Clinical Review

Large-Diameter Femoral Heads in Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Evidence-Based Review

Am J Orthop. 2014 November;43(11):506-512

References

1. Dorr LD, Wolf AW, Chandler R, Conaty JP. Classification and treatment of dislocations of total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1983;(173):151-158.

2. Dorr LD, Wan Z. Causes of and treatment protocol for instability of total hip replacement. Clin Orthop. 1998;(355):144-151.

3. Turner RS. Postoperative total hip prosthetic femoral head dislocations. Incidence, etiologic factors, and management. Clin Orthop. 1994;(301):196-204.

4. Woo RY, Morrey BF. Dislocations after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982;64(9):1295-1306.

5. Etienne A, Cupic Z, Charnley J. Postoperative dislocation after Charnley low-friction arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1978;(132):19-23.

6. Fackler CD, Poss R. Dislocation in total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop. 1980;(151):169-178.

7. Joshi A, Lee CM, Markovic L, Vlatis G, Murphy JC. Prognosis of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(1):17-21.

8. Lindberg HO, Carlsson AS, Gentz CF, Pettersson H. Recurrent and non-recurrent dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand. 1982;53(6):947-952.

9. Eswaramoorthy V, Moonot P, Kalairajah Y, Biant LC, Field RE. The Metasul metal-on-metal articulation in primary total hip replacement: clinical and radiological results at ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(10):1278-1283.

10. Grubl A, Marker M, Brodner W, et al. Long-term follow-up of metal-on-metal total hip replacement. J Orthop Res. 2007;25(7):841-848.

11. Leslie I, Williams S, Brown C, et al. Effect of bearing size on the long-term wear, wear debris, and ion levels of large diameter metal-on-metal hip replacements—an in vitro study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008;87(1):163-172.

12. Verhaar JA. The hard lesson of metal-on-metal hip implants [in Dutch]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2012;156(42):A5564.

13. Fabi D, Levine B, Paprosky W, et al. Metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: causes and high incidence of early failure. Orthopedics. 2012;35(7):e1009-e1016.

14. Heneghan C, Langton D, Thompson M. Ongoing problems with metal-on-metal hip implants. BMJ. 2012;344:e1349.

15. Lee RK, Nevelos J, Vigdorchik J, Markel DC. Bearing surfaces for hip arthroplasty—is metal-on-metal a passing fancy? Surg Technol Int. 2012;22:243-249.

16. Voleti PB, Baldwin KD, Lee GC. Metal-on-metal vs conventional total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27(10):1844-1849.

17. Urban JA, Garvin KL, Boese CK, et al. Ceramic-on-polyethylene bearing surfaces in total hip arthroplasty. Seventeen to twenty-one-year results.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83(11):1688-1694.

18. Callaghan JJ, Liu SS. Ceramic on crosslinked polyethylene in total hip replacement: any better than metal on crosslinked polyethylene? Iowa Orthop J. 2009;29:1-4.

19. Barrack RL. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: implant design and orientation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2003;11(2):89-99.

20. Krushell RJ, Burke DW, Harris WH. Elevated-rim acetabular components. Effect on range of motion and stability in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1991;6(suppl):S53-S58.

21. Morrey BF. Instability after total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1992;23(2):237-248.

22. Morrey BF. Dislocation. In: Morrey BF, ed. Joint Replacement Arthroplasty. New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone; 1991:851-865.

23. Bartz RL, Nobel PC, Kadakia NR, Tullos HS. The effect of femoral component head size on posterior dislocation of the artificial hip joint. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000;82(9):1300-1307.

24. Nicholas RM, Orr JF, Mollan RA, Calderwood JW, Nixon JR, Watson P. Dislocation of total hip replacements. A comparative study of standard, long posterior wall and augmented acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72(3):418-422.

25. McCollum DE, Gray WJ. Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Causes and prevention. Clin Orthop. 1990;(261):159-170.

26. Herrlin K, Selvik G, Pettersson H, Kesek P, Onnerfalt R, Ohlin A. Position, orientation and component interaction in dislocation of the total hip prosthesis. Acta Radiol. 1988;29(4):441-444.

27. Cinotti G, Lucioli N, Malagoli A, Calderoli C, Cassese F. Do large femoral heads reduce the risks of impingement in total hip arthroplasty with optimal and non-optimal cup positioning? Int Orthop. 2011;35(3):317-323.

28. Burroughs BR, Rubash HE, Harris WH. Femoral head sizes larger than 32 mm against highly cross-linked polyethylene. Clin Orthop. 2002;(405):150-157.

29. Crowninshield RD, Maloney WJ, Wentz DH, Humphrey SM, Blanchard CR. Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don‘t do. Clin Orthop. 2004;(429):102-107.

30. Charnley J. Low Friction Arthroplasty of the Hip: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Springer; 1979.

31. Yamaguchi M, Akisue T, Bauer TW, Hashimoto Y. The spatial location of impingement in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15(3):305-313.

32. Peters CL, McPherson E, Jackson JD, Erickson JA. Reduction in early dislocation rate with large-diameter femoral heads in primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6 suppl 2):140-144.

33. Masonis JL, Bourne RB. Surgical approach, abductor function, and total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Clin Orthop. 2002;(405):46-53.

34. Beaule PE, Schmalzried TP, Udomkiat P, Amstutz HC. Jumbo femoral head for the treatment of recurrent dislocation following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84(2):256-263.

35. Oral E, Malhi AS, Muratoglu OK. Mechanisms of decrease in fatigue crack propagation resistance in irradiated and melted UHMWPE. Biomaterials. 2006;27(6):917-925.

36. Baker DA, Bellare A, Pruitt L. The effects of degree of crosslinking on the fatigue crack initiation and propagation resistance of orthopedic-grade polyethylene. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2003;66(1):146-154.

37. Charnley J. Total hip replacement by low-friction arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 1970;(72):7-21.

38. Kabo JM, Gebhard JS, Loren G, Amstutz HC. In vivo wear of polyethylene acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75(2):254-258.

39. Livermore J, Ilstrup D, Morrey B. Effect of femoral head size on wear of the polyethylene acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72(4):518-528.

40. Ma SM, Kabo JM, Amstutz HC. Frictional torque in surface and conventional hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983;65(3):366-370.

41. Muratoglu OK, Bragdon CR, O‘Connor D, et al. Larger diameter femoral heads used in conjunction with a highly cross-linked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene: a new concept. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(8 suppl 1):24-30.

42. Thomas GER, Simpson DJ, Mehmood S, et al. The seven-year wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial using radiostereometric analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(8):716-722.

43. Mutimer J, Devane PA, Adams K, Horne JG. Highly crosslinked polyethylene reduces wear in total hip arthroplasty at 5 years. Clin Orthop. 2010;468(12):3228-3233.

44. Bragdon CR, Doerner M, Martell J, Jarrett B, Palm H, Malchau H. The 2012 John Charnley Award: clinical multicenter studies of the wear performance of highly crosslinked remelted polyethylene in THA. Clin Orthop. 2013;471(2):393-402.

45. Lachiewicz PF, Heckman DS, Soileau ES, Mangla J, Martell JM. Femoral head size and wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene at 5 to 8 years. Clin Orthop. 2009;467(12):3290-3296.

46. Sychterz CJ, Engh CA Jr, Young AM, Hopper RH Jr, Engh CA. Comparison of in vivo wear between polyethylene liners articulating with ceramic and cobalt-chrome femoral heads. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2000;82(7):948-951.

47. Berry DJ, Barnes CL, Scott RD, Cabanela ME, Poss R. Catastrophic failure of the polyethylene liner of uncemented acetabular components.
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994;76(4):575-578.

48. 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;17(2):157-167.

49. Wang A, Essner A, Polineni VK, Stark C, Dumbleton JH. Lubrication and wear of ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in total joint replacements. Tribol Int. 1998;31(1-3):17-33.

50. Estok DM 2nd, Burroughs BR, Muratoglu OK, Harris WH. Comparison of hip simulator wear of 2 different highly cross-linked ultra high molecular weight polyethylene acetabular components using both 32- and 38-mm femoral heads. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(4):581-589.

51. Muratoglu OK, Bragdon CR, O‘Connor DO, et al. Unified wear model for highly crosslinked ultra-high molecular weight polyethylenes (UHMWPE). Biomaterials. 1999;20(16):1463-1470.

52. Harris WH, Muratoglu OK. A review of current cross-linked polyethylenes used in total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2005;(430):46-52.

53. 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;16(2):149-160.

54. Bal BS, Garino J, Ries M, Rahaman MN. A review of ceramic bearing materials in total joint arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2007;17(1):21-30.

55. Traina F, De Fine M, Di Martino A, Faldini C. Fracture of ceramic bearing surfaces following total hip replacement: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:157247.

56. Cai YZ, Yan SG. Development of ceramic-on-ceramic implants for total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Surg. 2010;2(3):175-181.

57. Stewart TD, Tipper JL, Insley G, Streicher RM, Ingham E, Fisher J. Long-term wear of ceramic matrix composite materials for hip prostheses under severe swing phase microseparation. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2003;66(2):567-573.

58. Bragdon CR, Greene ME, Freiberg AA, Harris WH, Malchau H. Radiostereometric analysis comparison of wear of highly cross-linked polyethylene against 36- vs 28-mm femoral heads. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6 suppl 2):125-129.

59. Lombardi AV Jr, Skeels MD, Berend KR, Adams JB, Franchi OJ. Do large heads enhance stability and restore native anatomy in primary total hip arthroplasty? Clin Orthop. 2011;469(6):1547-1553.

60. Lachiewicz PF, Soileau ES. Low early and late dislocation rates with 36- and 40-mm heads in patients at high risk for dislocation. Clin Orthop. 2013;471(2):439-443.

61. Cai P, Hu Y, Xie J. Large-diameter Delta ceramic-on-ceramic versus common-sized ceramic-on-polyethylene bearings in THA. Orthopedics. 2012;35(9):e1307-e1313.

62. Park KS, Yoon TR, Hwang SY, Lee KB. Modified minimally invasive two-incision total hip arthroplasty using large diameter femoral head. Indian
J Orthop. 2012;46(1):29-35.

63. Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Duncan CP, et al. The Frank Stinchfield Award: dislocation in revision THA: do large heads (36 and 40 mm) result in reduced dislocation rates in a randomized clinical trial? Clin Orthop. 2012;470(2):351-356.

64. Geller JA, Malchau H, Bragdon C, Greene M, Harris WH, Freiberg AA. Large diameter femoral heads on highly cross-linked polyethylene: minimum 3-year results. Clin Orthop. 2006;(447):53-59.

65. D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Ramakrishnan R. Second-generation annealed highly cross-linked polyethylene exhibits low wear. Clin Orthop. 2012;470(6):1696-1704.

66. Galvin AL, Jennings LM, Tipper JL, Ingham E, Fisher J. Wear and creep of highly crosslinked polyethylene against cobalt chrome and ceramic femoral heads. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2010;224(10):1175-1183.

67. Skeels MD, Berend KR, Lombardi AV Jr. The dislocator, early and late: the role of large heads. Orthopedics. 2009;32(9).

68. Plate JF, Seyler TM, Stroh DA, Issa K, Akbar M, Mont MA. Risk of dislocation using large- vs. small-diameter femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5(1):553.

69. Bouchet R, Mercier N, Saragaglia D. Posterior approach and dislocation rate: a 213 total hip replacements case–control study comparing the dual mobility cup with a conventional 28-mm metal head/polyethylene prosthesis. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2011;97(1):2-7.

70. Ali Khan MA, Brakenbury PH, Reynolds IS. Dislocation following total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1981;63(2):214-218.

71. Howie DW, Holubowycz OT, Middleton R. Large femoral heads decrease the incidence of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94(12):1095-1102.

72. Malkani AL, Ong KL, Lau E, Kurtz SM, Justice BJ, Manley MT. Early- and late-term dislocation risk after primary hip arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25(6 suppl):21-25.

73. Berry DJ, von Knoch M, Schleck CD, Harmsen WS. Effect of femoral head diameter and operative approach on risk of dislocation after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(11):2456-2463.

74. Cho MR, Lee HS, Lee SW, Choi CH, Kim SK, Ko SB. Results after total hip arthroplasty with a large head and bipolar arthroplasty in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26(6):893-896.

75. Conroy JL, Whitehouse SL, Graves SE, Pratt NL, Ryan P, Crawford RW. Risk factors for revision for early dislocation in total hip arthroplasty.
J Arthroplasty. 2008;23(6):867-872.

76. Kung PL, Ries MD. Effect of femoral head size and abductors on dislocation after revision THA. Clin Orthop. 2007;(465):170-174.

77. Williams JT Jr, Ragland PS, Clarke S. Constrained components for the unstable hip following total hip arthroplasty: a literature review. Int Orthop. 2007;31(3):273-277.

78. Zywiel MG, Mustafa LH, Bonutti PM, Mont MA. Are abductor muscle quality and previous revision surgery predictors of constrained liner failure in hip arthroplasty? Int Orthop. 2011;35(6):797-802.

79. Guyen O, Lewallen DG, Cabanela ME. Modes of failure of Osteonics constrained tripolar implants: a retrospective analysis of forty-three failed implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(7):1553-1560.

80. Banks LN, McElwain JP. An unusual mode of failure of a tripolar constrained acetabular liner: a case report. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2010;130(4):503-505.

81. Robertson WJ, Mattern CJ, Hur J, Su EP, Pellicci PM. Failure mechanisms and closed reduction of a constrained tripolar acetabular liner.
J Arthroplasty. 2009;24(2):322.e5-e11.

82. Aubriot JH, Lesimple P, Leclercq S. Study of Bousquet‘s non-cemented acetabular implant in 100 hybrid total hip prostheses (Charnley type cemented femoral component). Average 5-year follow-up [in French]. Acta Orthop Belg. 1993;59(suppl 1):267-271.

83. Farizon F, de Lavison R, Azoulai JJ, Bousquet G. Results with a cementless alumina-coated cup with dual mobility. A twelve-year follow-up study. Int Orthop. 1998;22(4):219-224.

84. Mertl P, Combes A, Leiber-Wackenheim F, Fessy MH, Girard J, Migaud H. Recurrence of dislocation following total hip arthroplasty revision using dual mobility cups was rare in 180 hips followed over 7 years. HSS J. 2012;8(3):251-256.

85. Langlais FL, Ropars M, Gaucher F, Musset T, Chaix O. Dual mobility cemented cups have low dislocation rates in THA revisions. Clin Orthop. 2008;466(2):389-395.

86. Philippot R, Farizon F, Camilleri JP, et al. Survival of dual mobility socket with a mean 17 years follow-up [in French]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008;94(1):43-48.

87. Adam P, Philippe R, Ehlinger M, et al. Dual mobility cups hip arthroplasty as a treatment for displaced fracture of the femoral neck in the elderly.
A prospective, systematic, multicenter study with specific focus on postoperative dislocation. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(3):296-300.

88. Fessy MH. La double mobilité [Dual mobility]. Revue de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique. 2010;96(7):891-898.

89. Mont MA, Issa K, Naziri Q, Harwin SF, Delanois RE, Johnson AJ. The use of dual-mobility bearings in difficult hip arthroplasty reconstructive cases. Surg Technol Int. 2011;21:234-240.

90. Sayeed SA, Mont MA, Costa CR, et al. Early outcomes of sequentially cross-linked thin polyethylene liners with large diameter femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2011;69(suppl 1):S90-S94.

91. Plate JF, Seyler TM, Stroh DA, Issa K, Akbar M, Mont MA. Risk of dislocation using large- vs. small-diameter femoral heads in total hip arthroplasty. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5(1):553.

92. Sato T, Nakashima Y, Akiyama M, et al. Wear resistant performance of highly cross-linked and annealed ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene against ceramic heads in total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2012;30(12):2031-2037.

93. Meftah M, Ebrahimpour PB, He C, Ranawat AS, Ranawat CS. Preliminary clinical and radiographic results of large ceramic heads on highly cross-linked polyethylene. Orthopedics. 2011;34(6):133.

94. Gagala J, Mazurkiewicz T, Dajewski Z. Large diameter femoral heads in primary alumina/alumina and XSPE/alumina total hip arthroplasty.
A follow-up study of 50 hips after average 40 months and review of literature [in Polish]. Chir Narzadow Ruchu Ortop Pol. 2011;76(1):14-20.

Use of these bearings has recently increased in the United States. Short-term and midterm follow-up data show low rates of dislocation and wear. Long-term data are to come.

Clinical and Functional Outcomes of Large-Diameter Femoral Heads

There is a paucity of long-term outcomes data on use of large-diameter heads with highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings. Short-term and midterm clinical results appear to be excellent, with low rates of wear, osteolysis, and aseptic loosening.^{28,41,73,89-92}

Plate and colleagues⁹¹ compared the effects of large-diameter (≥ 36 mm) and small-diameter (26 mm, 28 mm) metal heads on highly cross-linked polyethylene bearings. At a mean follow-up of 5 years (range, 4-8.4 years), the large-head cohort had a mean HHS of 90 points (range, 50-100 points) and no dislocations or radiographic evidence of stem or cup loosening. Similarly, Meftah and colleagues⁹³ reported 100% stem survivorship and excellent clinical outcomes—a mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score of 30 points—for 72 hips with use of large ceramic heads (≥ 32 mm) on highly cross-linked polyethylene at a mean follow-up of 3 years. Gagala and colleagues⁹⁴ reported excellent clinical and radiographic outcomes in 50 hips (18 ceramic on ceramic, 32 ceramic on polyethylene; 36-mm heads) at a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Mean HHS was 94 points, and there was no evidence of liner fractures, aseptic loosening, or osteolysis.

In summary, large-diameter femoral heads in THA have become increasingly popular because of improvements in the material properties and wear characteristics of highly cross-linked polyethylene and fourth-generation ceramics. Despite the potential advantages of large heads in preventing dislocations, the basic surgical tenets of placing the acetabular component in appropriate alignment remain firmly established. Implants with functionally large heads (eg, dual-mobility bearings, constrained tripolar liners) may play an important role in patients at high risk for dislocation—particularly elderly patients with poor neuromuscular muscle coordination or deficient abductors, trauma patients, and patients with prior dislocations. Short-term and midterm results are excellent; rates of wear, aseptic loosening, and osteolysis are low. However, long-term outcomes data are needed to support widespread use of large heads in younger and more active patients.