header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock

Knee

Hydroxyapatite augmentation of the porous coating improves fixation of tibial components

A RANDOMISED RSA STUDY IN 116 PATIENTS



Download PDF

Abstract

In a single-blind, randomised series of knee replacements in 116 patients, we used radiostereometric analysis (RSA) to measure micromotion in three types of tibial implant fixation for two years after knee replacement. We compared hydroxyapatite-augmented porous coating, porous coating, and cemented fixation of the same design of tibial component.

At one to two years, porous-coated implants migrated at a statistically significantly higher rate than hydroxyapatite-augmented or cemented implants. There was no significant difference between hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented implants.

We conclude that hydroxyapatite augmentation may offer a clinically relevant advantage over a simple porous coating for tibial component fixation, but is no better than cemented fixation.


Correspondence should be sent to Dr I. Önsten at the Department of Anatomy, Rush Medical College, 600 South Paulina, Chicago, Illinois 60612, USA.

For access options please click here