The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Volume 90, Issue 5

Scientific Articles | May 01, 2008

Enhanced Gap Filling and Osteoconduction Associated with Alendronate-Calcium Phosphate-Coated Porous Tantalum

Donald S. Garbuz, MD, MHSc, FRCSC¹; Youxin Hu, MASc²; Winston Y. Kim, MD¹; Ke Duan, PhD²; Bassam A. Masri, MD, FRCSC¹; Thomas R. Oxland, PhD, PEng³; Helen Burt, PhD⁴; Rizhi Wang, PhD, PEng²; Clive P. Duncan, MD, FRCSC¹

¹ Division of Adult Lower Limb Reconstruction and Oncology, Department of Orthopaedics, University of British Columbia, Room 3114, 910 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 4E3, Canada. E-mail address for D.S. Garbuz: garbuz@shaw.ca. E-mail address for W.Y. Kim: wjykim@hotmail.com. E-mail address for B.A. Masri: bas.masri@vch.ca. E-mail address for C.P. Duncan: Clive.Duncan@vch.ca
² Department of Materials Engineering, University of British Columbia, 309-6350 Stores Road, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. E-mail address for Y. Hu: eugenehu@interchange.ubc.ca. E-mail address for K. Duan: keduan@interchange.ubc.ca. E-mail address for R. Wang: rzwang@interchange.ubc.ca
³ Division of Orthopaedic Engineering Research, Departments of Orthopaedics and Mechanical Engineering, 556-828 West 10th Avenue, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1L8, Canada. E-mail address: toxland@interchange.ubc.ca
⁴ Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, 2146 East Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada. E-mail address: burt@interchange.ubc.ca

View Disclosures and Other Information

Disclosure: In support of their research for or preparation of this work, one or more of the authors received, in any one year, outside funding or grants in excess of $10,000 from the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Zimmer, Inc., Canada Research Chairs, and the Killam Trust. Neither they nor a member of their immediate families received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, division, center, clinical practice, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors, or a member of their immediate families, are affiliated or associated.

Investigation performed at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2008 May 01;90(5):1090-1100. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00415

5 Recommendations (Recommend) | 3 Comments | Saved by 3 Users Save Case

Article

Comments (0)

text A A A

Abstract

Background: Porous tantalum has been shown to be effective in achieving bone ingrowth. However, in some circumstances, bone quality or quantity may be insufficient to allow adequate bone ingrowth. We hypothesized that local delivery of alendronate from porous tantalum would enhance the ability of the tantalum to achieve bone ingrowth when there is a gap between the implant and bone. We evaluated the effect of alendronate-coated porous tantalum on new bone formation in an animal model incorporating a gap between the implant and bone.

Methods: A cylindrical porous tantalum implant was implanted in the distal part of each femur in eighteen rabbits (a total of thirty-six implants) and left in situ for four weeks. Three types of porous tantalum implants were inserted: those with no coating (the control group), those with microporous calcium phosphate coating, and those coated with microporous calcium phosphate and alendronate. Subcutaneous fluorescent labeling was used to track new bone formation. Bone formation was analyzed with backscattered electron microscopy and fluorescent microscopy of undecalcified samples.

Results: The relative increases in the mean volume of gap filling, bone ingrowth, and total bone formation in the group treated with the porous tantalum implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate were 143% (p < 0.001), 259% (p < 0.001), and 193% (p < 0.001), respectively, compared with the values in the control group treated with the uncoated porous tantalum implants. The percentage of the length of the implant that was in contact with new bone in the group treated with the calcium phosphate and alendronate coating was increased by an average of 804% compared with the percentage in the group treated with the uncoated implants.

Conclusions: The study demonstrated significantly enhanced filling of the bone-implant gap and bone ingrowth in association with the porous tantalum implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate.

Clinical Relevance: The addition of an alendronate-delivery surface coating would enhance biological fixation of a tantalum implant and promote the healing of bone defects and thus address the clinical problem of revision joint replacement in the face of bone loss.

Figures in this Article

Introduction

Introduction | Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

The management of bone stock deficiency and the reliable achievement of durable implant-host bone fixation remain substantial challenges in revision joint replacement. Use of traditional uncemented acetabular implants (porous-coated and titanium fiber mesh) in the revision setting has had good clinical results¹. However, one study has suggested that when there is <50% contact with the host bone, implant fixation is less predictable². The properties of porous tantalum, including a high coefficient of friction, interconnecting pores, and high porosity by volume, make it an excellent material for use in revisions in the setting of compromised host bone^3,4.

The concept of an implant used as a drug-delivery system in reconstructive orthopaedics is well established⁵, and the use of bisphosphonates as a means to promote early and enhanced bone ingrowth has been investigated in several previous studies^6-8. Recently, a third-generation bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, bound to hydroxyapatite-coated porous tantalum was found to increase bone formation within the medullary canal and within the pores of the porous tantalum in a canine model⁹. The zoledronic acid used in the study was 250 times more potent than alendronate, but it is toxic to bone at concentrations higher than 2.5 × 10^-10 M as reported by Li and Davis¹⁰.

Laboratory experimental models should replicate clinical scenarios as closely as possible. The presence of gaps or defects severely compromises the ability to achieve initial stability and secondary fixation by bone ingrowth in cementless acetabular reconstruction^1,2. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of porous tantalum coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate on gap filling and bone ingrowth and the resultant pattern and location of bone formation in a rabbit model.

Materials and Methods

Introduction | Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

Implants

Cylindrical porous tantalum (Trabecular Metal) implants, 3.18 mm in diameter and 8 mm in length, were provided by Zimmer (Warsaw, Indiana). The pore size was about 400 to 500 µm. The average volumetric porosity was approximately 75%.

Alendronate (monosodium 4-amino-1-hydroxybutylidene-1,1-diphosphonate trihydrate) was chosen as the bisphosphonate to be used in the study because of its efficacy, availability, and clinical record¹¹. The method for binding the bisphosphonate to the porous tantalum involved electrolytic coating of calcium phosphate¹² followed by alendronate immobilization onto the substrate. The electrolytic deposition technique avoided the line-of-sight effect of plasma spraying of calcium phosphate, with which only the superficial portion of the porous tantalum is coated.

Electrolytic coating of calcium phosphate was carried out in an aqueous solution of 5.25 mM calcium nitrate (Ca[NO₃]₂), 10.5 mM ammonium dihydrogen phosphate (NH₄H₂PO₄), and 150 mM sodium chloride (NaCl). The pH of the solution was adjusted to 5.2 by adding 1 M sodium hydroxide (NaOH) under the monitoring of a calibrated pH meter (Thermo Orion 410, Beverly, Massachusetts). A two-electrode system was used for the electrolytic deposition. The distance between the cathode (porous tantalum implant) and the anode (a 25 × 25-mm platinum plate) was 9 mm. A DC voltage of 2.5 V was applied for three hours to deposit the coating. A thin layer (approximately 5 µm thick) of microporous (200 to 500-nm pore size) calcium phosphate coating was applied. The coating was a composite of octacalcium phosphate and apatite. The detailed structural characterizations of the coatings were previously described by one of us (Y.H.)¹³. Alendronate immobilization was carried out by soaking the calcium phosphate-coated implants in 3.2 mL of 10^-4-M alendronate in phosphate-buffered saline solution at 37°C for seven days. The soaked implants were rinsed with distilled water five times. The rinsing steps ensured that only the immobilized (i.e., chemically adsorbed) alendronate remained.

All implants were beta-ray sterilized (25 to 27 kGy; Iotron Technologies, Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada) before the implantation. In a separate experiment, five alendronate-immobilized and sterilized porous tantalum implants were assayed with a high-performance liquid chromatography assay adapted from the work of Fleisch and Hauffe¹⁴, to determine the dose of alendronate loaded on each porous tantalum implant. The average dose was determined to be 1.37 µg.

Implantation Procedure

The gap model was achieved by attaching polymethylmethacrylate bone cement caps (outer diameter, 4.37 mm; height, 2 mm) at both ends of each implant (total length, 9 mm), creating a gap distance of 0.6 mm and a gap volume of 35.3 mm³ (Fig. 1). The implants were implanted, bilaterally, at the epiphyseal-metaphyseal junction of the distal part of the femur. The location enabled the assessment of gap filling and bone ingrowth in cancellous bone.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 1: Schematic diagram of the gap model. The gap between the cylindrical porous tantalum (Ta) implant and the adjacent cancellous bone was created by inserting cement caps on both ends of the implant. The gap distance was 0.6 mm.

Eighteen New Zealand White adult female rabbits weighing 3.5 to 5.0 kg were randomly divided into three groups: six were treated with uncoated tantalum implants; six, with calcium phosphate-coated tantalum implants; and six, with tantalum implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate. The surgical procedure was performed in an animal operating room with the rabbits under general anesthesia and with use of standard sterile techniques. A 3-cm incision was made on the lateral aspect of the distal part of the femur, and the vastus lateralis was split along its fibers to expose the underlying bone. One 4.37-mm drill hole was made perpendicular to the distal femoral condyle bilaterally through sequential drilling (1.95, 3.18, and 4.37 mm) under saline solution irrigation, and the depth was confirmed with a depth gauge. The porous implant with the polymethylmethacrylate bone-cement caps was gently inserted into the hole. The wound was irrigated and was closed in a uniform manner. Two implants of the same type were implanted in each rabbit, to avoid the confounding influence of the presence or absence of different implant coatings. The anesthesia, operative procedures, and animal care were performed in compliance with university and federal guidelines. The study was approved by our ethical committee. All of the distal parts of the femora were harvested four weeks after the surgery.

Histomorphometry

The harvested femora were fixed, dehydrated, and embedded in epoxy resin (Spurr; Canemco, Canton de Gore, Quebec, Canada) with use of a standard histological procedure¹⁵. Each embedded sample was cut longitudinally, ground, and polished into three sections, 200, 850, and 1500 µm deep from the tangent surface of the implant. Thirty-six histological sections were obtained from each of the three implant groups. The polished samples were sputtered with gold-palladium alloy and then studied with a scanning electron microscope (model S3000N; Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) operated under the backscattered electron mode. The backscattered electron microscopy generated different gray scales for tantalum, bone, and epoxy.

Histomorphometric analyses of the backscattered electron micrographs were performed with use of image analysis software (Clemex Vision PE 3.5; Clemex Technologies, Longueuil, Quebec, Canada). Gray-level discrimination was used to identify epoxy, new bone formation, and the tantalum implant. The backscattered electron micrographs of the three sections generated quantitative information regarding total gap volume, total volume available for bone ingrowth, and total volume available for new bone formation. The volume of bone-gap filling (new bone formation in the gap region between the tantalum implant and host bone), bone ingrowth into the porous tantalum (bone formation within the pores of the tantalum implants), and total bone formation (the sum of the two) were measured. The total available length of the tantalum implant and the length of the contact between the new bone and the implant were also measured on the three longitudinal sections.

Fluorescent Labeling

The bone-formation front was labeled with fluorescence markers to track the pattern of new bone formation with time. Solutions of two commonly used calcium-seeking fluorescence markers¹⁶, alizarin complexone (absorption, 530 to 560 nm; emission, 624 to 645 nm; concentration, 30 mg/mL) and calcein (absorption, 494 nm; emission, 517 nm; concentration, 10 mg/mL), were prepared by dissolving the chemicals (Sigma, St. Louis, Missouri) in 1.4 wt% isotonic sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃) solutions. The pH of the solutions was adjusted to 7.4 by adding hydrochloric acid. Within a Type-IIA biosafety cabinet, these solutions were filtration sterilized with 0.2-µm pore-size filters (Millex-GS; Millipore, Carrigtwohill, County Cork, Ireland) and placed in 10-mL sealed syringes. The fluorescent markers were injected subcutaneously at one week (calcein, 10 mg/kg), two weeks (calcein, 10 mg/kg), three weeks (alizarin complexone, 30 mg/kg), and four weeks (one day before the animal was killed) (alizarin complexone, 30 mg/kg) after the surgery. The labeling permitted qualitative information on the location, direction, rate, and mechanism of bone formation.

A fluorescent microscope (Eclipse E600; Nikon, Melville, New York) with a fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) and tetramethylrhodamine isothiocyanate (TRITC) dual exciter and dual emitter filter block (excitation, 475 to 495 nm and 540 to 575 nm; emission, 500 to 535 nm and 580 to 620 nm) was used to study the fluorescence labels and the new bone formation. The fluorescent microscopy was performed before sputtering of gold-palladium alloy for scanning electron microscopy. Under the fluorescent microscope, the bone-formation fronts in the first two weeks were marked by two green calcein labels, and the red alizarin complexone lines marked bone formation in the third and fourth weeks.

Statistical Analyses

The results for the two implants in the same animal were averaged. The averaged results were tested for normality with use of a Shapiro-Wilk test performed with SPSS software (version 14.0; Chicago, Illinois) with the criteria of skewness/standard error <2, kurtosis/standard error <2, and p > 0.05. All results passed the normality test. Then, the results were analyzed with analysis of variance and the Tukey post hoc test performed with SPSS software (version 14.0). A p value of <0.05 was considered to be significant.

Results

Introduction | Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

The histomorphometric results are summarized in Table I. Gap filling and bone ingrowth were seen to the greatest extent in association with the implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate (Fig. 2). Compared with the group treated with the uncoated implants, the group treated with the calcium phosphate-coated implants had a relative increase of 32% (p = 0.389) in the volume of gap filling, 50% (p = 0.327) in bone ingrowth, and 39% (p = 0.324) in total new bone formation. These increases were not significant, with the number of samples available. However, there were significant differences between the group treated with the implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate and the other two groups (Fig. 3). Compared with the group treated with the uncoated implants, the group treated with the implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate had a relative increase of 143% (p < 0.001) in the volume of gap filling, 259% (p < 0.001) in bone ingrowth, and 193% (p < 0.001) in total bone formation. Compared with the group treated with the calcium phosphate-coated implants, the group treated with the implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate had a relative increase of 84% in the volume of gap filling (p < 0.001), 140% (p < 0.001) in bone ingrowth, and 111% (p < 0.001) in total new bone formation.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 2: Backscattered electron micrographs showing gap filling and bone ingrowth associated with a porous tantalum (Ta) implant coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate (a) and an uncoated porous tantalum implant (b).

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 3: The mean values (and standard deviation) for the volume of gap filling, bone ingrowth, and total bone formation. The single and double asterisks indicate that the group treated with the porous tantalum implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate (Ta-CaP-ALN) had significantly more gap filling, bone ingrowth, and total bone formation than the group treated with the uncoated porous tantalum implants (Ta) and the group treated with the calcium phosphate-coated implants (Ta-CaP) (p < 0.001 for all six comparisons). No significant differences were found between the calcium phosphate-coated implants and the uncoated implants with regard to the volume of gap filling (p = 0.389), bone ingrowth (p = 0.327), or total bone formation (p = 0.324).

View Larger

TABLE I Histomorphometric Results*

	Bone Ingrowth (%)	Gap Filling (%)	Total Bone Formation (%)	Length of Implant in Contact with New Bone†(%)
Implant				Section 1	Section 2	Section 3
Uncoated	5.6 ± 2.6	12.1 ± 4.6	8.9 ± 3.4	8.0 ± 2.6	3.6 ± 1.3	4.2 ± 1.3
Calcium phosphate-coated	8.3 ± 2.9	15.8 ± 2.6	12.4 ± 2.9	13.2 ± 3.2	8.1 ± 2.6	9.0 ± 0.8
Coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate	19.9 ± 4.0	29.1 ± 6.6	26.2 ± 5.3	52.3 ± 13.5	39.4 ± 12.8	40.0 ± 17.0

The values are given as the mean and standard deviation. There were six rabbits in each implant group.Section 1 was 200 mm deep from the tangent surface of the implant, section 2 was 850 mm deep from the surface, and section 3 was at the center of the implant.

Add to My JBJS

TABLE I Histomorphometric Results*

	Bone Ingrowth (%)	Gap Filling (%)	Total Bone Formation (%)	Length of Implant in Contact with New Bone†(%)
Implant				Section 1	Section 2	Section 3
Uncoated	5.6 ± 2.6	12.1 ± 4.6	8.9 ± 3.4	8.0 ± 2.6	3.6 ± 1.3	4.2 ± 1.3
Calcium phosphate-coated	8.3 ± 2.9	15.8 ± 2.6	12.4 ± 2.9	13.2 ± 3.2	8.1 ± 2.6	9.0 ± 0.8
Coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate	19.9 ± 4.0	29.1 ± 6.6	26.2 ± 5.3	52.3 ± 13.5	39.4 ± 12.8	40.0 ± 17.0

Compared with the group treated with the uncoated implants, the group treated with the calcium phosphate-coated implants had a relative increase in the percentage of the length of the implant that was in contact with new bone (Table I, Fig. 4) of 66% (p = 0.516) in section 1, 127% (p = 0.563) in section 2, and 114% (p = 0.678) in section 3. These increases were not significant, with the number of samples available. However, there were significant differences between the group treated with the implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate and the other two groups. Compared with the group treated with the uncoated implants, the group treated with the implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate had a relative increase of 557% (p < 0.001) in section 1, 1005% (p < 0.001) in section 2, and 849% (p < 0.001) in section 3 (an average of 804% for the three sections). Compared with the group treated with the calcium phosphate-coated implants, the group treated with the implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate had a relative increase of 295% (p < 0.001) in section 1, 386% (p < 0.001) in section 2, and 343% (p < 0.001) in section 3.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 4: The mean percentage (and standard deviation) of the length of the implant in contact with new bone in the three sections. The single and double asterisks indicate that the group treated with the porous tantalum implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate (Ta-CaP-ALN) had a significantly greater contact length than the uncoated porous tantalum implants (Ta) (p < 0.001 for all three sections) and than the group treated with the calcium phosphate-coated implants (Ta-CaP) (p < 0.001 for all three sections). No significant differences were found between the calcium phosphate-coated implants and the uncoated implants with regard to contact length (p = 0.516 for section 1, p = 0.563 for section 2, and p = 0.678 for section 3).

The fluorescent labeling and the subsequent histomorphometric analyses indicated very different locations and patterns of bone ingrowth among the three groups. In the group treated with the uncoated implants, there was bone growth into the tantalum pores with little attachment to the surface of the tantalum itself. Early bone formation occurred in the center of the pores and expanded outward into the tantalum itself, as tracked by the fluorescent labels (Fig. 5-A). In contrast, in the group treated with the implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate, early bone ingrowth occurred predominantly on the surface of the tantalum (Fig. 5-B), followed by bone expansion toward the porous space. The group treated with the calcium phosphate-coated implants showed a pattern of bone formation that was similar to that in the group treated with the uncoated implants.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 5-A: Figs. 5-A and 5-B Representative patterns of new bone formation. Fig. 5-A On the uncoated porous tantalum (Ta) implant, bone growth into the tantalum pores occurred initially with minimal attachment to the surface of the tantalum strut (labeled with calcein) and then expanded toward the tantalum strut (labeled with alizarin).

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 5-B: On the porous tantalum (Ta) implant coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate, bone formation initially anchored on the surface of the tantalum strut (labeled with calcein) and grew inward toward the porous space (labeled with alizarin).

Discussion

Introduction | Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

Biological fixation of porous-coated implants occurs by micro-interlock with ingrown tissue¹⁷. Autopsy studies have demonstrated that bone ingrowth occurs in only 30% to 40% of the surface area of uncemented acetabular implants used in primary total hip arthroplasty^18,19. Although that is satisfactory for biological fixation of primary joint replacements, in revision arthroplasty, bone loss may reduce the host interface available to achieve bone ingrowth and implant fixation. Host-bone deficiencies compromise the surgeon's ability to achieve initial and secondary stability of implants used for cementless acetabular reconstruction. In many complex acetabular revisions, <50% of the host bone is available for bone growth into the newly implanted cementless acetabular component. Improved implant material that would enhance secondary biological bone ingrowth and fixation when the implant contact is suboptimal would be desirable.

Gaps and defects that occur between the surface of the implant and the host bone in an acetabular reconstruction are usually filled with bone graft or a bone-graft substitute. In the present study, porous tantalum implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate were compared with controls in a rabbit model incorporating a gap between the porous tantalum and the bone. The gap model was produced by placing caps on both ends of the porous tantalum implant, drilling with progressively larger reamers, and transcortical implantation of the device. One limitation of this model is the relatively small gap distance. In a clinical study, Macheras et al.²⁰ found that most gaps between porous tantalum acetabular cups and the adjacent bone were 1 to 5 mm immediately after the implantation. In several studies, peri-implant gaps of 0.75 to 5 mm were evaluated in canine models^21-24. We chose a gap size of 0.6 mm on the basis of a pilot study on bone growth into porous tantalum. In that study, we compared two gap sizes, 0.6 and 1.5 mm, and found measurable gap filling and ingrowth in the 0.6-mm gap but undetectable gap filling in the 1.5-mm gap at four weeks postimplantation. Therefore, we believed that a gap size of 0.6 mm would enable us to study the effects of the local delivery of alendronate on total bone formation and on the pattern and location of new bone formation. In addition, a 0.6-mm gap was chosen because the size of the rabbit femur limited the size of the implant and therefore the gap distance that was possible. An implant with a larger diameter may have caused a higher risk of bone fracture and damage to the cartilage at the knee joint. Although a gap size of 0.6 mm is smaller than many gaps in reports in the literature, it is still within the range of clinical observations²⁰. The dramatic improvement observed in this study warrants future studies with the use of wider gaps.

Correlation analyses (least-square-root linear regression) (Fig. 6, a) showed that the increases in ingrowth were clearly correlated with the increases in gap filling in the three implant groups. The slopes of the regression lines were similar, and the regression lines seemed to be relatively close. The correlation results suggested that the coating with calcium phosphate and alendronate increased both the ingrowth and the gap filling by a common mechanism and further supported the statistical conclusions. The percentage of the length of the implant that was in contact with new bone in the group treated with the calcium phosphate and alendronate coating was also significantly increased compared with the value in the control group. However, the correlations between the average bone-implant contact length and total bone formation showed different trends in the different groups. The slopes were relatively flat in the groups treated with the uncoated implants and the calcium phosphate-coated implants (Fig. 6, b), whereas the slope was much steeper in the group treated with the calcium phosphate and alendronate coating. The difference suggested that the new bone tended to "spread" on the surface of the implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate. Therefore, the histomorphometric and correlation analyses both indicated enhanced bioactivity of the porous implant surface in the presence of the alendronate coating.

View Large | Download Slide(.ppt)
Add to My JBJS

Fig. 6: Scatterplots showing correlations between outcomes in the group treated with the uncoated implants (Ta), the group treated with the calcium phosphate-coated implants (Ta-CaP), and the group treated with the implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate (Ta-CaP-ALN). a: Correlation between bone ingrowth and gap filling. Regression lines: y = 6.67 + 0.963x for uncoated implants (r² = 0.30), y = 9.59 + 0.75x for calcium phosphate-coated implants (r² = 0.71), and y = 1.3 + 1.4x for implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate (r² = 0.71). b: Correlation between total bone formation and the average percentage of the length of the implant in contact with new bone in the three sections. Regression lines: y = 3.17 + 0.232x for uncoated implants (r² = 0.41), y = 11.8 - 0.138x for calcium phosphate-coated implants (r² = 0.07), and y = -5.7 + 1.9x for implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate (r² = 0.62).

The increases in gap filling and bone ingrowth in the group treated with the implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate may have been due to alterations in the bone remodeling. Under normal conditions, bone undergoes continuous and balanced osteoclastic resorption and osteoblastic formation. Two previous studies of long-bone healing in rats²⁵ and sheep²⁶ showed that osteoclastic activities began as early as two weeks after injury, indicating that the new bone tissue (i.e., callus) underwent resorption and remodeling in the early phase of bone-healing. Therefore, it may be reasonable to suggest that, in the present study, the locally delivered alendronate disrupted the osteoclastic activity and caused a net gain of osteoblastic activity, thus producing a larger volume of bone tissue compared with that in the control groups. However, since very limited amounts of new bone formed in the groups treated with the uncoated implants and the calcium phosphate-coated implants, the reduced bone resorption of the new osseous tissue might not be the only mechanism by which alendronate increases gap filling and bone ingrowth. Recent in vitro cell-culture studies showed that aminobisphosphonates also enhanced proliferation and bone-forming activities of osteoblasts, suggesting a direct anabolic effect of bisphosphonates^27-29. In addition, Kubota et al. reported that osteoclasts inhibited differentiation and osteoblastogenesis of osteoblast precursor-like cells, suggesting an indirect anabolic effect³⁰. The relative roles of the anticatabolic and potential anabolic effects in the present study were unknown and need to be differentiated in future studies.

We also examined the effects of locally delivered alendronate on the location and pattern of bone formation with use of subcutaneous fluorescent labeling and histomorphometric analysis. Alendronate strongly modulated the pattern and site of bone formation compared with those in the group treated with the uncoated porous tantalum. These findings were consistent with the increased length of contact between the new bone and the implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate and with the results of the correlation analyses (Fig. 6, b) and therefore confirmed the enhanced bioactivity of the surface of the implants with the calcium phosphate-alendronate coating. Additional studies are required to assess the mechanical properties of the bone-implant interface and changes to bone mineral density associated with implants coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate.

In this study, alendronate was immobilized onto the calcium phosphate coating surface by chemical adsorption in 10^-4-M alendronate solution for seven days. The alendronate concentration was chosen on the basis of rationale that alendronate exhibited toxicity for human osteoblasts³¹ in vitro when the concentration was above 10^-4 M. According to the simple principle of chemical adsorption, we assumed that alendronate eluted in vitro by desorption would not exceed the 10^-4-M level and would be safe for osteoblasts. The adsorption period of seven days was first used by Meraw and Reeve³² and was adopted in the present study without changes. Our study demonstrated the effect of the immobilization protocol, but its development involves simplification, and finding the optimal protocol remains the objective of future studies.

The results of this study are consistent with those in recent reports in the literature. The effect of a third-generation bisphosphonate, zoledronic acid, on bone growth into porous tantalum implants was examined in a canine model³³. Zoledronic acid in saline solution was administered in a single postoperative intravenous injection at a dose of 0.1 mg/kg. At six weeks postoperatively, the mean relative increase in bone ingrowth was 85% compared with the bone ingrowth in controls. Subsequently, an investigation performed by the same group, in which zoledronic acid was bound to hydroxyapatite-coated porous tantalum, demonstrated an increase in peri-implant bone within the medullary canal (32.2% compared with 13.8% in controls, a relative difference of 134%) and in intra-implant bone formation (19.8% compared with 12.5%, a relative difference of 58%)⁹. We report new findings of bone formation in the presence of a gap and a greater relative increase in bone ingrowth compared with that in the previous, comparable study (259% compared with 134%)⁹. The differences in our findings may be related to several factors, including differences in the animal model, type of bisphosphonate used, duration of implantation, location of implantation, and design of the implants.

Other methods of augmenting the rate and extent of bone growth into porous implants have been described in the literature; these include the use of bone-like carbonated apatite coating³⁴, bone matrix gel³⁵, noninvasive low-intensity ultrasound³⁶, and bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs)^21-24,37. BMPs effectively enhanced bone ingrowth in bone defects by stimulating the differentiation of skeletal progenitor cells toward osteoblasts³⁸. Barrack et al. showed that when bone defects as large as 8 mm in diameter and 5 mm in depth, created in canine acetabula, were filled with BMP, they healed with a bone density equivalent to that in intact control hips in which an acetabular component had been implanted but no defect had been created²⁴. However, recombinant BMPs are expensive, and special formulations must be developed to control the release kinetics³⁹. The advantage of bisphosphonates over BMPs is their relatively low cost and their intrinsic affinity toward calcium, which ensures their slow release. Other advantages of bisphosphonates are their documented clinical record, which includes reduction of bone resorption secondary to stress shielding⁴⁰ and wear particle-induced osteolysis⁴¹.

Improvements in the design and biomaterial properties of any implant used as a drug-delivery system can be made only with an understanding of the principles underlying the mechanism of action of the system. Understanding the mechanism by which porous tantalum coated with calcium phosphate and alendronate enhances bone ingrowth and osteoconductivity provides further insight into the underlying action of this drug-delivery system. The enhanced bone ingrowth and gap filling and increased osteoconductivity provided by this coating could have substantial advantages in complex revision joint arthroplasties associated with host bone defects by providing early and better biological fixation. Image Not Available

References

Introduction | Materials and Methods | Results | Discussion | References

Della Valle CJ, Shuaipaj T, Berger RA, Rosenberg AG, Shott S, Jacobs JJ, Galante JO. Revision of the acetabular component without cement after total hip arthroplasty. A concise follow-up, at fifteen to nineteen years, of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2005;87:1795-800.871795 2005 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Rosenberg AG. Cementless acetabular components: the gold standard for socket revision. J Arthroplasty.2003;18(3 Suppl 1):118-20.18118 2003 [CrossRef]

Bobyn JD, Stackpool GJ, Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Krygier JJ. Characteristics of bone ingrowth and interface mechanics of a new porous tantalum biomaterial. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1999;81:907-914.81907 1999 [CrossRef]

Cohen R. A porous tantalum trabecular metal: basic science. Am J Orthop.2002;31:216-7.31216 2002

Duncan CP, Masri BA. Antibiotic depots. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1993;75:349-50.75349 1993

Meraw SJ, Reeve CM. Qualitative analysis of peripheral peri-implant bone and influence of alendronate sodium on early bone regeneration. J Peridontol.1999;70:1228-33.701228 1999 [CrossRef]

Tengvall P, Skoglund B, Askendal A, Aspenberg P. Surface immobilized bisphosphonate improves stainless-steel screw fixation in rats. Biomaterials.2004;25:2133-8.252133 2004 [CrossRef]

Yoshinari M, Oda Y, Inoue T, Matsuzaka K, Shimono M. Bone response to calcium phosphate-coated and bisphosphonate immobilized titanium implants. Biomaterials.2002;23:2879-85.232879 2002 [CrossRef]

Tanzer M, Karabasz D, Krygier JJ, Cohen R, Bobyn JD. Bone augmentation around and within porous tantalum implants by local bisphosphonate elution. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2005;441:30-9.44130 2005 [CrossRef]

Li EC, Davis LE. Zoledronic acid: a new parenteral bisphosphonate. Clin Ther.2003;25:2669-708.252669 2003 [CrossRef]

Fleisch H. Bisphosphonates in bone disease: from the laboratory to the patient. 4th ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2000. 2000

Duan K, Fan YW, Wang R. Electrochemical deposition and patterning of calcium phosphate bioceramic coating. Ceramic Trans.2003;147:53-61.14753 2003

Hu Y. Master of Science thesis, University of British Columbia, 2007. 2007

Fleisch G, Hauffe SA. Determination of the bisphosphonate pamidronate disodium in urine by pre-column derivatization with fluorescamine, high- performance liquid chromatography and fluorescence detection. J Chromatogr.1989;489:446-51.489446 1989 [CrossRef]

Bauer TW, Mahovlic D. Cutting and grinding methods for hard-tissue histology. In: An YH, Martin KL, editors. Handbook of histology methods for bone and cartilage. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2003. p 233-42. 2003

Erben RG. Bone-labeling techniques. In: An YH, Martin KL, editors. Handbook of histology methods for bone and cartilage. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2003. p 99-117. 2003

Bobyn JD, Tanzer M, Miller JE. Fundamental principles of biologic fixation. In: Morrey BF, editor. Reconstructive surgery of the joints. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1996. p 75-94. 1996

Pidhorz LE, Urban RM, Jacobs JJ, Sumner DR, Galante JO. A quantitative study of bone and soft tissues in cementless porous-coated acetabular components retrieved at autopsy. J Arthroplasty.1993;8:213-25.8213 1993 [CrossRef]

Sumner DR, Jasty M, Jacobs JJ, Urban RM, Braqdon CR, Harris WH, Galante JO. Histology of porous-coated acetabular components. 25 cementless cups retrieved after arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand.1993;64:619-26.64619 1993 [CrossRef]

Macheras GA, Papagelopoulos PJ, Kateros K, Kostakos AT, Baltas D, Karachalios TS. Radiological evaluation of the metal-bone interface of a porous tantalum monoblock acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2006;88:304-9.88304 2006 [CrossRef]

Søballe K, Jensen TB, Mouzin O, Kidder L, Bechtold JE. Differential effect of a bone morphogenetic protein-7 (OP-1) on primary and revision loaded, stable implants with allograft. J Biomed Mater Res A.2004;71:569-76.71569 2004

Bragdon CR, Doherty AM, Rubash HE, Jasty M, Li XJ, Seeherman H, Harris WH. The efficacy of BMP-2 to induce bone ingrowth in a total hip replacement model. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2003;417:50-61.41750 2003

Sumner DR, Turner TM, Urban RM, Turek T, Seeherman H, Wozney JM. Locally delivered rhBMP-2 enhances bone ingrowth and gap healing in a canine model. J Orthop Res.2004;22:58-65.2258 2004 [CrossRef]

Barrack RL, Cook SD, Patrón LP, Salkeld SL, Szuszczewicz E, Whitecloud TS 3rd. Induction of bone ingrowth from acetabular defects to a porous surface with OP-1. Clin Orthop Relat Res.2003;417:41-9.41741 2003

Aro HT, Wippermann BW, Hodgson SF, Chao EY. Internal remodeling of periosteal new bone during fracture healing. J Orthop Res.1990;8:238-46.8238 1990 [CrossRef]

Schell H, Lienau J, Epari DR, Seebeck P, Exner C, Muchow S, Bragulla H, Haas NP, Duda GN. Osteoclastic activity begins early and increases over the course of bone healing. Bone.2006;38:547-54.38547 2006 [CrossRef]

Im GI, Qureshi SA, Kenney J, Rubash HE, Shanbhag AS. Osteoblast proliferation and maturation by bisphosphonates. Biomaterials.2004;25:4105-15.254105 2004 [CrossRef]

von Knoch F, Jaquiery C, Kowalsky M, Schaeren S, Alabre C, Martin I, Rubash HE, Shanbhag AS. Effects of bisphosphonates on proliferation and osteoblast differentiation of human bone marrow stromal cells. Biomaterials.2005;26:6941-9.266941 2005 [CrossRef]

von Knoch F, Eckhardt C, Alabre CI, Schneider E, Rubash HE, Shanbhag AS. Anabolic effects of bisphosphonates on peri-implant bone stock. Biomaterials.2007;28:3549-59.283549 2007 [CrossRef]

Kubota K, Sakikawa C, Katsumata M, Nakamura T, Wakabayashi K. Platelet-derived growth factor BB secreted from osteoclasts acts as an osteoblastogenesis inhibitory factor. J Bone Miner Res.2002;17:257-65.17257 2002 [CrossRef]

Garcia-Moreno C, Serrano S, Nacher M, Farre M, Diez A, Marinoso ML, Carbonell J, Mellibovsky L, Nogues X, Ballester J, Aubia J. Effect of alendronate on cultured normal human osteoblasts. Bone.1998;22:233-9.22233 1998 [CrossRef]

Meraw SJ, Reeve CM. Qualitative analysis of peripheral peri-implant bone and influence of alendronate sodium on early bone regeneration. J Periodontol.1999;70:1228-33.701228 1999 [CrossRef]

Bobyn JD, Hacking SA, Krygier JJ, Harvey EJ, Little DG, Tanzer M. Zoledronic acid causes enhancement of bone growth into porous implants. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2005;87:416-20.87416 2005 [CrossRef]

Barrere F, van der Valk CM, Meijer G, Dalmeijer RA, de Groot K, Layrolle P. Osteointegration of biomimetic apatite coating applied onto dense and porous metal implants in femurs of goats. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater.2003;67:655-65.67655 2003

Cook SD, Salkeld SL, Patron LP, Barrack RL. The effect of demineralized bone matrix gel on bone ingrowth and fixation of porous implants. J Arthroplasty.2002;17:402-8.17402 2002 [CrossRef]

Tanzer M, Kantor S, Bobyn JD. Enhancement of bone growth into porous intramedullary implants using non-invasive low intensity ultrasound. J Orthop Res.2001;19:195-9.19195 2001 [CrossRef]

McGee MA, Findlay DM, Howie DW, Carbone A, Ward P, Stamenkov R, Page TT, Bruce WJ, Wildenauer CI, Toth C. The use of OP-1 in femoral impaction grafting in a sheep model. J Orthop Res.2004;22:1008-15.221008 2004 [CrossRef]

Rosen V, Wozney JM. Bone morphogenetic proteins. In: Bilezikian JP, Raisz LG, Rodan GA, editors. Principles of bone biology. 2nd ed. Vol 2. San Diego: Academic Press; 2002. p 919-28. 2002

Kirker-Head CA. Potential applications and delivery strategies for bone morphogenetic proteins. Adv Drug Deliv Rev.2000;43:65-92.4365 2000 [CrossRef]

Wilkinson JM, Stockley I, Peel NF, Hamer AJ, Elson RA, Barrington NA, Eastell R. Effect of pamidronate in preventing local bone loss after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res.2001;16:556-64.16556 2001 [CrossRef]

Shanbhag AS, Hasselman CT, Rubash HE. Inhibition of wear debris mediated osteolysis in a canine total hip arthroplasty model. Clin Orthop Relat Res.1997;344:33-43.34433 1997

Topics

alendronate ; calcium ; calcium phosphates ; osteogenesis ; phosphates ; tantalum

Username

Password

Access for Patients

Forgot Password?

Have a subscription to the print edition?

Not a Subscriber?

Buy this Article

Get online access for 30 days for $35

New to JBJS?

Subscribe to the online edition for 30 days for $75

Register for a FREE limited account to get full access to all CME activities, to comment on public articles, or to sign up for alerts.

Have a subscription to the print edition?

Current subscribers to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery in either the print or quarterly DVD formats receive free online access to JBJS.org.

Activate your online account now

Forgot your password?

Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.

Username:*

Email Address:*

Forgot your username or need assistance? Please contact customer service at subs@jbjs.org. If your access is provided
by your institution, please contact you librarian or administrator for username and password information. Institutional
administrators, to reset your institution's master username or password, please contact subs@jbjs.org

References

Accreditation Statement

These activities have been planned and implemented in accordance with the Essential Areas and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint sponsorship of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

CME Activities Associated with This Article

Submit a Comment

Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discretion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field

Comment Author(s) * (if multiple authors, separate names by comma)

Example: John Doe

Affiliation & Institution*

Comment Title*

Comment*

Cancel

Print
PDF
Email

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link (good for 5 days) to 'Enhanced Gap Filling and Osteoconduction Associated with Alendronate-Calcium Phosphate-Coated Porous Tantalum'.
Your Name:*
Example: John Doe

Email Address:* CC Me:
Enter your valid email address. Example: jdoe@example.com

Recipient's Email Address:*

Separate multiple email address with semi-colons (up to 5).

Subject:* 's The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery: 'Enhanced Gap Filling and Osteoconduction Associated with Alendronate-Calcium Phosphate-Coated Porous Tantalum'
Subject for your email.

Message:

(Optional, message will truncate at 1000 characters)

Processing your request... Please Wait...

Copyright © in the material you requested is held by The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Inc. (unless otherwise noted). This email ability is provided as a courtesy, and by using it you agree that that you are requesting the material solely for personal, non-commercial use, and that it is subject to Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Inc.'s Terms of Use. The information provided in order to email this topic will not be used to send unsolicited email, nor will it be furnished to third parties. Please refer to The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Inc.'s Privacy Policy for further information.

Copyright © The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery Inc. All rights reserved.
Share
Get Citation

Donald S. Garbuz, Youxin Hu, Winston Y. Kim, Ke Duan, Bassam A. Masri, Thomas R. Oxland, Helen Burt, Rizhi Wang, Clive P. Duncan; Enhanced Gap Filling and Osteoconduction Associated with Alendronate-Calcium Phosphate-Coated Porous Tantalum. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 2008 May;90(5):1090-1100.

Download citation file:

RIS (Zotero)

EndNote

BibTex

Medlars

ProCite

RefWorks

Reference Manager

Copyright © The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Rights & Permissions
Article Alerts

Processing your request... Please Wait.
Submit a Comment