Clinical and radiological outcome of the cemented Contemporary acetabular component in patients < 50 years of age
SourceBone and Joint Journal, 95-B, 12, (2013), pp. 1617-1625
Article / Letter to editor
Display more detailsDisplay less details
Bone and Joint Journal
SubjectNCEBP 10: Human Movement & Fatigue; NCEBP 10: Human Movement & Fatigue NCMLS 3: Tissue engineering and pathology
Despite the worldwide usage of the cemented Contemporary acetabular component (Stryker), no published data are available regarding its use in patients aged < 50 years. We undertook a mid- to long-term follow-up study, including all consecutive patients aged < 50 years who underwent a primary total hip replacement using the Contemporary acetabular component with the Exeter cemented stem between January 1999 and January 2006. There were 152 hips in 126 patients, 61 men and 65 women, mean age at surgery 37.6 years (16 to 49 yrs). One patient was lost to follow-up. Mean clinical follow-up of all implants was 7.6 years (0.9 to 12.0). All clinical questionnaire scores, including Harris hip score, Oxford hip score and several visual analogue scales, were found to have improved. The eight year survivorship of all acetabular components for the endpoints revision for any reason or revision for aseptic loosening was 94.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89.2 to 97.2) and 96.4% (95% CI 91.6 to 98.5), respectively. Radiological follow-up was complete for 146 implants. The eight year survival for the endpoint radiological loosening was 93.1% (95% CI 86.2 to 96.6). Three surviving implants were considered radiologically loose but were asymptomatic. The presence of acetabular osteolysis (n = 17, 11.8%) and radiolucent lines (n = 20, 13.9%) in the 144 surviving cups indicates a need for continued observation in the second decade of follow-up in order to observe their influence on long-term survival. The clinical and radiological data resulting in a ten-year survival rate > 90% in young patients support the use of the Contemporary acetabular component in this specific patient group. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1617-25.
Upload full text