Aim. To study the efficacy of Hydroxyapatite (HAC) Ceramic Coated hip arthroplasty. Is it suitable for the younger patient?. Methods. This series of 2390 primary HAC hip arthroplasties has been studied for up to 21 years. (569 hips over 10 years including 98 hips over 15 years) Patients are assessed by Harris Hip Score and plain X-ray. The prosthesis consists of a fully coated stem and a fully coated acetabulum. A ceramic head articulates with an acetabular liner which is either plastic (UHMW polythene) or ceramic. No cement is used. HA coated implants are physiologically fixed to cancellous bone by a process of osseointegration. Other uncemented implants are pathologically fixed by fibrous scar tissue. These two methods of fixation should be considered separately and not combined as ‘uncemented’. Results. Aseptic loosening in this series is 0.63 %. The revision rate in this series for all reasons is only 3.5%. Harris Hip Score (HHS) demonstrates excellent medium to long term results in 97% of cases (i.e. up to 20 years). Poor HHS results (36 cases: 1.51%) are mostly related to medical or other joint problems. HA fixation will outlast some of the components and wear in polythene acetabular liners can be a problem after 15 years. A sub-group of 629 hips using alumina ceramic/ ceramic bearings is successful but five components fractured (out of 1258 individual components). Wear debris from ceramic materials appears to be benign. Zirconia Toughened Alumina (ZTA) has been introduced to replace alumina and should obviate problems of ceramic implant fracture. An HA coated implant with ZTA bearings is suggested for the younger patient of either sex

Introduction

Long term data on the survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has demonstrated excellent outcomes; however, with younger, more active patients, surgeons have a renewed interest in improved biologic fixation obtained from highly porous, cementless implants. Early designs of cementless total knees systems were fraught with high rates of failure for aseptic loosening, particularly on the tibial component. Prior studies have assessed the bone ingrowth extent for tibial tray designs reporting near 30% extent of bone ingrowth ^(1,2). While these analyses were performed on implants that demonstrated unacceptably high rates of clinical failure, a paucity of data exists on the extent on bone ingrowth in contemporary implant designs with newer methods for manufacturing the porous surfaces. We sought to evaluate the extent of attached bone on retrieved cementless tibial trays to determine if patient demographics, device factors, or radiographic results correlate to the extent of bone ingrowth in these contemporary designs.

The technique for removal of bone ingrown extensively coated devices involves cutting the stem below the metaphyseal portion of the stem, followed by removal of the proximal stem and trephine removal of the cylindrical distal portion of the stem. This can be done with or without an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO). When the proximal portion of the stem is not bone ingrown (extensive proximal osteolysis, or the stem is broken) or the metaphyseal bone is easily accessed (there is no collar) the stem can be cut through a bone window. In all other cases an ETO at the level where the stem becomes a cylinder is required to disrupt the metaphyseal bone prosthesis interface, cut the stem and extract the proximal portion of the stem.

Glassman described the techniques for removal of cementless stems in 1992. Forty-two loose stems were easily removed, 11 fibrous stable implants were removed with thin osteotomes, and 11 bone ingrown, canal filling, extensively coated stems were removed with trephines. In no cases was reconstruction precluded by stem removal. The critical tools required included manufacturer specific removal tools, high speed burs, thin osteotomes, universal extraction device for connection to the neck, and multiple trephines.

More recently, Kancherla reported the use of trephines to remove 36 porous coated stems. Eighty-six percent of cases were bone ingrown after removal, however, complications included an extruded trephine causing a femoral fracture and two periprosthetic fractures thought to be secondary to trephine induced osteonecrosis. The authors recommend bypassing the most distally trephined bone by a minimum of 4 cm.

Trephines are very helpful for removing distally fixed stems. Multiple trephines need to be irrigated and changed frequently to avoid dull cutting teeth which can lead to bone necrosis.

Introduction

Cementless acetabular components are commonly used in primary and revision total hip arthroplasty, and most designs have been successful despite differences in the porous coating structure. Components with 2D titanium fiber mesh coating (FM) have demonstrated high survivorships up to 97% at 20 years¹. 3D tantalum porous coatings (TPC) have been introduced in an attempt to improve osseointegration and therefore implant fixation. Animal models showed good results with this new material one year after implantation², and clinical and radiographic studies have demonstrated satisfactory outcomes³. However, few retrieval studies exist evaluating in vivo bone ingrowth into TPC components in humans. We compared bone ingrowth between well-fixed FM and TPC retrieved acetabular shells using backscatter scanning electron microscopy (BSEM).

The technique for removal of bone ingrown extensively coated devices involves cutting the stem below the metaphyseal portion of the stem, followed by removal of the proximal stem and trephine removal of the cylindrical distal portion of the stem. This can be done with or without an extended trochanteric osteotomy (ETO). When the proximal portion of the stem is not bone ingrown (extensive proximal osteolysis, or the stem is broken) or the metaphyseal bone is easily accessed (there is no collar) the stem can be cut through a bone window. In all other cases an ETO at the level where the stem becomes a cylinder is required to disrupt the metaphyseal bone prosthesis interface, cut the stem and extract the proximal portion of the stem.

Glassman described the techniques for removal of cementless stems in 1992. 42 loose stems were easily removed, 11 fibrous stable implants were removed with thin osteotomes, and 11 bone ingrown, canal filling, extensively coated stems were removed with trephines. In no cases was reconstruction precluded by stem removal. The critical tools required included manufacturer specific removal tools, high speed burs, thin osteotomes, universal extraction device for connection to the neck, and multiple trephines.

More recently, Kancherla reported the use of trephines to remove 36 porous coated stems. 86% of cases were bone ingrown after removal, however, complications included an extruded trephine causing a femoral fracture and two periprosthetic fractures thought to be secondary to trephine induced osteonecrosis. The authors recommend bypassing the most distally trephined bone by a minimum of 4cm.

Trephines are very helpful for removing distally fixed stems. Multiple trephines need to be irrigated and changed frequently to avoid dull cutting teeth which can lead to bone necrosis.

Using an institutional database we have identified over 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an endpoint, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified pre-revision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral re-revision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an endpoint, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage.

In addition to patients with Paprosky Type 3B and 4 femoral defects, there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5mm or larger than 26mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10 inch stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure.

Using an institutional database we have identified over 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an endpoint, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified pre-revision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral re-revision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an endpoint, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage.

In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects, there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10 inch stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful and commonly performed surgical interventions worldwide. Based on registry data, at one-year post THA, implant survivorship is nearly 100% and patient satisfaction is 90%. A novel, porous coated acetabular implant was introduced in Europe and Australia in 2007. Several years after its introduction, warnings were issued for the system when used with metal-on-metal bearings due to adverse local tissue reaction, with one study reporting a 24% failure rate (Dramis et al. 2014). A subsequent 2018 study by Teoh et al. showed that the acetabular system had a survival rate of 98.9% at five years when used with conventional polyethylene or ceramic bearing surfaces. The current study was conducted to determine the safety and effectiveness of the acetabular system using standard highly-crosslinked polyethylene (XLPE) and ceramic liners at five-year follow-up. Our hypothesis was that the acetabular system would exhibit survivorship comparable to other acetabular components on the market at five-year follow-up.

A prospective, non-randomized study was conducted from February 2009 to June 2017 at eight sites in Canada and the USA. One hundred fifty-five hips were enrolled and 148 hips analyzed after THA indicated for degenerative arthritis. At five-year follow-up, 103 subjects remained for final analysis. All patients received a zero, three, or multi-hole R3 acetabular shell with Stiktite porous coating (Smith & Nephew, Inc., Memphis, TN, USA). Standard THA surgical techniques were employed, with surgical approach and either of a XLPE or ceramic bearing surface chosen at the discretion of the surgeon. The primary outcome was revision at five-years post-op with secondary outcomes including the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), radiographic analysis, and post-operative adverse events. Data and outcomes were analyzed using summary statistics with 95% confidence intervals, t-tests, and Wilcoxon Rank tests.

At five-year follow-up the overall success rate was 97.14% (95% CI: 91.88–100). When analyzed by liner type, the success rate was 96.81% (95% CI: 90.96–99.34) for polyethylene (n=94) and 100% (95% CI: 71.51–100) for ceramic (n=11), with no significant difference between either liner type (p=1). There were three revisions during the study (1.9%), two for femoral stem revision post fracture, and one for deep infection. The HHS (51.36 pre-op, 94.50 five-year), all 5 HOOS sub-scales, and WOMAC (40.9 pre-op, 89.13 five-year) scores all significantly improved (p < 0 .001) over baseline scores at all follow-up points. One (0.7%) subject met the criteria for radiographic failure at one-year post-op but did not require revision. Six (1.8%) of the reported adverse events were considered related to the study device, including four cases of squeaking, one bursitis, and one femur fracture.

Results from this five-year, multicenter, prospective study indicate good survivorship for this novel, porous coated acetabular system. The overall survivorship of 97.14% at five-year follow-up is comparable to that reported for similar acetabular components and aligns with previous analyses (Teoh et al. 2018).

The first porous-coated femoral component approved for use without cement was released in 1983. Today, there are many implants with a similar amount of porous coating. The hallmark of these porous-coated implants is a cylindrical shape distally and a triangular metaphyseal shape. Extensively coated components gain initial stability in the femoral diaphysis.

Since 1982, we have used extensively porous-coated femoral components in all our patients. Our oldest series of patients is a consecutive non-selected group of 211 hips that have been followed for a mean of 20 years. Combining the loose and the revised, there is only a 3% femoral failure. In addition, we have studied patients with disease processes not originally thought to work well with cementless techniques, including rheumatoid arthritis, avascular necrosis and patients over 65.

Despite the good results, the main concern is that proximal bone loss secondary to the stress shielding caused by a stiff extensively porous-coated femoral component will lead to difficulty at the time of revision. At a mean 14 years, we have not seen any adverse clinical consequences that can be attributed to proximal stress shielding, though the longer term consequences of adaptive femoral remodeling need to be followed. In our patients, extensive proximal bone loss secondary to stress shielding is a radiographic sign of bone ingrowth that occurs in 25% of cases. In the remaining 70–75% of cases, lesser degrees of proximal bone loss occur which confirm bone ingrowth.

Extensively coated components gain stability in the femoral diaphysis. The femoral diaphysis is prepared with straight reamers until the reamer engages the cortex for 5cm. A slightly larger straight femoral component is inserted with a scratch fit. No matter what the shape of the femur or how osteoporotic the patient, there will always be 4–5cm of cortical bone for fixation of a straight 6 inch stem.

Background

A stem sitting proud (SP) or that above the final rasp position remains in some patients who undergo hip replacement using proximally coated tapered wedge stems. Surgeons may face challenges providing the best fit due to unpredictable stem seating. Zimmer Inc. introduced a new rasp to solve this issue but the clinical results of this rasp have not yet been published. Therefore, we aimed to address the following: 1) What is SP incidence using a proximally coated cementless tapered wedge stem? 2) Does the new rasp system improve seating height? 3) What are the risk factors of SP?

We maintain a database on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. Using femoral rerevision for any reason as an endpoint, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years. Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified prerevision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral rerevision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an endpoint, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage.

In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10 inch stems 13.5 mm or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure.

Clinical and radiological results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) using proximally coated single wedge (PSW) cementless stems are generally excellent. The geometry of cementless stems and the morphology of proximal femurs (Dorr types) provide optimal fit for primary stability and secondary biologic fixation. Because the geometry of PSW shape is designed to be engaged at the metaphysis, cementless PSW stem is not traditionally recommended to Dorr type C femurs with concerns of inadequate implant-host bone contact and the risk of femoral fracture. Nevertheless, previous studies on PSW cementless stems have not examined long-term survivorship according to Dorr types of femur. Paucity of a long-term comparative study makes it difficult to know whether the PSW stem plays a role in Dorr type C femurs or not. We postulated that the PSW stem could achieve stable fixation without increased risk of femoral fracture even in Dorr type C femurs, and demonstrate acceptable long-term results. The aim of this study was to investigate differences of clinical and radiological outcomes of THA using PSW stem according to proximal femoral geometry (Dorr types) in more than a 10-year follow-up.

Three hundred and seven primary THA in 247 patients, which was performed with use of a single-designed PSW stem from 1997 to 2003 and was followed up for over 10 years, were included in this retrospective study. According to Dorr's criteria, 89 femora were classified as Type A, 156 as Type B, and 62 as Type C. The patients' mean age at operation was 43.2 years (range, 18.4 – 69.6 years). They were followed-up for an average of 13.2 years (the range, 10.0 – 17.3 years). All of the hips were evaluated clinically and radiologically with special attention to the occurrence of implant loosening and periprosthetic femoral fracture.

The mean preoperative Harris hip score (50.4±20.6 points) improved significantly to 95.6±9.0 points at the final follow-ups. The improvements were observed regardless of Dorr types (p<0.001 in all 3 groups). The incidence of thigh pain (p=0.704) was not significantly different among groups. Implant survivorship was 100% in all 3 groups. None of the stems were loosened or revised. No significant differences were observed in osteolysis (p=0.492), pedestal formation (p=0.323), or cortical hypertrophy (p=0.169) among the groups [Fig. 1]. Radiolucent lines less than 2mm in thickness in Gruen zone 4 were observed more in Dorr type C femora than in Dorr type A or B (p=0.003) [Fig. 2]. Spot weld (p<0.001) and stress shielding (p=0.010) of proximal femur were more pronounced in Dorr C type femora than in type A or B [Fig. 3]. The prevalence of intraoperative (p=0.550) or postoperative (p=0.600) femoral fractures were not significantly different among the groups.

From over a 10-year follow-up, the PSW stem provided excellent stem survivorship regardless of Dorr type with satisfactory outcomes. The remodeling process around the stem was more pronounced in Dorr type C femur. The present study shows that the PSW stem is a recommendable option for Dorr type C femur.

For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly (see Info & Metrics tab above).

Introduction

Acetabular fixation is one of the major factors affecting long-term longevity and durability of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Limited data exist regarding mid-term performance of modern non-cemented rim-fit cups with HA coating. The aim of this study was to assess the minimum 5 year clinical and radiographic performance of PSL cups. Therefore we retrospectively analyzed results of this component in patients that had adequate followup from a prospective institutional database.

Revision of the failed femoral component of a total hip arthroplasty can be challenging. Multiple reconstructive options are available and the operation itself can be particularly difficult and thus meticulous preoperative planning is required to pick the right “tool” for the case at hand. The Paprosky Femoral Classification is useful as it helps the surgeon determine what bone stock is available for fixation and hence, which type of femoral reconstruction is most appropriate.

Monoblock, fully porous coated diaphyseal engaging femoral components are the “work-horse” of femoral revision. This type of a stem is used in my practice for Type 1–3a femoral defects. These stems are not used, however, in the following situations: The canal diameter is greater than 18mm; There is less than 4cm available for distal fixation in the isthmus; There is proximal femoral remodeling into retroversion.

While many surgeons often believe that revision femoral components need to be “long”, they really only need to be long enough to engage 4cm of intact femoral isthmus, which is oftentimes the shortest, “primary length” fully porous coated stem. Advantages of using a shorter revision stem include: Easier surgical technique as you avoid the femoral bow, with a lower risk of fracture and under-sizing; Preserves bone stock for future revisions if required; Easier to remove if required.

I use monolithic, cylindrical, fully porous coated femoral components for many femoral revisions. Our institutional database holds information on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. To date, 27 stems have been re-revised (14 for loosening, 4 for infection, 7 for stem fracture, 2 at time of periprosthetic femoral fracture). Using femoral re-revision for any reason as an end point, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years.

Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified pre-revision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. Among the 777 femoral revisions graded for femoral bone loss, 59% of the femurs were graded as having no cortical damage before the revision, 29% had cortical damage extending no more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, and 12% had cortical damage that extended more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10 cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral re-revision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an end point, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage.

In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5 mm or larger than 26 mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10” stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18 mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure.

Introduction

Metal ion and particle release, particularly cobalt, has become an important subject in total hip arthroplasty, as it has shown to induce metal hypersensitivity, adverse local tissue reactions and systemic ion related diseases. The purpose of the following study was compare the ion release barrier function of a zirconium nitride (ZrN) multilayer coated hip stem for cemented use, designed for patients with metal ion hypersensitivity, against its uncoated version in a test configuration simulating the worst case scenario of a severely debonded hip stem. The ZrN multilayer coating is applied on a CoCrMo hip stem and consists of a thin adhesive chromium layer, five alternating intermediate layers out of chromium nitride (CrN) and chromium carbonitride (CrCN) and a final zirconium nitride (ZrN) shielding layer [1].

I prefer monolithic, cylindrical, fully porous coated femoral components for most femoral revisions. Our institutional database holds information on 1000 femoral revisions using extensively porous-coated stems. To date, 27 stems have been rerevised (14 for loosening, 4 for infection, 7 for stem fracture, 2 at time of periprosthetic femoral fracture). Using femoral rerevision for any reason as an end point, the survivorship is 99 ± 0.8% (95% confidence interval) at 2 years, 97 ± 1.3% at 5 years, 95.6 ± 1.8% at 10 years, and 94.5 ± 2.2% at 15 years.

Similar to Moreland and Paprosky, we have identified prerevision bone stock as a factor affecting femoral fixation. Among the 777 femoral revisions graded for femoral bone loss, 59% of the femurs were graded as having no cortical damage before the revision, 29% had cortical damage extending no more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter, and 12% had cortical damage that extended more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter. When the cortical damage involved bone more than 10cm below the lesser trochanter, the survivorship, using femoral rerevision for any reason or definite radiographic loosening as an end point, was reduced significantly, as compared with femoral revisions with less cortical damage.

In addition to patients with Paprosky type 3B and 4 femoral defects there are rare patients with femoral canals smaller than 13.5mm or larger than 26mm that are not well suited to this technique. Eight and 10-inch stems 13.5 or smaller should be used with caution if there is no proximal bone support for fear of breaking. Patients with canals larger than 18mm may be better suited for a titanium tapered stem with flutes. While a monolithic stem is slightly more difficult for a surgeon to insert than a modular femoral stem there is little worry about taper junction failure.

Since 1982, we have used extensively porous-coated femoral components. Our oldest series of patients is a consecutive non-selected group of 211 hips that have been followed for a mean of 20 years. Combining the loose and the revised, there is a 3% femoral failure. Currently we are following 8,020 hips with a mean follow up of 7 years (0–29 years). Twenty-six percent of the patients have a follow up visit more than 10 years after surgery. The mean age of at the time of surgery was 62 years old (15–97 years). One percent of hips have been revised most commonly for failure of ingrowth-49, infection-19, and stem fracture-7. We have studied patients with disease processes not originally thought to work well with noncemented techniques, including rheumatoid arthritis, avascular necrosis and patients over 65.

In 422 hips with more than 20 year follow up, 96% remain satisfied, with less pain, and increased function. Ten years after surgery 57% can walk more than 60 min. or unlimited distances. Using survivorship analysis 96% of patients continue to live independently or with their family 10 years after surgery. For those patients not retired at the time of surgery, 58% continue to work 10 years after surgery.

Despite the good results, the main concern is that proximal bone loss secondary to the stress shielding caused by a stiff extensively porous-coated femoral component will lead to difficulty at the time of revision. At a mean 14 years, we have not seen any adverse clinical consequences that can be attributed to proximal stress shielding. Extensive proximal bone loss secondary to stress shielding occurs in 25% of cases. In the remaining 70–75% of cases, lesser degrees of proximal bone loss occur which confirm bone ingrowth.

Background

KAR™ prosthesis was introduced following the success of Corail® femoral stem to tackle difficult revision cases (Paprosky type1, 2a, 2b and 3a). The ARTO group reported a success rate of 94% at 17 years follow-up. Only two independent studies reported similar success rate to date.

Foreword

Silver coatings, used in many surgical devices, have demonstrated good antimicrobial activity and low toxicity. Oncological musculoskeletal surgery have an high risk of infection, so in the last decades, silver coated mega-prostheses have been introduced and are becoming increasingly widespread.