Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

BACKGROUND: Trabecular metal (TM)-coated acetabular components are increasingly used in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, previous studies assessing TM acetabular components have been small single-center cohorts with most lacking a control group. We compared revision rates following primary THA between TM and non-TM-coated acetabular components. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed using National Joint Registry data, which included primary THAs with the same cementless acetabular component (either TM or non-TM coated). TM and non-TM implants were matched for multiple potential confounding factors using propensity scores. Outcomes following primary THA (revision for all-cause acetabular indications, aseptic acetabular loosening, and infection) were compared between matched groups using competing risk regression analysis. RESULTS: In 18,200 primary THAs (9100 TM and 9100 non-TM), the overall prevalence of acetabular revision, revision for aseptic acetabular loosening, and septic revision was 1.2%, 0.13%, and 0.59% respectively. Five-year revision rates for all-causes (1.0% vs 1.8%, sub-hazard ratio [SHR] 0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.76, P < .001), aseptic acetabular loosening (0.1% vs 0.2%, SHR 0.35, 95% CI 0.14-0.90, P = .029), and infection (0.5% vs 0.9%, SHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.76, P = .001) were all lower in TM compared with non-TM implants. CONCLUSION: Following primary THA, TM-coated acetabular implants had a reduced risk of both aseptic and septic revision compared with non-TM implants. Although absolute differences in revision risk were small, they may be clinically significant if TM designs were implanted in more complex cases.

Original publication




Journal article


J arthroplasty

Publication Date





447 - 452


aseptic loosening, infection, primary total hip arthroplasty, revision surgery, trabecular metal, Acetabulum, Adult, Aged, Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip, Cohort Studies, England, Female, Hip Prosthesis, Humans, Male, Metals, Middle Aged, Prevalence, Propensity Score, Proportional Hazards Models, Prosthesis Design, Prosthesis Failure, Registries, Reoperation, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Wales