Share this article on:

Cross-Linked Polyethylene for Total Hip Arthroplasty Markedly Reduces Revision Surgery at 16 Years

de Steiger, R., MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA1,2,a; Lorimer, M., BSc(Hons)1; Graves, S.E., MBBS, DPhil, FRACS, FAOrthA1

doi: 10.2106/JBJS.17.01221
Scientific Articles
Supplementary Content

Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective operation for the management of end-stage hip osteoarthritis, but long-term success can be limited by wear of the polyethylene bearing surface. Cross-linking conventional polyethylene has resulted in lower wear rates and a reduction in bone lysis in both laboratory and clinical studies. The aim of this study was to compare the rates of revision between cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) and conventional non-cross-linked polyethylene (CPE) at 16 years after THAs performed for the treatment of osteoarthritis.

Methods: We performed an observational study of data, from a national registry, on all patients who underwent THA for osteoarthritis in Australia from 1999 through December 31, 2016. The outcomes of THAs performed with CPE were compared with those of THAs performed with XLPE, along with an analysis of the effect of age, sex, femoral head size, the method of acetabular and femoral component fixation, and the reasons and types of revision. The principal outcome measure was the time to the first revision, determined using Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship.

Results: CPE was used in 41,171 procedures, and XLPE was used in 199,131. The mean ages of the men and women treated with CPE were 70.0 years (standard deviation [SD] = 9.9 years) and 72.5 years (SD = 9.7 years), respectively, whereas the men and women who received XLPE were slightly younger (mean age, 68.6 years [SD = 10.3 years] and 70.7 years [SD = 9.9 years], respectively. XLPE was associated with a lower rate of revision than CPE at 6 months, and this difference became more apparent with time. The 16-year cumulative percentage of revisions of the primary THAs was 11.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.1% to 12.3%]) in the CPE group and 6.2% (95% CI = 5.7% to 6.7%) in the XLPE group. The hazard ratio at 9 years was 3.02 (p = 0.001).

Conclusions: The use of XLPE has resulted in a significant reduction in the rate of revision at 16 years following THA for osteoarthritis. This evidence suggests that the longevity of THA is likely to be improved, which may enable younger patients to undergo surgery, confident of a reduced need for revision in the long term.

Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

1Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, SAHMRI, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

2School of Public Health, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

aE-mail address for R. de Steiger:

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most effective surgical procedures and very successful for the management of end-stage hip osteoarthritis. The number of THA procedures has been increasing, and this is expected to continue1-5. The most common bearing surface for THA has been conventional non-cross-linked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (CPE), which has been in use for >50 years. However, the biggest problem limiting the life span of THA has been long-term wear, leading to osteolysis and aseptic loosening6. As limiting wear of the bearing surface is critical to long-term success, particularly for younger patients, research has led to the development of polyethylene with improved wear characteristics. Methods for manufacturing cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) differ, but all include radiation doses of 50 to 100 kGy with different radiation techniques and thermal treatments. Initial laboratory hip simulator trials showed less wear of XLPE compared with CPE7-9. A phased clinical introduction of this material then commenced with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using radiostereometric analysis, the early results of which demonstrated reduced wear with XLPE10,11.

Clinical studies of XLPE from different manufacturers have all shown reduced wear compared with CPE, confirming the initial laboratory findings12-15. Examination of liners retrieved during surgery for reasons other than wear-related issues has also demonstrated reduced wear in vivo16,17. A meta-analysis of RCTs comparing XLPE with CPE for THA showed a reduction in volumetric and total linear wear of XLPE liners along with a reduction in radiographic evidence of osteolysis18. However, the follow-up was not long enough to show a difference in the rates of revision surgery, which ultimately is most important for the patient.

The aim of this study was to use data from a national joint replacement registry to compare the rate of revision at 16 years after THA for osteoarthritis between patients who had received XLPE and those treated with CPE.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Materials and Methods

The Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) began data collection on September 1, 1999, and participation is voluntary. The registry includes data on almost all of the arthroplasty procedures performed in Australia since 2002, and data are validated against patient-level data provided by each of the state and territory health departments in Australia with use of a sequential, multilevel matching process. Data are also matched biannually with the Department of Health and Ageing National Death Index to obtain information on the date of death.

XLPE was defined in the registry database as ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene that had been irradiated with high-dose (≥50 kGy) gamma or electron beam radiation, regardless of remelting or annealing. This definition was confirmed with industry sources and cross-checked with the Australian Prosthesis Advisory List, which records XLPE separately from CPE. The registry first recorded the use of XLPE in 2000. The study population consisted of primary THAs undertaken for osteoarthritis and performed with either CPE or XLPE. All other bearing surfaces were excluded.

Outcomes were compared between THAs performed with CPE and those done with XLPE, and the effects of age, sex, femoral head size, the method of acetabular and femoral component fixation, and the reasons and types of revision were also analyzed.

In order to account for possible confounders in this observational data, we also performed a number of subanalyses. These included the type of femoral head material, femoral head size, and methods of acetabular and femoral component fixation. We also performed an analysis of specific prostheses in order to account for known prosthesis-related outcome variation. This analysis was performed on prostheses that had both CPE and XLPE options, had been used in a minimum of 800 procedures in both polyethylene groups, and had a minimum follow-up of 8 years with sufficient numbers to perform a comparative analysis.

As polyethylene wear is more likely to have an effect in the longer term in younger patients, we performed a separate analysis on patients who underwent THA for osteoarthritis when they were <55 years of age.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical Analysis

The registry uses Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship to describe the time to the first revision of an arthroplasty, with censoring at the time of death or closure of the database at the time of analysis (December 31, 2016). The analytical approach involves high-level statistical methodologies to investigate associations to limit the impact of bias. A full description of the statistical methods that are used is provided in the Appendix.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The registry recorded the use of CPE for 41,171 procedures and XLPE for 199,131. These procedures accounted for 74% of all THAs performed for osteoarthritis. There were 23,813 women (57.8%) in the CPE group and 110,162 (55.3%) in the XLPE group. The mean age in the CPE group was 70.0 years (standard deviation [SD] = 9.9 years) for men and 72.5 years (SD = 9.7 years) for women. The patients who received XLPE were slightly younger, with a mean age of 68.6 years (SD = 10.3 years) for men and 70.7 years (SD = 9.9 years) for women. The median follow-up was 9.2 years after the THAs with CPE compared with 4.2 years after those with XLPE. The use of XLPE increased over the study period: from 9.2% of all primary THAs with polyethylene in 2000 to 97.1% in 2016 (Fig. 1). The use of XLPE was also associated with the use of larger femoral heads, with a head size of ≥32 mm used in 12% of all THAs done with CPE compared with 75.9% of those done with XLPE.

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

The rate of revision at 6 months was lower for the patients treated with XLPE than for those who received CPE. This difference became more apparent with time, with the 16-year cumulative percent of revision being 11.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.1% to 12.3%) in the CPE group compared with 6.2% (95% CI = 5.7% to 6.7%) in the XLPE group. The hazard ratio [HR] at 9 years was 3.02 (p = 0.001) (Fig. 2). The main reason for the difference in the revision rate was a reduction in the rate of revisions due to loosening, lysis, and dislocation (Fig. 3). The most common reasons for revision of THA in both the CPE and the XLPE group are listed in Table I. A revision that could be directly attributable to polyethylene wear-related issues (wear of the acetabular insert or lysis) was recorded after 332 (0.81%) of the 41,171 THAs with CPE compared with only 102 (0.05%) of the 199,131 procedures with XLPE.

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

TABLE I - Reasons for Revisions of Primary THAs for Osteoarthritis (Primary Diagnosis) by Polyethylene Type
Reason for Revision No. % of Primary THAs (N = 41,171) % of All Revisions No. % of Primary THAs (N = 199,131) % of All Revisions
Prosthesis dislocation 601 1.46 21.66 1,404 0.71 24.63
Infection 360 0.87 12.97 1,275 0.64 22.36
Fracture 387 0.94 13.95 1,248 0.63 21.89
Loosening 936 2.27 33.73 1,129 0.57 19.80
Lysis/wear 332 0.81 11.96 102 0.05 1.79
Limb length discrepancy 13 0.03 0.47 86 0.04 1.51
Pain 26 0.06 0.94 86 0.04 1.51
Other 120 0.29 4.32 371 0.19 6.51
Total 2,775 6.74 100.00 5,701 2.86 100.00

The CPE and XLPE were combined with 3 different femoral head bearing surfaces—ceramic, metal, and ceramicized metal—and XLPE was associated with a lower rate of revision compared with CPE in all 3 of these subgroups. XLPE was also associated with a lower revision rate in the subgroups defined according to the 3 common head sizes (<32, 32, and >32 mm; Table II) and 3 types of THA fixation (cemented, cementless, and hybrid [femur cemented]).

TABLE II - Cumulative Percentages of Revisions of Primary THAs for Osteoarthritis (Primary Diagnosis) by Polyethylene Type and Femoral Head Size
Cumulative % (95% CI)
Polyethylene Type/Head Size Revisions Primary THAs 1 Yr 5 Yr 8 Yr 14 Yr 16 Yr
CPE 11.7 (11.1, 12.3)
 <32 mm 2,538 36,230 1.4 (1.3, 1.6) 3.4 (3.2, 3.6) 5.0 (4.8, 5.3) 10.1 (9.7, 10.5) 11.6 (11.1, 12.3)
 32 mm 213 4,642 1.6 (1.3, 2.0) 3.8 (3.2, 4.4) 5.5 (4.7, 6.3) 9.8 (7.6, 12.8)
 >32 mm 24 299 3.7 (2.1, 6.6) 8.6 (5.7, 12.8) 9.9 (6.6, 14.6)
XLPE 6.2 (5.7, 6.7)
 <32 mm 1,817 48,001 1.5 (1.4, 1.7) 3.0 (2.8, 3.2) 3.8 (3.7, 4.0) 5.7 (5.4, 6.1) 6.2 (5.7, 6.8)
 32 mm 2,089 84,157 1.5 (1.4, 1.6) 2.7 (2.6, 2.8) 3.5 (3.3, 3.7) 4.6 (4.2, 5.1)
 >32 mm 1,795 66,973 1.7 (1.6, 1.8) 3.1 (3.0, 3.3) 4.0 (3.8, 4.2) 8.5 (6.0, 11.9)
Total 8,476 240,302

Six brands of acetabular prosthesis were available with both XLPE and CPE bearing options, were used in ≥800 procedures each, and were followed for ≥8 years. Five were associated with a reduced rate of revision at various time points when XLPE had been used, whereas the rate of revision of 1 prosthesis (Vitalock; Stryker) during the entire follow-up period did not differ significantly according to type of polyethylene used (Tables III and IV). Table V lists revision rates for the 10 most commonly used cementless prostheses with XLPE with a minimum 7-year follow-up (maximum, 15 years for 2 models).

TABLE III - Cumulative Percentages of Revisions of Primary THAs for Osteoarthritis (Primary Diagnosis) by Prosthesis and Polyethylene Type
Acetabular Component/Polyethylene Type No.
Cumulative % (95% CI)
Revisions Primary THAs 5 Yr 8 Yr 12 Yr 13 Yr 14 Yr 15 Yr
 CPE 61 848 3.3 (2.3, 4.7) 5.1 (3.8, 6.9) 8.0 (6.2, 10.4) 8.3 (6.4, 10.7) 9.6 (7.3, 12.5) 11.3 (8.2, 15.5)
 XLPE 239 7,845 2.5 (2.2, 2.9) 3.7 (3.2, 4.2) 5.0 (4.2, 5.9) 5.7 (4.7, 7.0) 7.2 (5.1, 10.2)
 CPE 339 2,994 4.1 (3.4, 4.8) 6.3 (5.5, 7.3) 12.0 (10.7, 13.4) 13.4 (12.0, 14.8) 14.5 (13.0, 16.1) 15.5 (13.9, 17.3)
 XLPE 79 1,716 3.0 (2.2, 3.9) 4.3 (3.4, 5.5) 5.5 (4.3, 6.9) 6.5 (5.0, 8.5) 7.1 (5.3, 9.6)
 CPE 246 4,084 2.7 (2.3, 3.3) 4.0 (3.4, 4.6) 6.2 (5.5, 7.2) 7.1 (6.2, 8.1) 8.2 (7.1, 9.4) 9.5 (8.2, 11.0)
 XLPE 61 2,946 2.3 (1.8, 3.0) 2.4 (1.9, 3.2)
Reflection (cup)
 CPE 142 1,079 3.3 (2.3, 4.6) 7.5 (6.0, 9.5) 15.4 (12.9, 18.3) 18.1 (15.3, 21.4) 21.8 (18.4, 25.7) 22.7 (19.1, 26.9)
 XLPE 27 1,165 2.3 (1.5, 3.4) 2.4 (1.6, 3.6) 2.7 (1.8, 4.2)
Reflection (shell)
 CPE 270 2,322 4.3 (3.5, 5.2) 6.8 (5.8, 8.0) 12.6 (11.1, 14.3) 14.3 (12.7, 16.1) 15.6 (13.9, 17.6) 16.7 (14.8, 18.8)
 XLPE 331 1,919 2.0 (1.8, 2.3) 2.7 (2.4, 3.1) 3.6 (3.2, 4.1) 3.8 (3.3, 4.3) 4.5 (3.7, 5.5) 6.3 (4.0, 9.8)
 CPE 209 3,569 2.6 (2.1, 3.1) 3.6 (3.0, 4.2) 5.5 (4.8, 6.4) 6.0 (5.2, 6.9) 6.9 (6.0, 7.9) 7.5 (6.5, 8.6)
 XLPE 41 1,050 2.4 (1.6, 3.5) 3.3 (2.3, 4.6) 4.7 (3.5, 6.5) 4.7 (3.5, 6.5)
Total 2,045 31,537

TABLE IV - Hazard Ratios for Revisions of Primary THAs for Osteoarthritis (Primary Diagnosis) by Polyethylene Type (XLPE Vs. CPE) and Acetabular Component
Acetabular Component HR (95% CI) P Value
Allofit: entire period 0.68 (0.51, 0.68) 0.012
 0-5 yr 0.75 (0.54, 1.04) 0.089
 5-9 yr 0.49 (0.31, 0.79) 0.003
 9-9.5 yr 0.18 (0.02, 1.35) 0.096
 >9.5 yr 0.28 (0.14, 0.58) <0.001
 0-1 mo 1.22 (0.69, 2.17) 0.497
 1-3 mo 0.61 (0.25, 1.49) 0.280
 3 mo-1.5 yr 1.15 (0.64, 2.04) 0.640
 >1.5 yr 0.42 (0.23, 0.77) 0.005
Reflection (cup)
 0-1 yr 1.92 (0.72, 5.26) 0.187
 >1 yr 0.20 (0.11, 0.34) <0.001
Reflection (shell)
 0-1 yr 0.71 (0.50, 1.02) 0.065
 1-5 yr 0.31 (0.22, 0.43) <0.001
 5-10 yr 0.23 (0.17, 0.30) <0.001
 >10 yr 0.15 (0.09, 0.25) <0.001
Vitalock: entire period 0.82 (0.58, 1.15) 0.249

TABLE V - Cumulative Percentages of Revisions of the 10 Most Commonly Used Cementless THAs with XLPE
Cumulative % (95% CI)
Model Revisions Total 7 Yr 9 Yr 10 Yr 13 Yr 14 Yr 15 Yr
Accolade I/Trident (shell) 280 5,773 4.7 (4.2, 5.4) 5.7 (5.0, 6.4) 6.3 (5.5, 7.2) 7.3 (6.2, 8.5)
Alloclassic/Allofit 104 3,211 3.2 (2.6, 3.9) 4.1 (3.4, 5.1) 4.1 (3.4, 5.1) 5.3 (3.9, 7.2)
Anthology/R3 75 3,888 2.3 (1.8, 3.0)
Corail/Pinnacle 695 24,589 4.0 (3.7, 4.4) 5.1 (4.5, 5.7) 5.4 (4.7, 6.2) 5.6 (4.9, 6.5)
Polarstem/R3 103 4,381 3.1 (2.5, 3.8)
Quadra-H/Versafitcup CC 104 3,341 4.1 (3.2, 5.1)
Secur-Fit/Trident (shell) 210 5,628 4.4 (3.8, 5.0) 4.7 (4.0, 5.5) 4.8 (4.1, 5.6) 6.0 (4.8, 7.5) 6.0 (4.8, 7.5) 6.0 (4.8, 7.5)
Synergy/R3 61 2,713 2.6 (2.0, 3.4)
Synergy/Reflection (shell) 148 4,827 2.7 (2.2, 3.2) 3.0 (2.6, 3.6) 3.1 (2.7, 3.7) 3.9 (3.2, 4.7) 3.9 (3.2, 4.7)
VerSys/Trilogy 168 3,474 4.5 (3.9, 5.3) 4.8 (4.1, 5.6) 5.0 (4.3, 5.8) 5.5 (4.7, 6.4) 5.7 (4.9, 6.7) 5.7 (4.9, 6.7)

According to the registry, 17,689 primary THAs using either CPE or XLPE had been performed for osteoarthritis in younger patients (<55 years of age), and the 15-year cumulative percent of revisions in this group was 17.4% (95% CI = 15.5% to 19.5%) for those treated with CPE and 6.6% (95% CI = 5.5% to 7.8%) for those who received XLPE. At 7 years, there was a 5-fold increase in the rate of revisions of procedures done with CPE compared with that of procedures performed with XLPE (HR = 5.32, p < 0.001) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Back to Top | Article Outline


To our knowledge, this study of the outcomes of the use of XLPE in THA for patients with osteoarthritis represents the longest follow-up of the largest number of procedures reported. The use of XLPE makes THA—already one of the most effective operations—even better. The data confirm the early promise shown by XLPE in RCTs—i.e., when compared with CPE, an XLPE bearing surface in THA results in a mid-term to longer-term reduction in all-cause revision. This is due to a reduced rate of revision due to loosening, lysis, and dislocation. The difference is seen both early (due to a reduced rate of revision for dislocation) and in the longer term (as a consequence of the reduction in wear-related problems).

A major strength of this study is the evaluation of the experience with XLPE in an entire national population and therefore the high external validity. Unlike the introduction of large-head metal-on-metal bearings, there was a phased introduction of XLPE, with initial laboratory testing followed by RCTs and then wider clinical use. This study completes the loop of introduction of new technology by reporting the use of XLPE recorded in a national registry with long-term follow-up. As a result, patients, surgeons, hospitals, and other health-care stakeholders can be confident that the use of XLPE will reduce the rate of revision surgery following THA.

Although our data demonstrated a significant reduction in revision overall with the use of XLPE, a study using pooled data from 6 registries, including the AOANJRR, did not demonstrate a reduced risk of revision19. That study was limited to cementless fixation with a standard 32-mm head in patients 45 to 64 years of age who had a shorter follow-up than the patients in our study. The inclusion criteria used in the previous study19 may explain the difference between its results and the data in our study, which included all patients in a national registry. The HR in the adjusted model in the previous study was in the same direction as ours, in favor of XLPE, but it did not reach significance. The rate of revision of THAs with XLPE in our study (4.4%) was higher than that in a recently published RCT by Devane et al.20 (1.9%) during an equivalent time period (10 years). However, in the RCT, the THAs were performed by experienced hip surgeons who used strict inclusion criteria, whereas our data involved all surgeons in Australia rather than just experienced hip surgeons. We therefore believe that our study has strong external validity and represents a “real world” revision rate.

We were able to adjust for sex, age, method of fixation, and femoral head size, all of which have been demonstrated to affect rates of revision of THA5,21-23. The registry showed that XLPE was associated with a lower rate of revision overall, but the observed difference could have been confounded by prosthesis type, with XLPE being used more often in well-performing prostheses. To account for known differences in prosthesis-specific revision rates, we performed a separate analysis of 6 prostheses that were available with both CPE and XLPE options for the same acetabular implant, and this analysis demonstrated lower rates of revision in association with XLPE in 5 of these models. As for the sixth model, the process for manufacturing the XLPE differs from that used by other companies, and this may account for the lack of observable difference between the XLPE and CPE. This has been previously noted with regard to the XLPE used by this manufacturer for total knee arthroplasty24.

The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) reported on design-specific differences between XLPE and CPE in THA25. With regard to cemented designs, XLPE versions of the ZCA (Zimmer) and Reflection (Smith & Nephew) all-polyethylene cups were found to have better survival than the CPE versions. This correlated with our analysis of the Reflection cup, but there were not enough XLPE ZCA cups for us to compare them with the CPE ZCA cups. With regard to all cementless cup designs, the XLPE shells in the NARA study had better overall survival (with all-cause revisions as the end point) than the CPE shells. Only 1 cementless cup, Trilogy (Zimmer), fulfilled the inclusion criteria for both types of polyethylene in the NARA study, and the revision rates did not differ between the XLPE and CPE versions of that cup. We could not analyze the Trilogy cup because there were not enough of them in the CPE group. The NARA database confirmed design-specific differences in polyethylene and suggested that their results should be confirmed in larger studies with longer follow-up.

The rate of revision of THAs with XLPE was lower than that of THAs with CPE from 6 months onward. This early benefit is not directly due to the better wear-related characteristics of XLPE, but it is an indirect consequence of them. The reason for this is that the use of larger femoral heads reduces the risk of revision due to dislocation, which is one of the most common reasons for early revision26. While the use of a larger femoral head with a CPE cup is known to increase the risk of long-term wear, this risk is not evident with XLPE. Thus, the introduction of XLPE enabled surgeons to selectively use larger femoral heads, thereby reducing revision for dislocation while avoiding the long-term wear problems associated with CPE.

The most common reason for long-term failure of THA requiring revision is loosening and osteolysis, and periprosthetic osteolysis is largely due to an inflammatory process caused by polyethylene wear27,28. While it has been suggested that particle-induced osteolysis is not a problem with XLPE29, there remains some concern about wear-related issues in the longer term, especially with the use of larger femoral heads. However, there have been few reports of osteolysis with the use of XLPE30-32. A systematic review demonstrated an 87% lower risk of osteolysis with XPLE than with CPE33. In our study, only 80 THAs (0.01%) with XLPE were revised because of lysis and 22 (0.004%) were revised because of wear of the acetabular insert, suggesting that these are not common medium to longer-term clinical problems with XLPE. There was also no evidence of increased mechanical failure with XLPE liners, with only 9 revisions for breakage of the acetabular insert.

Wear-related and implant-longevity issues are particularly important in younger patients, who are generally more active and have a longer life span than their older counterparts. There are now some longer-term reports of the clinical results of THA with XLPE in younger patients34-36, and these studies demonstrated no revisions for polyethylene wear or osteolysis. In light of these findings and our own analysis of 15,502 THAs with XLPE in younger patients, we believe that the evidence of reduced long-term wear with XLPE is now so strong that, when a polyethylene bearing surface is used in THA, it should be XLPE, particularly in younger patients.

There are some limitations with this analysis of registry data. The utilization of XLPE and CPE has changed over time. There is the potential for surgeon indication bias, but we believe that this would favor XLPE in younger patients. When the analysis was adjusted for age, particularly <55 years, the effect of XLPE was more marked. We do not believe that trends in surgical techniques, perioperative care, or rehabilitation protocols were significant confounding variables in either group. We also do not believe that newer implant design changes over this time period would have favored either group37.

While we adjusted for known risk factors that may have influenced the rate of wear-related revision of THA, there may be other such factors. We did not have information on body mass index (BMI) from the commencement of data collection, although the registry now collects those data. However, there is no evidence that BMI would have a more or less detrimental effect on the outcome of THA with XLPE or CPE. We also did not have information on activity levels, which have been shown to influence polyethylene wear rates38. Age is often regarded as a surrogate for activity, and we demonstrated the most reduction in revision rates in patients who were <55 years old. We believe that the XLPE is better than CPE in younger patients and those most likely to return to more active pursuits.

The use of XLPE has improved the outcomes of THA at 16 years with no observed untoward effects. The benefit is evident both early and late, with a reduced rate of revisions due to dislocation (because XLPE allows the increased use of larger femoral heads) and to wear-related issues. The evidence derived from our study suggests that the longevity of THA with XLPE is likely to be improved, compared with that of THA with CPE, beyond 16 years and may enable younger patients to undergo THA confident of a reduced need for revision in the long term.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Details of the statistical analysis are available with the online version of this article as a data supplement at (

Note: The authors thank the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and the hospitals, orthopaedic surgeons, and patients whose data made this work possible. The Australian Government funds the AOANJRR through the Department of Health and Ageing.

Investigation performed at the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

A commentary by Robert S. Namba, MD, is linked to the online version of this article at

Disclosure: The authors indicated that no external funding was received for any aspect of this work. The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Apr;89(4):780-5.
2. Tsertsvadze A, Grove A, Freeman K, Court R, Johnson S, Connock M, Clarke A, Sutcliffe P. Total hip replacement for the treatment of end stage arthritis of the hip: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014 Jul 8;9(7):e99804.
3. Ackerman IN, Bohensky MA, de Steiger R, Brand CA, Eskelinen A, Fenstad AM, Furnes O, Graves SE, Haapakoski J, Mäkelä K, Mehnert F, Nemes S, Overgaard S, Pedersen AB, Garellick G. Lifetime risk of primary total hip replacement surgery for osteoarthritis from 2003 to 2013: A multinational analysis using national registry data. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017 Nov;69(11):1659-67. Epub 2017 Sep 26.
4. Pivec R, Johnson AJ, Mears SC, Mont MA. Hip arthroplasty. Lancet. 2012 Nov 17;380(9855):1768-77. Epub 2012 Sep 26.
5. Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Annual report 2016. Adelaide: AOA, 2016.
6. Harris WH. Wear and periprosthetic osteolysis: the problem. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Dec;(393):66-70.
7. McKellop H, Shen FW, Lu B, Campbell P, Salovey R. Development of an extremely wear-resistant ultra high molecular weight polyethylene for total hip replacements. J Orthop Res. 1999 Mar;17(2):157-67.
8. Dumbleton JH, D’Antonio JA, Manley MT, Capello WN, Wang A. The basis for a second-generation highly cross-linked UHMWPE. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006 Dec;453(453):265-71.
9. Muratoglu OK, Bragdon CR, O’Connor DO, Jasty M, Harris WH. A novel method of cross-linking ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene to improve wear, reduce oxidation, and retain mechanical properties. Recipient of the 1999 HAP Paul Award. J Arthroplasty. 2001 Feb;16(2):149-60.
10. Digas G, Kärrholm J, Thanner J, Malchau H, Herberts P. The Otto Aufranc Award. Highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: randomized evaluation of penetration rate in cemented and uncemented sockets using radiostereometric analysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):6-16.
11. Digas G, Kärrholm J, Thanner J, Malchau H, Herberts P. Highly cross-linked polyethylene in cemented THA: randomized study of 61 hips. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Dec;(417):126-38.
12. McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Chess DG, Charron KD. Wear rate of highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. A randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Apr;91(4):773-82.
13. Glyn-Jones S, Thomas GE, Garfjeld-Roberts P, Gundle R, Taylor A, McLardy-Smith P, Murray DW. The John Charnley Award: Highly crosslinked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty decreases long-term wear: a double-blind randomized trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Feb;473(2):432-8.
14. Bragdon CR, Doerner M, Martell J, Jarrett B, Palm H, Malchau H; Multicenter Study Group. The 2012 John Charnley Award: Clinical multicenter studies of the wear performance of highly crosslinked remelted polyethylene in THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Feb;471(2):393-402.
15. Calvert GT, Devane PA, Fielden J, Adams K, Horne JG. A double-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing highly cross-linked and conventional polyethylene in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009 Jun;24(4):505-10. Epub 2008 Jun 10.
16. Kurtz SM, Austin MS, Azzam K, Sharkey PF, MacDonald DW, Medel FJ, Hozack WJ. Mechanical properties, oxidation, and clinical performance of retrieved highly cross-linked Crossfire liners after intermediate-term implantation. J Arthroplasty. 2010 Jun;25(4):614-23.e1-2. Epub 2009 Jun 10.
17. Muratoglu OK, Wannomae K, Christensen S, Rubash HE, Harris WH. Ex vivo wear of conventional and cross-linked polyethylene acetabular liners. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005 Sep;438(438):158-64.
18. Kuzyk PR, Saccone M, Sprague S, Simunovic N, Bhandari M, Schemitsch EH. Cross-linked versus conventional polyethylene for total hip replacement: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 May;93(5):593-600.
19. Paxton E, Cafri G, Havelin L, Stea S, Pallisó F, Graves S, Hoeffel D, Sedrakyan A. Risk of revision following total hip arthroplasty: metal-on-conventional polyethylene compared with metal-on-highly cross-linked polyethylene bearing surfaces: international results from six registries. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 Dec 17;96(Suppl 1):19-24.
20. Devane PA, Horne JG, Ashmore A, Mutimer J, Kim W, Stanley J. Highly cross-linked polyethylene reduces wear and revision rates in total hip arthroplasty: a 10-year double-blinded randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Oct 18;99(20):1703-14.
21. Hailer NP, Weiss RJ, Stark A, Kärrholm J. The risk of revision due to dislocation after total hip arthroplasty depends on surgical approach, femoral head size, sex, and primary diagnosis. An analysis of 78,098 operations in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2012 Oct;83(5):442-8. Epub 2012 Oct 8.
22. Jameson SS, Lees D, James P, Serrano-Pedraza I, Partington PF, Muller SD, Meek RM, Reed MR. Lower rates of dislocation with increased femoral head size after primary total hip replacement: a five-year analysis of NHS patients in England. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011 Jul;93(7):876-80.
23. Santaguida PL, Hawker GA, Hudak PL, Glazier R, Mahomed NN, Kreder HJ, Coyte PC, Wright JG. Patient characteristics affecting the prognosis of total hip and knee joint arthroplasty: a systematic review [Review]. Can J Surg. 2008 Dec;51(6):428-36.
24. de Steiger RN, Muratoglu O, Lorimer M, Cuthbert AR, Graves SE. Lower prosthesis-specific 10-year revision rate with crosslinked than with non-crosslinked polyethylene in primary total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2015;86(6):721-7. Epub 2015 Jun 28.
25. Johanson PE, Furnes O, Ivar Havelin L, Fenstad AM, Pedersen AB, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Mäkelä K, Kärrholm J. Outcome in design-specific comparisons between highly crosslinked and conventional polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2017 Aug;88(4):363-9. Epub 2017 Apr 4.
26. Howie DW, Holubowycz OT, Middleton R; Large Articulation Study Group. Large femoral heads decrease the incidence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Jun 20;94(12):1095-102.
27. Dumbleton JH, Manley MT, Edidin AA. A literature review of the association between wear rate and osteolysis in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002 Aug;17(5):649-61.
28. Maloney WJ, Galante JO, Anderson M, Goldberg V, Harris WH, Jacobs J, Kraay M, Lachiewicz P, Rubash HE, Schutzer S, Woolson ST. Fixation, polyethylene wear, and pelvic osteolysis in primary total hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Dec;(369):157-64.
29. Harris WH. Conquest of a worldwide human disease: particle-induced periprosthetic osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):39-42.
30. Howie DW, Holubowycz OT, Callary SA. The wear rate of highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip replacement is not increased by large articulations: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Nov 2;98(21):1786-93.
31. Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES, Martell JM. Wear and osteolysis of highly crosslinked polyethylene at 10 to 14 years: the effect of femoral head size. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Feb;474(2):365-71.
32. Nebergall AK, Greene ME, Rubash H, Malchau H, Troelsen A, Rolfson O. Thirteen-year evaluation of highly cross-linked polyethylene articulating with either 28-mm or 36-mm femoral heads using radiostereometric analysis and computerized tomography. J Arthroplasty. 2016 Sep;31(9)(Suppl):269-76. Epub 2016 Mar 17.
33. Kurtz SM, Gawel HA, Patel JD. History and systematic review of wear and osteolysis outcomes for first-generation highly crosslinked polyethylene. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Aug;469(8):2262-77.
34. Hanna SA, Somerville L, McCalden RW, Naudie DD, MacDonald SJ. Highly cross-linked polyethylene decreases the rate of revision of total hip arthroplasty compared with conventional polyethylene at 13 years’ follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2016 Jan;98-B(1):28-32.
35. Ranawat CS, Ranawat AS, Ramteke AA, Nawabi D, Meftah M. Long-term results of a first-generation annealed highly cross-linked polyethylene in young, active patients. Orthopedics. 2016 Mar-Apr;39(2):e225-9. Epub 2016 Jan 25.
36. Stambough JB, Pashos G, Bohnenkamp FC, Maloney WJ, Martell JM, Clohisy JC. Long-term results of total hip arthroplasty with 28-millimeter cobalt-chromium femoral heads on highly cross-linked polyethylene in patients 50 years and less. J Arthroplasty. 2016 Jan;31(1):162-7. Epub 2015 Jul 17.
37. Anand R, Graves SE, de Steiger RN, Davidson DC, Ryan P, Miller LN, Cashman K. What is the benefit of introducing new hip and knee prostheses? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 Dec 21;93(Suppl 3):51-4.
38. Schmalzried TP, Shepherd EF, Dorey FJ, Jackson WO, dela Rosa M, Fa’vae F, McKellop HA, McClung CD, Martell J, Moreland JR, Amstutz HC. The John Charnley Award. Wear is a function of use, not time. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000 Dec;(381):36-46.

Supplemental Digital Content

Back to Top | Article Outline
Copyright © 2018 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated