Table 4.

Comparison of head penetration and osteolysis with previous literature

Author	Followup (years)	Head size (mm)	Bedding in/creep	HXLPE crosslinking (MRAD)	Conventional	HXLPE	Percent reduction	Osteolysis
					Linear wear rate (mm/year)	Linear wear rate (mm/year)
Ayers et al. [2]	2	28	No	10	0.19	0.07	55	NM
D’Antonio et al. [6]	5	28	No	7.5	0.138	0.055	72	NM
Engh et al. [14]	5.7	28	Yes	5	0.2	0.01	95	Conv > HXLPE
Glyn-Jones et al. [17]	3	28	Yes	10	0.07	0.03	40	NM
McCalden et al. [35]	6.8	28	Yes	10	0.05	0.003	94	NM
Olyslaegers et al. [36]	5.1	28	No	10	0.101	0.05	51	NM
Mall et al. [current study]	6	22, 26, or 28	No	10	0.15	0.03	80	Conv > HXLPE

Author	Followup (years)	Head size (mm)	Bedding in/creep	HXLPE crosslinking (MRAD)	Osteolysis	No osteolysis	Percent reduction	Results
					Linear wear rate (mm/year)	Linear wear rate (mm/year)
Orishimo et al. [38]	7.7	28	Yes	NA	0.14	0.06	XR	Lysis > no lysis
Puri et al. [39]	7.6	28	NM	NA	1.5*	0.9*	CT	Lysis > no lysis
Mall et al. [current study]	6	22, 26, or 28	No	10	0.17	0.07	CT	Lysis > no lysis

* Reported only as total head penetration in millimeters; HXLPE = highly crosslinked polyethylene; NM = not mentioned; NA = not applicable; XR = xray.