Excellent mid-term outcomes with a hemispheric titanium porous-coated acetabular component for total hip arthroplasty: 7

Abstract

Introduction:

Third-generation hemispheric, titanium porous-coated (HTPC) acetabular cups have been shown to achieve good biologic fixation through enhanced porous ingrowth surfaces. They also allow for a wide range of bearing options, including polyethylene, dual-mobility, and ceramic liners. The purpose of the study is to review the mid-term clinical outcomes an HTPC acetabular cup with a minimum of 7-year follow-up.

Methods:

A retrospective, observational study was conducted on all consecutive patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) with an HTCP acetabular cup at an urban, tertiary referral centre. Descriptive statistics were used describe baseline patient characteristics. Outcomes collected included postoperative complications, survival free of reoperations, and presence of osteolysis at latest imaging follow-up. Implant survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results:

118 cases (114 primary, 4 revision) underwent THA with the HTCP acetabular cup at an average follow-up of 8.16 ± 0.85 years (range 7.02–10.28 years). Mean patient age at the time of surgery was 61.29 ± 12.04 years. All cases utilised a high-molecular-weight polyethylene (HMWPE) liner. None of the acetabular cups showed loosening or migration at the latest follow-up. There were 2 revisions in our study, 1 for abductor mechanism disruption and 1 due to surgical site infection where the acetabular cup was revised. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis for all-cause revision at 7 and 10-year follow-up showed a survival rate of 99.1% (95% confidence interval, 94.1–99.9%). Survivorship analysis for aseptic acetabular revision at 10-year follow-up showed a survival rate of 100%.

Conclusions:

At long-term follow-up, no radiologic and minimal clinical complications were identified in this series. The HTPC acetabular cup system, used in conjunction with a HMWPE liner, demonstrates excellent outcomes and survivorship when compared to earlier mid-term studies published in the literature.

Keywords

Acetabular cup hemispheric titanium porous-coated HTPC mid-term outcomes R3 survivorship THA total hip arthroplasty

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Learmonth

Young

Rorabeck

The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370: 1508–1519.

Howard

Kremers

Loechler

, et al. Comparative survival of uncemented acetabular components following primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2011; 93; 1597–1604.

Hailer

Garellick

Kärrholm

Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register: evaluation of 170,413 operations. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 34–41.

Mäkelä

Matilainen

Pulkkinen

, et al. Countrywise results of total hip replacement. An analysis of 438,733 hips based on the Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association database. Acta Orthop 2014; 84: 107–116.

Mäkelä

Eskelinen

Pulkkinen

, et al. Results of 3,668 primary total hip replacements for primary osteoarthritis in patients under the age of 55 years. Acta Orthop 2011; 82: 521–529.

Kremers

Howard

Loechler

, et al. Comparative long-term survivorship of uncemented acetabular components in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94: e82.

Grobler

Learmonth

Bernstein

, et al. Ten-years results of a press-fit, porous-coated acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87: 786–789.

Schmolders

Amvrazis

Penneka-mp

, et al. Thirteen year follow-up of a cementless femoral stem and a threaded acetabular cup in patients younger than fifty years of age. Int Orthop 2017; 41: 39–45.

Macheras

Kateros

Kostakos

, et al. Eight- to ten-year clinical and cxdiographic outcome of a porous tantalum monoblock acetabular component. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 705–709.

10.

Malahias

Kostretzis

Greenberg

, et al. Highly porous titanium acetabular components in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35: 1737–1749.

11.

Long

Nayyar

Chen

, et al. Early aseptic loosening of the Tritanium primary acetabular component with screw fixation. Arthroplast Today 2018; 4: 169–174.

12.

Yoshioka

Nakano

Kinoshita

, et al. Comparison of a highly porous titanium cup (Tritanium) and a conventional hydroxyapatite-coated porous titanium cup: a retrospective analysis of clinical and radiological outcomes in hip arthroplasty among Japanese patients. J Orthop Sci 2018; 23: 967–972.

13.

Gallart

Fernández-Valencia

Riba

, et al. Trabecular Titanium^TM cups and augments in revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical results, radiology and survival outcomes. HIP Int 2016; 26: 486–491.

14.

Hosny

El-Bakoury

Srinivasan

SCM

, et al. Tritanium acetabular cup in revision hip replacement: a six to ten years of follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 2566–2570.

15.

Castagnini

Bordini

Stea

, et al. Highly porous titanium cup in cementless total hip arthroplasty: registry results at eight years. Int Orthop 2019; 43: 1815–1821.

16.

Flecher

Sporer

Paprosky

Management of severe bone loss in acetabular revision using a trabecular metal shell. J Arthroplasty 2008; 23: 949–955.

17.

Ayers

Greene

Snyder

, et al. Radiostereometric analysis study of tantalum compared with titanium acetabular cups and highly cross-linked compared with conventional liners in young patients undergoing total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 627–634.

18.

Castagnini

Bordini

Yorifuji

, et al. Highly porous titanium cups versus hydroxyapatite-coated sockets: midterm results in metachronous bilateral total hip arthroplasty. Med Princ Pract 2019; 28: 559–565.

19.

Carli

Warth

de Mesy Bentley

, et al. Short to midterm follow-up of the tritanium primary acetabular component: a cause for concern. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 463–469.

20.

Postler

Lützner

Beyer

, et al. Analysis of total knee arthroplasty revision causes. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19: 55.

21.

Kasahara

Majima

Kimura

, et al. What are the causes of revision total knee arthroplasty in Japan? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471:1533–1538.

22.

Teoh

Whitham

RDJ

Golding

, et al. R3 cup does not have a high failure rate in conventional bearings: a minimum of 5-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 460–463.

23.

Naudie

Somerville

Korczak

, et al. A randomized trial comparing acetabular component fixation of two porous ingrowth surfaces using RSA. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: 48–52.

24.

Nilsson

Theodoulou

Mercer

, et al. Mid-term migration of a cementless, porous acetabular cup: a 5 year radiostereometric analysis. J Orthop 2017; 14: 454–460.

25.

Assaf

Manara

Teoh

, et al. Mid-term clinical results of the cementless R3 cup and Polarstem total hip arthroplasty. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019; 29: 827–833.

26.

McCarthy

Jarrett

Ojeifo

, et al. What factors influence long-term survivorship after hip arthroscopy? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 362–371.

27.

Berry

Harmsen

Cabanela

, et al. 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: 171–177.

28.

Prokopetz

Losina

Bliss

, et al. Risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2012; 13: 251.

Excellent mid-term outcomes with a hemispheric titanium porous-coated acetabular component for total hip arthroplasty: 7–10 year follow-up