On the fate of particles liberated from hydroxyapatite coatings in vivo
- 264 Downloads
Hydroxyapatite (HA) has been used as a coating for orthopaedic implants for over 30 years to help promote the fixation of orthopaedic implants into the surrounding bone. However, concerns exist about the fate of the hydroxyapatite coating and hydroxyapatite particles in vivo, especially in the wake of recent concerns about particulates from metal-on-metal bearings.
Here, we assess the mechanisms of particle detachment from coated orthopaedic devices as well as the safety and performance concerns and biomedical implications arising from the liberation of the particles by review of the literature.
The mechanisms that can result in the detachment of the HA coating from the implant can be mechanical or biochemical, or both. Mechanical mechanisms include implant insertion, abrasion, fatigue and micro-motion. Biochemical mechanisms that contribute to the liberation of HA particles include dissolution into extra-cellular fluid, cell-mediated processes and crystallisation of amorphous phases. The form the particles take once liberated is influenced by a number of factors such as coating method, the raw powder morphology, processing parameters, coating thickness and coating structure.
This review summarises and discusses each of these factors and concludes that HA is a safe biomimetic material to use as a coating and does not cause any problems in particulate form if liberated as debris from an orthopaedic implant.
KeywordsHydroxyapatite Total joint replacement Coatings Plasma
The authors wish to thank the Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions (PRTLI) for part funding of the work and Dr. Kevin Roche for providing images of the nanoparticles of HA.
Conflict of interest
- 1.Park JB, Lakes RS (2007) Biomaterials: an introduction. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 2.Hench L, Ethridge E (1982) Biomaterials: an interfacial approachGoogle Scholar
- 9.Narayan R (2009) Biomedical MaterialsGoogle Scholar
- 13.Martini FH (1998) Fundamental Anatomy and Physiology. Pearson Benjamin Cummings, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- 15.Arts JJC, Schreurs BW, Buma P, Verdonschot N (2005) Cemented cup stability during lever-out testing after acetabular bone impaction grafting with bone graft substitutes mixes containing morselized cancellous bone and tricalcium phosphate-hydroxyapatite granules. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part H J Eng Med 219:257–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Phipps K, Pegrum J, Smith N, Blunn G (2006) Mechanical testing of apapore as a bone graft extender. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:373Google Scholar
- 22.Epinette J-A, Manley MT (eds) (2003) Fifteen years of clinical experience with hydroxyapatite coatings in joint arthroplasty. Springer, ParisGoogle Scholar
- 23.Dowson D, Taylor CM, Godet M (eds) (1990) Mechanics of coatings: Proceedings of the 16th Leeds-Lyon symposium on tribology, Lyon, France, 5–8 September 1989. North-Holland Publishing Company, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- 26.Tomino A, Oosterblos K, Rahmy A, Therin M (2004) What is the function and fate of HA coating in cementless HA-coated hip prostheses? In: Epinette J-A, Manley MT (eds) Fifteen years of clinical experience with hydoxyapatite coatings in joint arthroplasty. Springer, Paris, pp 75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Ratner BD, Hoffman AS, Schoen FJ, Lemons JE (2004) Biomaterial science: an introduction to materials in medicine. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- 70.Graves S, Davidson D, de Steiger R, Tomkins A (2011) Austrailian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry-Annual Report 2011Google Scholar