Long-term migration of a cementless stem with different bioactive coatings. Data from a "prime" RSA study: lessons learned.
Aged
Apatites
/ pharmacology
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip
/ adverse effects
Coated Materials, Biocompatible
/ pharmacology
Durapatite
/ pharmacology
Female
Femur
/ diagnostic imaging
Follow-Up Studies
Hip Prosthesis
/ adverse effects
Humans
Long Term Adverse Effects
/ diagnosis
Male
Postoperative Complications
/ diagnosis
Prosthesis Design
/ adverse effects
Prosthesis Failure
/ etiology
Radiostereometric Analysis
/ methods
Journal
Acta orthopaedica
ISSN: 1745-3682
Titre abrégé: Acta Orthop
Pays: Sweden
ID NLM: 101231512
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
5
11
2020
medline:
11
2
2021
entrez:
4
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Background and purpose - Little is known about the long-term migration pattern of cementless stems in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Furthermore, the role of bioactive coatings in fixation, and thus migration, remains uncertain. Hydroxyapatite (HA) is the most commonly used bioactive coating. However, delamination of the coating might induce loosening. Alternatively, fluorapatite (FA) has proved to be more thermostable than HA, thereby potentially increasing longevity. We assessed the long-term migration of cementless stems with different coatings using radiostereometric analysis (RSA), thereby establishing a reference for acceptable migration. Patients and methods - 61 THAs in 53 patients were randomized to receive either a HA, FA, or uncoated Mallory-Head Porous stem during the years 1992 to 1994. Primary outcome was stem migration measured using RSA and secondary outcome was the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Evaluation took place preoperatively and postoperatively on the second day, at 6, 12, 25 and 52 weeks, and annually thereafter. At the 25-year follow-up, 12 patients (17 THAs) had died and 1 patient (1 THA) was lost to follow-up. Due to the high number of missing second-day postoperative RSA radiographs, the 1-year postoperative RSA radiograph was used as baseline for the comparative analyses. Results - Mean follow-up was 17 years (SD 6.6). All stems showed initial rapid migration with median subsidence of 0.2 mm (-0.1 to 0.6) and median retroversion of 0.9° (-3.2 to 2) at 12 months, followed by stable migration reaching a plateau phase. No stem was revised, albeit 1 stem showed continuous subsidence up to 1.5 mm. Comparing the different coatings, we could not find a statistically significant difference in overall 25-year migration (p-values > 0.05). Median subsidence at 15-year follow-up was for HA -0.1 mm (-0.4 to 0.2), for FA 0 mm (-0.1 to 0.2), and for uncoated stems 0.2 mm (-0.1 to 0.5). Median internal rotation at 15-year follow-up was for HA not available, for FA 1.1° (-0.5 to 2.6), and for uncoated stems 0° (-0.5 to 0.4). HHS were also comparable (p-values > 0.05), with at 15-year follow-up for HA 85 points (41-99), for FA 76 points (61-90), and for uncoated stems 79 points (74-90). Interpretation - The long-term migration pattern of cementless stems using different bioactive coatings has not previously been described. No beneficial effect, or side effect at long-term follow-up of bioactive coatings, was found. The provided migration data can be used in future research to establish thresholds for acceptable migration patterns cementless stem designs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33143507
doi: 10.1080/17453674.2020.1840021
pmc: PMC8023916
doi:
Substances chimiques
Apatites
0
Coated Materials, Biocompatible
0
Durapatite
91D9GV0Z28
fluorapatite
M4CM1H238J
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
660-668Références
J Biopharm Stat. 2009 Nov;19(6):1055-73
pubmed: 20183464
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1994 Nov;76(11):1692-705
pubmed: 7962030
J Arthroplasty. 2009 Jan;24(1):38-42
pubmed: 18534435
Orthopedics. 1989 Sep;12(9):1239-42
pubmed: 2552423
Orthopedics. 1995 Sep;18(9):885-8
pubmed: 8570499
Biomed Tech (Berl). 2018 Nov 27;63(6):657-663
pubmed: 28820728
Acta Orthop. 2011 Aug;82(4):399-404
pubmed: 21751858
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991 Sep;73(5):741-5
pubmed: 1654336
Acta Orthop. 2005 Aug;76(4):563-72
pubmed: 16195075
Acta Orthop Scand. 2000 Feb;71(1):106-8
pubmed: 10744004
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2009 Sep;129(9):1165-9
pubmed: 18815799
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jan;(298):19-26
pubmed: 8118974
J Biomed Mater Res. 1993 Jan;27(1):127-38
pubmed: 8380595
Acta Orthop. 2007 Oct;78(5):622-8
pubmed: 17966021
Acta Orthop. 2012 Apr;83(2):135-41
pubmed: 22329667
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Oct;467(10):2606-12
pubmed: 19360453
Acta Orthop. 2015;86(5):575-85
pubmed: 25909455
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020 Jan;140(1):121-127
pubmed: 31655879
J Biomed Mater Res. 1994 Aug;28(8):909-17
pubmed: 7983089
J Biomech. 2000 Dec;33(12):1593-9
pubmed: 11006383
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993 Sep;75(5):681-7
pubmed: 8397213
J Orthop Surg Res. 2015 Jan 28;10:21
pubmed: 25626520
Int J Surg. 2013;11(6):477-82
pubmed: 23603566
Acta Orthop. 2015 Feb;86(1):18-25
pubmed: 25175664
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Dec;476(12):2353-2366
pubmed: 30303878
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1994 Nov;76(6):912-7
pubmed: 7983118