Literature DB >> 19148940

Fixation of hydroxyapatite-coated revision implants is improved by the surgical technique of cracking the sclerotic bone rim.

Brian Elmengaard1, Joan E Bechtold, Xinqian Chen, Kjeld Søballe.   

Abstract

Revision joint replacement has poorer outcomes that have been associated with poorer mechanical fixation. We investigate a new bone-sparing surgical technique that locally cracks the sclerotic bone rim formed during aseptic loosening. We inserted 16 hydroxyapatite-coated implants bilaterally in the distal femur of eight dogs, using a controlled weight-bearing experimental model that replicates important features of a typical revision setting. At 8 weeks, a control revision procedure and a crack revision procedure were performed on contralateral implants. The crack procedure used a splined tool to perform a systematic local perforation of the sclerotic bone rim of the revision cavity. After 4 weeks, the hydroxyapatite-coated implants were evaluated for mechanical fixation by a push-out test and for tissue distribution by histomorphometry. The cracking revision procedure resulted in significantly improved mechanical fixation, significantly more bone ongrowth and bone volume in the gap, and reduced fibrous tissue compared to the control revision procedure. The study demonstrates that the sclerotic bone rim prevents bone ingrowth and promotes fixation by fibrous tissue. The effect of the cracking technique may be due to improved access to the vascular compartment of the bone. The cracking technique is a simple surgical method that potentially can improve the fixation of revision implants in sclerotic regions important for obtaining the fixation critical for overall implant stability. Copyright 2009 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19148940      PMCID: PMC3674032          DOI: 10.1002/jor.20850

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthop Res        ISSN: 0736-0266            Impact factor:   3.494


  30 in total

1.  Is revision as good as primary hip replacement? A comparison of quality of life.

Authors:  A H Robinson; C R Palmer; R N Villar
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1999-01

2.  Does early micromotion of femoral stem prostheses matter? 4-7-year stereoradiographic follow-up of 84 cemented prostheses.

Authors:  J Kärrholm; B Borssén; G Löwenhielm; F Snorrason
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1994-11

Review 3.  The current status of hydroxyapatite coating of prostheses.

Authors:  K Søballe; S Overgaard
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1996-09

4.  Radiostereometry of hip prostheses. Review of methodology and clinical results.

Authors:  J Kärrholm; P Herberts; P Hultmark; H Malchau; B Nivbrant; J Thanner
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  The economic impact of failures in total hip replacement surgery: 28,997 cases from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, 1987-1993.

Authors:  A Furnes; S A Lie; L I Havelin; L B Engesaeter; S E Vollset
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1996-04

6.  Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002.

Authors:  Steven Kurtz; Fionna Mowat; Kevin Ong; Nathan Chan; Edmund Lau; Michael Halpern
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Fixation of revision implants is improved by a surgical technique to crack the sclerotic bone rim.

Authors:  Søren Kold; Joan E Bechtold; Olivier Mouzin; Brian Elmengaard; Xinqian Chen; Kjeld Søballe
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Polyethylene and titanium particles induce osteolysis by similar, lymphocyte-independent, mechanisms.

Authors:  Naoya Taki; Joscelyn M Tatro; Jennifer L Nalepka; Daisuke Togawa; Victor M Goldberg; Clare M Rimnac; Edward M Greenfield
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.494

9.  Results of cemented femoral revision total hip arthroplasty using improved cementing techniques.

Authors:  R P Katz; J J Callaghan; P M Sullivan; R C Johnston
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Revision and primary hip and knee arthroplasty. A cost analysis.

Authors:  C J Lavernia; M K Drakeford; A K Tsao; A Gittelsohn; K A Krackow; D S Hungerford
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 4.176

View more
  3 in total

1.  Do Bone Graft and Cracking of the Sclerotic Cavity Improve Fixation of Titanium and Hydroxyapatite-coated Revision Implants in an Animal Model?

Authors:  Brian Elmengaard; Joergen Baas; Thomas Jakobsen; Soren Kold; Thomas B Jensen; Joan E Bechtold; Kjeld Soballe
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head by core decompression and implantation of fully functional ex vivo-expanded bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells: a proof-of-concept study.

Authors:  Rodrigo Mardones; Daniel Camacho; Francisco Monsalvo; Nicolás Zulch; Claudio Jofre; José J Minguell
Journal:  Stem Cells Cloning       Date:  2019-03-01

3.  Coating with a modular bone morphogenetic peptide promotes healing of a bone-implant gap in an ovine model.

Authors:  Yan Lu; Jae Sung Lee; Brett Nemke; Ben K Graf; Kevin Royalty; Richard Illgen; Ray Vanderby; Mark D Markel; William L Murphy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.