A randomised,controlled trial of cemented versus cementless press-fit condylar total knee replacement. Ten-year survival analysis

We have carried out a long-term survival analysis of a prospective, randomised trial comparing cemented with cementless fixation of press-fit condylar primary total knee replacements. A consecutive series of 501 replacements received either cemented (219 patients, 277 implants) or cementless (177 patients, 224 implants) fixation. The patients were contacted at a mean follow-up of 7.4 years (2.7 to 13.0) to establish the rate of survival of the implant. The ten-year survival was compared using life-table and Cox's proportional hazard analysis. No patient was lost to follow-up. The survival at ten years was 95.3% (95% CI 90.3 to 97.8) and 95.6% (95% CI 89.5 to 98.2) in the cemented and cementless groups, respectively. The hazard ratio for failure in cemented compared with cementless prostheses was 0.97 (95% CI 0.36 to 2.6). A comparison of the clinical outcome at ten years in 80 knees showed no difference between the two groups. The survival of the press-fit condylar total knee replacement at ten years is good irrespective of the method of fixation and brings into question the use of more expensive cementless implants.     

Results of 3,668 primary total hip replacements for primary osteoarthritis in patients under the age of 55 years

Background and purpose In a previous study based on the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, the survival of cementless stems was better than that of cemented stems in younger patients. However, the survival of cementless cups was poor due to osteolysis. In the present study, we analyzed population-based survival rates of the cemented and cementless total hip replacements in patients under the age of 55 years with primary osteoarthritis in Finland.

Patients and methods 3,668 implants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The previous data included years 1980–2001, whereas the current study includes years 1987–2006. The implants were classified in 3 groups: (1) implants with a cementless, straight, proximally circumferentially porous-coated stem and a porous-coated press-fit cup (cementless group 1); (2) implants with a cementless, anatomic, proximally circumferentially porous-coated stem, with or without hydroxyapatite, and a porous-coated press-fit cup with or without hydroxyapatite (cementless group 2); and (3) a cemented stem combined with a cemented all-polyethylene cup (the cemented group). Analyses were performed separately for 2 time periods: those operated 1987–1996 and those operated 1997–2006.

Results The 15-year survival for any reason of cementless total hip replacement (THR) group 1 operated on 1987–1996 (62%; 95% CI: 57–67) and cementless group 2 (58%; CI: 52–66) operated on during the same time period was worse than that of cemented THRs (71%; CI: 62–80), although the difference was not statistically significant. The revision risk for aseptic loosening of cementless stem group 1 operated on 1987–1996 (0.49; CI: 0.32–0.74) was lower than that for aseptic loosening of cemented stems (p = 0.001).

Interpretation Excessive wear of the polyethylene liner resulted in numerous revisions of modular cementless cups. The outcomes of total hip arthroplasty appear to have been relatively unsatisfactory for younger patients in Finland.     

Early failures among 7,174 primary total knee replacements: a follow-up study from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register 1994-2000

We studied primary total knee replacements (TKRs), reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, operated on between 1994 and 2000. A Cox multiple regression model was used to evaluate differences in survival among the prosthesis brands, their types of fixation, and whether or not the patella was resurfaced. In Norway in 1999, the incidence of knee prosthesis operations was 35 per 100,000 inhabitants. Cement was used as fixation in 87% of the knees, 10% were hybrid and 2% uncemented implants. Bicompartmental (not resurfaced patella) prostheses were used in 65% of the knees. With all revisions as endpoint, no statistically significant differences in the 5-year survival were found among the cemented tricompartmental prostheses brands: AGC 97% (n 279), Duracon 99% (n 101), Genesis I 95% (n 654), Kinemax 98% (n 213) and Tricon 96% (n 454). The bicompartmental LCS prostheses had a 5-year survival of 97% (n 476). The type of meniscal bearing in LCS knees had no effect on survival. Survival with revision for all causes as endpoint showed no differences among types of fixation, or bi- or tricompartmental prostheses. Pain alone was the commonest reason for revision of cemented bicompartmental prostheses. The risk of revision because of pain was 5.7 times higher (p < 0.001) in cemented bicompartmental prostheses than cemented tricompartmental ones, but the revisions mainly involved insertion of a patellar component. In tricompartmental prostheses the risk of revision because of infection was 2.5 times higher than in bicompartmental ones (p = 0.03). Young age (< 60) and the sequelae after a fracture increased the risk of revision. The 5-year survival of the 6 most used cemented tricompartmental knee prostheses brands varied between 95% and 99%, but the differences were not statistically significant. There were more revisions because of pain in bicompartmental than in tricompartmental knees. In tricompartmental knees, however, there were more revisions because of an infection. The relatively few patients with uncemented and hybrid implants showed no improvements in results compared to cemented knee prostheses.     

Results of 1,000 performance knees: Cementless versus cemented fixation

A total of 893 patients with 1,000 Performance total knee prostheses were retrospectively studied. The mean follow-up was 5.2 years. In 584 cases, the femoral and tibial components were implanted using cementless techniques, and in 416 knees the femoral and tibial components were cemented. All patients received a cemented all polyethylene patellar replacement. Tibial bone density determined fixation type. The average age of patients with cementless fixation was 64.3 years versus 76.2 years for patients with cemented implants. The average subjective and functional Knee Society scores were 91.2 and 90.1 for patients with cementless knees and 89.6 and 83.5 for those with cemented replacements. A surprising absence of osteolysis around screw fixation was noted, and at 5 years, there was 99% implant survival.     

Survivorship analysis at 15 years of cemented press-fit condylar total knee arthroplasty

We performed a survival analysis on 354 cemented primary press-fit condylar total knee arthroplasties in 277 patients with prospective follow-up (mean, 8.8 years; range, 0.3-16.9 years). The number of patients alive reaching 15 years at follow-up for survival analysis was 15. The cumulative survival rate at 15 years was 81.7% (95% confidence interval, 72.1%-88.5%), using revision for all causes as our end point. Indications for revision in our patient group were aseptic loosening 4.5%, infection 2.3%, and exchange of polyethylene insert 1.1%. Our results indicate that the cemented press-fit condylar total knee arthroplasty has a good long-term survival, at 15 years, based on revision as the end point.     

Revision total knee arthroplasty with a cemented posterior-stabilized or constrained condylar prosthesis: A minimum 3-year and average 5-year follow-up study

The results of 57 revision total knee arthroplasties performed for aseptic failure between 1984 and 1992 with a cemented posterior-stabilized or constrained condylar prosthesis were reviewed at follow-up examinations at a minimum of 36 and an average of 62 months (range, 36–120 months). The reason for revision was aseptic loosening of 1 or both components in 32 knees (56%), instability in 16 knees (28%), polyethylene wear and osteolysis in 4 knees (7%), supracondylar femur fracture in 2 knees (4%), and a failed allograft, pain, and arthrofibrosis in 1 knee each (5% total). The average age of the patients at the time of the revision was 74 years (range, 38–90), and the original diagnosis for the majority of patients was osteoarthritis (74%). All of the revision prostheses were cemented posterior stabilized or constrained condylar-type implants. Bone deficiencies were grafted with cancellous allograft in contained defects and cortical allograft in noncontained defects. Five knees were reconstructed with allograft-prosthesis composites. The average modified Hospital for Special Surgery knee score improved from 49 to 82 (100 points possible) at final follow-up evaluation (P < 0.001). Seventy-nine percent of knees were graded as good or excellent. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis predicted 94% ± 6.2% survival at 40 months and 75% ± 25% at 99 months. There were 4 clinical failures, 3 of which were related to residual instability in patients with a posterior-stabilized prosthesis. Complications (3 knees) were exclusively related to the extensor mechanism. Radiographically, overall knee alignment improved from 0.3° varus to 3.0° valgus. Fifty-six percent of tibial components were placed in slight varus alignment. Radiolucent lines occurred in 33% of knees, but there were no complete or progressive radiolucencies. Radiolucent lines were more prevalent adjacent to press-fit intramedullary femoral stems compared with cemented stems (P < .02), but the difference did not correlate with clinical or radiographic failure. The median bone defect score, as proposed by the Knee Society Committee on Bone Defects, was significantly greater in knees that were revisions of a failed cemented total knee arthroplasty compared with revision of a failed cementless total knee arthroplasty (P = .02) but was not correlated with clinical or radiographic outcome (P> .05).     

Have cementless and resurfacing components improved the medium-term results of hip replacement for patients under 60 years of age?

Background and purpose — The optimal hip replacement for young patients remains unknown. We compared patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), revision risk, and implant costs over a range of hip replacements.

Methods — We included hip replacements for osteoarthritis in patients under 60 years of age performed between 2003 and 2010 using the commonest brand of cemented, cementless, hybrid, or resurfacing prosthesis (11,622 women and 13,087 men). The reference implant comprised a cemented stem with a conventional polyethylene cemented cup and a standard-sized head (28- or 32-mm). Differences in implant survival were assessed using competing-risks models, adjusted for known prognostic influences. Analysis of covariance was used to assess improvement in PROMs (Oxford hip score (OHS) and EQ5D index) in 2014 linked procedures.

Results — In males, PROMs and implant survival were similar across all types of implants. In females, revision was statistically significantly higher in hard-bearing and/or small-stem cementless implants (hazard ratio (HR) = 4) and resurfacings (small head sizes (< 48 mm): HR = 6; large head sizes (≥ 48 mm): HR = 5) when compared to the reference cemented implant. In component combinations with equivalent survival, women reported significantly greater improvements in OHS with hybrid implants (22, p = 0.006) and cementless implants (21, p = 0.03) (reference, 18), but similar EQ5D index. For men and women, National Health Service (NHS) costs were lowest with the reference implant and highest with a hard-bearing cementless replacement.

Interpretation — In young women, hybrids offer a balance of good early functional improvement and low revision risk. Fully cementless and resurfacing components are more costly and do not provide any additional benefit for younger patients.     

Failure mechanisms after unicompartmental and tricompartmental primary knee replacement with cement

BACKGROUND: Concern exists regarding the durability of unicompartmental knee replacements. The purpose of the present study was to compare the early failure rates and failure mechanisms of primary cemented unicompartmental knee replacements with those of primary cemented tricompartmental total knee replacements. METHODS: The rates of failure of primary cemented unicompartmental knee replacements (n = 2288) and tricompartmental total knee replacements (n = 3032) as reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register from January 1994 through December 2004 were compared with use of Kaplan-Meier estimated survival rates and Cox multiple regression. RESULTS: The ten-year survival probability was 80.1% (95% confidence interval, 76.0% to 84.2%) for unicompartmental knee replacements, compared with 92.0% (95% confidence interval, 90.4 to 93.6%) for total knee replacements, with a relative risk of revision of 2.0 (95% confidence interval, 1.6 to 2.5) (p < 0.001). This increased risk of revision following unicompartmental knee replacement was seen in all age-categories. Unicompartmental knee replacement was associated with an increased risk of revision due to pain (relative risk, 11.3 [95% confidence interval, 4.8 to 26.8]; p < 0.001), aseptic loosening of the tibial component (relative risk, 1.9 [95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 3.0]; p = 0.01) and of the femoral component (relative risk, 4.8 [95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 10.3]; p < 0.001), and periprosthetic fracture (relative risk, 3.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 8.9]; p = 0.02) as compared with total knee replacement. Unicompartmental knee replacement was associated with a lower risk of infection compared with total knee replacement (relative risk, 0.28 [95% confidence interval, 0.10 to 0.74]; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The survival of cemented unicompartmental knee replacements is inferior to that of cemented tricompartmental total knee replacements in all age-categories.     

Revision total knee arthroplasty with modular components inserted with metaphyseal cement and stems without cement

The clinical and radiographic outcomes of 50 consecutive revision total knee arthroplasties in 47 patients, placed with metaphyseal cemented femoral and tibial components with press-fit cementless stems, were reviewed at 36-month average follow-up. Revision was performed for aseptic loosening (11/50), infection (17/50), periprosthetic fracture (8/50), component failure (6/50), instability (6/50), and malalignment (2/50). The press-fit cementless stems were 80 to 160 mm in length and tightly contacted the endosteum of the metadiaphyseal areas. Four (9%) knees were re-revised for infection, zero for aseptic loosening. The average modified Hospital for Special Surgery knee score improved from 49 to 87. One patient (2%) reported thigh pain, and 1 reported leg pain. Metaphyseal cemented revision total knee components with press-fit cementless femoral and tibial stems were not associated with significant thigh and leg pain.     

Differences in articular track area of posterior-stabilized and cruciate-retaining retrieved total knee implants

Press-fit condylar total knee arthroplasties removed at revision surgery from 27 knees were examined. Fourteen of the implants were posterior-stabilized press-fit condylar systems and 13 were cruciate-retaining press-fit condylar systems. The articular track areas were examined using a digital camera and manual measurements. Findings revealed the track area in posterior-stabilized implants (93%) was larger than in cruciate-retaining implants (59%). Mean posterior distance ratio of the articular track from the posterior limit of the polyethylene was 2% (.08 cm) for posterior-stabilized implants versus 23% (.97 cm) for cruciate-retaining implants. No differences in wear rating were noted. The pattern of articular contact in cruciate-retaining knees demonstrated little migration of the femoral contact surface across the tibial polyethylene plateau.     

Stem fixation in revision total knee arthroplasty: a comparative analysis

Methods of stem fixation are a controversial aspect of revision TKA. We sought to determine which technique was superior by reviewing 475 revision TKAs done between 1986 and 2000. Of these 475 revisions, 286 major component revisions were done using 484 extended stems for fixation. Patients who died, patients who had less than 2 years follow up, or patients who had diaphyseal engaging stems were excluded from the study. The final data set included 113 revision TKAs with 202 metaphyseal engaging stems. Of the 202 stems, 107 were cemented whereas 95 were press-fit metaphyseal engaging stems. One hundred one of these were femoral stems and 101 were tibial stems. Using a modified Knee Society radiographic scoring system, 100 (93%) of the 107 implants with cemented stems were considered stable, seven (7%) were categorized as possibly loose requiring close followup, and none were loose. Of the 95 implants placed with cementless stems, only 67 (71%) were categorized as stable. Eighteen (19%) were possibly loose requiring close followup and 10 (10%) were loose (two tibial and eight femoral implants). We currently would urge caution in using cementless metaphyseal engaging stems for fixation in revision TKA.     

Twenty-year evaluation of the New Jersey LCS Rotating Platform Knee Replacement

Clinical results of the initial cemented and cementless series of 233 New Jersey Low Contact Stress Rotating Platform Knee Replacements in 184 patients surviving at least 10 years were analyzed using a strict knee scoring scale. The study showed excellent (46.7%) and good (53.3%) results in primary cemented rotating platform knee replacements, and excellent (68.1%), good (29.8%), and fair (2.1%) results in primary cementless rotating platform knee replacements. Radiographic evaluation at a minimum 10-year follow-up showed stable fixation of all components, no gross migration but significant osteolysis requiring bearing exchange, and bone grafting in three cementless rotating platform knee replacements (1.8%) in three patients who underwent previous surgeries at an average 10.2 years from the index surgery. Survivorship of the patients who underwent primary cemented rotating platform knee replacements with end points of revision for any mechanical reason or a poor clinical knee score was 97.7% at 10 and 20 years. Survivorship of the patients who underwent cementless rotating platform knee replacements with end points of revision for any mechanical reason or a poor clinical knee score was 98.3% at 10 and 18 years.     

Results of 3,668 primary total hip replacements for primary osteoarthritis in patients under the age of 55 years

Background and purpose

In a previous study based on the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, the survival of cementless stems was better than that of cemented stems in younger patients. However, the survival of cementless cups was poor due to osteolysis. In the present study, we analyzed population-based survival rates of the cemented and cementless total hip replacements in patients under the age of 55 years with primary osteoarthritis in Finland.

Patients and methods

3,668 implants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The previous data included years 1980–2001, whereas the current study includes years 1987–2006. The implants were classified in 3 groups: (1) implants with a cementless, straight, proximally circumferentially porous-coated stem and a porous-coated press-fit cup (cementless group 1); (2) implants with a cementless, anatomic, proximally circumferentially porous-coated stem, with or without hydroxyapatite, and a porous-coated press-fit cup with or without hydroxyapatite (cementless group 2); and (3) a cemented stem combined with a cemented all-polyethylene cup (the cemented group). Analyses were performed separately for 2 time periods: those operated 1987–1996 and those operated 1997–2006.

Results

The 15-year survival for any reason of cementless total hip replacement (THR) group 1 operated on 1987–1996 (62%; 95% CI: 57–67) and cementless group 2 (58%; CI: 52–66) operated on during the same time period was worse than that of cemented THRs (71%; CI: 62–80), although the difference was not statistically significant. The revision risk for aseptic loosening of cementless stem group 1 operated on 1987–1996 (0.49; CI: 0.32–0.74) was lower than that for aseptic loosening of cemented stems (p = 0.001).

Interpretation

Excessive wear of the polyethylene liner resulted in numerous revisions of modular cementless cups. The outcomes of total hip arthroplasty appear to have been relatively unsatisfactory for younger patients in Finland.Only a few register-based studies have yielded results of THA for primary osteoarthritis in younger patients at a population-based level (Havelin et al. 2000, Malchau et al. 2002, Eskelinen et al. 2005, 2006). In patients under the age of 55 years, data from population-based studies have suggested that the survival of cementless, proximally porous-coated stems can be as good as that of cemented stems (Havelin et al. 2000, Eskelinen et al. 2005). However, it has not been clear whether cementless cups perform as well as cemented cups in younger patients.On the basis of the Finnish Arthroplasty Register, we evaluated population-based data on the survival of primary total hip replacements performed for primary osteoarthritis in patients under the age of 55 years. The data including years 1980–2001 has been published earlier (Eskelinen et al. 2005), whereas the current study includes data from 1987 to 2006.     

骨水泥与非骨水泥固定在初次全膝关节置换术中的应用:系统评价和meta分析

背景:全膝关节置换术(TKA)治疗终末期膝关节疾病的效果已被公认。目前TKA中假体-骨的固定形式主要有骨水泥固定和非骨水泥固定两种;前者应用广泛,但理想的假体固定方法仍存在争议。目的:通过meta分析评价骨水泥或非骨水泥固定在初次TKA中的优缺点,探讨其不同的适应证并提出TKA的最佳固定方式。方法:通过检索策略检索PubMed、The Cochrane Library、EMbase、CNKI、VIP、CBM和万方数据库,收集所有TKA术中骨水泥和非骨水泥固定的报道,采用RevMan 5.1软件进行meta分析。结果:最终纳入17项研究,并对其报道的结局指标进行合并分析。其中9项研究报道了TKA术后5年内的膝关节假体生存率,发现骨水泥固定组与非骨水泥固定组间生存率有显著统计学差异(RR=1.02,95%CI:1.00~1.05,P=0.02),但5年后的膝关节假体生存率无统计学差异(RR=1.01,95%CI:0.97~1.04,P=0.75)。术后假体相关并发症,骨水泥与非骨水泥固定组间无显著统计学差异(RR=0.97,95%CI:0.75~1.27,P=0.84)。影像学指标:术后两组间胫骨组件位置在冠状位及矢状位上偏移度数存在统计学差异,其他指标无统计学意义。结论:非骨水泥固定TKA植入组件发生偏转的概率相对较高,但非骨水泥固定TKA在假体中期生存率和临床疗效方面与骨水泥固定结果相似。为了更全面、准确地评价骨水泥固定与非骨水泥固定的长期生存率、安全性、临床及放射学指标,还需进一步研究。     

Twenty-year evaluation of meniscal bearing and rotating platform knee replacements.

Clinical results of the initial cemented and cementless series of 373 New Jersey Low Contact Stress total knee replacements in 282 patients surviving at least 10 years were analyzed using a strict knee scoring scale. The study showed excellent, good, fair, or poor results in 68.1%, 29.8%, 2.1%, or 0% of primary posterior cruciate-retaining meniscal bearing knee replacements, 46.7%, 53.3%, 0%, or 0% results in primary cemented rotating platform knee replacements, and 68.1%, 29.8%, 2.1%, or 0% results in primary cementless rotating platform knee replacements, respectively. Radiographic evaluation at minimum 10-year followup showed stable fixation of all components, no gross migration but significant osteolysis requiring bearing exchange and bone grafting in three cementless rotating platform knee replacements (1.8%) in three patients who underwent previous surgeries at an average of 10.2 years from the index surgery. Survivorship of the patients who underwent primary cementless posterior cruciate-retaining meniscal bearing knee replacements with an end point of revision for any mechanical reason was 97.4% at 10 years and 83% at 16 years; using an end point of a poor clinical knee score the survivorship was 98.9% at 10 years and at 16 years. Survivorship of the patients who underwent primary cemented rotating platform knee replacements with end points of revision for any mechanical reason or a poor clinical knee score was 97.7% at 10 years and at 20 years. Survivorship of the patients who underwent cementless rotating platform knee replacements with end points of revision for any mechanical reason or a poor clinical knee score was 98.3% at 10 years and at 18 years.     

Cemented Versus Cementless Fixation of a Tibial Component in LCS Mobile-Bearing Total Knee Arthroplasty Performed by a Single Surgeon

Although cemented tibial fixation of total knee arthroplasty accepted as the gold standard, cementless fixation as a means to supplement disadvantages of cemented fixation continues to be of interest to clinicians. One hundred sixty-eight consecutive knees undergoing primary knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to receive either a cemented (86 knees) or cementless (82 knees) fixation of tibial component. We report the outcomes at 8 to 11 years (mean, 9.5). The mean KSS, the HSS score, the mean WOMAC, the mean ranges of knee movement and radiological results were similar in both groups. No osteolysis was identified in either group. The rate of survival of the femoral and tibial components was 100% in both groups at final follow-up.     

Survival analysis of a cementless, cruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty. Clinical and radiographic assessment 10 to 13 years after surgery

We performed a prospective study of 54 patients (76 knees) who underwent Osteonics series 3000 cruciate-retaining cementless total knee arthroplasty between December 1990 and June 1993. Five patients (seven knees) were lost to follow-up (90.7% completion). One patient required revision at 10.5 years after operation. The rate of survival was 100% at ten years and 96.7% at 13 years. The mean ten-year knee and function scores were 79 and 59 respectively. Both were significantly better than the pre-operative scores. The range of movement also improved. Although a radiolucent line around the tibial component enlarged in six knees (20.7%) at ten years, the clinical outcome was generally good. In a patient who died after 5.5 years, post-mortem examination of the knee showed no bony ingrowth into the tibial component. Despite poor bony ingrowth, press-fit fixation was satisfactory and good results can be obtained with this cementless, cruciate-retaining prosthesis.     

Total hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthrosis in younger patients in the Finnish arthroplasty register. 4,661 primary replacements followed for 0-22 years

BACKGROUND: Many studies have found a higher risk of revision after hip arthroplasty in younger patients. We evaluated the population-based survival of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients under 55 years of age and the factors affecting survival. METHODS: The Finnish Arthroplasty Register was established in 1980, and 74,492 primary THAs were entered into the register between 1980 and 2001. 4,661 of these were evaluated, all of which had been performed for primary osteoarthrosis on patients under 55 years of age. RESULTS: Proximally circumferentially porous-coated uncemented stems implanted between 1991 and 2001 had a 10-year survival rate of 99 (95% CI 98.5-99.6)% with aseptic loosening as endpoint. The risk of stem revision due to aseptic loosening was higher in cemented stems than in proximally porous-coated (RR 5.5, p < 0.001) or HA-coated (RR 6.6, p = 0.01) uncemented stems implanted during the same period. According to Cox regression analysis of cups implanted 1991-2001, the risk of revision for all-polyethylene cemented cups was 3.0 times as high as that for press-fit porous-coated uncemented cups with aseptic loosening as endpoint (p = 0.01). However, when the endpoint was defined as any revision (including exchange of liner), there was no longer any difference between these two concepts, the 10-year survival rates being 94 (92.1-95.5)% for press-fit porous-coated uncemented cups and 93 (88.5-97.6)% for all-polyethylene cemented cups (p = 0.9). INTERPRETATION: Modern uncemented stems seem to have better resistance to aseptic loosening than cemented stems in younger patients. Thus, for younger patients, uncemented proximally circumferentially porous- and HA-coated stems are the implants of choice. Press-fit porous- and HA-coated uncemented cups may have better endurance against aseptic loosening than cemented cups in younger patients. However, when all revisions (including exchange of liner) are taken into account, the survival of modern uncemented cups is no better than that of all-poly cemented cups.