Wear Rate of Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene in Total Hip Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Highly cross-linked polyethylene was introduced for clinical use in total hip arthroplasty with the expectation that it would exhibit less wear when compared with conventional polyethylene. The purpose of this study was to report the clinical and radiographic results, after a minimum of five years of follow-up, of a randomized, blinded, controlled trial comparing a conventional polyethylene with a first-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene. Methods: One hundred patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized controlled study comparing highly cross-linked and conventional polyethylene acetabular liners in total hip arthroplasty. Fifty patients were in each group. At the time of follow-up, clinical outcomes were assessed and steady-state femoral head penetration rates (after bedding-in) for each patient were calculated with use of a validated radiographic technique. In addition, a statistical comparison of polyethylene wear between groups was performed with use of generalized estimating equations. Results: At a mean of 6.8 years postoperatively, there were no differences between the two polyethylene groups with regard to the Harris hip score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), or Short Form-12 (SF-12) score. The mean femoral head penetration rate in the first through fifth years was found to be significantly lower in the group treated with the highly cross-linked polyethylene (0.003 mm/yr [95% confidence interval, ±0.027]) than it was in the group treated with conventional polyethylene (0.051 mm/yr [95% confidence interval, ±0.022]) (p = 0.006). Men treated with a conventional polyethylene liner had a significantly higher (p ≤ 0.012) femoral head penetration rate (0.081 mm/yr [95% confidence interval, ±0.065]) than both men and women with a highly cross-linked liner (−0.013 mm/yr [95% confidence interval, ±0.074] and 0.009 mm/yr [95% confidence interval, ±0.028], respectively). The general estimating equations demonstrated that the group with a highly cross-linked polyethylene liner had a significantly lower femoral head penetration rate than the group with a conventional polyethylene liner (p = 0.025), and a significantly higher femoral head penetration rate was demonstrated in men with a conventional polyethylene liner when compared with both men and women with a highly cross-linked liner (p = 0.003). Conclusions: At a minimum of five years postoperatively, the steady-state femoral head penetration rate associated with this first-generation highly cross-linked polyethylene liner was significantly lower than that associated with a conventional polyethylene liner. Long-term follow-up is required to demonstrate the clinical benefit of this new material. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".