Revision Total Hip Arthroplasties (THA) have a significantly higher failure rate than primary THA's and the most common cause is aseptic loosening of the cup. To reduce this incidence of loosening various porous metal implants with a rough surface and a porous architecture have been developed which are said to increase early osteointegration. However, for successful osteointegration a minimal micromotion between the implant and the host bone (primary stability) is beneficial. It has not been previously determined if the primary stability for the new Gription® titanium cup differs from that of the old Porocoat® titanium cup. In 10 cadaveric pelvises, divided into 20 hemipelvises, bilateral THA's were performed by an experienced surgeon (RGB) following the implant manufacturer's instructions and with the original surgical instruments provided by the company. In randomized fashion the well established Porocoat® titanium implant was implanted on one side of each each hemipelvis whereas on the corresponding opposite side the modified implant with a Gription® coating was inserted. Radiographs were taken to confirm satisfactory operative results. Subsequently, the hemipelvis and cups were placed in a biomechanical testing machine and subjected to physiological cyclic loading. Three-dimensonal loading corresponded to 30% of the load experienced in normal gait was imposed reflecting the limited weight bearing generally prescribed postoperatively. The dynamic testing took place in a multi-axial testing machine for 1000 cycles. Relative motion and micromotion were quantified using an optical measurement device (Pontos, GOM mbh, Braunschweig, Germany). Statistical evaluation was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.Introduction
Material and Methods
The optimal bearing for hip arthroplasty is still a matter of debate. in younger and more active patients ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP) bearings are frequently chosen over metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) bearings to reduce wear and increase biocompatibility. However, the fracture risk of ceramic heads is higher than that of metal heads. This can cause serious issue, as ceramic fractures pose a serious complication often necessitating major revision surgery – a complication more frequently seen in ceramic-on-ceramic bearings. To date, there are no long-term data (> 20 years of follow-up) reporting fracture rates of the ceramic femoral heads in CoP bearings. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical and radiographic results of 348 cementless THAs treated with 2nd generation Biolox® Al2O3 Ceramic-on-Polyethylene (CoP) bearings, which had been consecutively implanted between January 1985 and December 1989. At implantation the mean patient age was 57 years. The cohort was subsequently followed for a minimum of 20 years. At the final follow-up 111 patients had died, and 5 were lost to follow-up (Fig. 1). A Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis was used to estimate the cumulative incidence of ceramic head fractures over the long-term.Introduction
Patients and Methods
The frequency of revision hip arthroplasty is increasing with the increasing life expectancy and number of individuals treated with joint replacement. Newer porous implants have been introduced which may provide better treatment options for revision arthroplasty. These may require cementation to other prosthesis components and occasionally to bone, however, there is currently no information on how these porous implants interface with cement. Cylindrical bone (control group) and porous metal probes with a diameter and height of 10mm were created and subsequently cemented in a standardized setting. These were placed under tensile and torsional loading scenarios. In this experimental study, 10 human femoral heads were used to create 20 cylindrical probes with a diameter and height of 10mm. One side was tapered to 6mm for cementation and interface evaluation. A further set of 20 probes of a porous metal implant (Trabecular Metal®) was created with the same geometry. After the probes were created and lavaged, they were cemented at the tapered surface using a medium viscosity cement at a constant cementation pressure (1.2N/mm2). The setup allowed for comparison of the porous metal/cement interface (group A) with the well-studied control group interface bone/cement (group B). The maximal interface stability of groups A and B were evaluated under tensile and rotational loading scenarios and the cement penetration was measured.Introduction
Materials and Methods
As there are many reports describing avascular reactions to metal debris (ARMD) after Metal-on-Metal Hip Arthroplasty (MoMHA), the use of MoMHA, especially hip resurfacing, is decreasing worldwide. In cases of ARMD or a rise of metal ion blood levels, revision is commended even in pain free patients with a well integrated implant. The revision of a well integrated implant will cause bone loss. As most of the patients with a hip resurfacing are young and a good bone stock is desirable for further revision surgeries, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the stability of a cemented polyethylene cup in a metal hip resurfacing cup. Two different hip resurfacing systems were investigated in this study (ASR™, DePuy Orthopaedics, Leatherhead, UK; Cormet™, Corin Group, Cirencester, UK). Six different groups were formed according to the treatment and preparation of the cement-cup-interface (table 1). Before instilling cement in groups 1, 3, 5 the surface, which was contaminated with blood, was cleaned just using a gauze bandage. In groups 2, 4, 6 saline, polyhexanid and a gauze were used to clean the surface prior to the cement application. In group one and two the polyethylene cup (PE) was cemented either into Cormet™ or ASR™, just the ASR™ was further investigated in group three to six. A monoaxial load was applied while the cup was fixed with 45 degrees inclination (group 1–4) and 90 degrees inclination (group 5, 6: rotatory stability) and the failure torque was measured. In contrast to group 1 and 2, the cement penetrated the peripheral groove of the ASR™ in groups 3–6. The mean failure torque of five tests for each group was compared between the groups and the implants. The ASR™ showed mean failure torque of 0.1 Nm in group one, of 0.14 Nm in group two, of 56.9 Nm in group three, of 61.5 Nm in group four, of 2.96 Nm in group five and of 3.04 Nm in group six. The mean failure torque of the Cormet™ was 0.14 Nm both in groups one and two (table 2). In groups 1–6 there were no significant differences between the different preparations of the interface. Furthermore, in groups 1 and 2 there were no significant differences between the Cormet™ and the ASR™. The mean failure torque of group 4 was significant increased compared to group 3 (p=0.008). We saw an early failure of the cement fixation due to the smooth surface of the Cormet™ and the ASR™ components in groups 1, 2, 5, 6. In contrast to other hip resurfacing cups the ASR™ has a peripheral groove, which was not cemented except in groups 3 and 4 and therefore the lever-out failure torque was significant increased in these groups. Nevertheless, the groove did not provide stability of the cement-PE compound in case of rotatory movements. In conclusion we do not recommend the use of these methods in clinical routine. The complete removal of hip resurfacing components seems to be the most reasonable procedure.
In cases of poor bone quality intraoperative torque measurement might be an alternative to preoperative dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to assess bone quality in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). 14 paired fresh frozen human femurs were included for trabecular peak torque measurement. We evaluated an existing intraoperative torque measurement method to assess bone quality and bone strength. We modified the approach to use this method in total hip arthroplasty (THA), which has not been published before. Since there are several approaches used in THA to exposure the hip joint, we decided to prefer the measurement in the femoral head which allows every surgeon to perform this measurement. Here a 6.5 × 23 mm blade was inserted into the proximal femur without harming the lateral cortical bone (figure 1). Further tests of the proximal femur evaluated the results of this new method: DXA, micro-computed tomography (μCT) and biomechanical load tests. Basic statistical analyses and multiple regressions were done. In the femoral head mean trabecular peak torque was 4.38 ± 1.86 Nm. These values showed a strong correlation with the values of the DXA, the μCT and the biomechanical load test. In comparison to the bone mineral density captured by DXA, the results of the intraoperative torque measurement showed a superior correlation with high sensitive bone quality evaluating methods (mechanical load tests and micro-computed tomography). Hence, the use of this intraoperative torque measurement seems to be more accurate in evaluating bone strength and bone quality than DXA during THA. The torque measurement provides sensitive information about the bone strength, which may affect the choice of implant in cases of poor bone stock and osteoporosis. In clinical use the surgeon may alter the prosthesis if the device indicates poor bone quality. Furthermore, we assume that the disadvantages associated with DXA scans like radiation exposure or errors caused by potential extraosteal sclerosis and interindividual soft-tissue artifacts could be excluded.
