Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 12, 2025
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
Modern cementless acetabular cups in total hip arthroplasty performed for primary osteoarthritis: a comparative
Francesco Castagnini1, Barbara Bordini2, Monica Cosentino2
1SC Ortopedia-Traumatologia e Chirurgia protesica e dei reimpianti d'anca e di ginocchio, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Via Pupilli 1, Bologna, 40136, Italy. francescocastagnini@hotmail.it.
Introduction:
Comparative studies evaluating the different material and surface finishing of acetabular components in total hip arthroplasty (THA) are lacking. Using a regional arthroplasty registry, the survival rates and the hazard ratios of different cups in THA performed for primary osteoarthritis were assessed, using endpoints: (1) every cup failure, (2) cup aseptic loosening, (3) periprosthetic infection.
Materials And Methods:
The inclusion criteria were: residing patients, THA for primary osteoarthritis, Delta-on-Delta bearings, head sizes 32 mm and 36 mm. Only the most implanted cementless cups were considered and were grouped according to material and surface finishing into three cohorts: 3D printed cups (I), ultraporous tantalum or titanium- coated cups (II), second-generation cups (III). 15,737 cups were included in the study: 9,862 cups (62.7%) in cohort I, 2,067 implants (13.1%) in cohort II, 3,808 implants (24.2%) in cohort III.
Results:
The three cohorts achieved comparable general 10-year survival rates (p = 0.62). In I and II cohorts, the survival rates of the cup types within cohorts were analogous (p = 0.86 and p = 0.31), but not in cohort III (p = 0.004). The hazard ratios for overall failure adjusted for age and sex were similar among the cohorts. Regarding cup aseptic loosening, the three cohorts had similar rates (p = 0.48) and similar adjusted hazard ratios. With periprosthetic hip infection as endpoint, the survival rates and the adjusted hazard ratios of the three cohorts were comparable (p = 0.68).
Conclusions:
3D printed cups provided similar 10-year outcomes compared to ultraporous cups and second-generation cups, with no additional risks of aseptic loosening and infection.
Level Of Evidence:
IV (therapeutic study).
Take Home Message:
- 3D printed cups provided similar 10-year outcomes compared to ultraporous cups and second-generation cups. - There is no additional risks of aseptic loosening and infection.
