There is a need for standardization of radiostereometric (RSA) investigations to facilitate comparison of outcome reported from different research groups. In this document, 6 research centers have agreed upon standards for terminology, description and use of RSA arrangement including radiographic set-up and techniques. Consensus regarding minimum requirements for marker stability and scatter, choice of coordinate systems, and preferred way of describing prosthetic micromotion is of special interest. Some notes on data interpretation are also presented. Validation of RSA should be standardized by preparation of protocols for assessment of accuracy and precision. Practical issues related to loading of the joint by weight bearing or other conditions, follow-up intervals, length of follow-up, radiation dose, and the exclusion of patients due to technical errors are considered. Finally, we present a checklist of standardized output that should be included in any clinical RSA paper.This document will form the basis of a detailed standardization protocol under supervision of ISO and the European Standards Working Group on Joint Replacement Implants (CEN/TC 285/WG4). This protocol will facilitate inclusion of RSA in a standard protocol for implant testing before it is released for general use. Such a protocol-also including other recognized clinical outcome parameters-will reduce the risk of implanting potentially inferior prostheses on a large scale.

Roentgen stereophotogrammetry was used to measure the migration of the centre of the femoral head in 84 cemented Lubinus SP I hip arthroplasties (58 primary operations, 26 revisions). Four to seven years later, seven femoral components had been revised because of painful loosening. These implants showed greater subsidence, medial migration and posterior migration during the first two postoperative years than did the hips which had not been revised. Six months after operation, subsidence of more than 0.33 mm combined with a total migration of more than 0.85 mm predicted an increased risk of subsequent revision; the amount of subsidence at two years was an even better predictor. The probability of revision was greater than 50% if the subsidence at two years was 1.2 mm or more.

Background and purposeSince the introduction of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in Sweden, both components have most commonly been cemented. A decade ago the frequency of uncemented fixation started to increase, and this change in practice has continued. We therefore analyzed implant survival of cemented and uncemented THA, and whether the modes of failure differ between the two methods of fixation.Patients and methodsAll patients registered in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register between 1992 and 2007 who received either totally cemented or totally uncemented THA were identified (n = 170,413). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with revision of any component, and for any reason, as the endpoints was performed. Cox regression models were used to calculate risk ratios (RRs) for revision for various reasons, adjusted for sex, age, and primary diagnosis.ResultsRevision-free 10-year survival of uncemented THA was lower than that of cemented THA (85% vs. 94%, p < 0.001). No age or diagnosis groups benefited from the use of uncemented fixation. Cox regression analysis confirmed that uncemented THA had a higher risk of revision for any reason (RR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.4–1.6) and for aseptic loosening (RR = 1.5, CI: 1.3–1.6). Uncemented cup components had a higher risk of cup revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 1.8, CI: 1.6–2.0), whereas uncemented stem components had a lower risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 0.4, CI: 0.3–0.5) when compared to cemented components. Uncemented stems were more frequently revised due to periprosthetic fracture during the first 2 postoperative years than cemented stems (RR = 8, CI: 5–14). The 5 most common uncemented cups had no increased risk of revision for any reason when compared with the 5 most commonly used cemented cups (RR = 0.9, CI: 0.6–1.1). There was no significant difference in the risk of revision due to infection between cemented and uncemented THA.InterpretationSurvival of uncemented THA is inferior to that of cemented THA, and this appears to be mainly related to poorer performance of uncemented cups. Uncemented stems perform better than cemented stems; however, unrecognized intraoperative femoral fractures may be an important reason for early failure of uncemented stems. The risk of revision of the most common uncemented cup designs is similar to that of cemented cups, indicating that some of the problems with uncemented cup fixation may have been solved.

No abstract