International Orthopaedics

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 206–210 | Cite as

Comparison of wear and osteolysis in hip replacement using two different coatings of the femoral stem

  • Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo
  • David G. Lewallen
  • William Scott Harmsen
  • Jeffrey Harrington
  • Miguel E. Cabanela
Original Paper
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

We compared the clinical and radiographic results of two matched series of total hip arthroplasties, one with hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems, the other with a similar but porous-coated femoral stem. The prevalence of radiographic osteolysis was 16% in hips with hydroxyapatite-coated stems and 43% in hips with porous-coated femoral stems. In hips with hydroxyapatite-coated stems, osteolysis was always limited to Gruen zones 1 and 7. In contrast, distal osteolysis was present around 26% of the porous-coated stems. At 7 years, the survival-free rate of distal osteolysis was 100% in hips with hydroxyapatite-coated stems but 90% in hips with porous-coated stems (p=0.04). Circumferential hydroxyapatite coating of the femoral component reduced the occurrence of osteolysis and eliminated distal osteolysis at 5–10 years of follow-up. In addition, hydroxyapatite coating did not alter the wear rate.

Keywords

Femoral Component Aseptic Loosening Acetabular Component Femoral Stem Polyethylene Wear 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

Nous avons comparé les résultats cliniques et radiographiques de deux séries appairées d’arthroplasties totales de la hanche l’une avec des tiges fémorales recouvertes d’hydroxyapatite, l’autre avec des tiges fémorales semblables mais à revêtement poreux. La prévalence de l’ostéolyse radiographique était 16 pour cent dans les hanches avec hydroxyapatite et 43 pour cent dans les hanches avec les tiges fémorales poreuses. Dans les hanches avec hydroxyapatite l’ostéolyse a toujours été limité aux zones 1 et 7 de Gruen. Par contraste, l’ostéolyse distale était présente autour de 26 pour cent des tiges à revêtement poreux. À sept années, la survie sans ostéolyse distale était 100 pour cent dans les hanches avec hydroxyapatite mais 90 pour cent dans les hanches avec les tiges poreuses (p=0.04). Le revêtement ciconférenciel d’hydroxyapatite du composant fémoral a réduit la survenue de l’ostéolyse et a éliminé l’ostéolyse distale pendant les cinq à dix années de suivi. De plus, le revêtement d’hydroxyapatite n’a pas changé le taux d’usure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Bauer TW (1998) Severe osteolysis after third-body wear due to hydroxyapatite particles from acetabular cup coating [letter; comment]. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:745Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bloebaum RD, Dupont JA (1993) Osteolysis from a press-fit hydroxyapatite-coated implant. A case study. J Arthroplasty 8:195–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bloebaum RD, Bachus KN, Rubman MH, Dorr LD (1993) Postmortem comparative analysis of titanium and hydroxyapatite porous-coated femoral implants retrieved from the same patient. A case study. J Arthroplasty 8:203–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloebaum RD, Beeks D, Dorr LD, Savory CG, DuPont JA, Hofmann AA (1994) Complications with hydroxyapatite particulate separation in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 298:19–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Capello WN, D’Antonio JA, Feinberg JR, Manley MT (1997) Hydroxyapatite-coated total hip femoral components in patients less than fifty years old. Clinical and radiographic results after five to eight years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:1023–1029PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Capello WN, D’Antonio JA, Manley MT, Feinberg JR (1998) Hydroxyapatite in total hip arthroplasty. Clinical results and critical issues. Clin Orthop 355:200–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D’Antonio JA, Capello WN, Manley MT, Feinberg J (1997) Hydroxyapatite coated implants. Total hip arthroplasty in the young patient and patients with avascular necrosis. Clin Orthop 344:124–138CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeLee JG, Charnley J (1976) Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop 121:20–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    D’Lima DD, Walker RH, Colwell CW Jr (1999) Omnifit-HA stem in total hip arthroplasty. A 2- to 5-year follow-up. Clin Orthop 363:163–169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Emerson RH Jr, Sanders SB, Head WC, Higgins L (1999) Effect of circumferential plasma-spray porous coating on the rate of femoral osteolysis after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 81:1291–1298PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop 257:107–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geesink RG, Hoefnagels NH (1995) Six-year results of hydroxyapatite-coated total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 77:534–547PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Anstutz HC (1979) “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components. A radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop 141:17–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–755PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P (1958) Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53:457–481Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Livermore J, Ilstrup D, Morrey BF (1990) Effect of femoral head size on wear of the polyethylene acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Am 72:518–528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McNally SA, Shepperd JA, Mann CV, Walczak JP (2000) The results at nine to twelve years of the use of a hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br 82:378–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peto R, Peto J (1972) Asymptotically efficient rank invariant procedures. J R Stat Soc 135:185–207Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rahbek O, Overgaard S, Lind M, Bendix K, Bunger C, Soballe K (2001) Sealing effect of hydroxyapatite coating on peri-implant migration of particles. An experimental study in dogs. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83:441–447CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schmalzried TP, Jasty M, Harris WH (1992) Periprosthetic bone loss in total hip arthroplasty. Polyethylene wear debris and the concept of the effective joint space. J Bone Joint Surg Am 74:849–863PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tonino AJ, Rahmy AI (2000) The hydroxyapatite-ABG hip system: 5- to 7-year results from an international multicentre study. The International ABG Study Group. J Arthroplasty 15:274–282PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vedantam R, Ruddlesdin C (1996) The fully hydroxyapatite-coated total hip implant. Clinical and roentgenographic results. J Arthroplasty 11:534–542PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo
    • 1
  • David G. Lewallen
    • 1
  • William Scott Harmsen
    • 2
  • Jeffrey Harrington
    • 2
  • Miguel E. Cabanela
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopedic SurgeryMayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsMayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations