The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2004;86:2526-2540
© 2004 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
Hydroxyapatite-Coated Prostheses in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty
John Dumbleton, PhD, DSc1 and
Michael T. Manley, PhD2
1 Consultancy in Medical Devices and Biomaterials, 512 East Saddle River Road,
Ridgewood, NJ 07450. E-mail address:
boffin{at}worldnet.att.net
2 12A Chestnut Street, Ridgewood, NJ 07450. E-mail address:
mtmanley{at}mindspring.com
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.
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.

CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. J. Suratwala, S. K. Cho, J. J. van Raalte, S. H. Park, S. W. Seo, S.-S. Chang, T. R. Gardner, and F. Y.-I. Lee
Enhancement of Periprosthetic Bone Quality with Topical Hydroxyapatite-Bisphosphonate Composite
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
October 1, 2008;
90(10):
2189 - 2196.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L.A. Beaupre, M. al-Yamani, J.R. Huckell, and D.W.C. Johnston
Hydroxyapatite-Coated Tibial Implants Compared with Cemented Tibial Fixation in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. A Randomized Trial of Outcomes at Five Years
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am.,
October 1, 2007;
89(10):
2204 - 2211.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
B. D. Boyan and Z. Schwartz
Response of Musculoskeletal Cells to Biomaterials
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg.,
September 1, 2006;
14(10):
S157 - S162.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|