16 Year Review of Hydroxyapatite Ceramic Coated Hip Implants - A Clinical and Histological Evaluation

James M. Buchanan

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.284-286.1049

Paper Titles

Clinical Outcome of Current Generation Hydroxyapatite Coated Acetabular Design
p.1033

Comparing Dynamic Hip Screw to External Fixation for Treatment of Osteoporotic Pertrochanteric Fractures: A Prospective Randomized Study
p.1037

Biological Behaviour of Bonelike^® Graft Implanted in the Tibia of Humans
p.1041

Hydroxyapatite Hip Arthroplasty in Patients under the Age of 50
p.1045

16 Year Review of Hydroxyapatite Ceramic Coated Hip Implants - A Clinical and Histological Evaluation
p.1049

A New Injectable Bone Substitute Concept (MBCP Gel ^TM): First Clinical Results in Human Maxillo-Facial Surgery
p.1053

Treatment of Pseudoarthrosis Using Tissue-Engineered Bone Graft
p.1057

Long-Term Critical Evaluation of the Use of Calcium Phosphate Bioceramics in the Reconstructing, Distracting, and Bone Fixing of Exposed Fractures of Long Bones
p.1061

Hydroxyapatite Ceramic Hip Survey Alumina on Alumina Bearings
p.1065

HomeKey Engineering MaterialsKey Engineering Materials Vols. 284-28616 Year Review of Hydroxyapatite Ceramic Coated...

16 Year Review of Hydroxyapatite Ceramic Coated Hip Implants - A Clinical and Histological Evaluation

Abstract:

Traditionally implants for hip arthroplasty are secured with bone cement. Problems have been encountered with cement fixation with loosening and osteolysis attributed to the reaction to particulate cement material and also polyethylene debris from wear. Cementing techniques have been improved and the Swedish Hip Register [1] demonstrates that the revision rates have been reduced with improved cementing techniques. However, uncemented hip arthroplasty is now having a revival. In particular, bioactive materials are being used and this paper presents the results of a consecutive series of hip arthroplasties carried out over a total period of just 16 years. All the patients are included, including primary and revision hip arthroplasty. Patients are assessed using the Harris Hip Score [2]. 13% of the hips scored less than 80 on the Harris Hip Score but only 9.4% scored poor pain scores. These represent the results of poor hip arthroplasty, of which an even smaller percentage are related to failed HA hip arthroplasty.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

View Preview

Info:

Periodical:

Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 284-286)

Pages:

1049-1052

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.284-286.1049

Citation:

Cite this paper

Online since:

April 2005

Authors:

James M. Buchanan

Keywords:

Hip Arthroplasty, Hydroxyapatite Ceramic

Export:

RIS, BibTeX

Price:

Permissions:

Request Permissions

References

[1] Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American 2000 - 2004 [Mar] 2002, Volume 84-A Supplement 2 The Swedish Total Hip Replacement Register Scientific Exhibit.

Google Scholar

[2] Harris H. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fracture: treatment by mold arthroplasty: an end result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1969; 51A: 737-55.

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-5451-8_3

Google Scholar

[3] McNally SA, Shepperd JAN, Mann CV, Walczak JP. The Results of twelve years use of a Hydroxyapatite-Coated Femoral Stem, J Bone Joint Surg (Br), 2000, 82-B: 378-382.

DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.82b3.0820378

Google Scholar

[4] Geesink RGT, de Groot K, Klein CPAT. Bonding of Bone to Apatite Coated Implants. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 1988; 70-B: 17-22.

DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.70b1.2828374

Google Scholar

[5] Sedel L, Nizard RS, Kerboull L et al. Alumina- Alumina hip replacement in patients younger than 50 years old. Clin Orthop 298: 175-183 (1994).

DOI: 10.1097/00003086-199401000-00023

Google Scholar