Archives of orthopaedic and traumatic surgery

, Volume 107, Issue 6, pp 357–363 | Cite as

Reactions of surrounding tissue to the cementless hip implant Ti-6Al-4V after an implantation period of several years

Autopsy studies in three cases
  • F. Lintner
  • K. Zweymüller
  • G. Böhm
  • G. Brand
Original Articles

Summary

Three femoral endoprosthetic stems implanted without cement, made off Ti-6Al-4V alloy, with implantation periods of between 2 and 4 years were examined histologically in the form of undecalcified thin ground sections after having been split into segments and embedded in plastic. During the implantation period total osseointegration in the metadiaphyseal region takes place, while in the proximal area reaction forms with direct contact between metal and bone on the one hand and with an interposed membrane of connective tissue and adjacent secondary bony shell on the other must be distinguished. The osseointegration of the stem is the result of a primary healing of the bone and is due to the biocompatibility of the metal alloy and to the primary stability obtained by the press-fit method.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Albrektsson T, Branemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindström J (1981) Osseointegrated titanium implants. Acta Orthop Scand 52:155–170Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aldinger G, Mitzkat K (1986) Der Einfluß der Alterung auf die Endoprothetik. Z Orthop 124:392–395Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Donath K (1985) The diagnostic value of the new method for the study of undecalcified bones and teeth with attached soft tissue (Säge-Schliff sawing and grinding) technique. Pathol Res Pract179:631–633Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lintner F (1983) Die Ossifikationsstörung an der Knochenzement-Knochen-Grenze. Acta Chir Austriaca [Suppl] 48Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lintner F, Bösch P, Brand G (1982) Histologische Untersuchungen über Umbauvorgänge an der Zement-KnochenGrenze bei Endoprothesen nach 3-10jähriger Implantation. Pathol Res Pract 173:376–389Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lintner F, Zweymuller K, Brand G (1986) Tissue reactions to titanium endoprostheses. Autopsy studies in four cases. J Arthroplasty 1:183–195Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schleberger R (1987) Funktion and Versagen der Zweymüller-Hüftendoprothese. Paper delivered during the expert talks and the exchange of experiences made with the cementless hip endoprosthesis system Zweymüller/Endler. Nümbrecht, March 27–28Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Semlitsch M (1986) Erfahrungen mit dem Werkstoffkonzept bei Zweymüller-Endler-Huftendoprothesen nach über 5jähriger zementloser Implantation. In: Zweymüller K (Hrsg) Das zementfreie Huftendoprothesen-System Zweymüller-Endler. Facultas University Publishing House, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zweymüller K, Semlitsch M (1982) Concept and material properties of a cementless hip prosthesis system with Al2O3 ceramic ball heads and wrought Ti-6Al-4V stems. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 100:229–236Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zweymüller K (1986) A cementless titanium hip endoprosthesis system based on press-fit fixation: basic research and clinical results. In: Anderson LD (ed) Instructional course lectures, vol 35. Mosby, StLouis, pp 203–225Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Lintner
    • 1
  • K. Zweymüller
    • 1
  • G. Böhm
    • 1
  • G. Brand
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Pathological Anatomy and Orthopedic Clinic of the University of ViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations