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: Studies have suggested that Trabecular Metal (TM)-coated acetabular components may reduce implant failure following revision total hip arthroplasty. However, these studies have predominantly been limited to small, single-center cohorts, with many lacking a comparator group. Using National Joint Registry data from England and Wales, we compared re-revision rates following revision total hip arthroplasty between TM and non-TM-coated acetabular components from 1 manufacturer. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included all revision total hip arthroplasties performed with use of 1 of 4 cementless acetabular components produced by the same manufacturer (Zimmer Biomet). The acetabular components either had a TM surface coating (TM Modular and Continuum designs) or a non-TM surface coating (Trilogy and Trilogy IT designs). Revision total hip arthroplasties with TM and non-TM implants were matched for multiple potential patient and surgical confounding factors using propensity scores. Outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty (re-revision for all acetabular indications, aseptic acetabular loosening, or infection) were compared between matched groups using competing risk regression analysis. Analyses were repeated in a subgroup initially revised for infection. RESULTS: Of 3,862 matched revision total hip arthroplasties (1,931 in the TM group and 1,931 in the non-TM group), the overall prevalence of acetabular re-revision (2.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1% to 3.2%), re-revision for aseptic acetabular loosening (0.96%; 95% CI = 0.68% to 1.3%), and re-revision for infection (1.4%; 95% CI = 1.0% to 1.8%) were low. Six-year rates of re-revision for all causes (subhazard ratio [SHR] = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.61 to 1.35; p = 0.636), aseptic acetabular loosening (SHR = 1.32; 95% CI = 0.68 to 2.53; p = 0.410), and infection (SHR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.39 to 1.20; p = 0.165) were similar between revision total hip arthroplasties with TM and non-TM coatings. Of 247 total hip arthroplasties initially revised for infection (116 TM and 131 non-TM), the rates of re-revision for all causes (SHR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.15 to 1.56; p = 0.225), aseptic acetabular loosening (SHR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.05 to 5.74; p = 0.608), and infection (SHR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.28 to 2.36; p = 0.706) were similar between the TM and non-TM groups. CONCLUSIONS: Following revision total hip arthroplasty, TM-coated acetabular components had a low risk of both aseptic and septic re-revision, with rates that were comparable with those of non-TM components. Extended follow-up of large revision total hip arthroplasty cohorts will establish whether TM components have any clinical benefit over non-TM designs when used in patients with similar acetabular bone stock. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Original publication




Journal article


J bone joint surg am

Publication Date





1132 - 1140