Literature DB >> 8339483

A histomorphometric and histologic analysis of the implant interface in five successful, autopsy-retrieved, noncemented porous-coated knee arthroplasties.

V J Vigorita1, B Minkowitz, J F Dichiara, P A Higham.   

Abstract

Five clinically successful, primary uncemented porous-coated anatomic knee implants were retrieved postmortem, 13-56 months after implantation, and were sectioned and evaluated histologically and histomorphometrically for bone ingrowth. The prosthesis-bone interface was divided into the following four zones: (1) the tissue prosthetic surface interface; (2) the beaded area; (3) the immediate beadless area; and (4) the marrow space. Although fibroosseous ingrowth was present in all cases, it varied quantitatively with each case and component. Average component bone ingrowth for the prosthesis interface (Zones 1 and 2) of patellae was 29%; tibias, 6%; and femora, 8%. In Zone 3, the percentage of bone apposed to the prosthesis for the patellae was 53%; tibias 36%; and femora, 32%. Zone 4, the marrow space, was not quantitated. The fibrous tissue filling nonbone-ingrown porous space in Zone 2 appeared "ligamentoid," connecting bone to beads within Zone 2 and between Zones 2 and 3. Zone 3 exhibited a bony plate formation parallel to the prostheses. No significant inflammation was noted. Overall there was more bone ingrowth into Zone 3 than Zones 1 and 2 with greater bone ingrowth found in the patellar components. The implant interface in clinically successful noncemented porous-coated prostheses of this design is characterized histologically by a noninflammatory fibroosseous ingrowth of varying degrees, and the fibrous component of this composite structure exhibits a highly organized pattern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8339483

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  3 in total

1.  Hybrid total knee arthroplasty: 13-year survivorship of AGC total knee systems with average 7 years followup.

Authors:  Philip M Faris; E Michael Keating; Alex Farris; John B Meding; Merrill A Ritter
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-03-07       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Is There A Difference in Bone Ingrowth in Modular Versus Monoblock Porous Tantalum Tibial Trays?

Authors:  Josa A Hanzlik; Judd S Day; Clare M Rimnac; Steven M Kurtz
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2015-01-22       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Bone ingrowth in well-fixed retrieved porous tantalum implants.

Authors:  Josa A Hanzlik; Judd S Day
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-03-18       Impact factor: 4.757

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.