USE OF CALCIUM PHOSPHATE BONE GRAFT SUBSTITUTE FOR IMPACTION GRAFTING FOR REVISION HIP ARTHROPLASTY: A RANDOMISED CLINICAL STUDY

Abstract

Introduction: Total hip arthroplasty is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures, with implants usually giving over 90% survival at 10 years. The failure rate is primarily due to aseptic loosening often associated with progressive bone stock loss. Impaction of cancellous morselized allografts with cement can be used for revision total hip arthroplasty in such cases. There is increasing interest in the use of synthetic bone graft substitutes as extenders to allograft due to the shortage and variable quality of allograft. A chemically-pure synthetic calcium phosphate (CaP) allograft extender is compared with allograft alone for acetabular and/or femoral revisions using the Impaction Grafting technique.

Methods: 96 hips in 94 patients underwent revision hip arthroplasty using impaction grafting at 4 sites. Hip revision using impaction grafting was carried out using the Exeter X-Change Instrumentation system, using an Exeter Stem and/or a cemented polyethylene cup. Patients were randomized to receive allograft or CaP plus allograft in a 50:50 volume. Clinical and radiographic assessment was conducted pre-operatively and immediately post-operatively and at 6, 12 and 24 months. Clinical assessments included Harris Hip, Oxford and Charnley modified Merle d’Aubigne scores. Clinical complications were also recorded. Radiographs were assessed for the graft quality, radiolucent lines, lyses or migration, and incorporation of graft. The X-rays were also independently reviewed by an experienced author.

Results: The mean age was 70.2 years (range 41–89 years) with 58 males and 36 females. A total of 40 femoral revisions and 88 acetabular revisions were conducted. There were 46 patients in the ApaPore group, 49 patients in the allograft group and 1 patient who received CaP/allograft and allograft for an acetabular and femoral revision respectively.

No deep infections or adverse events due to the CaP were reported, with no significant difference in complication rates including revision and re-operations. No significant difference in acetabular migration, femoral subsidence, radiolucencies and lyses between the groups was observed. The independent review found no difference between the groups in terms of migration. The bone density was apparently greater for the ApaPore group at 12 months (p=0.001) and 24 months (p=0.012) although the significance of this is unclear. No significant difference in the clinical measures was observed between the groups.

Conclusion: CaP is comparable with allograft in terms of performance and safety when used as an allograft extender for total hip revision arthroplasty using impaction grafting.