Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 11/2013

01-11-2013 | Survey (Systematic Review)

Do Monoblock Cups Improve Survivorship, Decrease Wear, or Reduce Osteolysis in Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty?

Authors: Jelle J. Halma, MD, H. Charles Vogely, MD, PhD, Wouter J. Dhert, MD, PhD, Steven M. Van Gaalen, MD, PhD, Arthur de Gast, MD, PhD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 11/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Monoblock acetabular components used in uncemented total hip arthroplasty (THA) have certain mechanical characteristics that potentially reduce acetabular osteolysis and polyethylene wear. However, the degree to which they achieve this goal is not well documented.

Questions/purposes

The purpose of this study was to use a systematic review of controlled trials to test the hypothesis that monoblock cups have superior (1) polyethylene wear rate; (2) frequency of cup migration; (3) frequency of acetabular osteolysis; and (4) frequency of aseptic loosening compared with modular components used in uncemented THA.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases to assemble all controlled trials comparing monoblock with modular uncemented acetabular components in primary THA. Included studies were considered “best evidence” if the quality score was either ≥ 50% on the Cochrane Back Review Group checklist or ≥ 75% the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. A total of seven publications met our inclusion criteria.

Results

Best evidence analysis showed no difference in polyethylene wear rate, the frequency of cup migration, and aseptic loosening between monoblock and modular acetabular components. No convincing evidence was found for the claim that lower frequencies of acetabular osteolysis are observed with the use of monoblock cups compared with modular uncemented cups.

Conclusions

The purported benefits of monoblock cups were not substantiated by this systematic review of controlled studies in that polyethylene wear rates and frequencies of cup failure and acetabular osteolysis were similar to those observed with modular implants. Other factors should therefore drive implant selection in cementless THA.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ali MS, Kumar A. Hydroxyapatite-coated RM cup in primary hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. 2003;2:90–93.
2.
3.
Baad-Hansen T, Kold S, Nielsen PT, Laursen MB, Christensen PH, Soballe K. Comparison of trabecular metal cups and titanium fiber-mesh cups in primary hip arthroplasty: a randomized RSA and bone mineral densitometry study of 50 hips. Acta Orthop. 2011;2:155–160.CrossRef
4.
Berli BJ, Ping G, Dick W, Morscher EW. Nonmodular flexible press-fit cup in primary total hip arthroplasty: 15-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;461:114–121.PubMed
5.
Bracco P, Oral E. Vitamin E-stabilized UHMWPE for total joint implants: a review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:2286–2293.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, van Tulder M, Editorial Board, Cochrane Back Review Group. 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;18:1929–1941.
7.
Garavaglia G, Lubbeke A, Barea C, Roussos C, Peter R, Hoffmeyer P. Ten-year results with the Morscher press-fit cup: an uncemented, non-modular, porous-coated cup inserted without screws. Int Orthop. 2011;7:957–963.CrossRef
8.
Gonzalez Della Valle A, Su E, Zoppi A, Sculco TP, Salvati EA. Wear and periprosthetic osteolysis in a match-paired study of modular and nonmodular uncemented acetabular cups. J Arthroplasty. 2004;8:972–977.
9.
Gwynne-Jones DP, Garneti N, Wainwright C, Matheson JA, King R. The Morscher press fit acetabular component: a nine- to 13-year review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;7:859–864.
10.
Hailer NP, Garellick G, Karrholm J. Uncemented and cemented primary total hip arthroplasty in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2010;1:34–41.CrossRef
11.
Horne G, Culliford N, Adams K, Devane P. Hybrid total hip replacement: outcome after a mean follow up of 10 years. ANZ J Surg. 2007;8:638–641.CrossRef
12.
Horne G, Devane PA, Dalton DJ. Does pelvic osteolysis occur with a nonmodular uncemented acetabular component? J Arthroplasty. 2006;2:185–190.CrossRef
13.
Huk OL, Bansal M, Betts F, Rimnac CM, Lieberman JR, Huo MH, Salvati EA. Polyethylene and metal debris generated by non-articulating surfaces of modular acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;4:568–574.
14.
Ihle M, Mai S, Pfluger D, Siebert W. The results of the titanium-coated RM acetabular component at 20 years: a long-term follow-up of an uncemented primary total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;10:1284–1290.
15.
Ihle M, Mai S, Siebert WE. Treatment for acetabular dysplasia using the uncemented RM acetabular component—a 20 year follow-up. Hip Int. 2010;1:94–101.
16.
Kitamura N, Leung SB, Engh CA Sr. Characteristics of pelvic osteolysis on computed tomography after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;441:291–297.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Krismer M, Fischer M, Mayrhofer P, Stockl F, Bittner C, Trojer C, Stockl B. A prospective study of the migration of two acetabular components. PCA versus RM cups. Int Orthop. 1994;1:23–28.
18.
Krismer M, Stockl B, Fischer M, Bauer R, Mayrhofer P, Ogon M. Early migration predicts late aseptic failure of hip sockets. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;3:422–426.
19.
Kurtz SM, Ochoa JA, Hovey CB, White CV. Simulation of initial frontside and backside wear rates in a modular acetabular component with multiple screw holes. J Biomech. 1999;9:967–976.CrossRef
20.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009:b2700.
21.
Macheras G, Kateros K, Kostakos A, Koutsostathis S, Danomaras D, Papagelopoulos PJ. Eight- to ten-year clinical and radiographic outcome of a porous tantalum monoblock acetabular component. J Arthroplasty. 2009;5:705–709.CrossRef
22.
Macheras GA, Kateros K, Koutsostathis SD, Tsakotos G, Galanakos S, Papadakis SA. The trabecular metal monoblock acetabular component in patients with high congenital hip dislocation: a prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;5:624–628.
23.
Meneghini RM, Ford KS, McCollough CH, Hanssen AD, Lewallen DG. Bone remodeling around porous metal cementless acetabular components. J Arthroplasty. 2010;5:741–747.CrossRef
24.
Nagi ON, Kumar S, Aggarwal S. The uncemented isoelastic/isotitan total hip arthroplasty. A 10–15 years follow-up with bone mineral density evaluation. Acta Orthop Belg. 2006;1:55–64.
25.
26.
Oral E, Christensen SD, Malhi AS, Wannomae KK, Muratoglu OK. Wear resistance and mechanical properties of highly cross-linked, ultrahigh-molecular weight polyethylene doped with vitamin E. J Arthroplasty. 2006;4:580–591.CrossRef
27.
Pakvis D, Biemond L, van Hellemondt G, Spruit M. A cementless elastic monoblock socket in young patients: a ten to 18-year clinical and radiological follow-up. Int Orthop. 2011;10:1445–1451.CrossRef
28.
Pakvis D, van Hellemondt G, de Visser E, Jacobs W, Spruit M. Is there evidence for a superior method of socket fixation in hip arthroplasty? A systematic review. Int Orthop. 2011;8:1109–1118.CrossRef
29.
Roffman M, Kligman M. Cementless coated and noncoated Mathys acetabular cups: radiographic and histologic evaluation. Orthopedics. 1999;1:39–41.
30.
Rohrl SM, Nivbrant B, Strom H, Nilsson KG. Effect of augmented cup fixation on stability, wear, and osteolysis: a 5-year follow-up of total hip arthroplasty with RSA. J Arthroplasty. 2004;8:962–971.
31.
Soballe K, Hansen ES, B-Rasmussen H, Jorgensen PH, Bunger C. Tissue ingrowth into titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated implants during stable and unstable mechanical conditions. J Orthop Res. 1992;2:285–299.CrossRef
32.
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;15:2008–2012.CrossRef
33.
34.
Trebse R, Milosev I, Kovac S, Mikek M, Pisot V. Poor results from the isoelastic total hip replacement: 14–17-year follow-up of 149 cementless prostheses. Acta Orthop. 2005;2:169–176.CrossRef
35.
Weiss RJ, Hailer NP, Stark A, Karrholm J. Survival of uncemented acetabular monoblock cups: evaluation of 210 hips in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2012;3:214–219.CrossRef
36.
37.
Wolf C, Lederer K, Pfragner R, Schauenstein K, Ingolic E, Siegl V. Biocompatibility of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMW-PE) stabilized with alpha-tocopherol used for joint endoprostheses assessed in vitro. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2007;6:1247–1252.CrossRef
38.
Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–29.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Young AM, Sychterz CJ, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA. Effect of acetabular modularity on polyethylene wear and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;1:58–63.
Metadata
Title
Do Monoblock Cups Improve Survivorship, Decrease Wear, or Reduce Osteolysis in Uncemented Total Hip Arthroplasty?
Authors
Jelle J. Halma, MD
H. Charles Vogely, MD, PhD
Wouter J. Dhert, MD, PhD
Steven M. Van Gaalen, MD, PhD
Arthur de Gast, MD, PhD
Publication date
01-11-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 11/2013
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3144-y

Other articles of this Issue 11/2013

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 11/2013 Go to the issue

Symposium: ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on Outcome Measures

Stakeholders in Outcome Measures: Review From a Clinical Perspective

CORR Insights®

CORR Insights®: Coronal Limb Alignment and Indications for High Tibial Osteotomy in Patients Undergoing Revision ACL Reconstruction

Clinical Research

Risk Factors for Significant Wound Complications Following Wide Resection of Extremity Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Symposium: ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on Outcome Measures

Validation of PROMIS® Physical Function Computerized Adaptive Tests for Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Outcome Research

Orthopaedic Healthcare Worldwide

The Importance of Outcome Measurement in Orthopaedics

Clinical Research

The Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Fails at a High Rate in a High-volume Knee Practice