The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 25, Issue 2 , Pages 203-207, February 2010

Hylamer vs Conventional Polyethylene in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Long-Term Case-Control Study of Wear Rates and Osteolysis

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California

Received 9 November 2008; accepted 4 February 2009. published online 06 March 2009.

Abstract 

The long-term results of Hylamer implants have not been reported previously. Clinical and radiographic results of a consecutive series of 43 patients (45 hips) who had primary total hip arthroplasty using Hylamer liners were compared with those of 37 patients (43 hips) who had conventional liners after 10-year follow-up. The linear wear rates for Hylamer and conventional polyethylene acetabular liners were 0.21 and 0.20 mm/y, respectively. The number of pelvic osteolytic lesions and their size detected on plain radiographs were significantly greater for Hylamer liners. Seven Hylamer hips were revised or are pending revision for osteolysis (16%) compared with 1 control hip. Close radiographic surveillance of patients who have Hylamer liners and evidence of osteolysis found on plain radiographs is warranted.

Keywords: hylamer, polyethylene wear, osteolysis

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Alex H.S. Harris, PhD, received support from the Palo Alto Veteran's Administration Hospital, Palo Alto, CA.

 No benefits or funds were received in support of the study.

PII: S0883-5403(09)00053-9

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2009.02.006

The Journal of Arthroplasty
Volume 25, Issue 2 , Pages 203-207, February 2010