Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 9/2020

01-09-2020 | Hip-TEP | Original Paper

Results of hydroxyapatite ceramic coated primary femoral stem in revision total hip replacement

Authors: Ahmed Barakat, Jonathan Quayle, Philip Stott, James Gibbs, Mark Edmondson

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 9/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess survival rate, functional and radiological outcomes when using a hydroxyapatite-ceramic fully coated primary femoral stem in revision total hip arthroplasty.

Methods

Patients who underwent revision total hip arthroplasty using the Furlong hydroxyapatite-ceramic (HAC)-coated (Joint Replacement Instrumentation Ltd., Sheffield, UK) primary stem were retrospectively identified between 2013 and 2017. A total of 30 hips in 27 patients were identified and the mean follow-up duration was 44 months. Post-operative radiographs were scrutinized for signs of component loosening by two independent assessors. Patient’s functional outcomes were assessed using the Oxford hip score and compared pre- and post-operatively. The prevalence of thigh pain was assessed at the latest follow-up.

Results

The most common cause of revision was adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) (46.6%). The overall complication rate was 13.3%. Results at final follow-up demonstrated 100% survival rate and no reported incidence of thigh pain. Using paired t test, all patients had a statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvement in post-operative mean Oxford hip score of 35 compared to a mean pre-operative score of 14. Radiographic analysis of the latest follow-up radiographs revealed no signs of component loosening or component subsidence.

Conclusion

With a 100% survival rate and excellent reported functional outcomes, we believe that our experience and results support the use of primary cementless stems in selected revision cases.
Literature
1.
Bhamra MS, Srinivas Rao G, Robson MJ (1996) Hydroxyapatite-coated hip prostheses: difficulties with revision in 4 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 67(1):49–52CrossRef
2.
Bohm P, Bischel O (2004) The use of tapered stems for femoral revision surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 420:148–159CrossRef
3.
Buchanan JM (2007) Survivorship in 2212 cases. Sunderland Royal Hospital Data presented at BOA, Manchester
4.
Cavagnaro L, Formica M, Basso M, Zanirato A, Divano S, Felli L (2018) Femoral revision with primary cementless stems: a systematic review of the literature. Musculoskelet Surg 102(1):1–9PubMed
5.
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78(2):185–190CrossRef
6.
Ebreo D, Khan A, El-Meligy M, Armstrong C, Peter V (2011) Metal ion levels decrease after revision for ARMD arising from large-diameter metal-on metal hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Belg 77(6):777–781PubMed
7.
Engh CA (1983) Hip arthroplasty with a Moore prosthesis with porous coating. A five-year study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 176:52–66
8.
Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE (1990) Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res 257:107–128
9.
Grammatopoulos G, Pandit H, Kwon YM, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Beard DJ, Murray DW, Gill HS (2009) Hip resurfacings revised for infl ammatory pseudotumour have a poor outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(8):1019–1024CrossRef
10.
Makani A, Kim TWB, Kamath AF, Garino JP, Lee G-C (2014) Outcomes of long tapered hydroxyapatite-coated stems in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 29(4):827–830CrossRef
11.
Miletic B, May O, Krantz N, Girard J, Pasquier G, Migaud H (2012) De-escalation exchange of loosened locked revision stems to a primary stem design: complications, stem fixation and bone reconstruction in 15 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 98(2):138–143CrossRef
12.
13.
Platzer P, Schuster R, Luxl M, Widhalm HK, Eipeldauer S, Krusche-Mandl I et al (2011) Management and outcomes of interprosthetic femoral fractures. Injury 42:1219–1212CrossRef
14.
Restrepo, C., Mashadi, M., Parvizi, J., Austin, M. S., & Hozack, W. J (2010) Modular femoral stems for revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 469(2), 476–482
15.
Salemyr MF, Skoldenberg OG, Boden HG, Ahl TE, Adolphson PY (2008) Good results with an uncemented proximally HA coated stem in hip revision surgery: 62 hips followed for 2-13 years. Acta Orthop 79(2):184–193CrossRef
16.
Shah NN, Edge AJ, Clark DW (2009) Hydroxyapatite-ceramic-coated femoral components in young patients followed-up for 16 to 19 years. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 91-B:865–869CrossRef
17.
Sporer SM, Paprosky WG (2003) Revision total hip arthroplasty: the limits of fully coated stems. Clin Orthop Relat Res 203–9
18.
Tetreault MW, Shukla SK, Yi PH, Sporer SM, Della Valle CJ (2014) Are short fully coated stems adequate for “simple” femoral revisions? Clin Orthop Relat Res 472(2):577–583CrossRef
19.
Valle CJ, Paprosky WG (2003) Classification and an algorithmic approach to the reconstruction of femoral deficiency in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85(suppl 4):1–6CrossRef
20.
Vive’s P, Plaquet JL, Leclair A, Blejwas D, Filloux JF (1992) Revision of interlocking rod for loosening of THP. Concept– preliminary results Acta Orthop Belg 58:28–35
21.
Wood TJ, Alzahrani M, Marsh JD, Somerville LE, Vasarhelyi EM, Lanting BA (2019) Use of the Corail stem for revision total hip arthroplasty: evaluation of clinical outcomes and cost. Can J Surg 62(2):78–82CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Results of hydroxyapatite ceramic coated primary femoral stem in revision total hip replacement
Authors
Ahmed Barakat
Jonathan Quayle
Philip Stott
James Gibbs
Mark Edmondson
Publication date
01-09-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords
Hip-TEP
Hip-TEP
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 9/2020
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04579-w

Other articles of this Issue 9/2020

International Orthopaedics 9/2020 Go to the issue

Original Paper

The impact of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic on trauma bay management and guideline adherence in a European level-one-trauma centre

Original Paper

Induced membrane technique with sequential internal fixation: use of a reinforced spacer for reconstruction of infected bone defects

Original Paper

Transitioning the total hip arthroplasty technique from posterior approach in lateral position to direct anterior approach in supine position—risk factors for acetabular malpositioning and the learning curve

Original Paper

Hindfoot balancing in total ankle replacement: the role of supramalleolar osteotomies

Original Paper

A comparative study of clinical effect of total knee arthroplasty in the treatment of primary osteoarthritis and osteoarthritis of Kashin-Beck disease

Original Paper

Sonication in shoulder surgery: is it necessary?