Osteolysis in cemented total hip arthroplasty involving the OptiPlug cement restrictor: more than an incident?

  • N. M. A. I. Hanssen
  • M. G. M. Schotanus
  • A. D. Verburg
General Review
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The case report of a severe osteolytic reaction surrounding the OptiPlug cement restrictor in a 74-year-old male patient initiated a retrospective case series and closer investigation into the OptiPlug and its active compound, PolyActive. Not only did we find several cases of severe osteolysis in our own study population of 284 patients, several articles have lately described potential harmful side effects of the PolyActive material in humans. Although none of the articles have been based on large databases, we cannot guarantee the safety of this product. More research would help in our understanding of this phenomenon. Until then, we cannot recommend the use of the OptiPlug cement restrictor.

Keywords

Hip arthroplasty Cement restrictor Osteolysis Resorbable PolyActive OptiPlug 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Bulstra SK, Geesink RG, Bakker D, Bulstra TH, Bouwmeester SJ, van der Linden AJ (1996) Femoral canal occlusion in total hip replacement using a resorbable and flexible cement restrictor -. J Bone Joint Surg Br 6:892–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Danter MR, King GJ, Chess DG, Johnson JA, Faber KJ (2000) The effect of cement restrictors on the occlusion of the humeral canal: an in vitro comparative study of 2 devices. J Arthroplasty 1:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dhawan RK, Mangham DC, Graham NM (2012) Periprosthetic femoral fracture due to biodegradable cement restrictor. J Arthroplast 27(8):1581.e13–1581.e15Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Du C, Meijer GJ, van de Valk C, Haan RE, Bezemer JM, Hesseling SC, Cui FZ, de Groot K, Layrolle P (2002) Bone growth in biomimeticapatite coated porous Polyactive 1000PEGT70PBT30 implants. Biomaterials 23:4649–4656PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faraj AA, Rajasekar K (2006) The effect of two different types of cement restrictors on the femoral cement mantle. Acta Orthop Belg 6:702–708Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freund KG, Herold N, Røck ND, Riegels-Nielsen P (2003) Poo results with the shuttle stop: resorbable versus nonresorbable intramedullar cement restrictor in a prospective and randomized study with a 2-year follow-up. Acta OrthopScand 1:37–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heisel C, Norman TL, Rupp R, Pritsch M, Ewerbeck V, Breusch SJ (2003) In vitro performance of intramedullary cement restrictors in total hip arthroplasty. J Biomech 6:835–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heisel C, Norman TL, Rupp R, Mau H, Breusch SJ (2003) Stability and occlusion of six different femoral cement restrictors. Orthopade 6:541–547Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kroon M, Visser CP, Mootanah R, Brand R (2006) Performance of 3 gelatine-based resorbable cement plugs: a study on 15 synthetic femurs and a prospective randomized study on 103 patients. Acta Orthop 6:893–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meijer GJ, Heethaar J, Cune MS, De Putter C, Van Blitterswijk CA (1997) Flexible (Polyactive) versus rigid (hydroxyapatite) dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillo fac Surg 2:135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Meijer GJ, Radder A, Dalmeijer R, de Putter C, Van Blitterswijk CA (1995) Observations of the bone activity adjacent to unloaded dental implants coated with Polyactive or HA. J OralRehabil 3:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Moran M, Heisel C, Rupp R, Simpson AH, Breusch SJ (2007) Cement restrictor function below the femoral isthmus. ClinOrthopRelatRes 458:111–116Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ockendon M, Oakley JE, Graham NM (2011) Osteolysis associated with ‘Optiplug’ bioabsorbable cement restrictors. J Bone Joint Surgery 93(Suppl 4):547Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Radder AM, Davies JE, Leenders H, van Blitterswijk CA (1994) Interfacial behavior of PEO/PBT copolymers (Polyactive) in a calvarial system: an in vitro study. J Biomed Mater Res 2:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Radder AM, Leenders H, van Blitterswijk CA (1994) Interface reactions to PEO/PBT copolymers (Polyactive) after implantation in cortical bone. J Biomed Mater Res 2:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roessler M, Wilke A, Griss P, Kienapfel H (2000) Missing osteoconductive effects of a resorbable PEO/PBT copolymer in human bone defects: a clinically relevant pilot study with contrary results to previous animal studies. J Biomed Mater Res 2:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schauss SM, Hinz M, Mayr E, Bach CM, Krismer M, Fischer M (2006) Inferior stability of a biodegradable cement plug. 122 total hip replacements randomized to degradable or non-degradable cement restrictor. ArchOrthop Trauma Surg 5:324–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Smith EL, Wohlrab KP, Matzkin EG, Providence BC (2004) A comparison of distal canal restrictors in primary cemented femoral hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 8:847–851Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Waris E, Ashammakhi N, Lehtimäki M, Tulamo RM, Törmälä P, Kellomäki M, Konttinen YT (2008) Long-term bone tissue reaction to polyethylene oxide/poly butylene ter phthalate copolymer (Polyactive) in metacarpophalangeal joint reconstruction. Biomaterials 16:2509–2515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Bouwmeester SJ, Kuijer R, Sollie-Drees MM, van der Linden AJ, Bulstra SK (1998) Quantitative histological analysis of bony ingrowth within the biomaterial Polyactive implanted in different bone locations: an experimental study in rabbits. Journal Mater Sci Mater Med 4:181–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Albert R, Vásárhelyi G, Bodó G, Kenyeres A, Wolf E, Papp T, Terdik T, Módis L, Felszeghy S (2012) A computer-assisted microscopic analysis of bone tissue developed inside a poly active polymer implanted into an equine articular surface. HistolHistopathol 9:1203–1209Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wu G, Liu Y, Iizuka T, Hunziker EB (2010) The effect of a slow mode of BMP-2 delivery on the inflammatory response provoked by bone-defect-filling polymeric scaffolds -. Biomaterials 29:7485–7493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    El-Ghalbzouri A, Lamme EN, van Blitterswijk C, Koopman J, Ponec M (2004) The use of PEGT/PBT as a dermal scaffold for skin tissue engineering. Biomaterials 15:2987–2996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Li P, Bakker D, van Blitterswijk CA (1997) The bone-bondingpolymerPolyactive 80/20 induces hydroxy carbonate apatite formation in vitro. Journal of Bio Mater Res 1:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jansen EJ, Pieper J, Gijbels MJ, Guldemond NA, Riesle J, Van Rhijn LW, Bulstra SK, Kuijer R (2009) PEOT/PBT based scaffolds with low mechanical properties improve cartilage repair tissue formation in osteochondral defects -. J Biomed Mater Res A 2:444–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. M. A. I. Hanssen
    • 1
  • M. G. M. Schotanus
    • 2
  • A. D. Verburg
    • 2
  1. 1.Resident at MaartenskliniekNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Orbis Medisch CentrumSittard-GeleenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations