A prospective randomized study of Refobacin Bone Cement R versus Palacos R + G.

Aims: Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R + G bone cement were introduced to replace the original cement Refobacin Palacos R in 2005. Both cements were assumed to behave in a biomechanically similar fashion to the original cement. The primary aim of this study was to compare the migration of a polished triple-tapered femoral stem fixed with either Refobacin Bone Cement R or Palacos R + G bone cement. Repeated radiostereometric analysis was used to measure migration of the femoral head centre. The secondary aims were evaluation of cement mantle, stem positioning, and patient-reported outcome measures. Methods: Overall, 75 patients were included in the study and 71 were available at two years postoperatively. Prior to surgery, they were randomized to one of the three combinations studied: Palacos cement with use of the Optivac mixing system, Refobacin with use of the Optivac system, and Refobacin with use of the Optipac system. Cemented MS30 stems and cemented Exceed acetabular components were used in all hips. Postoperative radiographs were used to assess the quality of the cement mantle according to Barrack et al, and the position and migration of the femoral stem. Harris Hip Score, Oxford Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score, and University of California, Los Angeles Activity Scale were collected. Results: Median distal migration (y-axis) at two years for the Refobacin-Optivac system was -0.79 mm (-2.01 to -0.09), for the Refobacin-Optipac system was -0.75 mm (-2.16 to 0.20), and for the Palacos-Optivac system was -1.01 mm (-4.31 to -0.29). No statistically significant differences were found between the groups. Secondary outcomes did not differ statistically between the groups at the two-year follow-up. Conclusion: At two years, we found no significant differences in distal migration or clinical outcomes between the three groups. Our data indicate that Refobacin Bone Cement R and Palacos R + G are comparable in terms of stable fixation and early clinical outcomes.

Wear of Vitamin E-Infused Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene at Five Years.

BACKGROUND: In an earlier study with a 2-year follow-up of uncemented cups, we had reported low femoral-head penetration of vitamin E-infused highly cross-linked polyethylene liners (E1) compared with highly cross-linked liners without vitamin E (ArComXL). We studied the penetration rate of E1 compared with that of ArComXL, with a focus on changes occurring between 2 and 5 years after total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: In this randomized controlled study, we performed radiostereometric analysis of the penetration rate up to 5 years in 63 hips. RESULTS: During the total period of observation, the median proximal penetration for E1, 0.13 mm (mean, 0.11 mm [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.08 to 0.14 mm]), was lower than that for ArComXL, 0.20 mm (mean, 0.22 mm [95% CI, 0.17 to 0.26 mm]). The median proximal penetration rate between 2 and 5 years was 0.02 mm/yr (mean, 0.01 mm/yr [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.02 mm/yr]) for E1 and 0.04 mm/yr (mean, 0.04 mm/yr [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.05 mm/yr) for ArComXL. The corresponding median total (i.e., 3-dimensional resultant) penetration rates were 0.04 mm/yr (mean, 0.04 mm/yr [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.05 mm/yr]) for E1 and 0.07 mm/yr (mean, 0.08 mm/yr [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.10 mm/yr]) for ArComXL. CONCLUSIONS: From years 2 to 5, we observed increased penetration in both groups. The penetration rate was higher for ArComXL, resulting in more proximal and total penetration at 5 years than for E1. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Femoral Head Penetration of Vitamin E-Infused Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene Liners: A Randomized Radiostereometric Study of Seventy Hips Followed for Two Years.

BACKGROUND: Highly cross-linked polyethylene infused with vitamin E (E-poly) was developed to increase oxidative resistance without affecting mechanical properties. We evaluated this type of polyethylene in a randomized clinical study that used radiostereometric analysis. Our objective was to compare the early-term femoral head penetration of an E-poly liner with that of a heat-treated polyethylene liner, ArComXL. We hypothesized that the clinical outcome at two years following total hip arthroplasty would be unaffected by the choice of polyethylene. METHODS: In this prospective study, sixty-one patients (seventy hips) with noninflammatory hip osteoarthritis and a median age of fifty-eight years were randomized to receive either an implant with an E-Poly or a heat-treated highly cross-linked polyethylene liner. The patients were followed for two years and evaluated at three time points (three months, one year, and two years). RESULTS: The median proximal penetration in the E-poly group increased from 0.04 mm at three months to 0.06 mm at two years of follow-up. Corresponding values for the ArComXL group were 0.03 mm and 0.10 mm. In both groups, significantly increased penetration was observed between three months and two years (E-poly, p = 0.02; ArComXL, p < 0.001), but between one and two years, the increase was significant only in the control group (E-poly, p = 0.23; ArComXL, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The femoral head penetration of E-poly was very low at two years. Whether the increase observed between three months and two years was caused by creep, deformation, wear, or a combination of these cannot be determined by our study. There were no significant differences observed in femoral head penetration rates between E-poly and ArComXL. Currently, the theoretical advantages of E-poly remain to be confirmed.