HSS Journal

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 55–61 | Cite as

Femoral Revision with an Extensively Hydroxyapatite-Coated Femoral Component

  • Lawrence V. Gulotta
  • Andreas Baldini
  • Kristin Foote
  • Stephen Lyman
  • Bryan J. Nestor
Original Article


Between December 1996 and April 2003, 26 consecutive femoral component revisions in 24 patients were performed with an extensively hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem. Two patients were lost to follow-up, and two patients died of unrelated causes. Of the 22 femoral revisions in 20 patients, there was a 0% incidence of mechanical loosening at average follow-up of 3.2 years (2–6.3 years). The Harris Hip Score improved from 59 (36 to 83) to 95 (84 to 100) postoperatively (p < 0.001). Rate of revision was 18.2% (4.5% for sepsis, 9.1% for instability, and 4.5% for polyethelene wear). All 22 femoral components had evidence of bone ingrowth. The extensively coated hydroxyapatite stem in this series produced excellent clinical results with a low incidence of thigh pain (4.5%) and severe stress shielding (4.5%).

Key words

total hip arthroplasty femoral revision hydroxyapatite coating 


  1. 1.
    Berry D, Harmsen W, Ilstrup D, et al. (1995) Survivorship of uncemented proximally porous-coated femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 319:168–177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Katz R, Callaghan J, Sullivan P, et al. (1995) Results of cemented femoral revision total hip arthroplasty using improved cementing techniques. Clin Orthop Relat Res 319:178–183PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kavanagh B, Ilstrup D, Fitzgerald R (1985) Revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg 67-A(4):517–526Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malkani A, Lewallen D, Cabanela M, et al. (1996) Femoral component revision using an uncemented, proximally coated, long-stem prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 11(4):411–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moreland J, Bernstein M (1995) Femoral revision hip arthroplasty with uncemented, porous-coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 319:141–150PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mulliken B, Rorabeck C, Bourne R (1995) Uncemented revision total hip arthroplasty: a 4- to 6-year review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 325:156–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mulroy W, Harris W (1996) Revision total hip arthroplasty with use of so-called second-generation cementing techniques for aseptic loosening of the femoral component. J Bone Jt Surg 78-A(3):325–330Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pellicci P, PD Wilson J, Sledge C, et al. (1985) Long-term results of revision total hip replacement. J Bone Jt Surg 67-A(4):513–516Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Krishnamurthy A, MacDonald S, Paprosky W (1997) 5- to 13-year follow-up study on cementless femoral components in revision surgery. J Arthroplasty 12(8):839–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lawrence J, Engh C, Macalino G (1993) Revision total hip arthroplasty: long-term results without cement. Orthop Clin North Am 24(4):635–644PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Moreland J, Moreno M (2001) Cementless femoral revision arthroplasty of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 393:194–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Paprosky WG, Greidanus NV, Antoniou J (1999) Minimum 10-year results of extensively porous-coated stems in revision hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 369:230–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dumbleton J, Manley M (2004) Hydroxyapatite-coated prostheses in total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Bone Jt Surg 86-A(11):2526–2540Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lilikakis A, Vowler S, Villar R (2005) Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral implant in metal-on-metal resurfacing hip arthroplasty: minimum of two years follow-up. Orthop Clin North Am 36(2):215–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Crawford C, Malkani A, Incavo S, et al. (2004) Femoral component revision using an extensively hydroxyapatite-coated stem. J Arthroplasty 19(1):8–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahomed N, Arndt D, McGrory B, et al. (2001) The Harris Hip Score: comparison of patient self-report with surgeon assessment. J Arthroplasty 16(5):575–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soderman P, Malchau H (2001) Is the Harris Hip Score System useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 384:189–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mallory T (1988) Preparation of the proximal femur in cementless total hip revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:47–60PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Engh C, Massin P, Suthers K (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 257:107–128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Engh C, Bobyn J (1985) Biological fixation in total hip arthroplasty, technique for primary surgery. Thorofare, SLACK Inc.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Engh CA, Jr., Young AM, Engh CA, Sr., et al. (2003) Clinical consequences of stress shielding after porous-coated total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417:157–163PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Engh CA, Glassman AH, Griffin WL, et al. (1988) Results of cementless revision for failed cemented total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 235:91–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Head WC, Emerson RH, Jr., Higgins LL (2001) A titanium cementless calcar replacement prosthesis in revision surgery of the femur: 13-year experience. J Arthroplasty 16(8 Suppl 1):183–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Trikha SP, Singh S, Raynham OW, et al. (2005) Hydroxyapatite–ceramic-coated femoral stems in revision hip surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Br 87-B(8):1055–1060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raman R, Kamath RP, Parikh A, et al. (2005) Revision of cemented hip arthroplasty using a hydroxyapatite-ceramic-coated femoral component. J Bone Jt Surg Br 87-B(8):1061–1067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Maloney WJ, Sychterz C, Bragdon C, et al. (1996) The Otto Aufranc Award. Skeletal response to well fixed femoral components inserted with and without cement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 333:15–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Engh CA, Bobyn JD (1988) The influence of stem size and extent of porous coating on femoral bone resorption after primary cementless hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 231:7–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Emerson RH, Jr., Head WC, Higgins LL (2003) Clinical and radiographic analysis of the Mallory–Head femoral component in revision total hip arthroplasty. A minimum 8.8-year and average eleven-year follow-up study. J Bone Jt Surg Am 85-A(10):1921–1926Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Karrholm J, Malchau H, Snorrason F, et al. (1994) Micromotion of femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty: a randomized study of cemented, hydroxyapatite-coated, and porous coated stems with reontgen stereophotogrammetric analysis. J Bone Jt Surg 76-A(11):1692–1705Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Coathup M, Blunn G, Flynn N, et al. (2001) A comparison of bone remodelling around hydroxyapatite-coated, porous-coated and grit blasted hip replacements retrieved at post-mortem. J Bone Jt Surg 83-B(1):118–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bauer T, Geesink R, Zimmerman R, et al. (1991) Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems: histological analysis of components retrieved at autopsy. J Bone Jt Surg 73-A(10):1439–1452Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hardy D, Frayssinet P, Guilhem A, et al. (1991) Bonding of hydroxyapatite-coated femoral prosthesis: histopathology of specimens from four cases. J Bone Jt Surg 73-B(5):732–740Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barrack RL, Butler RA, Laster DR, et al. (2001) Stem design and dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty: clinical results and computer modeling. J Arthroplasty 16(8 Suppl 1):8–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Engh C, McAuley J, Sychterz C, et al. (2000) The accuracy and reproducibility of radiographic assessment of stress-shielding. J Bone Jt Surg 82-A(10):1414–1420Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence V. Gulotta
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andreas Baldini
    • 1
  • Kristin Foote
    • 1
  • Stephen Lyman
    • 1
  • Bryan J. Nestor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryHospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Hospital for Special SurgeryNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations