Advertisement

All Alumina Articulation in the Stryker Howmedica-Osteonics THA A United States Experience 36–60 Months Follow-up

  • J. W. Mesko
Conference paper
Part of the Ceramics in Orthopaedics book series (CIO)

Abstract

Five hundred fourteen total hip arthroplasties were performed in a prospective, randomized multicenter trial in the United States. All patients received a clinically proven hydroxyapatite (HA) coated, collarless, dual wedged titanium stem. While all acetabular shells had the same outside geometry, one third of the patients received a polyethylene liner mated with a Chrome Cobalt head and two thirds utilized a Ceramtec alumina acetabular bearing and femoral head. At the mean follow-up of 3.6 years, there were no statistical differences in the patient activity, satisfaction, or component performance. A 2.6% intraoperative insertional crack rate of the alumina liner resulted in an acetabular redesign with a second, non-randomized study of 209 additional hips. With a minimum of 24-month observation of this group, there have been no ceramic failures, and the clinical and radiographic results are not statistically different from the original control patients.

Keywords

Wear Debris Acetabular Component Polyethylene Liner Ceramic Liner Acetabular Liner 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bader, R., Willman, G., Analysis of the range of motion of hip prosthesis based on design, position and type of acetabular cup. Bioceramics in Hip Joint Replacement, proceedings 5th International CeramTec Symposium, Feb 18/19, 2000, pg 66Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bierbaum, B.E., Barsoum, W.K., Puri, L., Headrick, J., Gomes, S., Alumina-Alumina Ceramic Bearings, Bioceramics in Joint Arthroplasty. Proceedings 6th international Biolox Symposium, March 23,24 2001, 22Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Capello, W., D’Antonio, J., Bonutti, P., Manley, M., Comparison of Acetabular Surface Treatments in Alumina on Alumina Clinical Trial, Rochester, MN Presentation American Hip Society Meeting, Summer 2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    D’Antonio, J., Capello, W.N., Manley, M., Bierbaum, B., New Experience with Alumina-on-Alumina Ceramic Bearings for Total Hip Arthroplasty, J Arthroplasty 17:390, 2002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D’Antonio, J.A., Capello, W.N., Manley M.T., Geesink, R. Hydroxyapatite Femoral Stems for Total Hip Arthroplasty, 10–13 Year Follow up, CORR 393:101 2001Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeLee, J.G.; and Charnley, J.: Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin. Orthop., 121:20–32, 1976.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Epinette, J.A., Ceramic-ceramic Bearings:Why and for whom, Proceedings 6th International BIOLOX symposium, March 23/24, 2001, 27.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gruen, T.A.; McNeice G.M.; and Amstutz, H.C.: “Modes of failure” of cemented stem-type femoral components: A radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop., 141:17–27, 1979PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamadouch, M., Boutin, P., Daussange, J., Bolander, M.E., Sedel, L., Alumina-on-Alumina Total Hip Arthroplasty, A Minimum 18.5 year Follow-up Study, JBJS, 84A:70, 2002.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rasquinha, V.J., Dua, V., Rodriquez, J.A., Ranawat, C.S., Fifteen-Year Survivorship of the Omnifit Stem in Primary Hybrid Total Hip Arthroplasty. Scientific Presentation AAHKS 2002 meeting, Dallas, TX, 11/2002Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Total Hip Replacement, NIH Consensus Statement 1994, 12–14:12(5):1–31Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Willman, G:, Ceramic ball retrieval Data. In: Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Ceramic Wear Couple, Stuttgart, Germany, 1999Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff Verlag, Darmstadt 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. W. Mesko

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations