Effect of the elevated-rim acetabular liner on loosening after total hip arthroplasty.

Abstract

Elevated-rim acetabular liners recently were shown to be associated with improved stability of total hip prostheses in a large clinical series. However, the effect of this design on loosening remains unknown. To address this question, we reviewed the results of 5167 primary and revision total hip arthroplasties that had been performed at our institution from September 1, 1985, through December 31, 1991; 2469 of the acetabular components had an elevated-rim liner (10 degrees of elevation), and 2698 had a standard liner. Five-year follow-up data were available for 1237 hips (174 that had an elevated-rim acetabular liner and 1063 that had a standard acetabular liner). The cumulative probability of revision because of loosening of the implant was estimated as a function of time since the operation with use of the Kaplan-Meier survivorship method. The five-year probability of survival of the acetabular component was 98.8 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval, 97.9 to 99.6 per cent) for the prostheses that had an elevated-rim liner and 98.3 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval, 97.7 to 99.0 per cent) for those that had a standard liner (p = 0.87). The effect of the elevated-rim acetabular liner on the probability of revision because of loosening of the acetabular or the femoral component was analyzed for several subgroups: components inserted with cement, components inserted without cement, primary total hip arthroplasties, revision total hip arthroplasties, male patients, and female patients. With the numbers available, no significant differences were found in the probability of survival of the acetabular or the femoral component in any of the subgroups. Theoretical considerations suggest that the geometric design of the elevated-rim acetabular liner may have biomechanical characteristics that predispose the implant to early loosening. However, our initial review of the results of total hip arthroplasties after a mean follow-up period of five years (range, 0.25 to ten years) failed to demonstrate any difference in the cumulative probability of revision because of loosening of the implant. Continued surveillance is warranted and ongoing.