The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery

The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, Volume 86, Issue 11

Current Concepts Review | November 01, 2004

Hydroxyapatite-Coated Prostheses in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

John Dumbleton, PhD, DSc¹; Michael T. Manley, PhD²

¹ Consultancy in Medical Devices and Biomaterials, 512 East Saddle River Road, Ridgewood, NJ 07450. E-mail address: boffin@worldnet.att.net
² 12A Chestnut Street, Ridgewood, NJ 07450. E-mail address: mtmanley@mindspring.com

View Disclosures and Other Information

In support of their research or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received grants or outside funding from Stryker Orthopaedics. In addition, one or more of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity (Stryker Orthopaedics). No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2004 Nov 01;86(11):2526-2540

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

Article

Comments (0)

text A A A

Abstract

Hydroxyapatite-coated implants have demonstrated extensive bone apposition in animal models. The osseous interface develops even in the presence of gaps of 1 mm and relative motion of up to 500 µm.

Development of implant-bone interfacial strength is due to the biological effects of released calcium and phosphate ions, although surface roughness leads to increased interface strength in the absence of interface gaps.

The clinical results at fifteen years after total hip replacements have demonstrated that hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems perform as well as, and possibly better than, other types of cementless devices, with the added benefit of providing a seal against wear debris.

Hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular components must have a mechanical interlock with bone in order to take advantage of the coating effects. Clinical analyses of these types of designs at seven years have indicated good survivorship.

The performance of a hydroxyapatite-coated implant depends on coating properties (thickness, porosity, hydroxyapatite content, and crystallinity), implant roughness, and overall design. The most reliable predictor of the performance of a device is success in long-term clinical studies.

Figures in this Article

Hydroxyapatite coatings for cementless fixation of total hip prostheses were introduced in 1985 by Furlong and Osborn¹ and in 1986 by Geesink². In 1996, Jaffe and Scott³ presented a Current Concepts Review of hydroxyapatite-coated hip prostheses in this journal. They concluded that, with the possible exception of smooth ("macrotextured") hemispherical acetabular shells, hydroxyapatite-coated components had proved to be equal to, and in many instances better than, non-hydroxyapatite-coated components with regard to implant fixation. Preclinical and clinical studies showed that hydroxyapatite-coated implants permitted a less intimate initial fit to bone than did other cementless devices. Despite some evidence of coating resorption in vivo, there were no indications that the coating resorption affected the long-term clinical outcome. The authors stated that a coating thickness of 50 to 75 µm was preferable, but they also reported good clinical results with coatings up to 200 µm in thickness. Their analysis was based on clinical follow-up of eight years for stems and about six years for acetabular cups.

Since the 1996 review³, more information on hydroxyapatite-coated devices has appeared in the literature. The durations of follow-up in clinical series now approach fifteen years. The results associated with acetabular components of many different designs have been reported separately from the results associated with their stems, allowing a refinement of the original statements regarding hydroxyapatite fixation in the acetabulum. In addition, analyses of specimens retrieved at autopsy have provided information on the nature of the tissue-hydroxyapatite coating interface and on the fate of the coating over time. Total hip prostheses coated with mixtures of hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate have been introduced. Solution-deposited coatings, briefly mentioned in the original review³, are now used clinically with porous ingrowth surfaces. Reports of hydroxyapatite and hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coatings on cementless knee components are also available^4-14. Laboratory and animal studies of hydroxyapatite coatings have become more refined. For example, the relative roles of coating chemistry and surface roughness in determining the fixation strength at the implant-bone interface are better understood now than they were in 1996.

These developments merit new review of hydroxyapatite coatings. The organization of this report is similar to that of the earlier review³ to aid in comparison of the two documents. We will refer specifically to the earlier article only when there is a need to do so for clarity and continuity.

Basic Science and Preclinical Studies

Hydroxyapatite (Ca₁₀[PO₄]₆[OH]₂), tetracalcium phosphate, and tricalcium phosphate (Ca₃[PO₄]₂) are examples of the various calcium phosphate compositions. Tricalcium phosphate exists in small quantities (<5%) in most so-called hydroxyapatite coatings and in larger amounts (>40%) in mixed hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coatings. Hydroxyapatite and hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coatings are commonly applied with the plasma-spray process, in which heated calcium phosphate particles are projected at high velocity in a gas stream onto the prosthesis to build up the coating^15,16. Some commercially available implants have solution-deposited coatings, in which the coating is nucleated and grown on the prosthesis in solution^17,18. It was shown that, for consistent performance, a hydroxyapatite coating should have low porosity, high cohesive strength, good adhesion to the substrate, moderate-to-high crystallinity, and high chemical and phase stability¹⁹. In scientific comparisons of different coating properties in vitro or in vivo, erroneous conclusions may be drawn if coating parameters are not fully defined²⁰. For example, a comparison of the dissolution behavior of so-called hydroxyapatite coatings from six commercial sources indicated that the coatings behaved very differently when placed in the same local environment even though all were labeled as "hydroxyapatite" coatings²¹.

Published reports of properties of commercially available calcium phosphate coatings are summarized in Table I. One manufacturer uses a hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate mixture as the coating material on its ingrowth implants. The hydroxyapatite coatings have a high crystallinity and a high hydroxyapatite content to reduce the possibility of premature dissolution^22,23. The porosity of the coating is also an important determinant of its dissolution rate²⁴. Most contemporary plasma-spray coatings have a thickness of 50 to 75 µm, which seems to provide better strength than do thicker coatings, which have had a tendency toward fatigue fracture when placed under load in the laboratory^25-27. However, there are commercial coatings in the 150 to 200-µm-thickness range that have no apparent clinical problems¹. The substrate material of most hydroxyapatite-coated implants is titanium or titanium alloy, although some knee implants are made of cobalt-chromium alloy. Usually, the substrate surface is roughened to improve the attachment strength of the coating^3,16. The coating attaches to the substrate primarily by means of mechanical interlocking generated by the impact energy between the incoming plasma-spray hydroxyapatite particles and the underlying metal substrate²⁸. Thus, the titanium alloys, which are softer, tend to provide better coating-bond strength than does the cobalt-chromium alloy, which is harder³.

View Larger

TABLE I Characteristics of Hydroxyapatite and Hydroxyapatite-Tricalcium Phosphate Coatings

Manufacturer	Hydroxyapatite Content (%)	Crystallinity (%)	Thickness (µ)	Porosity (%)	Location of Coating
Stryker Orthopaedics (Osteonics)	>90	70	50	Dense	Proximal part of stem
Stryker Orthopaedics (Benoist Girard)	>90	>75	60	<10	Proximal part of stem
Joint Replacement Instrumentation (JRI)			200		Fully coated stem
DePuy, J & J (Landanger)		>50	155 ± 50	<10	Fully coated stem
Biomet		62	55	5	Proximal part of stem
Smith and Nephew			200 ± 50	20	Proximal part of stem
Corin	97	>75	80-120	3-10	Proximal part of stem
Centerpulse (Intermedics)	94	72	55 ± 5	3	Proximal part of stem
Zimmer	70 (and 30% tricalcium phosphate)		80-130		Proximal part of stem

Add to My JBJS

TABLE I Characteristics of Hydroxyapatite and Hydroxyapatite-Tricalcium Phosphate Coatings

Manufacturer	Hydroxyapatite Content (%)	Crystallinity (%)	Thickness (µ)	Porosity (%)	Location of Coating
Stryker Orthopaedics (Osteonics)	>90	70	50	Dense	Proximal part of stem
Stryker Orthopaedics (Benoist Girard)	>90	>75	60	<10	Proximal part of stem
Joint Replacement Instrumentation (JRI)			200		Fully coated stem
DePuy, J & J (Landanger)		>50	155 ± 50	<10	Fully coated stem
Biomet		62	55	5	Proximal part of stem
Smith and Nephew			200 ± 50	20	Proximal part of stem
Corin	97	>75	80-120	3-10	Proximal part of stem
Centerpulse (Intermedics)	94	72	55 ± 5	3	Proximal part of stem
Zimmer	70 (and 30% tricalcium phosphate)		80-130		Proximal part of stem

Hydroxyapatite and hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coatings may be applied to nonporous or porous surfaces (e.g., grit-blasted or fiber-mesh surfaces). Bone formation on an implant with a nonporous surface is termed ongrowth, whereas porous surfaces can have both ongrowth and ingrowth into the pores. Rough titanium plasma-sprayed surfaces are usually classed along with porous surfaces, and the bone attachment is frequently referred to as ingrowth.

Hydroxyapatite coatings are osteoconductive. When hydroxyapatite implants were placed in bone beds with gaps between the coating and bone, bone growth across a gap of up to 1 mm was demonstrated and gap-filling in the presence of micromotion of up to 500 µm in amplitude was shown^29,30. Interface micromotion above this level tended to limit the effectiveness of the coating in promoting bone apposition. When the stability of hydroxyapatite-coated implants was compared with that of uncoated implants, a stronger interface with bone was demonstrated for the coated titanium surfaces^31,32. Hydroxyapatite coatings have been shown to seal the interface between the implant and bone and to prevent ingress of polyethylene particles in the presence of an initial 75-µm gap^33,34. Hydroxyapatite coatings promote bone formation in compromised situations, such as ovariectomized animals³⁵, and in canine revision models^36-38.

Studies of animals have shown that hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coatings accelerate bone apposition and ingrowth into porous devices in the short term but, in the longer term, push-out strength tests did not discriminate clearly between the coated porous implants and uncoated porous controls^39,40. Push-out tests of implants consisting of a hydroxyapatite or hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coating on a titanium-alloy substrate in canine transcortical and intramedullary models did not discriminate between the two types of coatings at twelve and twenty-four weeks, respectively^41,42. However, while the hydroxyapatite coating appeared to be relatively stable, there was considerable dissolution of the hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coating that resulted in particle release from the implants. Comparison of low and moderate-crystallinity coatings in a gap model showed little difference in ingrowth but did show differences in the coating dissolution rate, with the lower-crystallinity coating demonstrating the least stability²².

Bone formation associated with a hydroxyapatite coating is believed to begin with surface dissolution of the hydroxyapatite, which releases calcium and phosphate ions into the space around the implant. Reprecipitation of carbonated apatite then occurs on the coating surface⁴³. The hydroxyapatite binds serum proteins and cellular integrin receptors, allowing osteoblastic cells to bind to the surface^44,45. Bone formation follows at both the bone and the coating surfaces¹⁶. Bone ongrowth develops more rapidly on lower-crystallinity coatings because the initial dissolution and release of calcium ions is faster than those associated with higher-crystallinity coatings^23,44. Surface dissolution is therefore a driving force for bone formation, but the effect of surface roughness on bone apposition has been controversial. It has long been known that rougher surfaces demonstrate stronger interfaces with bone than do smoother surfaces in both humans and animals as long as the interface is bone ongrown^46-48. In a study of dogs, Hacking et al.⁴⁹ compared two types of hydroxyapatite-coated implants with regard to the strengths of their interfaces with bone. One group of implants was "as hydroxyapatite-coated," and the other was hydroxyapatite-coated and then recoated with a very thin titanium film that preserved the topography of the hydroxyapatite coating but prevented biological interaction with the hydroxyapatite coating. The interfacial strength of the recoated implants was about 80% of that achieved when the hydroxyapatite was exposed. The investigators argued that surface roughness was a larger contributor to interface strength than was the presence of the hydroxyapatite coating. It should be remembered, however, that while surface roughness is undoubtedly a factor in determining interfacial strength when an implant is in intimate contact with bone, implants often are surrounded by gaps and micromotion is present after implantation. Under these circumstances, the osteoconductive nature of the hydroxyapatite coating is a key factor in promoting the intimate bone apposition required for the attainment of interface stability.

In summary, preclinical studies continue to show that a hydroxyapatite coating enhances the stability of nonporous implants by promoting early bone ongrowth even in the presence of interfacial gaps or initial interfacial instability. Hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coatings appear to have little long-term effect on ingrowth porous implants, but they do promote earlier pore-filling. For ongrowth surfaces, the chemistry and crystallinity of the hydroxyapatite coating continue to be important because a balance must be achieved between the long-term stability of the coating and the short-term ion release needed to initiate bone ongrowth. The preclinical literature does not indicate directly the optimum combination of coating characteristics that will lead to the best clinical result. Thus, we must turn to various clinical series to evaluate the results of specific hydroxyapatite coatings applied to specific implant designs.

Clinical Experience with Hydroxyapatite-Coated Hip Prostheses

Femoral Components

The durations of implantation of hydroxyapatite-coated total hip components now approach fifteen years. Geesink⁵⁰ reported the results eleven to thirteen years following the use of an Omnifit-HA femoral stem (Osteonics, Allendale, New Jersey), a metaphysis-filling design with a coating on the proximal third of the stem body, together with an Omnifit-HA threaded cup (Osteonics) in 118 hips in ninety-nine patients who were an average of fifty-three years old at the time of implantation. One patient (two hips) was lost to follow-up, and six patients (eight hips) died. At a mean of twelve years postoperatively, the survival rate was 97% (105 of 108) for the stems and 93% (100 of 108) for the cups. Distal femoral osteolysis was not seen. In 70% of the hips, there were signs of bone resorption, presumably due to a reaction to wear debris, but as this was confined to the calcar resection level it was suggested that the debris was not penetrating the fixation interface.

In the United States, experience with the same hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem began in 1988 in a multicenter study, with an investigational device exemption, approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Eighteen surgeons at fifteen sites implanted a total of 436 hydroxyapatite-coated stems between January 1988 and November 1990. They used three different types of hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular implants, including the same threaded cup implanted by Geesink⁵⁰ as well as two smooth cups (Dual Radius-HA and Dual Geometry-HA; Osteonics); the study also included a porous-coated control (Dual Geometry; Osteonics). The average patient age was fifty years at the time of implantation.

Clinical results from different subsets of patients in this series were reported after various periods of follow-up^51-58. For example, a review of the results associated with 316 of these femoral stems (in 282 patients) at a mean of 8.1 years postoperatively revealed that only one stem (0.3%) had been revised because of aseptic loosening⁵¹. Again, there were no reported cases of intramedullary osteolysis. A study of remodeling of bone around 224 of these femoral stems at six years postoperatively showed radiographic evidence of progressive new bone formation (increased cancellous density and cortical hypertrophy) at the level of the middle and distal portions of the femoral stem⁵². The patterns of bone-remodeling suggested effective stress transfer from the stem to the femoral cortex. Again, intramedullary osteolysis was rare (one case), and it was concluded that the fixation provided by the hydroxyapatite coating prevented debris migration along the stem. Two (1%) of the 224 stems had been revised because of aseptic loosening. Later evaluation of the radiographic patterns of bone-remodeling around 314 stems in 274 patients at a minimum of ten years postoperatively suggested that most remodeling occurred in the first five years after the implantation and that it stabilized thereafter⁵³ (Fig. 1). The femoral stems continued to perform well; the rate of mechanical failure (defined as aseptic loosening or radiographic findings of such loosening) was 0.5%, and there was no distal osteolysis. Analysis of only the younger patients (average age, thirty-nine years) in the entire cohort at a minimum of five years⁵⁴ and ten years⁵⁵ showed radiographic findings of bone-remodeling similar to those reported earlier^52,53. The rates of mechanical failure in the young patients were 0% at five years and 0.9% at ten years. Proximal femoral lytic lesions were seen more frequently in younger patients (48%) than in older patients (38%), perhaps because of the greater activity level of the younger patients. Similar results for this particular hydroxyapatite-coated stem and its derivative (Omniflex-HA; Osteonics) were reported in more recent series^59,60 and in the revision setting⁵⁷. The clinical results in these and other cited studies are summarized in the Appendix.

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

Fig. 1: Bone-remodeling associated with a nonporous Omnifit stem with a hydroxyapatite coating on its proximal one-third. An increase in cancellous bone density and cortical hypertrophy was seen at and distal to the coated region at three and six years, suggesting stress transfer to bone at the distal portion of the coating. There were few radiographic changes between six and fifteen years. (Courtesy of J.A. D'Antonio, MD.)

There has been considerable clinical experience in Europe and Australia with the Anatomique Benoist Girard (ABG) hydroxyapatite-coated hip implant (Benoist Girard/Howmedica, Herouville, France), a titanium-alloy anatomic stem with a proximal hydroxyapatite coating applied by vacuum plasma spray onto a titanium plasma-sprayed coating. Results with these stems usually have been reported after use with the hydroxyapatite-coated ABG cup, a titanium implant with a grooved fixation surface, fixation spikes, and holes for screw placement. A clinical study of 100 hips in 100 consecutive patients (average age, sixty-three years) showed no revisions at a minimum of two years (range, twenty-four to forty-five months) postoperatively⁶¹, and a study of thirty-three hips in thirty-two patients with rheumatoid arthritis (average age, fifty-one years) showed no revisions for aseptic loosening and no radiographically unstable stems at five years postoperatively⁶². The International ABG Study Group described the results of 398 consecutive arthroplasties (average patient age, 63.8 years) performed at ten centers in five European countries and followed for five to seven years postoperatively⁶³. Three stem revisions had been done because of malposition, low-grade infection, or thigh pain. No revisions took place after the second postoperative year. Radiographic evidence of bone-remodeling was most apparent during the first three years. No distal osteolysis was observed. In another study, technetium-99m bone scans made for eighty asymptomatic hips with a total hip replacement (in sixty-two patients) and twenty control hips (in ten subjects) showed that uptake in the total hip-replacement group decreased significantly (p < 0.05) from one to three months postoperatively and changed little thereafter⁶⁴. The results of seventy-one ABG hip replacements performed by a single surgeon in sixty-six patients (average age, fifty-five years) showed no loose stems at an average of 4.8 years (range, two to seven years) postoperatively⁶⁵. However, there was one case of endosteal cavitation in Gruen zone 2⁶⁶. (Figure 2 shows the seven sections of the anteroposterior radiograph of the femur delineated by Gruen et al.⁶⁶.) In another study, of 100 consecutive ABG hip replacements in ninety-seven patients (average age, fifty-one years), the survival rate was 100% for the stems and 95% for the cups at an average of six years postoperatively⁶⁷.

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

Fig. 2: The anteroposterior zones of the femur based on the publication by Gruen et al.. In clinical reports of the performance of proximally hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems, zones 1 and 7 often are extended to the distal aspect of the coated region.

The Furlong hip implant (Joint Replacement Instrumentation, London, England), a fully coated stem with a coating thickness of 200 µm, was first implanted in 1985¹. The coating, initially applied with plasma spray in air, was later applied with plasma spray in a vacuum. At a mean of ten years (range, nine to twelve years) after implantation of the first 100 stems together with a cemented all-polyethylene acetabular component in eighty-six patients (age, forty-five to ninety-four years), there had been no stem revisions and no radiolucent lines or granulomas around any stem⁶⁸. Other studies of the same implant demonstrated few or no revisions because of aseptic loosening in younger patients at five to six years postoperatively^69-71 (see Appendix). One report showed that an extensively coated hydroxyapatite stem can have good fixation to bone but may be difficult to remove if revision is necessary⁷².

Published results are available for a variety of other hydroxyapatite-coated stem designs, including the Landos Corail implant (Landanger, Chaumont, France), a straight grit-blasted titanium-alloy stem implanted with a hemispherical grit-blasted titanium cup or a screw-fit cup. The outer surface of these components is entirely covered with a hydroxyapatite coating of 155 µm in thickness, with a 97% hydroxyapatite content, and with a crystallinity of >50% and a porosity of <10%. In a study of 323 hips in 276 patients (average age, forty-eight years), one stem was revised because of mechanical failure at the interface, twelve patients (twelve hips) died, and nineteen patients (nineteen hips) were lost to follow-up⁷³. In a five-year follow-up study of 100 consecutive hips in eighty-six patients (average age, fifty-six years) treated with the same stem and the hydroxyapatite-coated screw-fit cup, hip function and pain scores increased to nearly normal levels during the first year and no stem subsidence or loosening was seen⁷⁴. However, seventy-four of ninety-four stems had progressive double radiopaque lines in Gruen zones 1 and 8 at five years. The authors suggested that the lines indicated fibrous fixation and that compromise of the fixation could be expected; this expectation was met. In another study, of twenty hips revised in nineteen patients, osteolysis was demonstrated in the proximal region around these stems⁷⁵.

The Mallory-Head hip prosthesis (Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana), a titanium-alloy implant with hydroxyapatite plasma-sprayed over a plasma-sprayed titanium coating, was used with a non-hydroxyapatite-coated cementless cup in a series of sixty-three dysplastic hips in fifty patients with an average age of fifty-three years⁷⁶. At the time of follow-up, at an average of seventy-five months, no osteolysis, no stem revisions, and three cup revisions were noted. In another study, the Ti-fit collarless stem (Smith and Nephew, Memphis, Tennessee), a titanium-alloy implant with a hydroxyapatite coating on its proximal third, was implanted with an Opti-fix porous-coated acetabular cup from the same manufacturer in fifty-two hips (fifty-two patients; average age, sixty-five years)⁷⁷. Forty-eight stems were stable after eleven years of follow-up. There were eight cases of osteolysis but only one case of distal intramedullary osteolysis⁷⁷.

A ten-year clinical study of 100 Freeman femoral components (Finsbury Instruments, Leatherhead, England, and Corin, Cirencester, England), a femoral neck-retaining design with a hydroxyapatite coating of 80 to 120 µm in thickness, showed no revisions involving the stem but demonstrated one case of stem subsidence⁷⁸. A five-year follow-up study of 142 hips in 136 patients (average age, 66.5 years) treated with the Austria Hip System (Logimed, Loeben, Austria), which has a hydroxyapatite coating on its proximal two-thirds, revealed five revisions of the femoral component⁷⁹. Three were due to periprosthetic fracture; one, to aseptic loosening; and one, to septic loosening. The stem migrated >2 mm in twenty-nine hips, and radiographic evidence of bone loss was seen in zones 1 and 7 in all patients. It was concluded that the design of this stem (oval proximally and round distally) did not provide adequate stability and that the coating could not compensate for this shortcoming.

Several studies have compared the performance of hydroxyapatite-coated devices with that of non-hydroxyapatite-coated implants. The performance of the Anatomic Hip prosthesis (Zimmer, Warsaw, Indiana) was assessed with the implant uncoated, with its fiber-mesh pads coated with hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate, and with its pads and the proximal half of its stem coated with the same material⁸⁰. There was little difference between the two hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate-coated implants, although both showed better radiographic results and fewer revisions compared with the uncoated controls. In a prospective, randomized trial of sixty-two consecutive hips in fifty-five patients, thirty-five were treated with a Mallory-Head stem with a hydroxyapatite coating and twenty-seven were treated with the same stem without the coating⁸¹. The stems were implanted with either a RingLok or an Opti-fix acetabular component. Neither the Harris hip scores nor the stem survival rates indicated an advantage of the hydroxyapatite coating.

Twenty-four patients (average age, fifty-four years) were treated bilaterally with S-ROM implants (DePuy [Johnson and Johnson]), with a 50-µm hydroxyapatite coating on the proximal part of the stem body in one hip and a 110-µm monolayer of porous beads in the contralateral hip⁸². At an average of fifty-two months postoperatively, there were no revisions and no differences in recovery time or bone-remodeling between the hydroxyapatite-coated and non-hydroxyapatite-coated implant groups. Similarly, a study of fifty patients in whom porous-coated IPS titanium femoral stems (DePuy, Leeds, England) had been implanted bilaterally, with a hydroxyapatite coating on one side and without the coating on the other, showed no stem subsidence or loosening and equivalent Harris hip scores after 6.6 years of follow-up⁸³. A comparison of hydroxyapatite-coated and non-hydroxyapatite-coated grit-blasted stems of the Profile design (DePuy, Warsaw, Indiana) in fifty hips (forty-six patients) showed less subsidence of the hydroxyapatite-coated stems in the first two years⁸⁴. Finally, a comparison performed at an average of 4.7 years after revisions with APR Revision Hip stems (Intermedics Orthopedics, Austin, Texas) with and without a hydroxyapatite coating in sixty-six hips (sixty-five patients) demonstrated better Harris hip scores for both pain and limp in the hips treated with the hydroxyapatite-coated stem⁸⁵. However, no difference in stem survivorship was demonstrated.

In summary, the favorable early experience with the Omnifit-HA femoral stem³ has continued for more than thirteen years. The pattern of bone-remodeling first reported at six years⁵² was maintained at the time of longer follow-up. Young patients showed excellent survival of the prosthesis but had a higher prevalence of proximal osteolysis (in Gruen zones 1 and 7) from polyethylene wear than did older patients. The stem and coating appeared to seal the interface below the resection level, as no distal osteolysis was reported. The experience with other designs has not been reported as comprehensively. Although the Furlong hip prosthesis was first implanted in 1985, only twelve-year follow-up data are available and there are few publications available for review. However, this fully coated stem with a 200-µm-thick coating does appear to perform well. In contrast, the 155-µm-thick coating of the Landanger implant has demonstrated loss of fixation to the substrate and the generation of hydroxyapatite particles. Clearly, coating thickness per se is not the reason for these failures; it is likely that the composition of the coating and its lower bond strength are responsible. The results of use of the ABG hip replacement have been followed for only seven years. The clinical results have been good for the stem, but there are indications that cup wear is a problem. Studies of other designs mostly have included only short to medium-term follow-up; they have indicated good performance except in the case of the Austria hip implant. There have been few studies comparing hydroxyapatite or hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate-coated stems with uncoated stems, and those that have been published have included only short or medium-term follow-up^80-85. However, it appears that hydroxyapatite and hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coatings result in greater bone formation, which provides increased stem stability, than is seen with uncoated stems. Long-term follow-up is needed to determine if this translates into better survival of the implants.

Acetabular Components

The performance of hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular components initially was not as satisfactory as that of hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems. However, the early clinical experience has led to a better understanding of failure mechanisms in the acetabulum, resulting in improved socket designs.

Results associated with the acetabular components used in the investigational device exemption study referred to earlier in this review were dependent on cup type. Manley et al.⁵⁸ found that, at a minimum of five years postoperatively, 1% of 131 hydroxyapatite-coated threaded cups, 2% of 109 porous cups without a hydroxyapatite coating, and 11% of 188 smooth hydroxyapatite-coated press-fit cups had been revised because of aseptic loosening. The interface failure of the smooth hydroxyapatite-coated press-fit cups that loosened most often was initiated in DeLee-Charnley⁸⁶ zone 3 (Fig. 3, A). (The three zones of the acetabulum described by DeLee and Charnley are delineated in Figure 4.) Analysis of these clinical failures and comparison with published finite-element models of acetabular replacement⁸⁷ led to the conclusion that the smooth fixation interface could not withstand the stresses imposed by patient activity. Furthermore, the data indicated that physical interlock between the acetabular shell and bone was a prerequisite for long-term stability of fixation in the acetabulum. The study of the Landos Corail implants⁷³ mentioned above demonstrated poor results after use of smooth hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular components. In the initial group of 323 hips, forty-two hydroxyapatite-coated press-fit cups (13%) and nine hydroxyapatite-coated screw cups (3%) were revised⁷³. The smooth hydroxyapatite-coated ABG cup (Benoist Girard) has seemed satisfactory after short follow-up^88,89. However, in a study of 289 primary hip replacements, twenty-nine cups (10%) had been revised at an average of 54.9 months⁹⁰. The causes of the revisions of the cups were osteolysis (sixteen cases), aseptic cup loosening (ten), and recurrent posterior dislocation (three). These findings reinforced the conclusion that a surface with mechanical interlock is necessary for stability in the acetabulum. In another study of the ABG cup, with a mean patient age of forty-nine years at the time of surgery, twenty-three (24%) of ninety-seven hips had failed due to osteolysis or wear at a mean of 5.75 years⁹¹.

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

Fig. 3: Bone-remodeling with three different hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular components. The three-year radiograph of the smooth Omnifit Dual Geometry-HA cup (A) shows loss of fixation to bone in DeLee-Charnley zone 3, distal to the implant. The Arc2f-HA threaded cup (B) showed favorable bone-remodeling and bone-stable interfaces at fifteen years postoperatively. The Secur-Fit cup (C) showed favorable bone-remodeling with so-called spot welds in zone 3 at seven years postoperatively. (Figs. 3-A and 3-C courtesy of J.A. D'Antonio, MD; Fig. 3-B courtesy of J.-A. Epinette, MD.)

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

Fig. 4: The zones of the acetabulum based on the publication by DeLee and Charnley⁸⁶.

The Mathys or RM cup (Mathys, Bettlach, Switzerland), an all-polyethylene hemispherical cup with pegs to control rotation, represented an alternative attempt at hydroxyapatite fixation. Hydroxyapatite granules were hot-pressed onto the outer surface of the cup to provide a coating of 300 µm in thickness. Clinical studies with durations of follow-up of eight and 9.4 years showed good clinical results for patients in whom the implant had survived, but severe osteolysis attributed to third-body wear from released hydroxyapatite granules was associated with some implants^92,93. Retrieved components had calcium phosphate material embedded in the articulating surface of the polyethylene.

Hydroxyapatite-coated and non-hydroxyapatite-coated Bi-Contact press-fit acetabular components (Aesculap, Tuttlingen, Germany) were compared in a randomized study of 153 hips (138 patients) followed for at least five years⁹⁴. Three cups were revised because of aseptic loosening and one, because of recurrent dislocation. All revisions were performed with a smooth hydroxyapatite-coated cup. The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register contained an early report on the performance of Atoll press-fit and Tropic partially threaded cups (Landanger) coated with hydroxyapatite (155 µm in thickness)⁹⁵. At the time of early follow-up, none of the 772 Atoll cups and one of the 1171 Tropic cups had been revised. The results in later reports were not as satisfactory. Of 191 smooth hydroxyapatite-coated press-fit Atoll cups used in primary total hip replacements in 155 patients (average age, forty-seven years), thirty-eight had been revised and three additional cups were loose at seven to ten years after the surgery⁹⁶. At the revisions, the hydroxyapatite coating was found to be absent from the implants. In another report on the Atoll design, in which eighty-five hips (seventy-four patients) had been followed for ten years, twenty-six hips (twenty-two patients) had been revised and a revision was planned for six more hips⁹⁷. Acetabular survivorship at ten years was 67.9% (95% confidence interval, 58.5% to 77.3%). Loss of coating was demonstrated, and it was more rapid for loose cups. The wear rates for the threaded Tropic cups accelerated with time. In a series in which 100 consecutive hips were followed for seven to nine years after total hip arthroplasty, eighteen hips with excessive polyethylene wear had a revision and a revision was planned for six more⁹⁸. However, at the revisions these threaded cups were found to be firmly fixed to the bone.

Other studies have shown osseous fixation of hydroxyapatite-coated threaded cups. In a recent series, 418 Arc2f hydroxyapatite-coated threaded cups (Osteonics) were fixed with supplemental bone screws in 384 patients by one surgeon, and the hips were followed for a minimum of ten years⁹⁹ (Fig. 3, B). Cup survivorship was >99%, and no patient had activity-limiting pain. No radiolucent lines were found on 98% of the interpretable radiographs, and no evidence of osteolysis was seen on 95%. Geesink reported similar results with the Omnifit-HA threaded cup; they found a survivorship of 93% (100 of 108 cups) at ten years postoperatively⁵⁰. A study of 173 hips (150 patients) treated with the Furlong-HA screw-ring cup (Joint Replacement Instrumentation) showed one case of osteolysis in zone 1, two cases in zone 2, one case in zone 3, and one case in all three zones at an average of 6.5 years¹⁰⁰. There were two revisions due to polyethylene wear without loosening and three due to aseptic loosening. The authors stated that if a screw cup is to be used, hydroxyapatite coating is mandatory.

Other strategies for achieving interlock in the acetabulum include use of the Secur-Fit Acetabular Cup (Osteonics), which achieves a mechanical interlock with bone through a rough, arc-deposited titanium coating beneath the hydroxyapatite surface (Fig. 3, C). In a study comparing twenty-five Secur-Fit hydroxyapatite-coated cups with twenty-five smooth Dual Radius hydroxyapatite-coated components in patient groups matched for age, sex, and preoperative diagnosis, radiographic analysis performed at a minimum of four years showed the Secure-Fit cups to be associated with fewer radiolucent lines than the Dual Radius cups¹⁰¹. In an earlier series, seventy-eight patients (ninety-three hips) were treated with the Secur-Fit cup with either a cemented or a noncemented stem and, at an average of four years postoperatively, there had been no revisions due to aseptic loosening, mechanical failure, or osteolysis¹⁰². A study of Rim-Fix acetabular components (Joint Replacement Instrumentation), which have a hemispherical design with a 200-µm-thick hydroxyapatite coating and provision around the rim for screw fixation to augment stability, showed only two failures, which occurred during the eleventh and twelfth postoperative years¹⁰³. The stemmed partially hydroxyapatite-coated McMinn-Link cup was found to perform satisfactorily in the revision (twenty-two cups) and complex primary replacement (seven cups) settings¹⁰⁴. At a mean of forty-six months (range, fourteen to seventy-four months), the only failure was due to sepsis.

Finally, hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coatings have been used in the acetabulum^105,106. A radiostereometric analysis compared the performance of Harris-Galante-II cups with and without a hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coating at two years postoperatively¹⁰⁵. Compared with the uncoated implants, the coated cups had migrated less around the horizontal axis. A similar study of the Trilogy cup (Zimmer) coated with hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate compared thirty-four hips treated with a cup without screw-holes with thirty hips treated with a cup with a cluster of three holes for screw placement¹⁰⁶. Radiostereometric analysis showed no difference in migration between the two groups at two years. It was concluded that screws are not necessary when this design of cup has a hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coating¹⁰⁷.

In summary, long-term success with hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular components seems to require the acquisition and maintenance of an interlock between the implant and bone. Mechanical stability is not sufficient in itself, as shown by the failures of the ABG and Tropic cups. Wear is also a consideration and is influenced by many factors, including the bearing material, component design, and patient activity. The articulating surfaces must have minimal wear, or revision is a probability. Long-term clinical survival of a hydroxyapatite-coated cup requires mechanical stability, adequacy of locking between the component and bone, and little wear, as demonstrated by the hydroxyapatite-coated Arc2f threaded cups⁹⁹.

Knee Prostheses

Hydroxyapatite coatings have been used on total knee replacements but on a much more limited scale compared with their use on total hip replacements. A comparison of 127 hydroxyapatite-coated Tricon-II tibial components (Smith and Nephew) with seventy grit-blasted Tricon-II tibial components showed good clinical results, with no difference between the hydroxyapatite-coated and grit-blasted components at five years postoperatively⁴. However, the hydroxyapatite-coated components showed much less radiolucency than did the grit-blasted components, suggesting improved fixation with the hydroxyapatite coating. In a prospective, randomized study of fifty-seven Tricon-II knee implants in which radiostereometric analysis was used to compare the performance of hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented tibial components, there were three revisions of the hydroxyapatite components: two were due to infection, and one was due to disruption of the coating⁵. There were no revisions of the cemented components.

In a single-blind, randomized study of the PFC knee implant (Johnson and Johnson Orthopaedics, New Milton, England), radiostereometric analysis was used to compare three types of fixation after two years of follow-up⁶. The underside of the tibial tray had a porous coating for cementless fixation, a porous coating with a hydroxyapatite coating, or a waffle surface for use of cement. The hydroxyapatite coating was deposited by plasma spray to a 55-µm thickness. The authors concluded that there was no significant difference between the hydroxyapatite-coated and cement-fixation groups. The porous-coated tibial implants had the greatest migration. A radiostereometric analysis of migration and inducible displacement was performed to compare twenty-five knees treated with the hydroxyapatite-coated Freeman-Samuelson knee implant (Sulzer Orthopaedics, Alton, England, and Finsbury Instruments, Leatherhead, England) with twenty-six knees treated with the Miller-Galante-II knee implant (Zimmer)⁷. The groups were matched for age, gender, weight, degree of deformity, and smoking habits. The clinical results for the two groups were equivalent at five years postoperatively, although the Miller-Galante-II prostheses displayed more radiolucencies around the tibial stem. The Freeman-Samuelson tibial components had migrated less than the Miller-Galante-II tibial components at five years and showed less inducible displacement at one year. With revision because of loosening as the end point, the survival rate of the hydroxyapatite femoral components was 94% at a mean of ten years⁸.

Hydroxyapatite-coated tibial components of different designs were evaluated with radiostereometric analysis at two years as part of a study of saw-blade cooling⁹. Comparison of the porous-coated Osteonics 7000 tibial component (Osteonics) with the hydroxyapatite-coated Duracon tibial component (Howmedica, Rutherford, New Jersey) showed no differences in clinical outcome between the two implants. The hydroxyapatite-coated components subsided less than did the porous components. It was stated that the hydroxyapatite coating had a strong positive effect on tibial component fixation. Epinette and Manley described the twelve-year experience with a variety of Osteonics knee designs with hydroxyapatite coating¹⁰. Since 1990, 400 hydroxyapatite-coated knee prostheses were implanted in 342 patients; 268 knees were followed for a minimum of five years, sixty-five were followed for a minimum of ten years, and seven were followed for more than twelve years (Fig. 5). There were only three cases of loosening and osteolysis. The cumulative survival rate at seven years was 97%, with failure for any cause as the end point. The authors commented that one of the benefits of hydroxyapatite coating in knees is the ability of the coating to fill surgically created gaps between the implant and bone.

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

Fig. 5: A hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement (Series 7000 hydroxyapatite) at eleven years postoperatively. The radiographs show maintenance of stable fixation. (Courtesy of J.-A. Epinette, MD.)

The effect of a hydroxyapatite coating on the micromotion of the Interax knee (Howmedica International, Limerick, Ireland) was evaluated in a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of eleven components fixed with cement as well as ten hydroxyapatite-coated components and ten non-hydroxyapatite-coated porous components fixed without cement¹¹. The hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented components were reported to have less micromotion than the porous components. A randomized study of Miller-Galante-II knee replacements demonstrated similar results with regard to tilt and subsidence when hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate-coated tibial components were compared with porous components in forty knees (thirty-six patients)¹². Although the clinical results for the two groups were the same at two years, there were more radiolucent lines under the tibial tray and around the stem of the uncoated implants. In a study of NexGen knee replacements (Zimmer), forty-six uncoated implants fixed with screws were compared with forty-six hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate-coated implants fixed without screws¹³. At twelve months postoperatively, there was radiolucency around 56% of the uncoated femoral and 33% of the uncoated tibial components and around only one tibial component with a hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coating.

Hydroxyapatite coatings have also been used for fixation of unicondylar knee replacements (Fig. 6). In a study by Epinette et al.¹⁴, 523 Unix knee replacements (Osteonics) in 457 patients were followed for seven years. The Unix tibial component is a modular design with a flat titanium tray that has been grit-blasted on its fixation interface and coated with hydroxyapatite (95% hydroxyapatite, 50-µm thickness). The tray has multiple screw-holes and a blade-keel that is inserted into the tibial eminence. The femoral component is a cobalt-chromium self-centering design coated with the same hydroxyapatite finish. In the study by Epinette et al., the survival rate was 93.9% with revision for any reason as the end point and 99.6% with aseptic loosening as the end point. Rehabilitation after treatment with the Unix replacement was found to be more rapid than that after treatment with either a cemented unicondylar knee replacement of the same design or a total knee replacement.

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

Fig. 6: A Unix-HA unicondylar knee implant at eleven years postoperatively. The femoral component is cemented, and the tibial component has a 50-µm-thick hydroxyapatite coating. The radiographs indicate bone-stable fixation at the tibial interface. (Courtesy of J.-A. Epinette, MD.)

Hydroxyapatite and hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coatings appear to offer advantages in cementless fixation of femoral and tibial components. Radiostereometric analysis has demonstrated less migration and less inducible displacement of coated components compared with cementless components without a hydroxyapatite or hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate coating^105-107. Hydroxyapatite and hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate-coated components have demonstrated less radiolucency, with bone filling gaps around the implant¹⁰. The stability of hydroxyapatite or hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate-coated knee components appears comparable with that of cemented components. This finding suggests that long-term fixation of hydroxyapatite-coated implants will be maintained in the knee.

Analysis of Retrieved Hydroxyapatite-Coated Components

Five fully functional Omnifit-HA total hip stems (Osteonics) were analyzed following the deaths of the patients¹⁰⁸. These implants had been in place for between five and twenty-five months. The hydroxyapatite coating was identified on each stem, and the mean thickness was between 26 and 44 µm compared with an initial thickness of 50 µm. There was a variable amount of apposition of bone (32% to 78% of the available surface per section). Bone was most prevalent on the surface that was close to the endosteal surface of the femur. Histologic examination showed occasional foci of bone-remodeling, including osteoclast-mediated removal of the hydroxyapatite coating. There were also areas of bone directly in contact with the metal substrate. A few particles of hydroxyapatite were present within macrophages in the adjacent bone marrow. Gross examination of the retrieved stems showed that attached bone seams followed the surface features of the hydroxyapatite-coated fixation regions of these implants. Similar findings have been recorded at revisions of well-fixed nonporous hydroxyapatite-coated stems, once the stem was removed from the femur. Figure 7 shows the bone bed associated with an Omnifit-HA stem that was removed during an acetabular revision after having been in place for thirteen years¹⁰⁹. The surgeon noted that the stem was well-fixed at the time of the revision.

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

Fig. 7: View of the bone bed in the proximal part of the femur after removal of an Omnifit-HA nonporous stem at thirteen years postoperatively. Bone-remodeling into the features of the stem fixation surface (as demonstrated in the inset) is apparent (arrows). This implant was removed at the time of acetabular revision and was replaced with a stem incorporating a larger head offset. (Courtesy of W.N. Capello, MD.)

A histologic analysis was performed of two hydroxyapatite-coated Dual Geometry and three hydroxyapatite-coated threaded cups (Osteonics) that had been in place for between 4.5 and twenty-five months and had performed well up to the time of retrieval after the patient's death¹¹⁰. Bone apposition was mainly in areas of load transmission—i.e., at the periphery of the Dual Geometry components and at the peaks of the threads in the screw cups. Hydroxyapatite coating was detected over the majority of the implant surface. Loss of the hydroxyapatite coating was found to be more probable in the valleys of the threads on the screw-cups where stress-shielding occurred.

There have been several reports on the tissue around ABG hydroxyapatite-coated total hip prostheses. In a study of five stems that had been retrieved at autopsy after functioning normally for between 3.3 and 6.2 years, four of the stems showed an extensive direct bond between the hydroxyapatite coating and the bone or between the prosthesis and the bone, without a fibrous or inflammatory interface¹¹¹. The fifth stem showed progressive loosening due to osteolysis in Gruen zones 1B to 7A following polyethylene wear. The few hydroxyapatite particles that were observed were adjacent to the metaphyseal part of the stem, and none were noted distal to the coating. There were signs of active phagocytosis in areas where the bone marrow was adjacent to the coating. The amount of hydroxyapatite was greatest in the distal metaphyseal regions, indicating that the loss of coating may have been due to bone-remodeling. An analysis of the ABG hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular components, together with an additional cup retrieved at 6.6 years, was published separately¹¹². All components had been clinically successful. There was no difference in bone contact among the three DeLee-Charnley zones. The thickness of the coating decreased with increasing duration of implantation. Osteoclastic resorption of the hydroxyapatite was seen histologically. Few hydroxyapatite particles were noted, and those that were seen were adjacent to the cup. However, the empty screw-holes contained polyethylene particles. No inflammatory reaction to the hydroxyapatite was noted. The amount of bone contact remained stable even in areas where the hydroxyapatite had completely disappeared.

A case report on an infection at the site of an arthroplasty described the fate of the hydroxyapatite coating¹¹³. The infection developed shortly after the surgery and was successfully treated with the implant kept in place. The patient died from unrelated causes at six years postoperatively. The ABG hip prosthesis and the surrounding tissue were retrieved. Analysis of the stem showed that it was well fixed in the femur, and bone was in contact with 37% of the implant. The authors suggested that, in view of the excellent bone contact, loss of the coating was probably caused by bone turnover rather than coating resorption due to reduced pH at the site of the infection.

A comparative analysis of porous, grit-blasted, and hydroxyapatite-coated surface features on the Biometric hip (Biomet, Bridgend, United Kingdom) was carried out on specimens retrieved post mortem¹¹⁴. There was significantly (p < 0.05) more ingrowth and attachment of bone to the hydroxyapatite coating than to the porous coating. There was no difference between the porous and grit-blasted surfaces in terms of bone contact. Also, no significant difference in the volume of the hydroxyapatite was noted with the passage of time, and there were no adverse consequences related to the hydroxyapatite coating. A case report described the histologic characteristics of the tissue around a well-functioning Titan Corail hip implant (Landanger) with a 155-µm-thick hydroxyapatite coating that had been retrieved at autopsy fifty-two months after implantation¹¹⁵. No fibrous tissue was evident, and bone was in contact with 39.9% of the perimeter of the proximal third of the stem, 62.8% of the middle third, and 65.2% of the distal third. No debris was found in adjacent tissues or in the articulating surface of the polyethylene. In comparison, a study of the Landanger type of hydroxyapatite coating revealed that it could be a source of hydroxyapatite particles¹¹⁶. Biopsy specimens taken from around twenty Landos Corail hip replacements showed large flakes of hydroxyapatite¹¹⁷. It has been pointed out that such flakes were specific to the thick Landos Corail coating and that particle release was due to the poorer bond strength of that coating (20 to 30 MPa) compared with the bond strength provided by other manufacturers (62 to 65 Mpa)¹¹⁷.

The histologic findings are in agreement with the results of animal studies. Bone is often found against the hydroxyapatite coating. The coating generally decreases in thickness over time. The loss of coating is greatest in areas where bone-remodeling is greatest, indicating a cellular mechanism for coating loss. Fixation, or contact between the bone and implant, can be maintained in the face of coating loss. The importance of suitable coating characteristics was seen with the Landos Corail coatings, the composition and strength of which were inadequate. The lower bond strength resulted in loss of coating and particle release with the possible sequelae of third-body wear and loss of fixation.

Overview

The literature continues to provide strong clinical evidence supporting the use of hydroxyapatite coatings for fixation of the femoral stems of total hip replacements and suggests that the results with those implants are at least equal to those reported in association with other cementless designs used for any indication for total hip replacement. Experience with many different designs of hydroxyapatite-coated femoral components followed for more than ten years now shows that hydroxyapatite coatings with controlled properties do not need to be applied over a roughened or ingrowth metal substrate surface in order to achieve long-term implant stability. Indeed, the absence of ingrowth or interlock between the bone and stem may be an asset if it is necessary to remove the stem later. With regard to challenging total hip replacements such as those performed in active, young individuals (less than fifty years old), non-ingrowth hydroxyapatite-coated hip stems perhaps are the new standard against which others should be judged. However, some clinical studies of implants with thick ongrowth coatings have shown that such success can be achieved only with proper control of coating properties during manufacture. Hydroxyapatite-tricalcium phosphate mixtures have been used to promote early ingrowth into porous structures in some hips, but the effects on stem fixation seem to be limited to the enhancement of early fixation; there is little effect on long-term implant survival.

Unlike the case with the femoral stem, lack of interlock between the bone and implant in the acetabulum is now known to be detrimental to long-term implant survival. Early studies of hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular components showed disappointing results. Because of the lack of inherent stability provided by the implant geometry, press-fit sockets that relied solely on the hydroxyapatite coating for fixation did not remain stable once much of the coating had been removed by biological activity. After the need for adequate stress transfer between the implant and bone through osseous interlock was understood, several different fixation surfaces were used as the coating substrate to achieve the necessary stability. With these designs, the bone adaptation properties of hydroxyapatite coatings are used to provide filling of the pores or threads on the underlying metal surface, and the implant geometry then provides long-term interface stability. The survival rate of =99% reported⁹⁹ for hydroxyapatite-coated threaded cups at more than ten years postoperatively is equivalent to the survival rates for the best metal cemented and cementless designs.

The results of total knee replacements with hydroxyapatite-coated components have been promising after durations of follow-up of ten years or more. Demonstrated measures of less subsidence of the tibial component and greater resistance to inducible motion suggest stable fixation. Anecdotal reports of gap-filling between the tibial base-plate and the site of the tibial resection are encouraging. Excellent femoral and tibial survival rates at more than ten years following unicondylar knee replacements suggest that the coating is effective in this setting. However, experience with hydroxyapatite coatings in the knee is more limited than that in the hip. Multicenter studies with longer durations of follow-up and larger numbers of patients are required to demonstrate superiority over cemented total and unicompartmental devices.

In the years following the review of this subject by Jaffe and Scott³, those authors' statement that the experimental and intermediate-term clinical results associated with hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems in younger patients are encouraging appears to be supported by positive clinical results fifteen years after implantation. Evidence published since that review suggests that use of hydroxyapatite coatings has achieved successful fixation of acetabular components and total and unicondylar knee replacements at ten years or more after implantation. Histologic findings from autopsies and retrieval specimens continue to confirm preclinical findings of bone apposition to these coatings. A decrease in coating thickness with time and remodeling of the hydroxyapatite by osteoclasts reaffirm the need for inherently stable implant geometries matched to the biomechanical needs of the implant site.

Appendix

Tables presenting the results in clinical series of total hip arthroplasties involving use of hydroxyapatite-coated components are available with the electronic versions of this article, on our web site at (go to the article citation and click on "Supplementary Material") and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).

References

Furlong RJ, Osborn JF. Fixation of hip prostheses by hydroxyapatite ceramic coatings. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1991;73: 741-5.73741 1991

Geesink RG. Experimental and clinical experience with hydroxyapatite-coated hip implants. Orthopedics. 1989;12: 1239-42. Erratum in: Orthopedics. 1990;13: following 200.121239 1989 [PubMed]

Jaffe WL, Scott DF. Total hip arthroplasty with hydroxyapatite-coated prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1996;78: 1918-34.781918 1996

Cameron HU. HA versus grit blasted tibial components in total knee replacement. Acta Orthop Belg.1997;63 Suppl 1: 47-9.6347 1997

Nilsson KG, Karrholm J, Carlsson L, Dalen T. Hydroxyapatite coating versus cemented fixation of the tibial component in total knee arthroplasty: prospective randomized comparison of hydroxyapatite-coated and cemented tibial components with 5-year follow-up using radiostereometry. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14: 9-20.149 1999 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Onsten I, Nordqvist A, Carlsson AS, Besjakov J, Shott S. Hydroxyapatite augmentation of the porous coating improves fixation of tibial components. A randomised RSA study in 116 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1998;80: 417-25.80417 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Regner L, Carlsson L, Karrholm J, Herberts P. Tibial component fixation in porous- and hydroxyapatite-coated total knee arthroplasty: a radiostereometric evaluation of migration and inducible displacement after 5 years. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15: 681-9.15681 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Murty AN, Scott G, Freeman MA. Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral components in total knee arthroplasty: medium term results. J Arthroplasty. 2003; 18: 844-51.18844 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Toksvig-Larsen S, Jorn LP, Ryd L, Lindstrand A. Hydroxyapatite-enhanced tibial prosthetic fixation. Clin Orthop.2000;370: 192-200.370192 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Epinette JA, Manley MT. Twelve-year experience with hydroxyapatite in primary knee arthroplasty. In: Epinette JA, Manley MT, editors. Fifteen years of clinical experience with hydroxyapatite coatings in joint arthroplasty. New York: Springer; 2004. p 399-410.399 2004

Nelissen RG, Valstar ER, Rozing PM. The effect of hydroxyapatite on the micromotion of total knee prostheses. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1998;80: 1665-72.801665 1998

Regner L, Carlsson L, Karrholm J, Herberts P. Ceramic coating improves tibial component fixation in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1998; 13: 882-9.13882 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Gejo R, Akizuki S, Takizawa T. Fixation of the NexGen HA-TCP-coated cementless, screwless total knee arthroplasty: comparison with conventional cementless total knee arthroplasty of the same type. J Arthroplasty. 2002; 17: 449-56.17449 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Epinette JA, Young D, Morris H. Hydroxyapatite-coated unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a 12-year experience with the HA Unix prosthesis. In: Epinette JA, Manley MT, editors. Fifteen years of clinical experience with hydroxyapatite coatings in joint arthroplasty. New York: Springer; 2004. p 417-30.417 2004

Gross KA, Berndt CC. Thermal processing of hydroxyapatite for coating production. J Biomed Mater Res.1998;39: 580-7.39580 1998 [CrossRef]

Sun L, Berndt CC, Gross KA, Kucuk A. Material fundamentals and clinical performance of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coatings: a review. J Biomed Mater Res.2001;58: 570-92.58570 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Turner AS, Eckhoff DG, Dewell RD, Villaneuva AR, Aberman HM. Periapatite-coated implants improve fixation in osteopenic bone. Trans Orthop Res Soc.1998;23: 4.234 1998

Aberman HM, Jones LC, Fagan M, Hungerford DS, Dumbleton JH. The effectiveness of peri-apatite coatings in bridging implant gaps. Trans Orthop Res Soc.1996;21: 526.21526 1996

Tsui YC, Doyle C, Clyne TW. Plasma sprayed hydroxyapatite coatings on titanium substrates. Part 1: mechanical properties and residual stress levels. Biomaterials. 1998;19: 2015-29.192015 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Soballe K, Overgaard S. The current status of hydroxyapatite coating of prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1996;78: 689-91.78689 1996

Paschalis EP, Zhao Q, Tucker BE, Mukhopadhayay S, Bearcroft JA, Beals NB, Spector M, Nancollas GH. Degradation potential of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite-coated titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res.1995;29: 1499-505.291499 1995 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Clemens JA, Klein CP, Sakkers RJ, Dhert WJ, de Groot K, Rozing PM. Healing of gaps around calcium phosphate-coated implants in trabecular bone of the goat. J Biomed Mater Res.1997;36: 55-64.3655 1997 [CrossRef]

Overgaard S, Bromose U, Lind M, Bunger C, Soballe K. The influence of crystallinity of the hydroxyapatite coating on the fixation of implants. Mechanical and histomorphometric results. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1999; 81: 725-31.81725 1999 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Yang CY, Lin RM, Wang BC, Lee TM, Chang E, Hang YS, Chen PQ. In vitro and in vivo mechanical evaluations of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coatings on titanium implants: the effect of coating characteristics. J Biomed Mater Res.1997;37: 335-45.37335 1997 [PubMed][CrossRef]

de Groot K, Geesink R, Klein CP, Serekian P. Plasma sprayed coatings of hydroxylapatite. J Biomed Mater Res.1987;21: 1375-81.211375 1987 [CrossRef]

Wang BC, Lee TM, Chang E, Yang CY. The shear strength and the failure mode of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coating to bone: the effect of coating thickness. J Biomed Mater Res.1993;27: 1315-27.271315 1993 [CrossRef]

Yang CY, Wang BC, Lee TM, Chang E, Chang GL. Intramedullary implant of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coating: an interface study. J Biomed Mater Res.1997;36: 39-48.3639 1997 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Zhang C, Leng Y, Chen J. In vitro mechanical integrity of hydroxyapatite coatings on Ti-6Al-4V implants under shear loading. J Biomed Mater Res.2001; 56: 342-50.56342 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Soballe K. Hydroxyapatite ceramic coating for bone implant fixation. Mechanical and histological studies in dogs. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl.1993;255: 1-58.2551 1993 [PubMed]

Soballe K, Overgaard S, Hansen ES, Brokstedt-Rasmussen H, Lind M, Bunger C. A review of ceramic coatings for implant fixation. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 1999;9: 131-51.9131 1999 [PubMed]

Overgaard S, Lind M, Glerup H, Bunger C, Soballe K. Porous-coated versus grit-blasted surface texture of hydroxyapatite-coated implants during controlled micromotion: mechanical and histomorphometric results. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13: 449-58.13449 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Mouzin O, Soballe K, Bechtold JE. Loading improves anchorage of hydroxyapatite implants more than titanium implants. J Biomed Mater Res.2001; 58: 61-8.5861 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Lalor PA, Namba R, Mitchell SL, Bearcroff J, Beals N. Migration of polyethylene particles around stable implants in an animal model. J Long Term Eff Med Implants. 1999;9: 261-72.9261 1999

Rahbek O, Overgaard S, Lind M, Bendix K, Bunger C, Soballe K. Sealing effect of hydroxyapatite coating on peri-implant migration of particles. An experimental study in dogs. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2001;83: 441-7.83441 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Hara T, Hayashi K, Nakashima Y, Kanemaru T, Iwamoto Y. The effect of hydroxyapatite coating on the bonding of bone to titanium implants in the femora of ovariectomised rats. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1999;81: 705-9.81705 1999 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Soballe K, Mouzin OR, Kidder LA, Overgaard S, Bechtold JE. The effects of hydroxyapatite coating and bone allograft on fixation of loaded experimental primary and revision implants. Acta Orthop Scand.2003;74: 239-47.74239 2003 [PubMed]

Bechtold JE, Kubic V, Soballe K. A controlled experimental model of revision implants: part I. Development. Acta Orthop Scand.2001;72: 642-9.72642 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Bechtold JE, Mouzin O, Kidder L, Soballe K. A controlled experimental model of revision impants: part II. Implementation with loaded titanium implants and bone graft. Acta Orthop Scand.2001;72: 650-6.72650 2001 [CrossRef]

Tisdel CL, Goldberg VM, Parr JA, Bensusan J, Staikoff L, Stevenson S. The influence of a hydroxyapatite and tricalcium-phosphate coating on bone growth into titanium fiber-metal implants. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1994; 76: 159-71.76159 1994 [PubMed]

Dean JC, Tisdel CL, Goldberg VM, Parr J, Davy D, Stevenson S. Effects of hydroxyapatite tricalcium phosphate coating and intracancellous placement on bone ingrowth in titanium fibermetal implants. J Arthroplasty. 1995; 10: 830-8.10830 1995 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Lee TM, Wang BC, Yang YC, Chang E, Yang CY. Comparison of plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite coatings and hydroxyapatite/tricalcium phosphate composite coatings: in vivo study. J Biomed Mater Res.2001;55: 360-7.55360 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Jinno T, Davy DT, Goldberg VM. Comparison of hydroxyapatite tricalciumphosphate coatings. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17: 902-9.17902 2002 [CrossRef]

LeGeros RZ. Properties of osteoconductive biomaterials: calcium phosphates. Clin Orthop.2002;395: 81-98.39581 2002 [CrossRef]

Porter AE, Hobbs LW, Rosen VB, Spector M. The ultrastructure of the plasma-sprayed hydroxyapatite-bone interface predisposing to bone bonding. Biomaterials. 2002;23: 725-33.23725 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Kilpadi KL, Chang PL, Bellis SL. Hydroxylapatite binds more serum proteins, purified integrins, and osteoblast precursor cells than titanium or steel. J Biomed Mater Res.2001;57: 258-67.57258 2001 [CrossRef]

Carlsson L, Regner L, Johansson C, Gottlander M, Herberts P. Bone response to hydroxyapatite-coated and commercially pure titanium implants in the human arthritic knee. J Orthop Res.1994;12: 274-85.12274 1994 [CrossRef]

Wong M, Eulenberger J, Schenk R, Hunziker E. Effect of surface topology on the osseointegration of implant materials in trabecular bone. J Biomed Mater Res.1995;29: 1567-75.291567 1995 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Svehla M, Morberg P, Zicat B, Bruce W, Sonnabend D, Walsh WR. Morphometric and mechanical evaluation of titanium implant integration: comparison of five surface structures. J Biomed Mater Res.2000;51: 15-22.5115 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Hacking SA, Tanzer M, Harvey EJ, Krygier JJ, Bobyn JD. Relative contributions of chemistry and topography to the osseointegration of hydroxyapatite coatings. Clin Orthop.2002;405: 24-38.40524 2002 [CrossRef]

Geesink RG. Osteoconductive coatings for total joint arthroplasty. Clin Orthop.2002;395: 53-65.39553 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Capello WN, D'Antonio JA, Manley MT, Feinberg JR. Hydroxyapatite in total hip arthroplasty. Clinical results and critical issues. Clin Orthop.1998;355: 200-11.355200 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

D'Antonio JA, Capello WN, Manley MT. Remodeling of bone around hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1996;78: 1226-34.781226 1996 [PubMed]

D'Antonio JA, Capello WN, Manley MT, Geesink R. Hydroxyapatite femoral stems for total hip arthroplasty: 10- to 13-year followup. Clin Orthop.2001;393: 101-11.393101 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Capello WN, D'Antonio JA, Feinberg JR, Manley MT. Hydroxyapatite-coated total hip femoral components in patients less than fifty years old. Clinical and radiographic results after five to eight years of follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1997;79: 1023-9.791023 1997

Capello WN, D'Antonio JA, Feinberg JR, Manley MT. Ten-year results with hydroxyapatite-coated total hip femoral components in patients less than fifty years old. A concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2003;85: 885-9.85885 2003 [PubMed]

Capello WN, D'Antonio JA, Feinberg JR, Manley MT. Hydroxyapatite coated stems in younger and older patients with hip arthritis. Clin Orthop.2002;405: 92-100.40592 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Geesink R, Hoefnagels N. Revision total hip arthroplasty using hydroxylapatite-coated implants. Acta Orthop Belg.1997;63 Suppl 1: 77-80.6377 1997

Manley MT, Capello WN, D'Antonio JA, Edidin AA, Geesink RG. Fixation of acetabular cups without cement in total hip arthroplasty. A comparison of three different implant surfaces at a minimum duration of follow-up of five years. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1998;80: 1175-85.801175 1998

D'Lima DD, Walker RH, Colwell CW Jr. Omnifit-HA stem in total hip arthroplasty. A 2- to 5-year followup. Clin Orthop.1999;363: 163-9.363163 1999 [PubMed]

Takahashi K, Yasunaga Y, Hisatome T, Ikuta Y, Ochi M. Second- and third-generation Omniflex modular femoral stems: results 3 to 8 years after surgery. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18: 600-4.18600 2003 [CrossRef]

Rossi P, Sibelli P, Fumero S, Crua E. Short-term results of hydroxyapatite-coated primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop.1995;310: 98-102.31098 1995 [PubMed]

Garcia Araujo C, Fernandez Gonzalez J, Tonino A. Rheumatoid arthritis and hydroxyapatite-coated hip prostheses: five-year results. International ABG Study Group. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13: 660-7.13660 1998 [CrossRef]

Tonino AJ, Rahmy AI. The hydroxyapatite-ABG hip system: 5- to 7-year results from an international multicentre study. The International ABG Study Group. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15: 274-82.15274 2000 [CrossRef]

Suh KT, Lee CB, Kim IJ. Natural progress of a bone scan after cementless hydroxyapatite-coated total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop.2001;389: 134-42.389134 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Giannikas KA, Din R, Sadiq S, Dunningham TH. Medium-term results of the ABG total hip arthroplasty in young patients. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17: 184-8.17184 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Gruen TA, McNeice GM, Amstutz HC. "Modes of failure" of cemented stem-type femoral components: a radiographic analysis of loosening. Clin Orthop.1979;141: 17-27.14117 1979 [PubMed]

Rogers A, Kulkarni R, Downes EM. The ABG hydroxyapatite-coated hip prosthesis: one hundred consecutive operations with average 6-year follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18: 619-25.18619 2003 [CrossRef]

McNally SA, Shepperd JA, Mann CV, Walczak JP. The results at nine to twelve years of the use of a hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2000;82: 378-82.82378 2000 [CrossRef]

Vedantam R, Ruddlesdin C. The fully hydroxyapatite-coated total hip implant. Clinical and roentgenographic results. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11: 534-42.11534 1996 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Loupasis G, Morris EW, Hyde ID. The Furlong hydroxyapatite-coated total hip replacement in patients under age 51. A 6-year follow-up study. Acta Orthop Belg.1998;64: 17-24.6417 1998 [PubMed]

Loupasis G, Hyde ID, Morris EW. The Furlong hydroxyapatite-coated femoral prosthesis. A 4- to 7-year follow-up study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg.1998; 117: 132-5.117132 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Bhamra MS, Rao GS, Robson MJ. Hydroxyapatite-coated hip prostheses: difficulties with revision in 4 cases. Acta Orthop Scand.1996;67: 49-52.6749 1996 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Reikeras O, Gunderson RB. Excellent results of HA coating on a grit-blasted stem: 245 patients followed for 8-12 years. Acta Orthop Scand.2003; 74: 140-5.74140 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Rokkum M, Reigstad A. Total hip replacement with an entirely hydroxyapatite-coated prosthesis: 5 years' follow-up of 94 consecutive hips. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14: 689-700.14689 1999 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Rokkum M, Reigstad A, Johansson CB. HA particles can be released from well-fixed HA-coated stems: histopathology of biopsies from 20 hips 2-8 years after implantation. Acta Orthop Scand.2002;73: 298-306.73298 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Gosens T, van Langelaan EJ, Tonino AJ. Cementless Mallory-head HA-coated hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis in hip dysplasia. J Arthroplasty. 2003; 18: 401-10.18401 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Hernandez Cortes P, Najera Sagastume OO, Mesa Ramos F, Pajares Lopez MP, Hernandez Hernandez MA. Hydroxyapatite-coated stems with metaphyseal and diaphyseal press-fit. Eleven-year follow-up results. Acta Orthop Belg.2002;68: 24-32.6824 2002 [PubMed]

Skinner JA, Kroon PO, Todo S, Scott G. A femoral component with proximal HA coating. An analysis of survival and fixation at up to ten years. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2003;85: 366-70.85366 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Radl R, Aigner C, Hungerford M, Pascher A, Windhager R. Proximal femoral bone loss and increased rate of fracture with a proximally hydroxyapatite-coated femoral component. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2000;82: 1151-5.821151 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Santori FS, Ghera S, Moriconi A, Montemurro G. Results of the anatomic cementless prosthesis with different types of hydroxyapatite coating. Orthopedics. 2001;24: 1147-50.241147 2001 [PubMed]

Yee AJ, Kerder HK, Bookman I, Davey JR. A randomized trial of hydroxyapatite coated prostheses in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop.1999;366: 120-32.366120 1999 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Park YS, Lee JY, Yun SH, Jung MW, Oh I. Comparison of hydroxyapatite- and porous-coated stems in total hip replacement. Acta Orthop Scand.2003;74: 259-63.74259 2003 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Kim YH, Kim JS, Oh SH, Kim JM. Comparison of porous-coated titanium femoral stems with and without hydroxyapatite coating. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2003;85: 1682-8.851682 2003 [PubMed]

Hamadouche M, Witvoet J, Porcher R, Meunier A, Sedel L, Nizard R. Hydroxyapatite-coated versus grit-blasted femoral stems: a prospective, randomised study using EBRA-FCA. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2001;83: 979-87.83979 2001 [CrossRef]

Buoncristiani AM, Dorr LD, Johnson C, Wan Z. Cementless revision of total hip arthroplasty using the Anatomic Porous Replacement Revision Prosthesis. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12: 403-15.12403 1997 [CrossRef]

DeLee JG, Charnley J. Radiological demarcation of cemented sockets in total hip replacement. Clin Orthop.1976;121: 20-32.12120 1976 [PubMed]

Rapperport DJ, Carter DR, Schurman DJ. Contact finite element stress analysis of porous ingrowth acetabular cup implantation, ingrowth, and loosening. J Orthop Res.1987;5: 548-61.5548 1987 [CrossRef]

Van Hoye M, De Cuyper A, Naert P, Brabants K. The HA-coated ABG socket in revision arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg.1997;63 Suppl 1: 103-5.63103 1997 [PubMed]

Nivbrant B, Karrholm J. Migration and wear of hydroxyapatite-coated press-fit cups in revision hip arthroplasty: a radiostereometric study. J Arthroplasty. 1997;12: 904-12.12904 1997 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Chung YY, Kim HD, Kim KS. Bone ingrowth on a smooth-surfaced hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular cup. Int Orthop.2002;26: 283-6.26283 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Duffy P, Sher JL, Partington PF. Premature wear and osteolysis in an HA-coated, uncemented total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2004;86: 34-8.8634 2004 [PubMed]

Roffman M, Kligman M. Cementless coated and noncoated Mathys acetabular cups: radiographic and histologic evaluation. Orthopedics. 1999;22: 39-41.2239 1999 [PubMed]

Ali MS, Kumar A. Hydroxyapatite-coated RM cup in primary hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop.2003;27: 90-3.2790 2003

Badhe NP, Quinnell RC, Howard PW. The uncemented Bi-Contact total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17: 896-901.17896 2002 [CrossRef]

Havelin LI, Vollset SE, Engesaeter LB. Revision for aseptic loosening of uncemented cups in 4,352 primary total hip prostheses. A report from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand.1995;66: 494-500.66494 1995 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Reikeras O, Gunderson RB. Failure of HA coating on a gritblasted acetabular cup: 155 patients followed for 7-10 years. Acta Orthop Scand.2002;73: 104-8.73104 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Lai KA, Shen WJ, Chen CH, Yang CY, Hu WP, Chang GL. Failure of hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular cups. Ten-year follow-up of 85 Landos Atoll arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2002;84: 641-6.84641 2002 [CrossRef]

Rokkum M, Brandt M, Bye K, Hetland KR, Waage S, Reigstad A. Polyethylene wear, osteolysis and acetabular loosening with an HA-coated hip prosthesis. A follow-up of 94 consecutive arthroplasties. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1999;81: 582-9.81582 1999 [PubMed][CrossRef]

Epinette JA, Manley MT, D'Antonio JA, Edidin AA, Capello WN. A 10-year minimum follow-up of hydroxyapatite-coated threaded cups: clinical, radiographic and survivorship analyses with comparison to the literature. J Arthroplasty. 2003;18: 140-8.18140 2003 [CrossRef]

100

Mann CJ, McNally S, Taylor E, Shepperd JA. A retrospective clinical and radiographic review of 173 hydroxyapatite-coated screw cups with 5- to 10-year follow-up, showing low revision rates for fixation failure. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17: 851-5.17851 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

101

Jazrawi LM, Adler EM, Jazrawi AJ, Jaffe WL. Radiographic comparison of grit-blasted hydroxyapatite and arc-deposited hydroxyapatite acetabular components. A four-year follow-up study. Bull Hosp J Dis.2000;59: 144-8.59144 2000

102

Siverhus S, Bryant DR. Early clinical results of an arc-deposited hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. In: Epinette JA, Manley MT, editors. Fifteen years of clinical experience with hydroxyapatite coatings in joint arthroplasty. New York: Springer; 2004. p 171-6.171 2004

103

Benko TZ, Santiago-Martin A, Ruddlesdin C, Selzer G. Aseptic loosening of 2 rim-fix, hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular cups. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17: 519-23.17519 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

104

Badhe NP, Howard PW. Partially hydroxyapatite-coated stemmed acetabular cup and nonstructural bone-graft in the management of severe acetabular deficiency. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15: 63-8.1563 2000 [CrossRef]

105

Thanner J, Karrholm J, Herberts P, Malchau H. Porous cups with and without hydroxylapatite-tricalcium phosphate coating: 23 matched pairs evaluated with radiostereometry. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14: 266-71.14266 1999 [PubMed][CrossRef]

106

Thanner J. The acetabular component in total hip arthroplasty. Evaluation of different fixation principles. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl.1999; 286: 1-41.2861 1999 [PubMed]

107

Thanner J, Karrholm J, Herberts P, Malchau H. Hydroxyapatite and tricalcium phosphate-coated cups with and without screw fixation: a randomized study of 64 hips. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15: 405-12.15405 2000 [CrossRef]

108

Bauer TW, Geesink RC, Zimmerman R, McMahon JT. Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems. Histological analysis of components retrieved at autopsy. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1991;73: 1439-52.731439 1991 [PubMed]

109

Capello WN. Personal communication, Mahwah, NJ, 2004. 2004

110

Bauer TW, Stulberg BN, Ming J, Geesink RG. Uncemented acetabular components. Histologic analysis of retrieved hydroxyapatite-coated and porous implants. J Arthroplasty. 1993;8: 167-77.8167 1993 [CrossRef]

111

Tonino AJ, Therin M, Doyle C. Hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stems. Histology and histomorphometry around five components retrieved at post mortem. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1999;81: 148-54.81148 1999 [CrossRef]

112

Tonino A, Oosterbos C, Rahmy A, Therin M, Doyle C. Hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular components. Histological and histomorphometric analysis of six cups retrieved at autopsy between three and seven years after successful implantation. J Bone Joint Surg Am.2001;83: 817-25.83817 2001

113

Oosterbos CK, Rahmy AI, Tonino AJ, Therin M. Infection following total hip arthroplasty with a hydroxyapatite-coated prosthesis: histology and histomorphometry 6 years after implantation and infection—a case report. Acta Orthop Scand.2003;74: 216-20.74216 2003 [CrossRef]

114

Coathup MJ, Blunn GW, Flynn N, Williams C, Thomas NP. A comparison of bone remodelling around hydroxyapatite-coated, porous-coated and grit-blasted hip replacements retrieved at post-mortem. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2001;83: 118-23.83118 2001 [PubMed][CrossRef]

115

Hardy DC, Frayssinet P, Krallis P, Descamps PY, Fabeck L, Delplancke JL,Delince PE. Histopathology of a well-functioning hydroxyapatite-coated femoral prosthesis after 52 months. Acta Orthop Belg.1999;65: 72-82.6572 1999 [PubMed]

116

Gross KA, Ray N, Rokkum M. The contribution of coating microstructure to degradation and particle release in hydroxyapatite coated prostheses. J Biomed Mater Res.2002;63: 106-14.63106 2002 [PubMed][CrossRef]

117

Tonino AJ. HA particles can be released from well-fixed HA-coated stems. Acta Orthop Scand.2003;74: 365. Letter.74365 2003 [CrossRef]

118

Sharp RJ, O'Leary ST, Falworth M, Cole A, Jones J, Marshall RW. Analysis of the results of the C-Fit uncemented total hip arthroplasty in young patients with hydroxyapatite or porous coating of components. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15: 627-34.15627 2000 [PubMed][CrossRef]

119

Rokkum M, Reigstad A. Polyethylene wear with an entirely HA-coated total hip replacement: 79 hips followed for 5 years. Acta Orthop Scand.1998; 69: 253-8.69253 1998 [PubMed][CrossRef]

120

Havelin LI, Espehaug B, Engesaeter LB. The performance of two hydroxyapatite-coated acetabular cups compared with Charnley cups. From the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. J Bone Joint Surg Br.2002;84: 839-45.84839 2002 [CrossRef]

121

Moilanen T, Stocks GW, Freeman MA, Scott G, Goodier WD, Evans SJ. Hydroxyapatite coating of an acetabular prosthesis. Effect on stability. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1996;78: 200-5.78200 1996 [PubMed]

Topics

durapatite ; femur ; hip joint ; hydroxyapatites ; prostheses and implants ; knee replacement arthroplasty

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 'Hydroxyapatite-Coated Prostheses in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty'.
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: 'Hydroxyapatite-Coated Prostheses in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty'
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

John Dumbleton, Michael T. Manley; Hydroxyapatite-Coated Prostheses in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. 2004 Nov;86(11):2526-2540.

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
Data Supplements