during primary total hip arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg Am2006;88(9):1952–1956.
30.
JastyMGoetzDDBragdonCRWear of polyethylene acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty.An analysis of one hundred and twenty-eight components retrieved at autopsy or revision operations. J Bone Joint Surg Am1997;79(3):349–358.
31.
WippermannBKurtzSHallabNTreharneRExplantation and analysis of the first retrieved human acetabular cup made of polycarbonate urethane: a case report.J Long Term Eff Med Implants2008;18(1):75–83.
32.
SiebertWEMaiSKurtzSRetrieval analysis of a polycarbonate-urethane acetabular cup: a case report.J Long Term Eff Med Implants2008;18(1):69–74.
33.
BiantLCGascoyneTCBohmERMoranMRetrieval analysis of a failed TriboFit polycarbonate urethane acetabular buffer.Proc Inst Mech Eng H2016;230(3):251–256.
34.
National Joint Registry. Implant PMS Report for Active Implants TriboFit Cup. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/. Accessed February 12, 2016.
