Advertisement

The impact of polyethylene abrasion on the occurrence of periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures in patients with total hip arthroplasty

  • Dirk Zajonz
  • Nora Lang
  • Cathleen Pönick
  • Melanie Edel
  • Robert Möbius
  • Harald Busse
  • Christoph Josten
  • Andreas Roth
  • Johannes K. M. FaklerEmail author
Original Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

In addition to abrasion-induced osteolysis and ensuing instabilities, the polyethylene (PE) abrasion of total hip arthroplasty (THA) inlays can also cause gait instability due to the decentralization of the hip joint. The current literature yields, as yet, insufficient findings whether these two factors are linked directly or indirectly to a higher risk for periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures (PPFF). The aim of our retrospective evaluation is to analyse the impact of PE abrasion on the pathology of PPFF in patients with THA.

Material and methods

The retrospective evaluation comprises all PPFF in patients with THA in the period from 01/2010 up to 12/2016. The study group (SG) included 66 cases (n = 66). The control group (CG) was comprised of patients with asymptomatic THA (n = 66), who were treated by our outpatient department including routine check-ups and X-ray examinations. We used the matched-pair methodology to scale the period of postsurgical care of the CG to the lifetime of the implant up to PPFF in the SG. We included epidemiologic data, radiological femoral head decentralization, osteolysis (Gruen classification), instabilities, acetabular cup position, and implant properties in our analysis. For the SG, we also included intra-operative signs of abrasion.

Findings

The SG showed significantly higher numbers of decentralized THA as signs of inlay erosion with 73% compared to only 41% in the CG (p > 0.001). The SG showed 1 ± 0.68 mm hip joint decentralization as to 0.5 ± 0.59 mm in the CG (p = 0.004). We found significantly more cases of osteolysis in the SG (n = 25) than in the CG (n = 13) (p = 0.003). We found no notable differences in acetabular cup inclination or anteversion as well as cup size. However, differences were significant in femoral head size (SG 32 ± 2.3 mm, CG 36 ± 2.4 mm; p = 0.042) and head material. We found more widespread use of metal femoral heads in the SG than in the CG (SG 1:1, CG 1:21; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

PPFF patients showed significantly higher rates of inlay erosion, resulting in femoral head decentralization and osteolysis. The higher rate of fracture is likely caused by the increasing instability of the implant fixation due to abrasion-induced osteolysis and the associated degradation of bone quality. It is conceivable that the abrasion and decentralization of the THA can also lead to gait instability, and thus, a higher proneness to falls. Gait instability can also be aggravated by increased granulation tissue and effusion due to the inlay abrasion. Although this cannot be substantiated by the investigation. In patients with decentralization of the THA and osteolysis, a radiological follow-up should be performed, and in case of gait instability (femoral head and) inlay replacements should be considered.

Keywords

Polyethylene abrasion Periprosthetic proximal femoral fractures Total hip arthroplasty THA 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the support of the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the University Hospital Leipzig within the program of Open Access Publishing.

Author contributions

DZ analyzed and interpreted all patient data and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript. NL and CP carried out the data collection and contributed significantly to the preparation of the manuscript. ME and RM were responsible for the translation and have jointly performed the statistical analyzes. DZ, JKMF, HB, CJ and AR were mainly responsible for the patient treatment and contributed as assistants to the preparation of the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by the non-profit German Research Foundation (DFG) and the University Hospital Leipzig within the program of Open Access Publishing. The funding body had no impact on the design of the study, collection, analysis and interpretation of data as well as writing the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

The ethics committee of the University Hospital Leipzig in Germany granted ethical approval (ref. no. 044/14032016). The committee is listed in the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) IORG0001320, IRB00001750.

Informed consent

Before the beginning of the study all patients were informed and gave their written consent to treatment contract, the study as well as to the publication of their anonymised data.

References

  1. 1.
    Müller M, Wassilew G, Perka C. Diagnostik und Behandlung von Abrieberkrankungen in der Hüftendoprothetik. Z Orthop Unfall. 2015;153:213–29.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1545827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maltese JT, Laban MM, Gorab K, Maltese JC. Particle disease osteolysis of the pelvis and the hip after hip arthroplasty. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;93:453–4.  https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e3182a92e01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murray PJ, Hwang KL, Imrie SN, Huddleston JI, Goodman SB. Polyethylene wear and osteolysis is associated with high revision rate of a small sized porous coated THA in patients with hip dysplasia. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:1373–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.02.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sheth NP, Nelson CL, Paprosky WG. Femoral bone loss in revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21:601–12.  https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-21-10-601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cross M, Bostrom M. Periprosthetic fractures of the femur. Orthopedics. 2009.  https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20090728-11.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Franklin J, Malchau H. Risk factors for periprosthetic femoral fracture. Injury. 2007;38:655–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2007.02.049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kurtz SM, Gawel HA, Patel JD. History and systematic review of wear and osteolysis outcomes for first-generation highly crosslinked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2262–77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-1872-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peng Y, Arauz P, An S, Kwon Y-M. In vivo sliding distance on the metal-on-polyethylene total hip arthroplasty articulation using patient-specific gait analysis. J Orthop Res. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.24113.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ardestani MM, Amenábar Edwards PP, Wimmer MA. Prediction of polyethylene wear rates from gait biomechanics and implant positioning in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475:2027–42.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5293-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lindahl H. Epidemiology of periprosthetic femur fracture around a total hip arthroplasty. Injury. 2007;38:651–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2007.02.048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoffmann MF, Burgers TA, Mason JJ, Williams BO, Sietsema DL, Jones CB. Biomechanical evaluation of fracture fixation constructs using a variable-angle locked periprosthetic femur plate system. Injury. 2014;45:1035–41.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.02.038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Colman M, Choi L, Chen A, Crossett L, Tarkin I, McGough R. Proximal femoral replacement in the management of acute periprosthetic fractures of the hip: a competing risks survival analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2014;29:422–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.06.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979;141:17–27.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chiang PP, Burke DW, Freiberg AA, Rubash HE. Osteolysis of the pelvis: evaluation and treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:164–74.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000096816.78689.e5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Green TR, Fisher J, Matthews JB, Stone MH, Ingham E. Effect of size and dose on bone resorption activity of macrophages by in vitro clinically relevant ultra high molecular weight polyethylene particles. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;53:490–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Green TR, Fisher J, Stone M, Wroblewski BM, Ingham E. Polyethylene particles of a ‘critical size’ are necessary for the induction of cytokines by macrophages in vitro. Biomaterials. 1998;19:2297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cross MB, Nam D, Mayman DJ. Ideal femoral head size in total hip arthroplasty balances stability and volumetric wear. HSS J. 2012;8:270–4.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-012-9287-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hall RM, Siney P, Unsworth A, Wroblewski BM. The association between rates of wear in retrieved acetabular components and the radius of the femoral head. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 1998;212:321–6.  https://doi.org/10.1243/0954411981534097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clarke IC, Gustafson A. Clinical and hip simulator comparisons of ceramic-on-polyethylene and metal-on-polyethylene wear. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;379:34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hernigou P, Auregan JC, Bastard C, Housset V, Flouzat-Lachaniette CH, Dubory A. Higher prevalence of periprosthetic fractures with ceramic on polyethylene hip bearing compared with ceramic on ceramic on the contralateral side: a forty year experience with hip osteonecrosis. Int Orthop. 2018;42:1457–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3863-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tsukamoto M, Ohnishi H, Mori T, Kawasaki M, Uchida S, Sakai A. Fifteen-year comparison of wear and osteolysis analysis for cross-linked or conventional polyethylene in cementless total hip arthroplasty for hip dysplasia-a retrospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(161–165):e1.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.008.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Graves SE, Davidson DC, de Steiger R, Lewis P, Stoney J, Tomkins A, Vial R, Griffith E, Lorimer M, Liu Y, Stanford T, Cuthbert A, Kelly L, O'Donohue G Harvard 44th Annual Advances in Arthroplasty Course, October 7–10, 2014, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Premnath V, Harris WH, Jasty M, Merrill EW. Gamma sterilization of UHMWPE articular implants: an analysis of the oxidation problem ultra high molecular weight poly ethylene. Biomaterials. 1996;17:1741–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cole JC, Lemons JE, Eberhardt AW. Gamma irradiation alters fatigue-crack behavior and fracture toughness in 1900H and GUR 1050 UHMWPE. J Biomed Mater Res. 1900H;63:559–66.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.10335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lerf R, Zurbrügg D, Delfosse D. Use of vitamin E to protect cross-linked UHMWPE from oxidation. Biomaterials. 2010;31:3643–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maloney WJ, Wadey VMR. Management of acetabular bone loss. Instr Course Lect. 2006;55:279–85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Zajonz
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nora Lang
    • 1
  • Cathleen Pönick
    • 1
  • Melanie Edel
    • 1
    • 2
  • Robert Möbius
    • 1
    • 2
  • Harald Busse
    • 3
  • Christoph Josten
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andreas Roth
    • 1
    • 2
  • Johannes K. M. Fakler
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Traumatology and Plastic SurgeryUniversity Hospital LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.ZESBO-Centre for Research on Musculoskeletal SystemsLeipzigGermany
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyUniversity HospitalLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations